[ Page 12661 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Mailing of partisan material from minister's office. Mr. Rose –– 12661

Free trade with Mexico. Mr. Gabelmann –– 12661

James Tyhurst case. Mr. Vant –– 12662

Police communications system. Mr. Sihota –– 12662

Goods and services tax on books. Mrs. McCarthy –– 12663

Camosun College child care centre. Ms. Cull –– 12663

Government advertising. Mr. Blencoe –– 12663

Presenting Petitions –– 12664

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

(Hon. J. Jansen)

On vote 31: minister's office –– 12664

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Clark

Ms. Smallwood

Ms. Cull

Mr. Reynolds

Hon. Mr. Bruce

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Kempf

Hon. Mrs. Gran

Mr. Smith

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Hon. Mr. Strachan

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's not very often that we get visitors from the great riding of Prince George South in the Legislative Assembly in Victoria, but today I'm pleased to announce that attending today are recipients of an award that you began yourself, Mr. Speaker, when you were Minister of Environment. As Members of the Legislative Assembly are aware, this is the minister's environmental award. I'm pleased to say that visiting us today is a group of students from Dunster in the beautiful Robson Valley, who have won in the category of youth group or organization. They are the Dunster Elementary School environmental committee: Heather Howard, Kohen Mullen, Taylor Bachrach, Shelly Cousineau. They're with teacher's aide Mrs. Karen Craigue and teacher Mrs. Jill Howard. Would the House please give these students a nice, warm Victoria welcome in congratulations for their winning of the minister's environmental award in the youth group or organization category.

Also, Mr. Speaker, you'll recall that last week was fitness week. As Minister of Health I want to announce the awards for the government employees' offices that won the fitness week award. I'm pleased to say that in the category of 500 employees or more, the Ministry of Health won the fitness week award, and in the category of 500 employees or less, the Premier's office won the government fitness award.

MRS. BOONE: I'd like to add my greetings to those of the member for Prince George South to the Dunster group. I am very pleased, as I submitted their name for the award. This group of students has led the region in terms of its commitment to the environment and has shamed many adults in our community with regard to the recycling programs it has set up. I'm very pleased to see that they have received this award, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LOENEN: It's my pleasure today to make two introductions from my constituency. First of all, there is a gentleman who is a great volunteer and who serves on our Social Credit executive. He's here today to observe the proceedings. Would the House please welcome Bob Eakin.

Secondly, in the gallery there is a group of grade 7 students from Garden City Elementary School. They are accompanied by their teacher Mrs. Gilbert. They are here to observe the House and I would ask the House to please bid them a warm welcome.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm sure all members of the House would agree with me that British Columbia is blessed with young, capable and bright students. Joining us in the Legislature today are a number of students from Esquimalt Senior Secondary School who have volunteered to sit on the junior municipal council. I am sure that that situation is replicated in communities throughout British Columbia. I had the privilege today to have lunch with the members of the Esquimalt Senior Secondary municipal council and I would like to introduce them to you. They are: David Wellings, John Lee, Lisa Kwan, Cassandra Hillaird, Coretta Peets, Allison Funnell, Glenn Barr and Alison Fitch. Would all members please join me in giving them a warm welcome.

Oral Questions

MAILING OF PARTISAN MATERIAL
FROM MINISTER'S OFFICE

MR. ROSE: I have a question for the Minister of Government Services. Can the minister confirm if her office has any policy regarding the mailing of partisan leadership campaign material?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Are you talking about my constituency office or my ministry?

MR. ROSE: Ministry office.

HON. MRS. GRAN: We don't have a written policy. It would be highly unusual for me to send political mail from my ministry office.

MR. ROSE: Could I quote from something sent from your ministry's office, obviously about the so-called Socred leadership race: "During the leadership campaign, I urge the Social Credit Party to seek a leadership that can.... Our party must choose leadership that will return to the values and behaviour of...." Does the minister consider it appropriate for her office to distribute this type of material at public expense?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I'm sorry, I'm at a loss to understand how that could have come from my office. Perhaps the member could have the letter sent over so I could have a look at it.

MR. ROSE: I'd be pleased to do that. The minister's support for the interim Premier's candidacy is well known, and one wonders why she'd distribute a withdrawal statement of the first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain. Can the minister explain why she would use her office to circulate material relating to the party's leadership campaign?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, so I know exactly what question I'm answering, I would like to take it on notice and have a look at the material the member has. I'll bring the answer back tomorrow.

FREE TRADE WITH MEXICO

MR. GABELMANN: I have a question for the Minister of Development, Trade and Tourism. The free trade talks between Canada, the United States and Mexico will begin tomorrow in Toronto. I'd like to ask what position the B.C. government has taken concerning these crucial discussions.

HON. MR. DIRKS: As I answered the other day, this House will be advised in the fullness of time.

[ Page 12662 ]

MR. GABELMANN: Another question to the same minister. I don't know whether he realizes that these talks begin tomorrow. I wonder if any advice has been given by the B.C. government to the federal government concerning the impact in British Columbia of these discussions and possible outcome.

HON. MR. DIRKS: We are aware that these talks will begin tomorrow. We are very concerned about the impact of a possible free trade agreement between Mexico and the United States on the various sectors in British Columbia. We will be watching those discussions very closely. We will also continue our dialogue with the various sectors of our economy that will be affected, for their input on how those talks are progressing.

MR. GABELMANN: I gather from that answer that no advice has been given to the federal government. Why not?

HON. MR. DIRKS: When you're starting these negotiations, I think it's important that you first of all know what you're firing at before you start shooting.

MR. GABELMANN: Last year or earlier this year the government sought submissions from the public concerning the free trade discussions, and the deadline for submissions was February. The government has had more than three months now to evaluate those submissions. Has the report been prepared as a result of these public submissions?

HON. MR. DIRKS: No, a public report has not been prepared on those submissions, but we're still looking at that. We're still dialoguing with the various sectors.

MR. GABELMANN: A final supplementary. Would the government agree to table the submissions and reports it has in its possession?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I'm sure that they will be public in the fullness of time.

JAMES TYHURST CASE

MR. VANT: I have a question involving basic human rights for the Minister of Women's Programs. The conviction of Dr. James Tyhurst now has disclosed that a female UBC employee was forced to accompany Tyhurst to non-work-related events, such as hockey games and New Democratic Party business here in Victoria. In light of this further revelation.... This serious allegation was apparently covered up through a lateral transfer of the victim. Has the minister decided to investigate this matter to find out the extent of this unusual behaviour followed by some kind of cover-up?

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: The NDP are laughing. Why are you laughing? This is a serious question. What's so funny about this, guys?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I guess that's my first observation: why the laughter? I appreciate the question. It tells all of us in this House why we have a ministry that says that one gender in our society has more difficulty in this society than the other.

Nothing demonstrates better how women are treated differently than some of the stuff in the paper this morning. I read that article in the Vancouver Province, and regardless of whether it was a Social Credit or an NDP convention, it's sad to know that in this society women are still treated the way they obviously are. It's sad that we, as legislators, can't seem to help our society make the changes that need to be made.

[2:15]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We're way off the question again. The question was quite specific: has the minister decided... ? I've allowed you a little latitude, but I now ask you to answer the question. Then we'll proceed on to the next order of business.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, I don't intend, as Minister of Women's Programs, to investigate. I thank you for allowing me that latitude; the graciousness is overwhelming.

POLICE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Premier that deals with matters of law enforcement. Due to inadequate and incompatible communication systems, police in Esquimalt, Victoria and Oak Bay cannot communicate with police in Saanich and the RCMP. An example of how that frustrates the law enforcement process is that recently there was an incident at the Payless gas station at Craigflower and Admirals right on the border between Esquimalt and Saanich. An Esquimalt police officer close by could not attend to the situation because he could not be radioed due to the inadequacies of the communication system.

The policing report released to this government in August 1990 recommended that the government proceed with the provision of adequate communication systems to solve this very problem. Could the minister explain why, given her tough talk on law enforcement, no action has been taken with respect to that recommendation?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the question should be put to the Solicitor-General.

HON. MR. MESSMER: Mr. Speaker, I don't know the type of communication equipment the police forces have — those that are run by the municipalities — but I'd be pleased to take that question on notice.

[ Page 12663 ]

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, both the Premier and the Solicitor-General like to talk tough on crime, but they won't give police the tools to fight crime. That's the problem here.

Recently a Victoria-area police officer was assaulted, and there was a broken nose and a broken arm among the attending officers. Because of the inadequacies of the communication system, they could not radio back to their office for assistance.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Again, the minister has just taken the question on notice, and the member is taking advantage of question period to make a speech. If you have a question, please ask the question. There are others who wish to ask questions.

MR. SIHOTA: As a consequence, the officer in question had to pay 25 cents to make a phone call. Could the Premier advise the House when the administration intends...?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, the minister has clearly stated that he has taken the question on notice. Therefore it is taken on notice and doesn't allow any further opportunity for questions on the issue.

MR. SPEAKER: There is difficulty with the Chair being clairvoyant, and until such time as the actual question is put, I haven't the opportunity to.... I ask the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew to put his question.

MR. SIHOTA: Despite the Premier's tough talk on crime, those systems aren't being provided to the police. Could she provide the House with some indication as to when the government intends to provide the appropriate funding for the communication system?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order.

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ON BOOKS

MRS. McCARTHY: My question is for the Minister of Finance. At the recent meeting with the federal Minister of Finance and other ministers from across this country, did our minister have any deliberations which would lead to the federal government's relief of the GST on books? It has now been some months since the GST was put into place. It would be a great message for the people of Canada, as well as of British Columbia, if that were taken off.

HON. J. JANSEN: The GST remains a concern to this province. We have fought that particular tax as being regressive since its inception; we intend to continue with that fight. We have written the federal minister and advised him that we find many aspects of the GST offensive. The aspect of levying GST on books is a good issue, which I will include in my further representation to the Minister of National Revenue.

CAMOSUN COLLEGE CHILD CARE CENTRE

MS. CULL: To the Minister of Advanced Education: last year Camosun College took over the operation of two child care centres. Now I'm told that because the college's budget hasn't been sufficiently increased, one of those centres must close. Has the minister decided to give Camosun College the money they have requested so that this centre can remain open next year?

HON. MR. DUECK: The amount of money given to post-secondary education is quite generous compared to that given in other provinces. As a matter of fact, it is the most generous, other than in Ontario. I do not have information on the specific question you're asking in regard to the child care centres. I'd have to take that question on notice and get back to you.

MS. CULL: I have a question to the Minister of Women's Programs. As I recall, the minister officiated at the opening of one of those centres. Since the minister is now responsible for the delivery of child care initiatives, and given the government's newfound concern about women and children, has the minister decided to do what is necessary to keep this program open next year?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I'm aware of the situation, and as a matter of fact, my staff are now working with the college, trying to find a way to keep it open. I think, though, it's important for us to know that often that particular centre only stays open for ten months out of the year. But we are working on it, and with them.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Premier concerning some statements she made when she became the interim Premier on April 15. This Premier said to the people of British Columbia that there would be a difference, that changes were coming and that integrity may return to the government. The Premier made some promises of no government advertising, and clearly stated that government advertising would be restricted to tender calls, legal requirements and public information. Will the Premier tell the people of British Columbia why she has returned to the old business of distorting facts and putting out propaganda costing the taxpayers thousands of dollars? Why did you break your promise to the people of this province?

MR. SPEAKER: I remind the member for Victoria again that the use of exhibits in the chamber is strictly prohibited.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It's unfortunate that exhibits are not permitted, because that would be an excellent example of a very good government initiative. The member opposite is correct. The statement was made shortly after I was sworn in in April that we would be cutting back very severely on media-type advertising. But if the member cared to listen at all, the

[ Page 12664 ]

B.C. government news publication was exempt from that statement, since I believe — as do other members of government — that it provides a very valuable and useful service to the taxpayers of the province.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. On the issue of exhibits, if members wish to have the rules changed so that exhibits can be brought to the House, there is a select standing committee of the House that deals with these matters. I'm sure the committee would be able to do it. If it's the wish of the House to make those arrangements, they should make those arrangements privately. I might caution you, it is fraught with problems.

Presenting Petitions

MR. REID: As a representative for the fine community of Cloverdale, which has the finest rodeo in North America, I have been petitioned....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Presentation of petitions.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I was taking a little latitude, like the previous speaker. But I present, on behalf of a large number –– 800-plus — of residents from the community of Cloverdale, a petition to the government of British Columbia to locate a general hospital in the Cloverdale area. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to present this petition.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE
AND CORPORATE RELATIONS

On vote 31: minister's office, $317,593 (continued).

MS. MARZARI: When we terminated our debate this morning, the minister had promised to bring back to this House the exact number of women employees who ate direct beneficiaries of the pay equity plan. He was also going to look for some material on any measurements done on wage gaps between male and female employees of the provincial government. We know from the minister's comments this morning that there are presently 27,993 employees, and we will find out shortly what percentage of those are female and what the exact number of female workers is.

The third thing that was discussed was the contracting out of government services over the last five years The contracting out of government services, as my colleague from Nanaimo later this afternoon will point out, has amounted to some substantial percentage of government service in British Columbia's experience.

But this afternoon I want to come back to the minister's question about why we should bother investigating our contracted-out services vis-à-vis the moneys and wages paid to women workers in those contracts. I dare say that this is the very nub of the difference between our side of the House and the Social Credit side of the House. If we do not take a careful look at how we contract out — to whom, how many jobs are created by our contracting out and what the nature of those jobs are — we have no way of knowing if we are contributing to actual put-in-your-pocket wages. We have no way of knowing whether women are being properly treated by our contractors. We have no way of knowing whether or not our contractors are buying their supplies inside B.C. or outside the country. We have no way of monitoring whether we are contributing to the wealth of this province by our contracting-out procedures. I would suggest that there is evidence — and some of it will be presented this afternoon — that our contracting-out procedures are highly questionable and that we are not in fact developing a multiplier effect inside our province with contracting out — let alone the fact that we have got rid of thousands upon thousands of public sector jobs where we knew what we were paying and to whom we were paying it.

[2:30]

As we move along this line of questioning and try to solve the minister's confusion over this issue, I would ask the minister if he or his staff have started to contemplate an affirmative action program which would involve surveying the number of female employees we have in the total government service, including contracted-out positions, and whether or not there is any thought of doing a study of the wage gap in all those positions — privatized and public.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is not too sure whether all the questions were in order. Some of the subject matter appears to involve other ministries. We are discussing, as the minister well knows, the Ministry of Finance and the administrative functions of the ministry and would appreciate the minister staying within that confine.

HON. J. JANSEN: Thank you for that guidepost. That's certainly what my intention is. My intention is to restrict my comments to the areas of my budget purview. I would hope that the member for Point Grey does repeat those questions when the appropriate minister is on the floor to deal with those areas of concern.

What I really find puzzling is the inference that we should, as Big Brother in Victoria, start to become involved in small business and start to manage their affairs and tell them what to do respecting their mode of operation — how they should do it and when they should do it. I find that offensive.

Small business can run its affairs much better than a member from Point Grey or a member from Burnaby or a member from Vancouver East — or, indeed, a member from Chilliwack. I find that probably they are quite fine: "Thank you. Leave us alone. We can manage our affairs and we don't need members from Point Grey asking when the government is going to insert

[ Page 12665 ]

itself into the operations of our business to find out if it's operating sufficiently." That is not what we're going to do.

I said earlier that I'd be pleased to give you a breakdown. As soon as those figures are in hand, I will stand in my place and give you a gender breakdown in terms of our FTE complement. We're committed to the question of pay equity and will continue to be.

MS. MARZARI: At the very beginning of this debate the minister pointed out that he was in constant contact with all the other ministries so that they could bring forward some kind of a comprehensive picture of women's wealth in this province and women's wealth in our public employ. As if personnel is dissociated from finance, is dissociated from employment equity, is dissociated from contract employees.... The minister wants to now compartmentalize his tiny piece of the budget without any overview of the connection between women's wealth and what actually goes into women's pockets. Mr. Minister, you have to be reminded that we are dealing with $16.15 billion of the taxpayers' money, the taxpayers' wealth, much of which goes into the pockets of employees or contract employees. If the minister is not prepared to be accountable, is not prepared to even survey and is not prepared to stand up and speak to the amount of money that's going into....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. The debate at the moment is on the estimates of the Minister of Finance, not on the entire government budget. There are appropriate ministers for questions about women's affairs and contracting out; the Minister of Finance is not responsible for those matters. He may be involved in some discussions on them respect to cabinet, but cabinet is not being debated here; the estimates of the Minister of Finance are being debated.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if you were in the chair this morning, and I obviously defer to your judgment. But the government personnel services division is in the Ministry of Finance, and it negotiates contracts for the 30,000 employees. That's relatively recent. So the implementation of pay equity and affirmative action programs now fall within the purview of the Minister of Finance, at least in terms of....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair apologizes. Within that ambit it's acceptable.

MS. MARZARI: I'm glad we got it straightened around, because it really does show that the Minister of Finance is responsible for the payroll. Isn't it nice to be able to target who's responsible for the payroll here?

MR. LOVICK: I feel better.

MS. MARZARI: In that targeting of the payroll, we must ask those questions again. My colleague from Nanaimo feels much relieved at having been able to find out where the buck stops on the payroll.

The question then comes again: is the minister prepared to do a thorough survey of the number of women who are in contract positions with the provincial government, given the number of contracts which have been let in five years and the number of women who are now working in contract, privatized businesses? This is not a question of interference with the small business sector, Mr. Minister. Heaven knows you've lost enough support there already. We are talking about taxpayers' dollars, accountability for those dollars and a knowledge of where the money goes vis-à-vis women employees now working on contract who were previously in the public employ.

This is a program called contract compliance. Every other province in the country has it, and in fact the federal government — a ripe Conservative government — has this program in place. Contract compliance means that a provincial or federal government is interested in knowing where its money is going. It is interested in knowing that the people it contracts to are going to protect their employees to ensure that they are receiving and giving proper care and attention to the hiring and promotion of women, disabled and minority groups and that they are paying a decent wage to their employees. Doesn't it behoove the Ministry of Finance to understand where its money is going when it is delivering money to the small business community? Or is the government only concerned with some kind of tendering process which may or may not take place?

HON. J. JANSEN: No matter which way you put the question, it remains the same, doesn't it? What the member for Vancouver–Point Grey is saying, following the NDP ideology, is that government should insert itself into the affairs of business, should be involved in day-to-day operations, should be the managers — because we're going to tax them to death anyway, according to their philosophy, so let's get in there and try to manage their affairs the way we in Victoria see it. I really find that offensive, and I think most people in the province would find it offensive as well. It is my purview, as Minister of Finance, to ensure that we get services for dollars contracted, that we get value for those dollars, and that the work done is appropriate. Outside of that, as I said before, perhaps one of the other ministers who is responsible for affirmative action may want to answer that question.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I really find some of the remarks from the Minister of Finance offensive. The minister says we shouldn't interfere in private businesses. Governments interfere all the time. We have employment standards legislation. Should we abolish that? Should we have children working again? Should we have no rules governing the private sector? Of course we have rules now.

What we're saying, and what the member for Vancouver–Point Grey is saying, is that where there's public money, we should try to deal with that historic inequity when it comes to dealing with women. Women get paid less than men. The government has recognized the gender gap by looking at pay equity in

[ Page 12666 ]

the public sector, but it's defined "public sector" so narrowly as to only deal with their employees and the unions they negotiate with, when in fact what's happened with this administration and the previous one — but particularly this one — is a dramatic increase in the number of contracts they've given out, a dramatic shift in the workforce from paid employees to contract employees.

What we're suggesting is very reasonable: once you've recognized that there's a gender gap problem, a pay problem for women, in the public sector, when you give contracts out, you have some rules governing the contracts. Those rules exist today when it comes to dealing with employment standards. In many jurisdictions, there's fair-wage legislation that says that if you give a contract out you have to pay the prevailing wage rate. We're suggesting that when you give a contract out now, you have to deal with this pay equity problem the same way government deals with its own employees. It's not some Draconian Big Brother measure; it's precisely the kind of thing that governments do every day in terms of contract compliance. It simply extends a legitimate public policy issue that the government has recognized with its own employees to public money being used for contract employees.

Mr. Chairman, I think that the minister should deal with that seriously. He's said many times — rather piously, I might say — that he's in favour of a pay equity program and that the government is moving on this question. At the same time, the government and the minister should recognize that pay equity, when it comes.... If it's good enough for public employees, it's good enough for contract employees, for private sector employees, for university employees and for all women in British Columbia. That's the direction the government should be taking the lead in, not just narrowly defining it as its own employees on the public payroll today.

I wonder if the minister could address the concerns of women who work in universities who aren't covered by this pay equity legislation and of women who work for the government but who are on contract, and are not employees; and whether or not it's his ministry's intention to embark upon a broader pay equity program that includes more women than just the 20,000 that exist on the payroll today.

HON. J. JANSEN: What we just heard is precisely the reason that the Ontario business community is suffering so badly. It is the ideology of that side over there that forces their views on the private business sector. You can read the Globe and Mail, Mr. Chairman, and you can see business after business denouncing that socialist government for the way they are inserting themselves into the operations of small business in their province and chasing businesses away in droves.

The question of how much can government...? The member for Vancouver East said: "It's not Big Brother. We just want to be there to help them along. We think they need some help in running their business. We think they need some help in saying how many engineers they should have. We think they need some help in terms of how much they should pay those engineers, those lawyers, those doctors and those dentists. We think we have all the answers. Why would they, successful businessmen that they are, have all the answers? I think that we should insert some of our philosophy on them."

Well, that isn't going to happen, Mr. Chairman — not in this province. I said earlier that we had a commitment to pay equity for the people who work for the province of British Columbia — our employees — because we have an employer-employee relationship with those employees. We hope that by example it will extend to the rest of society. We don't hold a big stick. We're not that kind of a government. We're not an NDP government; we're much different.

I can tell you that as a result of our initiative, we have closed the gap significantly in this province. The wage gap that existed has been closed by almost 5 percent in one year. That was the first part of our program. As I indicated earlier, we are in fact working with our unions to put in place the main part of our program. We are already having very significant success. I hope that the agencies that are run by the boards throughout the province — whether they be universities or the hospital sector — will, over time, also take an opportunity to look at the success of that program and to be party to it.

I say again that the affirmative action initiative is one that I know my colleague the minister responsible for women will be addressing at length. My mandate as Minister of Finance is to ensure, first, that we receive value for money, and to be concerned about our collective agreements with our employees in the province of British Columbia.

[2:45]

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Chairman, when the pay equity program was first announced by the minister responsible for women and the previous Minster of Finance, the comment was made that no matter how much it cost, fairness was the issue, and that this provincial government was going to go all out to make sure that women employees of this government were going to have the gap closed. They weren't going to earn 60-cent dollars anymore; they were going to make a dollar for every dollar a man made in an equivalent job. That was the promise put forward by this government.

We didn't believe that promise. We thought it was a cheap election ploy at the time. We did not begrudge the $40 million going to close the gap for women who work for the provincial government. But we did think — we conferred on this — that this promise would not be followed through on. Sure enough, when B.C. Ferry Corporation employees put on the table that they also wanted to buy into a pay equity program, they were told by their management — B.C. Ferry Corporation — that there was no more money. They were told that because the government — the Minister of Finance — told the Ferry Corporation that there was no more money. It was not a question of fairness anymore; it was a question of one small program operating for a few thousand women. Now the proof of the pudding is here.

[ Page 12667 ]

The minister has just stood up, and.... I can hear it and see it now on a campaign brochure that you have closed the wage gap by 5 percent — a half-truth, a one-hundredth truth, not a truth at all. The wage gap for 20,000 women may have been closed by 5 percent, but 670,000 women in this province want fairness and what was promised when the pay equity program was first announced. Is the minister prepared to follow through with the promises made by the Minister of Women's Programs and the previous Minister of Finance by taking this program to the larger public sector — to the hospitals, schools, municipalities and libraries? Is the minister prepared now to say that this program — this fairness-for-women program — will be expanded to the public sector, which operates outside this House?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, let me again distinguish this side of the House from that side of the House. What we like to do is talk to our various unions and come up with a plan of action that they find acceptable — not a one-sided plan of action that is not acceptable to anybody else except the government side. It's our intention that we sit down with the groups — such as we're doing with the B.C. Ferries group and the BCGEU, as indicated earlier — and ensure that we find a solution to this initiative that is beneficial both to them and the employer. If the member asks whether we will take the big-stick approach and force the issue on the unions from our perspective and how we feel, the answer is no. We believe in consultation. I indicated earlier that we have an approach underway whereby we have brought in experts in this field to assist us with this issue, because it is difficult. We should solve the matter fairly rather than do it in a disjointed and one-sided way.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The issue of pay equity, when governments are dealing with it, has everything to do with public policy. The difficulty we have with your pay equity program is very much as you describe it right now, in that all you are doing is living up to your responsibility to your immediate employees. You are not taking on the responsibility as a government to deliver a public policy that recognizes the inequities and the injustices in this province.

Mr. Minister, I hope you are listening. This is important to women in this province, and to taxpayers as well, because of the growing number of women supporting children who have no alternative but to rely on welfare and taxpayers' dollars to support those children. We're looking at a comprehensive program, including pay equity, that will begin to deal with some of those injustices, so that women in this province can support themselves and their children in a dignified manner.

I'd like to continue the questioning around contracts and the government's responsibility to the people of this province, not only for public policy but directly as an employer as well. The minister suggests that he is living up to his responsibility as a direct employer of those employed with the government.

In this last session we saw a piece of legislation — Bill 82 — that dealt with the broader public sector. That very clearly identified government's responsibility in controlling wages on behalf of taxpayers. The government can't have it both ways. Either, Mr. Minister, you are responsible directly to your employees here in the government; or, as I would agree, you are responsible for the delivery of services and therefore have some responsibility to contracted employees as well. So I’d like to ask the minister: would you agree that, given the example of Bill 82, you do have some link to those contracted employees and that, because of that, it would be only logical that you extend your pay equity program to that sector as well and put in place a pay equity regime for those several hundreds of thousands of employees in the broader public sector?

HON. J. JANSEN: Well, that's an extremely interesting question. The member for Surrey–Guildford Whalley has said that Bill 82 includes the private sector, our contractors; that's what she just finished saying. It's that kind of thinking that happens over there. It is continual insertion in the business community in terms of their affairs and their operating mandate. It is the member's understanding that Bill 82 applies to the private sector. That's not the case at all, Madam Member. Spend some time reading it, instead of always attacking it. Spend some time understanding Bill 82 and the reason for it. Why don't you spend some time reading it? But do you know something else? Maybe you should have a look at what happens when Bill 82 is not in effect or what happens in a Bill 82 environment that is not enforced. Because it's very clear: you just have to point across the border, a few thousand miles, and see what happens. It's pretty devastating.

Let me reiterate, because obviously there is a concern that the message is not being heard: we are committed to pay equity. My colleague the minister continues to be a proponent and an advocate and is very aggressive in bringing that issue forward in cabinet. And we will continue to negotiate with employer groups to ensure that there is progress on this particular initiative. But we will not, as a government, go to our small business community and say to them: .You shall pay this wage. You shall have these hours of work for your employees for what they're doing. You shall do this in terms of your management structure; you shall do that for this purpose. And you must be a union organization." No, we won't tell them to do that, Mr. Chairman, because that's not our business. Our business is running the affairs of British Columbia, respecting our mandate as a fiscally responsible government. That's the difference.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I found the minister's response fascinating. I understand that Bill 82 was the minister's bill; it came from the Ministry of Finance. I can’t quite remember whether it was this minister or the minister before that or the minister before that who actually brought it into the House. At any rate, it was from the Ministry of Finance.

[ Page 12668 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair believed that both the member and the minister were well aware of the rules that the need for legislation is not part of the subject matter of the estimates debate and therefore is out of order. The Chair didn't interrupt either of you before but feels it should be brought to your attention at this time.

MS. SMALLWOOD: What we're talking about here is the responsibility of government, not only for public policy. I'm prepared to even restrict that — as the government seems to be digging in its heels about its responsibility as an employer — to make the point that this government has already set the precedent as to who they are responsible for. As an example, I would point to that ministry's own legislation; it very clearly and without exception laid out the areas of legislation and contract compliance that they were responsible for. In the legislation they talk about....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are debating the ministry's estimates and not legislation, hon. member.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The point is that the public sector employees defined by this government are governed under the Public Service Act — municipalities, regional districts and improvement districts. It goes on to talk about employees governed by the School Act, the University Act, the College and Institute Act and the Community Care Facility Act. In all of those areas, the government contracts services on behalf of the taxpayers of this province. My question once again to you, Mr. Minister, is: are you going to take responsibility for the pay equity programs for those employees?

HON. J. JANSEN: Do I have a contract? Does the ministry have a contract with a municipality to run its municipal mandate? No. Does the government have a contract with a local improvement district to run that particular operation? No.

Fundamentally, we have a little different approach. When we put in place a board or enable elections to take place, we expect that the particular elected or appointed body should have some autonomy. What we hear time and time again from that side of the house is that autonomy is fine, but if it's not in accordance with their philosophy, then we should insert ourselves. That is not our modus operandi. We believe that there is a fundamental ability to run their own affairs by their own government and boards. I have indicated that for wage negotiations with our own employees we have pay equity as an important issue and have it addressed in the context of that particular light.

[3:00]

MS. CULL: The minister seems to want to have it both ways. When he's talking about holding the wages of women down, he sees the authority of government, to move beyond its own direct employees into all the other public sector employees that my colleague from Surrey has just mentioned. When we want to talk about economic fairness for women and ensure that women have that wage gap closed, then the minister wants to pull back, with his blinders on, and say that we only look at those people who are directly employed by this, government through the unions that we deal with. I don't think you can have it both ways.

I want to come back and talk about the women who work directly for this government in ministries. Over the last number of years we've seen the systematic contracting out of many government jobs. When the FTE allotment to ministries was cut, those people didn't actually leave the employment of the government; they stayed there doing their jobs on personal service contracts or were put into those positions through various companies, like Kelly Girl, supplying workers to the government to keep those jobs filled — primarily with women. But those people were no longer on the direct payroll of the government.

I want to talk about fairness. That is the real issue here when it comes to women's wages. I'd like to know why the minister has not answered the questions that we have put to him with respect to those employees working on contract in regular government jobs. Is he willing to undertake an analysis of what they are paid to ensure that when we have two women working side by side in a ministry and doing the same job — one a member of a union and an FTE in that ministry, the other an employee of an office service company — they take home the same paycheque? That's what pay equity is all about in this sense. That's what economic fairness is all about.

You can't talk about pay equity and your commitment to it, Mr. Minister, if at the same time, through your hiring practices, you are systematically reducing the number of women in those positions and putting them on contract. That's the fairness issue I'd like to hear you address. I'd like to know that when those women are working in ministry offices, whether they're working directly on your payroll or through a contractor, that they are in fact being treated equally and receiving the same paycheque.

HON. J. JANSEN: I guess I have difficulty understanding. That member has worked in government for a long time and has looked at matters from a different perspective than others that have had some exposure to the business environment. I don't write the cheques for those particular contracts. I don't know what they get paid, nor do I want to go through a process where I'd approve every single cheque that is issued to their staff. I can tell you that the union is continuing to represent those members, as you know. The BCGEU was successful, I believe, in all of the cases that went to the privatized units.

My colleague in the Ministry of Women's Programs and Government Services did a survey and found that of the employees that they surveyed, 98 percent received wages equal to government or had increased since being privatized. Again, it's a matter between the employer and the employees.

Sometimes it's not appropriate for me to ask questions on this side of the House, but once in a while it would be nice for that side of the House to come clean

[ Page 12669 ]

with the people of British Columbia and tell us what you would like to see us do. What kind of interventionist legislation would you like to see in place, where we start to open and close the doors of the business people in the province of British Columbia? You can laugh, Madam Member, but go around and knock on your doors in Oak Bay and ask them: "How would you like the government today to help you? We're from the government and we're here to help you." I think the answer would be very quick and very sudden and very direct and very frank: "Thank you, leave us alone."

MR. REYNOLDS: I'm sure the other members on the opposite side will have a lot more questions, but I have a few myself: a few things that concern me when I listen to that side talk about contracts and pay equity and what they're going to do. The minister points out very well that in this House we never hear from the other side what they would do if they were in power, so we can only assume they would do what their friends are doing in Ontario, and increase the budget by $10 billion so that the taxpayers could pay more money for programs that won't work.

In this House a couple of years ago we used to hear a lot about the Premier's personal secretary, who left this government and got $100,000; but we didn't hear very much about the former principal secretary to the Leader of the Opposition, who was dismissed wrongfully by the Leader of the Opposition and was paid $89,200. I would like to ask the minister if he can assure me and the public of British Columbia that none of that $89,200 came from the public purse. Or did it come from the public purse? Because it certainly hasn't made....

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: Well, he is the Minister of Finance, and this would be out of his budget. He would certainly have the approval.

Could he tell this House whether that money came from government funds or was paid out of the NDP caucus?

HON. J. JANSEN: There's certainly a lot of sensitivity on that side of the House on this issue, and I'm sure there's a bona fide reason.

Employees of caucus are paid through caucus allocations, which are through tax dollars that the people of the province send to Victoria, and they expect that we will exercise responsibility in their disbursement. I would think that in this particular case, given that the employee was a caucus employee — if my understanding is correct — obviously the expense would be part of the caucus expense, unless somehow there was a private employee of the New Democratic Party working in the Leader of the Opposition's office.

If that is the case, then perhaps the Leader of the Opposition could clarify, because he has never come clean on this issue. He has never laid out anything to the public. He's always sitting on the fence. He's concerned about taking sides on any issue. But there's a day of reckoning when the Leader of the Opposition is going to have to face the public of the province of British Columbia and take sides on issues. He's going to have to make a commitment for the first time in his life.

I'm sure that on this particular issue...

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

MR. LOVICK: On a point of order, we on this side of the House quite enjoy the Minister of Finance's fulminations; indeed, we've all heard this speech a number of times and we quite enjoy it. The problem is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the measure before us. In the name of order, I think he ought to be called to order, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On the same point of order, the first member for Nanaimo may or may not have a good point with respect to the Minister of Finance's contribution. However, it is not a point of order, Mr. Chairman. If the member wishes to respond to comments made about spending, caucus spending and money spent by the Crown on behalf of our various caucuses, the member has every right to do so. Nevertheless, he cannot obtain the floor fraudulently with a point of order. If he wants to enter into the debate, let him do so honestly as a member entering into the debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just to comment on the point of order, I believe a certain amount of latitude is allowed in committee. At the same time, I would want to advise all members that we try to stay close to the item under debate, which is vote 31. The member for Vancouver–Howe Sound has the floor.

MR. REYNOLDS: I appreciate your ruling. It always amazes me that the first member for Nanaimo will get up on these points of order. It's just wonderful when they want to talk about what doesn't fit in with their program. The only difference between the principal secretary to the Leader of the Opposition and the principal secretary to the Premier of the province was that this government has a fair policy for severance, which was handed to the former principal secretary. The difference is no more generous than the courts give. They were both about the same amount. The difference is, the NDP force their employees to go to court and sue them and spend the money on lawyers. There must be a lot of left-wingers graduating out of the law courts these days who need some work.

Let me get back to the Minister of Finance and the talk we had from the opposition about contracting out. I want to quote correctly from the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head: "...systematically reducing the number of women and fairness.... "

Let me give you one example of this government's policy. This Minister of Finance, one of the greatest finance ministers in Canada.... I'll talk later about some of the different programs.

Interjection.

[ Page 12670 ]

MR. REYNOLDS: In every week. This government's had a great Minister of Finance in all the weeks of its mandate. It's unfortunate you'll never get a chance to work with a Minister of Finance with the genius that they've had in this government for managing the public's affairs.

Let me talk about fairness and "systematically reducing women, " as you say, in privatization. I can give you one of the best examples in the province from my own constituency, Cypress Bowl, the ski area. That was privatized. I hear from the other side: "Tell me something else." You don't want to hear the good parts.

Every government has problems. We can all sit here bantering back and forth about who did this and who did what. Let's talk about something that is very good and positive. When Cypress Bowl was privatized, it cost this government $500,000 a year to keep it open. That was for a number of people to ski and cross-country ski. We privatized it, and at the time we did it, there were 70 full and part-time government employees working there. Since we privatized it, there are now 450 full and part-time employees.

This shows that privatization has worked in this province.

MR. LOVICK: What is the positive relationship here?

MR. REYNOLDS: What I'm trying to relate for the first member for Nanaimo, which he has a hard time understanding, is that it's just straight common sense that you go from 70 employees to 450. There's a benefit to the province — men, women, children and the voters of this province. They've all got more jobs; they're making good money; and people are happy with the ski resort. In fact, they've made so much money, we now have lights in the ski hill and we can ski in the evening now. It's a great example of privatization working in this province and a reason why you should be up giving standing ovations to the Minister of Finance.

MR. LOVICK: How about a standing ovation for the member for West Vancouver?

MR. REYNOLDS: I'll be in own constituency tonight, and I usually get a couple when I speak there I've had some in Nanaimo too, especially when I talked about some of our good privatization programs.

MR. LOVICK: Were you the guest speaker in Richmond the other day?

MR. REYNOLDS: No. If I announce that I'm not running, I'll get a standing ovation from my wife and children but not from others.

Can the Minister of Finance guarantee the people of British Columbia that this very successful privatization program will continue until it's working even better than it's working now? There are other things that should be privatized in this province. Will he guarantee the people that he won't be scared away by these socialists on the other side insisting on government jobs in the BCGEU and by Shields telling them that he wants everybody to vote NDP in the next election? Will he assure us that he'll continue with this great program of privatization in the province?

[3:15]

HON. J. JANSEN: That is indeed a good summary of the privatization success stories throughout this province. What the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound didn't say was that in fact Cypress Bowl is now paying taxes, and taxes pay for our social programs, Mr. Member.

It's interesting to see the reflection of the socialist mentality in other provinces. They've eliminated the word "competitiveness" in all their policy manuals in Ontario. You see, that's a bad word. They live on an island, they don't have to trade with anybody, they have their own standards and beliefs and they can just run on deficits for now and forever more. That's okay.

I can tell you about the success stories throughout all the ministries, and savings to the taxpayers of the province have been significant. Whether it's in Transportation and Highways — $22 million to $105 million indirect; and $105 million is a lot of money. When $105 million is available for hospital, education and social programs, I feel good at the end of the day and feel that we've done something successful. I can listen to all your empty statements, ideology and so on, but at the end of the day the people understand who is running this province the correct way. We are a fiscally responsible government, and we're going to stay here.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm not sure what I enjoy more: the Finance minister's patronizing attitude or the previous minister et al for West Vancouver–Howe Sound. Where we're talking about the lives that women face in this province because of patently unjust.... When we are talking in this House about how this minister decides to treat his employees and how he deals with the broader public sector as far as pay equity programs go, we get a patronizing response and/or a diatribe about ski hills in West Vancouver.

Now quite seriously, when we are talking about women who have to line up in food banks because they have no option and because they make 60-cent dollars in this province, and we have a minister who says that he isn't going to intervene on their behalf, and that this government would rather pay out in welfare cheques.... This minister talks about being able to provide good social programs. Well, the women of this province want decent, well-paying jobs; they don't want welfare. That, Mr. Minister, is your responsibility beyond being an employer. It is your responsibility to the taxpayers of this province to provide some leadership around justice and around laws to make certain that people can feed their children.

The fact is, Mr. Minister, that when you talk about cutting costs for this government through your strategy of contracting out, what you are doing is assuring the people of this province institutionalized inequities and institutionalized injustices. It is on your back when you are talking about those contracts. Let me talk about some specific contracts, Mr. Minister. I'm glad

[ Page 12671 ]

you're amused. Let me talk about some of those contracts that you are responsible for.

The fact is that within the Ministry of Social Services — and that is one of the areas dealt with in your previous legislation that we were talking about here — there are group homes in this province where the employees are so underpaid that they can no longer maintain the continuity of care necessary for the people you are responsible for. Those children — the disabled in this province who you are responsible for — are not assured of the kind of care they deserve because of the contracting-out policies of this government.

Mr. Member, when we are talking about pay equity programs, we're talking about public policy. We're talking about dealing with a systemic discrimination in this province. We're talking about women's equality and the right of women to live in some dignity. So, Mr. Member, when you talk about intervening in the marketplace and about your philosophy of allowing the private sector to do as they will, then you are saying that the women of this province have absolutely no hope with your government of equity and justice or of being able to deal with the growing poverty among women and children in this province.

Mr. Member, I'm asking you one more time: will you consider the whole issue of the broader public sector? Will you consider taking on your responsibility simply as an employer to ensure that those groups are included in a pay equity package? Will you show some guidance for the women of this province so they can get off the welfare rolls?

HON. MR. BRUCE: I have some very grave concerns with another item, and particularly with what's happening in the province of Ontario, which also has an NDP government at this point. What concerns me is the effect of that $9.7 billion deficit that the NDP has run up in Ontario on both the Canadian economy and our own economy.

Ontario, being the largest province in Canada and having that staggering $9.7 billion deficit, won't sit there as a province singularly unto itself. The effect of that deficit is going to play throughout the country. The overall spending in that province — it's up some 13.4 percent to $6.2 billion — is going to have a tremendous impact on people and financing institutions beyond the borders of Ontario. We in British Columbia are going to have to be very concerned about the prospect of the opposition going to the ballot box shortly, trying to pretend that they are the keeper of the taxpayer in looking after the taxpayers' affairs, when their brethren in Ontario have just outspent the limit with the highest deficit anywhere in this country It's important that we in this province understand what they've done in Ontario. It's interesting to note that the members of the opposition virtually fled the chamber once we started talking about what's happening in Ontario. What has happened in Ontario could certainly happen here, if the people of this province are not aware of what they've done. There are 14 tax increases in that budget in Ontario, which will actually cost some 4,000 jobs over the coming year.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUCE: I'm glad you're back and listening.

The future deficits are predicted to be in excess of $7 billion for the next three years. What concerns me with those ongoing deficits in Ontario continuing to increase is what effect that will have on our ability and on our financial institutions' ability to borrow in this province, and what it will do to the private sector in the availability of dollars to be able to carry on commerce in this province and across this country. Ontario's total debt will more than double to $70 billion after four years of NDP government. I am concerned what the effect that type of deficit in Ontario will have on our ability here to manage the economy of British Columbia in an effective and responsible way I say that not in jest but in all seriousness. I am certain that the taxpayers of British Columbia are as concerned as I am as to what the Minister of Finance is doing in his analysis of the situation in Ontario. There's a great danger that this massive borrowing will restrict even further the amount of capital available for the private marketplace, thus driving up interest rates for business loans and mortgages. That's going to affect not only businesses in Ontario....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUCE: It's fine to say that Ontario is another jurisdiction, but Ontario happens to be the largest province in Canada.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUCE: That's very good. It will have an effect. Those increased borrowings are going to affect the national economy and the economy in British Columbia. It troubles me what's happened in Ontario. I'm interested to know what the Minister of Finance might be able to tell me in regard to steps that the ministry is taking in monitoring what's happening in Ontario, and what effect the actions of the NDP Ontario government could have on the state of finances here in the economy of British Columbia.

MR. GUNO: I would like to ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. GUNO: It's not often that I get an opportunity to introduce guests from my riding of Atlin, but I'm very pleased today to introduce a group of students from Nathan Barton Elementary School located in the community of Kincolith at the mouth of the Nass River. In the precincts today are 12 students from grades 3 to 5 accompanied by an old friend, Mr. Rennie Brown, and Mrs. Rose Smythe. They left Kincolith last Friday by ferry and boarded the Queen of Prince Rupert on Saturday. Given the great distance they've had to travel, I would ask the House to join me in giving them a very special welcome.

[ Page 12672 ]

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, may I also take the courtesy of making an introduction while we have this slight break?

Leave granted.

MR. REID: Our side of the House would also like to welcome those students who have traveled so far; they are certainly welcome here today.

We also have in the precincts 25 grade 5 students from South Meridian Elementary School who have traveled from the South Surrey–White Rock area today. I hope the House will show them a very special welcome.

HON. J. JANSEN: In response to that last question about the impact that the Ontario budget has on the country as well as our province, I just returned from a Finance ministers' meeting in Prince Edward Island where we discussed the impact of deficit financing and how serious it is. It was quite amusing, actually. In my conversation with the treasurer from Ontario I talked about the deficit and said: "It must be quite a sensitive issue for you to deal with when you talk to the investment community and your caucus." He said: "It's interesting. We put all the radicals in cabinet to shut them up." Those were his exact comments.

An economy the size of Ontario's is 40 percent of the national, so whatever Ontario does has a significant impact on the rest of the country Over the next little while, in four years, they are going to double its outstanding debt, which took 123 years to accumulate. In four short years under the socialist regime it will be doubled.

[3:30]

There's an interesting perspective of their budget by the Gordon Capital Corp., a well-respected bond-rating agency and investment dealer that has assessed the budget. I should read this into the record, as some parts are extremely interesting. They first make the point that: "The long Ontario budget document makes interesting, if frightening, reading. The budget forecasts huge deficits in the coming years, even when the economy is projected to grow at healthy rates." So the projections of their deficits in each of the four years are based on healthy growth rates in their economy, and in fact, the reverse is true: the deficit will be much larger.

They went on: "The emphasis is on other things rather than building an economy...that is so worrisome about the budget. Routinely in the budget papers the Treasurer rejects the idea that wage costs and union work rules have much to do with competitiveness...."

I think this should be repeated. The members opposite are not listening to this, because this is painful for them; it's one of their colleagues. One of their comrades in another province is putting in place their ideology — Pink Floyd: "Routinely in the budget papers the Treasurer rejects the idea that wage costs and union work rules have much to do with competitiveness, while asserting that making everyone in the province, employed and unemployed, feel full partners in its riches is the basis for sound, fair growth."

"The Canadian recession is largely the product of high real rates of interest and high exchange rates which are driven by Ontario's selfishness. Whether Ontario's bonds will continue to be provincial benchmarks is questionable, of course, but the near-term impact is clearly negative and is resented from British Columbia to Newfoundland."

That's in this document.

It says: "The kind of people who are running Ontario are honest, politically correct and convinced they know far better than the market how to allocate resources." The last statement is: "Their education" — are you listening, members? — "will be an interesting and costly experience for all Canadians."

I'll tell you what all those adjectives mean; I'll tell you what that all means. That particular budget has today already cost the people of Ontario $200 million in interest charges alone simply from the philosophy contained in that budget document. And you can go on and on about ideology, about the stuff you're talking about and about pointless arguments. The fact of the matter is that in the final analysis, it is going to cost the taxpayers dollars for translating that philosophy into reality.

For the first time, the Ontario accumulated deficit will equal that of the country of India. There's not much difference in population. I think India has 800 million people, and Ontario has somewhat less. But the question was: will there be a significant impact on the rest of the country? And the answer to that is yes.

We are seeing that impact already. There has been concern by the bond rating industry about the significant demands for capital that Ontario is trying to achieve. In all those Atlantic provinces — you wouldn't know a double A if it came flying out of the air, I think — which are desperate in terms of their capital needs, what has happened in Ontario has had a very severe and very devastating impact.

It's bound to have that continued impact; the province of British Columbia shines in terms of the growth of our economy and our debt loads. We're going to continue to ensure that our country is judged not just on what Ontario's performance is doing in the negative side, but what British Columbia's positive performance is doing on the positive side.

MR. CLARK: I know that members opposite want members on this side to rise to the bait. But you know what? I can't help doing it; I must say, I have to do it. I have to talk about it because members on the other side are practising for being in opposition. They're waiting for two or three months, and they want to ask questions of members on this side of the House. So I want to practice as well; we'll deal with them from this side.

I want to deal first with the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, who said how terrible it was that the Leader of the Opposition fired a staff person. I want to tell the members of the House and the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound that it's true. The Leader of the Opposition fired an individual, and that individual sued and was successful in court and got some money. That's unfortunate, but the Leader of the Opposition had the courage to dismiss an employee.

[ Page 12673 ]

That's not what happened with the principal secretary to the former Premier, Mr. David Poole. He wasn't fired. He was given $100,000 in taxpayers' money to sneak away into the night to work for a dog food plant in Ontario or whatever it was he was doing for a while. Big difference, Mr. Chairman.

That side of the House has spent more money on severance than all the governments in the history of British Columbia — giving money away.

Look at Mr. Carr, who was fired from the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation. Was he fired? I'm not sure if he was fired. He got a big settlement, we know that — a very big settlement. We're trying to find out exactly how big that settlement is. He didn't have to sue for it, because they want to give that money away. They want to give away severance money. They want to give that golden handshake. That's what the member for West Vancouver....

There's a big difference between our side and their side, that's true. We don't give away taxpayers' money as a golden handshake to personal political hacks that have done the business of the Premier.

I'd like to deal with the member for Cowichan-Malahat, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who talked at length about Ontario. Now isn't that interesting, Mr. Chairman! We didn't hear very much about the current budget. Why is that? He talked about the tax increases in Ontario. Well, what's happened to this administration? Income tax increases, corporate income tax increases, wealth surtax increases; 800 fee, licence and permit increases; over 200 of those brand-new fees, brand-new fees of all kinds; medical services premiums, a 75 percent increase in this government's mandate for medical service premiums to the working people that have to pay again and again. We've seen tax increases and tax increases. The average family pays $3,000 more now in taxes than when this government took office. Can you believe that? No wonder they want to talk about Ontario. They don't want to defend their own sorry record.

Let's look at the deficit — the largest deficit in the history of British Columbia, $1.2 billion. But I want to tell you something, Mr. Chairman. If the books in British Columbia were done the same way as the books in Ontario, the deficit would be $2.4 billion. The members like to talk about Ontario. In Ontario, when the government spends $600 million on school construction, that shows up as part of the deficit. But not under Social Credit bookkeeping. When the government in Ontario spends money on subway cars, that shows up on the deficit. But not in British Columbia The government spends $1 billion on SkyTrain; it doesn't show up on the deficit because of fancy Social Credit bookkeeping.

What about the direct debt? All of that money spent on the debt should show up under direct debt. That's what the auditor-general says. But not under this administration.

What's happened in terms of total debt under Social Credit in the last ten or 15 years? It's gone from $4 billion to $20 billion at the end of this fiscal year. That's what's happened. The direct debt has increased five times under Social Credit administration since 1975, and just in the last year alone direct debt is increasing dramatically — the debt for government purposes, not Crown corporation debt. In fact, it's increasing more this year than in the last five years combined. Debt is up dramatically under this administration. The deficit is the largest in history under this administration and this minister. The direct total debt in British Columbia under successive Social Credit administrations is up five times since they took office in 1976. We see massive tax increases across the board on every conceivable one, including a new one — a property purchase tax. This government, which says it's so concerned about private property and owning a home, put a tax that's raising hundreds of millions of dollars on young families and on people trying to buy a first home.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

What about business taxes? The small business tax is one point higher now than it was when they took office. What about the paperwork tax credit that used to exist under the Bill Bennett government, abolished by this administration? No wonder they want to talk about Ontario. They can talk about Ontario all they want, but the voters are going to talk about British Columbia and about their record, and that's another reason why they'll be defeated in the next election.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we are debating the estimates of the Minister of Finance and not history, legislation or, in essence, other jurisdictions. Would hon. members please come to order.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure we all agree with you. I can't help but remember, when I listen to the member for Vancouver East speaking, that I thought it was going to be awfully dull around here when we lost some of their members after the last election. I remember Dennis Cocke and Alec Macdonald, who were great speakers and always very entertaining. I must admit that I was wrong, because this member is very entertaining. He's very good on his feet and makes about as much socialist sense as Dennis Cocke and Alec Macdonald ever made.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I agree, order should be.... Carry on until the member develops the estimates.

MR. REYNOLDS: Let me just talk about socialist economics with the Minister of Finance. We're talking about money that was paid out of the parliament buildings in the last year to a former principal secretary of the Premier and a former principal secretary of the Leader of the Opposition. The member for Vancouver East says: "One was fired and got $89,200." But he forgets that it probably cost about $100,000 for the court case, with judges and other people. He forgets that it probably cost another $50,000 for lawyers.

Interjections.

[ Page 12674 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I'm getting to my point. I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I must get this information, and based on what the member for Vancouver East said, Mr. Chairman.... Will this minister assure me and the people of British Columbia that this government will continue with the compassionate way it treats its employees, that it will not force them to go to court to sue to get severance, as the Leader of the Opposition and the NDP do? Will he assure the people of British Columbia that we'll continue that policy in the way we treat our employees in this province?

HON. J. JANSEN: It's very unfortunate that type of example is shown from time to time in government. I can assure the members in this House and the people of the province that we believe in fairness for our employees. We don't believe in confrontation. We believe in talking to employees about their situation.

[3:45]

I know your concern about the broader scope of conversation respecting what is happening in the rest of the country. It's a valid concern, but I would like the opportunity to respond very briefly. There's a quote by someone, and I want to read it because it says the reason that I want to respond. It says: "A lot of the campaign themes that were run in Ontario are very appropriate for British Columbia, so we're looking for that same kind of message." Who said that? Well, it was the member for Vancouver East. He said that on the BCTV news on February 10, 1991. So we're looking at the same kind of message in British Columbia. What does that mean?

There's another quote: "I know that it would be inappropriate for me to interfere in any way in the affairs of another province, but I just wanted to say I need company." Now who said that? That was Bob Rae, BCTV news, February 10, 1991. Isn't that interesting!

On the one side they want to divorce themselves from the debacle happening in Ontario, and on the other side they don't want to. But I want to respond to his comparison to what's happening in Ontario, Mr. Chairman, because it's fundamentally what is underlying the philosophy of our budget document.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As it relates to your ministry.

HON. J. JANSEN: As it relates to my ministry.

My ministry, Mr. Chairman, put together the budget document which outlines the capital requirements and the debt requirements. A member is talking about figures he has absolutely no idea about. I think he's reading the Ontario budget, because I can't find the figures he's talking about. The figures I find.... Direct government debt was $5 billion at the end of '87-88; and at the end of '91-92, some five years later, $5.988 billion. He said something about $20 billion for direct government debt. I don't think he has any idea.

Then he talks about the Ontario situation, and he says: "You know, if British Columbia's books were done the same as Ontario's books, then we would show a deficit of...." What?

AN HON. MEMBER: Of $2.4 billion.

HON. J. JANSEN: Isn't that interesting, Mr. Chairman, because the fact of the matter is — and you can go to the auditor-general; you can go to the other auditor-general — that Ontario does their accounting on a cash basis. We do our accounting on an accrual basis. I know you don't know the difference, but a cash basis allows you flexibility in terms of postponing expenditures from one year to the next on the basis of when you actually disburse funds. Auditors-general across Canada, save and except in Ontario, have said that this is an incorrect way of accounting and that the principles of accounting do not allow you to do a cash basis.

But what is more interesting.... If you pull out our capital expenditures in this year's budget — which have been capitalized in Ontario — the truth of the matter is that we wind up with over a $1 billion surplus.

You know, there's something wrong with your accounting over there, members. Get yourself new calculators. Take your hearing aids out and put your batteries in your calculators, because that's where you need them. You're not using them for hearing, I tell you.

Mr. Chairman, the bond-rating agencies are people who impartially look at the financial conditions across Canada. We are the best-rated province, together with Alberta, in the whole country.

They talk about comparative taxation. I specifically wanted this schedule in the budget document, and it shows again that we are the second best in the entire nation.

What other indicators do you want? Do you want me to talk about the Ontario situation and the regressive taxes they've put in place, such as capital taxes on banks, loans and trust companies; a minimum corporate income tax; a land speculation tax; removing the small business deduction and attacking small business in the province; and increasing income tax?

They were afraid to talk about the employer medical tax. They had a separate document which talked about the need for reform in the health care system. They said: "We have to examine new ways of charging for out-of-country." They were afraid to come clean in the budget document, because they knew it was a bad-news item. And it's going to be a bad news item.

Fuel taxes. That was a really great initiative. They have people going across the border in droves to shop, and they thought that the solution would be to raise taxes on gasoline. I can tell you that there are revenue initiatives.... Mining. The member for Prince George may think this is great stuff. They increased mining taxes too, and that industry is already in great difficulty in Ontario.

I think we could talk for a long time about the Ontario budget, its impact on the country and how it compares to what's happening here. Why didn't we do the things that they did over there? Because we were wiser money managers. I don't think they want to hear

[ Page 12675 ]

that. They get really disturbed over there when we talk about their spending appetites and their deficit appetites. They want to spend more and more and don't care about how they raise the money. It's just a continual.... Now they also want to go beyond that, They want to get involved in the affairs of small businesses in this province. They have a better idea. I think the people of the province find that a little offensive.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, maybe for the benefit of the committee, all members may wish to refer to page 116 of the estimates. There's a vote description there which is basically the subject matter that we should be addressing ourselves to at this time under votes 31, 32 and 33. Possibly all members would direct their attention to this vote description, and we could debate within order.

HON. MR. BRUCE: I would like to continue on a little in this line of discussion as it respects the Ministry of Finance and the tracking that the ministry would do. I would expect that you must have people within the ministry who track not only what's happening in British Columbia but also what's happening in other provinces and with the federal government. Because certainly the effect of government actions in any one of the provinces could have an impact on the affairs of British Columbia.

I'd like to come back to Ontario.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUCE: Ontario unfortunately elected an NDP government. I'm trying as best I can to let the people of British Columbia know just what the opposition would actually do if, heaven forbid, they happened to become government. I think it's quite serious Ontario has a $9.7 billion deficit, and I just want to reiterate that. I think it's important that the people of British Columbia understand how the $9.7 billion deficit which has occurred in Ontario can affect them locally.

Now I noticed that with the effects of what's taking place in Ontario, the real gross provincial product is expected to decrease by 3.3 percent in 1991. I would expect that within the Ministry of Finance in British Columbia, as I mentioned we would be tracking not only the situation here in this province but what's happening in others, particularly Ontario.

I've also noticed that unemployment in NDP Ontario.... This is something you should understand because I know the opposition likes to point out and try to pretend that they are the great defender of all those who work. I would just like to point out that they are incorrect. However, unemployment is going to hit 10 percent, up sharply from 6.3 percent before the NDP were elected. Unemployment is going to hit 10 percent in Ontario. What concerns me....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The second member for Victoria. Could the Chair anticipate your point of order. It's probably quite valid.

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, we have the worst deficit in the history of this province — a $20 billion overall deficit — yet these members refuse to talk about the debt in British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, what is your point of order?

MR. BLENCOE: Bring that member to the business of the province of British Columbia that we should be debating in this House, Mr. Chairman.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, from just about anybody else on that side I could take that point of order. But he knows full well it's not a point of order. In the estimates, everybody has a chance to get up and speak. He'll have his chance. Sit down and listen to this great question and point of information by this member from Cowichan.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Both of you are...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...question marks. We are on the estimates of the Minister of Finance. Only the administrative action of a department is open to debate in these estimates.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It's always pleasant to enjoy the time in here, but let's keep the place within order. We will get to the debate on the ministry's estimates in British Columbia.

HON. MR. BRUCE: I was coming to be very specific as to how my comments were leading to the Minister of Finance's estimates. As I was mentioning, in Ontario they're projecting that the unemployment level will hit 10 percent. I'd just like to reiterate that's up sharply from 6.3 percent before the NDP was elected. What I want to know....

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, all members in this chamber represent the great people of the province of British Columbia. We should be talking about British Columbia's business, not other business. Mr. Chairman, I ask you once again to teach that new minister the rules of this Legislature and bring him to talk about the great province of British Columbia, not anywhere else.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair was patient while listening to the preamble to your point of order. We will do the same for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and let him develop his arguments as they apply to these estimates. I am confident that he will.

[ Page 12676 ]

HON. J. JANSEN: On a point of order, I find it a little offensive that that member has jumped up out of his seat in this manner I don't know how many times today. Every time he stood up, it has been....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point of order?

HON. J. JANSEN: I'm asking that you ask him to refrain from interrupting the proceedings of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Somehow the Chair finds both the kettle and the pot black. Possibly all members will show some patience and direct their attention to the estimates.

HON. MR. BRUCE: I would like to refresh everyone's minds on where I was coming from, and this is extremely important. As I was mentioning, the unemployment level in Ontario is expected to hit 10 percent.

[4:00]

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, a few minutes ago the Chair extended the courtesy to you to develop your point of order, and the minister will have the same courtesy. When the Chair ascertains that he is out of order, the Chair will draw it to his attention.

MR. LOVICK: On the same point of order, I think this House would be well served by a ruling from you on whether talking about the experience of another jurisdiction is germane to this debate. That's what he's asking. We're asking for a ruling.

MR. REYNOLDS: I would like to read to members on the other side standing order 61(3) on page 22. The last sentence reads: "Mr. Chairman may invite submissions from members, but no debate shall be permitted on any decision. No decision shall be subject to an appeal of the House."

Mr. Chairman, this member from Victoria has been up three times in a row and is skating very thinly, I would suggest, around the rules of this House. You have made a decision: you stated that you will state when members are out of order. I would ask you to warn this member that if he gets up one more time and interrupts this House unnecessarily, you will tell him that he must leave the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think, hon. members, that we should, as I stated earlier, all look at page 116 of the estimates, particularly vote 32 — and I know we're dealing with 31 at this time — to find out the mandate of the ministry and the debate that should come under this. As all members know — and, I would suggest, particularly the first member for Nanaimo, who is the self-proclaimed expert on debate and the use of the English language in this chamber — in developing debate and in debate, comparisons used responsibly are admissible.

HON. MR. BRUCE: I can truly understand the sensitivity that the opposition would have to my mentioning the fact that unemployment in Ontario is going to hit 10 percent, and I can appreciate that there would be that concern.

What I am concerned about — and I'm hoping the Minister of Finance can shed some light on this — is that within the vote there would be tracking of what's occurring in these other jurisdictions, because it would seem to me that if there is a high unemployment level in one part of the country, and in another part of the country, such as British Columbia, there is a relatively strong economy and a very good record of job development, you will find that people will move from where there aren't jobs to where there are jobs. And that, my friends, would have a fair impact on your lives and my life in this province. I am interested in whether the Minister of Finance and his ministry officials are monitoring that, because it concerns me when we have a $9.7 billion deficit in Ontario with an NDP government and when I think of the impact and effect that may have on the rest of the people of this country It bothers me when they project that the total employment is expected to drop by nearly 200,000, following a drop of 100,000 in the first six months of the NDP government. I would hope, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of Finance, that you are making provision, through the work you are doing for this year and the years in the future, for the fact that there will more than likely be a great number of people who will leave Ontario and look to go to other provinces in this country, specifically to British Columbia.

The other thing that bothers me and that I'm hoping this ministry is being mindful of is that housing starts in NDP Ontario will fall some 34.7 percent, following an already 32.9 percent drop. I would hope that the Minister of Finance is reviewing those statistics as well and that he has within that vote enough money to look after monitoring what's happening not only within our own province but in other provinces, particularly in Ontario.

It concerns me greatly when there are projections of deficits across this country — specifically in Ontario of an $8.9 billion deficit for 1993, an $8.4 billion deficit for 1993-94 and a $7.8 billion deficit for 1994-95. These are based on forecasts of a robust economy with a growth of upwards of 4 percent in Ontario, which is going to have an impact on British Columbia from the standpoint of borrowing, as I mentioned earlier, not only for this government but for the private sector.

This is a great drain on capital dollars, and I think the Minister of Finance had best have within that vote enough money to be able to track what's happening not only in this province but across this country and particularly in that province. I would like to hear what the Minister of Finance has to say about those situations happening throughout this country and the effect they would have in British Columbia.

HON. J. JANSEN: My colleague the minister brings up some very good points. There is a connection respecting net in-migration from other provinces — how it's going to impact on the province — and job

[ Page 12677 ]

creation in the different economies. But there is also a connection indicating the underlying philosophy of our budget profile.

You may say it's not fair to talk about the philosophy of budgeting in one province as opposed to that in another province. But by their own admission, they had a transition team to help prepare the budget in Ontario. The philosophy of Ontario is the philosophy on that side of the House, and that was reinforced by the comments of the Finance critic when he was interviewed on BCTV. It was a sad comment when he said: "A lot of the campaign themes that were run in Ontario are very appropriate for British Columbia, so we're looking for that same kind of message." Shame!

I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the philosophy the transition team has put in place has in one year doubled the deficit that has been accumulated in the province of Ontario since Confederation. One year of NDP socialist government has put together a deficit that has outstripped the deficits accumulated since Confederation.

Let's talk about the in-migration, because that's an important part of what is happening. The Ontario socialist government has addressed the problem of recession by spending more money Can you believe that? Somehow they feel that the more you spend, the quicker you get yourself out of the recession, and that when you spend more money, tax businesses more and increase the burden in the future, you remove yourself from the recessionary impact.

When trying to defend this situation, they blamed it on the federal government. Isn't that interesting? They said the federal government cut back on transfer payments. As a result, they had to do what they had to do: outspend every other government in the country. There's Ontario for you.

Let me tell you what's happening in the province of British Columbia. In the first quarter of this year we have seen net in-migration from other parts of Canada of 9,500 people. That's because when they come here they find jobs. In the Ontario economy, employment has decreased substantially — 200,000 people without work. In British Columbia we had growth of 17,000 people. I think there is a difference. You may ask why that difference. The difference is simply reflected in the fact of a philosophy respecting the economy. We don't intend to replace the business community with government spending. We don't intend to burden the future population with unreal deficits. We believe in free enterprise, and the philosophy of free enterprise means that the participation of government in the economy must decrease — not increase — that's the difference. It's going to be reflected in the fact that because of those initiatives, the growth in our economy will continue to expand.

Mr. Chairman, everywhere you read, you see headlines like the one I have in front of me: "The Bloom Is Off the Rae." Everyone is concerned about the scandals and concerns in their government and the cost of their fiascos.

Mr. Chairman, let me tell you again that when we talk about the deficit and the size of deficits and the accumulated debt over the number of years, I don't know where the members get their figures. I refer them to table H4, which may give them a little opportunity.... I'd be pleased to talk to them. What I'd really like in this debate is for one of those members to stand up — their leader won't take any position except on top of the fence — and just for one moment tell us where their philosophy is. You keep on talking about spending more money and addressing new programs. You keep on saying that that the more you spend the better managers you are. For one moment could the people of British Columbia hear from the mouth of the Finance critic — or somebody else who's not afraid to have the courage of their conviction and stand up and be counted — what his philosophy is respecting budgeting?

Do they believe in deficits? Do they believe in this magical money tree? Where are they going to talk about....

Interjection.

HON. J. JANSEN: The member's talking about something. I'm sorry, I can't hear. You could maybe address it through the Chair later on. I'd be pleased to hear you stand up and speak. You'll have your time to debate as well. I would love to hear that member's views as well. That would really give me an opportunity to respond to her philosophy. I'm not sure what it is, because nobody in the province knows what their philosophy is. They don't have any position.

[4:15]

Interjection.

HON. J. JANSEN: We can tell you where we stand and what we believe in. This budget document reflects that, members. Do you know something else? It's working, Mr. Chairman. Across Canada they're pointing to British Columbia as an example of fiscal leadership. So what do you want to do? Do you want to follow the NDP socialist philosophy or follow one that makes sense and works? That's the free enterprise Social Credit philosophy embodied in this budget document.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister wishes to make an introduction.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, I ask for leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I thank the member for Victoria for his kindness.

Seated in the House today are 23 grade 7 students from Langley Prairie Elementary School in my constituency and their teacher, Mr. Erickson. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, the Finance minister is asking all sorts of questions of this side of the House. That minister has been here a short while, and he may have a bit of time left in this chamber. I would remind

[ Page 12678 ]

that member that we are Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. We have a job to do on behalf of the people of British Columbia, and we proudly do it. I can assure that member that in a few months we will give him every opportunity to ask our government questions, because we will allow that to happen in this province.

I have been in this House a long time....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I'll get to the Minister of Municipal Affairs in a minute.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, the member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll get to that minister in a minute. I have a few words for the minister.

I have been in this House some time, and quite frankly I've never seen a government in such disarray. They are desperate to say and do anything to cling to power. For the Minister of Finance to talk about scandals is unbelievable when we have in front of us the most politically corrupt government in the history of this country That's what we have before us — scandal after scandal and conflict of interest. The people of British Columbia know that.

For that minister to talk about deficits.... Prior to 1975, after 104 years of Confederation in this great province, we had less than $4 billion accumulated indirect and direct debt. The people should know that in a short 16 years Social Credit has raised that deficit in direct and indirect accumulated debt from less than $4 billion to $20 billion. Will they talk about that? Will they tell the people what they've done — in excess now of $6,000 in direct and indirect debt upon every man, woman and child in this province? This government has built it up through its squandering and its mismanagement. Thanks for the memories — that's what the people of British Columbia are saying. Thanks for the memories of incredible mismanagement and $20 billion of debt today — in excess of $6,000 per man, woman and child.

I think it's time this Minister of Finance, the fourth we've had in three or four months.... I lose track, they come and go so fast.

AN HON. MEMBER: There will be one more before the election.

MR. BLENCOE: My colleague says there may be one more before the election comes.

It's time we started addressing that debt. It's unheard of to accumulate such an overall debt in such a short period — $20 billion, a $16 billion increase. It took 104 years of all government since Confederation to reach less than $4 billion. This government has quadrupled it in such a short period of time. That's the record we should be talking about. That's the history of mismanagement we should be talking about. Those are the memories that British Columbians would love to forget but obviously can't because every man, woman and child is now responsible for in excess of $6,000 worth of accumulated debt.

Let's talk about the mismanagement of this government and the overruns — the former cabinet member from Kamloops, who was driving around in a Mack truck with the tailgate down handing out millions of dollars as if there was no tomorrow. Let's talk about lottery funds — incredible scandals of misuse of public funds. That's what British Columbians want us to talk about in this Legislature. That's the track record — the incredible deficit this government has given to the people in such a short period. Maybe this minister can talk about why that's happened or about the mismanagement that's given to the people of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair could possibly make a slight observation that we're in the estimates debate, not the budget debate, at this time.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, it's because there is a tomorrow that I'm getting up to speak in this debate. You know, that's what the NDP opposition seem to forget. There is a tomorrow. That's why we're bringing the budget of Ontario to the attention of British Columbians.

I'm going to be in order. I want to abide by the rules of this House and to speak within vote 31. It's because of that that I will probably touch on certain issues from the province of Ontario. When the second member for Victoria gets up and talks about the debts in British Columbia, he conveniently forgets the assets. That's the kind of debate we get from that side of the House.

We're talking of direct debt in Ontario; in British Columbia we're talking of debt backed by assets. But the NDP opposition wouldn't know about that. I don't think there are two of them over there that have any assets. Highways, bridges, buildings, dams, ferries, railroads, hospitals — those are the assets of the people of British Columbia to back the kinds of debts they're talking about.

Mr. Chairman, I want my debate to be within the rules of this House. So I want to talk about those things that fall under the purview of the Minister of Finance, whose estimates we're here debating today. We know that the minister is fresh back from a Finance ministers' conference in the east. I don't read too many of the eastern newspapers — and conveniently, I don't watch a whole lot of television, because it sometimes gives me insomnia — but I want the minister to tell me.... All of these stories we're hearing about the sort of thing that's happening out east in Ontario.... I want the minister, after having met with his fellow Finance ministers in the Maritimes, to tell me whether some of those rumours are actually true — rumours like a promise made by a party that was running recently that they would have a $2 billion deficit in Ontario, when in fact that deficit was $9.7 billion. I want to know if that's true. I want to know if he found that out at the ministers' conference. Those are the kinds of things I want to talk about today.

[ Page 12679 ]

Was more money promised for education in Ontario prior to the last election? Was significantly less money allocated to education in their budget? Is that true, or is that just a rumour?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are on the Ministry of Finance; we are not in the budget debate. I would ask you to come to order.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, you're absolutely correct. I want to know what our Finance minister, who is just back from a Finance ministers' conference in the Maritimes, heard. It's our Finance minister's responsibility to report to British Columbians what he really found. You can only believe about half of what you read in the newspaper, so I want to find out, and today I want to make sure it's on the record for all of the people of British Columbia to know. Are these rumours or are they facts, Mr. Chairman? That's under the purview of the Minister of Finance. It's up to the minister to tell British Columbians.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this politics, Jack?

MR. KEMPF: No, there will be no politics in this chamber, Mr. Member — none.

Mr. Chairman, I'm a member from the north, and I want to know if the minister heard while he was out east that $400 million was promised for northern development in Ontario and nothing was forthcoming in the budget — nothing, not a bean. I want to know whether those things are true so that I can go back to the north and tell my constituents.

It was the members opposite who mentioned scandals just a few moments ago, and I want to deal with that as well. I really want to deal with that, because they talk about scandal and they aim that accusation at the Social Credit government.

The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head pounds her desk. I haven't finished. When I've finished I hope you will pound your desk.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, Social Credit has been in power in British Columbia for 37 1/2 out of the last 40 years. Yes, we've had scandals, certainly, and I'm looking forward — heaven forbid if you ever form government, you members on the other side of the floor — to the ones we're going to have in British Columbia then. I want to tell you about scandals in the province of Ontario. In the eight short months that the NDP has been government in Ontario.... I want to know from our Minister of Finance in British Columbia whether he heard these things when he was out east. Again, we only know what we read in the newspapers. The minister was actually there speaking to other Finance ministers from across Canada.

I want to know whether he heard of these things — whether he heard that an MPP in the province of Ontario was jailed in the last eight months. I want to know that. Is that true? I want to know whether a minister in that government was fired for sexist behaviour. Those are the kinds of things that I want to pursue here this afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I want to know if the Health minister of Ontario in the last eight months released confidential patient files.

[4:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, I think we're going quite a long way beyond the administrative responsibilities which we are really concerned with under vote 31. I realize the member was turning in that direction; however, I just want to make that point, because I think we're going a little too far away from what we're really discussing today.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I just want to get the facts before the cameras for the people of British Columbia. Having just been out east, I'm sure our Finance minister is very learned in these things that are happening out there. We don't have to go just by what we read in the newspaper and see on television, which members on both sides of the floor will agree is not always correct. I'm sure we'll have total agreement in here about that. So I want to know these things.

If we want a direct question, I'll ask the minister: given that the money comes out of the budget of the Minister of Finance, how do our welfare rates compare to the welfare rates in Ontario today? We need answers to those kinds of things. I want to know how the Finance minister thinks the $9.7 billion deficit in the recent budget in Ontario might affect interest rates in this country. That is a direct responsibility of the Minister of Finance. Those are the kinds of things I want to know about.

After all of the debate that has gone on here this afternoon, I thought that when the member for Victoria got up, he would agree with the Ontario budget. If the members opposite think that their counterparts in Ontario are doing so well, why don't we hear them say in this chamber: "Yes, we agree"? Why don't we see them get up in this chamber and tell us how they're going to finance all those things that we've heard them promise the people in the last four and a half years in this very chamber? How are they going to finance those things? It's apropos that we talk about that kind of thing in the estimates of the Minister of Finance.

We have a Premier-in-waiting over there. Well, we don't have him today, and we barely have him at any time. Not only do we have a Premier-in-waiting, but we're also awaiting the fiscal policy of the Premier-in-waiting. We have heard absolutely nothing about that in this House.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: If that's part of the platform, my friend, you'd better shore it up or you'd better not get on it. The people of my constituency want to know what you're going to do if and when you become government. Not only that, my constituents want to know how they're going to pay for whatever they're going to do. There are so many unanswered questions.

We can ask questions of the Minister of Finance. I know that in keeping with the rules we have to do that.

[ Page 12680 ]

But there are a lot of questions going unanswered out there about the opposition. What are they going to do to British Columbians? Are they going to do the same thing that the NDP is now doing to the people of Ontario? I think those are the kinds of questions that we should ask in this chamber, and we should expect answers. But in order to give the opposition an opportunity to answer some of those questions, I'll sit down and wait for the answers to questions that I've asked the Minister of Finance.

HON. J. JANSEN: After that comment, it's somewhat anticlimactic for me to stand up, but I want to speak. The member asks what was discussed in our Finance ministers' meeting respecting the economy, because the economy is of concern to every single province save one, which thinks they have a better answer. That in fact is the philosophy. When we talked about how we're addressing the recession in Canada and how to become more competitive, every province was in step save and except one.

Mr. Chairman, I said earlier in this House that when I asked the Treasurer from Ontario about the difficulty he must be having in caucus because of all the pressure he was getting, he said to me: "Well, the way we dealt with this was to put the radicals into cabinet to keep them quiet." That's what he said. Can you believe it?

I guess that's why they're having the problems they are having over there. They're having all sorts of problems, and I don't want to get into the problems, because I could tell you that even this side over here.... I know we don't want to talk about what's happening in Ontario, because that's a different philosophy. That's socialism, and socialism is going out all over the world. Socialism will be out in Ontario, and socialism will never happen in British Columbia. But I can tell you that the experiment that was done in Ontario was aided and abetted by the members opposite. They admitted themselves that they had a transition team assist in putting together the budget. We talked about connections, and in fact that is the case.

I've asked the question in the House several times, and the member for Omineca also asked the question: when are they going to come clean with the people of British Columbia? When are they going to stand up and be counted? Their leader isn't going to do that, but maybe one or two others could do that. When they ask a question, they could preface it by the remark: "This is what we believe. This is our philosophy of government spending. This is our philosophy of intrusion in the marketplace and of intrusion in the business environment in the province of British Columbia." That's what we'd like to understand.

The member asked what our philosophy is. I can tell you what our philosophy is, and it's something you will never understand. Our philosophy is fiscal responsibility for today's people and for tomorrow's. The government of Ontario may make promises — $4.5 billion in campaign promises that are never going to be kept.... But they did keep a lot.

But I can tell you that when we want to talk about ethics on that side of the House.... You know, we want to talk about that: a side of the House that doesn't know wrong from right or anything about ethics. You want to talk about the justice critic?

Interjection.

HON. J. JANSEN: Yes, I know that's in order; it would certainly be in order for us to talk about that, members. They're very sensitive, and I know this is a difficult issue for them to talk about. It's one of their weak points.

They talk about the accumulated deficit. Yes, we have an accumulated deficit; it's the lowest in the country. But Ontario's deficit in one year doubles our accumulated deficit since Confederation, Mr. Member. We are the lowest per capita in the country, and we will continue to be that way. You know, the best way to judge it....

Now here's a little schedule that's prepared. It outlines it in a comparative way. Whenever that side over there talks about comparisons, they use incorrect figures, and I find that regrettable. When they talk about budgets or about accumulated deficits, if they would refer to a page in the budget document so that we can respond.... If they would refer to a document that is factual, so that I could respond.... But to this point in time, it's all rhetoric because they know it's untrue.

Here's a document that talks about the net direct debt as a percentage of GDP and the debt-servicing cost per dollar of revenue. If the second member for Victoria wants it, I'll give a copy to him so that in future he can refer to it and hold this up with pride as to what British Columbia is doing in this country What it tells us is that on the basis of per dollar of revenue, debt servicing costs, which is the most accurate way of judging the debt load in an economy — and it shows all the other provinces, including the federal government — are the lowest in the country. Talking about the net direct debt as a percentage of GDP, we are the lowest in the country.

We talk about the amount of debt. If you want to do comparisons with other provinces, I would ask you to do that, but to at least be factual with your figures. If you want to compare Ontario debt to British Columbia debt, do it, but make sure you include the Ontario Hydro debt as well, because that's what you're including in our figures. And make sure you include all the other agency debts of Ontario. I can tell you what they are. If the member for Victoria wants to ask me the question instead of jumping up and talking about points of order, I would love him to do that.

Our philosophy is not to interfere in the marketplace. Our philosophy is not to add to the recession. Our philosophy is simply this: we will have a strong fiscally managed government that is concerned about the programs and intends to deliver responsibility to those programs. We will not be like socialist Ontario and your NDP friends in Ontario.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the member standing, I would just like to say that I think we have strayed a long way from the actual details contained in the book of estimates. We are dealing with vote 31 and

[ Page 12681 ]

the other votes, as agreed upon yesterday. I would ask the House to come as close as possible to the actual expenditures presented in the book of estimates.

MR. CLARK: I'll be as in order as the last four speakers on the other side, Mr. Chairman. It is absolutely pathetic — it's the only way to describe it — to see member after member on the other side wanting to talk about Ontario instead of their own incompetence. The largest deficit in the history of British Columbia is from this administration. The Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture wants to talk about unemployment in Ontario. He said it's almost 10 percent. What is it in British Columbia? It's 10.2 percent this year, and the budget says 10.7 percent next year. They want to talk about Ontario — a great big speech of 15 minutes about unemployment in Ontario.

Look at British Columbia — a sorry record, generally, of unemployment. Take out the lower mainland and look at unemployment in Nelson of 14 to 15 percent, and in Prince George, Yale-Lillooet and other regions of British Columbia. Look at unemployment around the province. Let's talk about British Columbia rather than the straw man they set up to try to debate. I don't mind having a debate, but it's quite pathetic to see ministers of the Crown get up one after the other and talk about Ontario at length, then conclude by asking members of the opposition lengthy questions.

They're practising being in opposition; we know that. Some of them — probably a very few — will get a chance to participate as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: Not you, Mr. Member; not you, Mr. Minister — but maybe, just maybe, the Minister of Finance might survive to ask questions. It's good practice — we've heard it time and time again.

[4:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. I believe some heckling can be expected in the House, but I cannot accept as much as we've experienced over the last two or three minutes. I would ask all members to please add to the decorum of this House, as it has always been.

MR. CLARK: I don't mind the rules, Mr. Chairman, provided that they are applied equally to all members of the House, not selectively. It's a sad day when the Chair gets drawn into this kind of debate.

I will ask detailed questions on the estimates as we.... Before we were rudely interrupted by the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound with an attempt to make a political speech, I suppose for leadership aspirations or for some other member, we were on the question of pay equity. I do have just a few questions left with respect to....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Finance rises on a point of order.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if this is a point of order. I find the Finance critic offensive in terms of his challenge of the Chair. I think that perhaps he should withdraw his comments or remove himself from the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I know it's a very difficult job for you, but there does come a time when we are speaking and the other side is clearly going on at length, and they are way out of order and are allowed to complete their speeches. When our side gets up to join in the debate, within seconds we are asked to come to order. I think my colleague is just asking that there be fairness in this debate; that's a fair situation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I should note that at the time I made my comments the member for Vancouver East had the floor. I asked for order particularly because of the heckling from the other side — from the government side. I wasn't casting anything on the member who was on his feet at the time. In all of my comments I tried to protect the member who had the floor at the time. Therefore I accepted the point of order the Minister of Finance made.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, if you were calling the other side to order rather than me, I misconstrued your remarks.

I want to get to the detailed estimates we were dealing with prior to that interjection, which has lasted a couple of hours. With respect to pay equity, which is within the Ministry of Finance's estimates, the minister said — it seems like hours ago now; maybe it was — that some money had been paid out at the bottom end of the pay scale for women. I just would like some clarification of how many women received initial pay adjustments, how much the pay-out was on average and what the total cost of the pay-out was.

HON. J. JANSEN: I'll respond to the question. I know that my colleague would like to speak on this issue as well and that she has a number of questions she may want to address.

When I talked about the implementation of the program, I pointed out that we wanted to put the program in place over stages. I find it regrettable that we're moving away from the philosophy side of the budget discussions, because it is interesting. It very clearly delineates the difference between what the NDP would like to do in the province and what we, as a Social Credit government, remain convinced is the correct way to handle the affairs of the province in terms of its finances.

It was a good opportunity for people to see the differences, and they are startling. I understand the sensitivity on that side of the House when these things are talked about. The discussion on budget philosophy is an appropriate part of the Minister of Finance's budget debate in committee stage. The document that we presented reflects the Minister of Finance's philosophy respecting government finances, so that should be

[ Page 12682 ]

a point of discussion. I hope that we get back to it. I know other members of this House want to add to that discussion and have very good points to make — because there are good points to be made. There are very clear distinctions and definitions. We want to help the people of British Columbia understand where the other side is coming from or not coming from, because it's very difficult to get them to commit to anything.

The member asked a question with respect to the number of employees who were covered by the first stage of our pay equity program. The number was 11,600 employees in 43 classifications. As I said earlier, the first part of that program cost almost $12 million. As I also indicated, we're now in the process of looking at other implementations. To do that we intend to work with the unions responsible to ensure that it is what they would like to see happen.

I'm sure my colleague, the Minister of Women's Programs and Government Services, would also like to have an opportunity to discuss this issue.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I thank the member for Vancouver East for allowing me this time. I wanted to make a few comments about the pay equity program implemented just over a year ago by this government. I particularly want to make those comments because of some of the things said by the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley. One of the things that we always have to remember in this House is that when we're talking about issues like pay equity, which is not easy to implement in government, business or anywhere, it's very complicated and divisive sometimes, and if not done properly, it can be very harmful to the economy. The members opposite don't like to hear about Ontario, but I have to talk about Ontario when I make my point — but the Liberal government, the previous one before this particular one. They legislated pay equity across the province and made many mistakes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Public sector?

HON. MRS. GRAN: No. Private sector as well. We sent people from two different ministries — Finance and Women's Programs — to Ontario to look at their program, and we learned a lot from the mistakes that they made. It's our belief on this side of the House that you simply cannot legislate something like pay equity throughout the public service and the private sector.

Now the interesting aspect about the pay equity program in British Columbia is that we worked with the unions. The program was put together in cooperation with the unions and the two ministries, and it is the kind of program that everyone wants to take credit for. We take credit for it because it's our program, but John Shields of the BCGEU says it's one of the best programs that he's ever seen. Other labour leaders are saying the same thing. So we've done something really special in British Columbia for women.

I was somewhat offended by the tack that the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley took, because the pay equity initiative brought in by this government is historic, and it's helpful to women. When that four years has passed — if that's how long it takes to implement the initiative — we will have a model for all public service employers and their unions to use, and also for the private sector.

I can tell the members opposite that private sector employers are already asking us what we did and how we did it. And we're providing that information, because that's what government is all about — leadership and initiatives that can be helpful to the private sector. But unlike the NDP philosophy of heavy-handed legislation that covers everyone in the province, we decided that we would instead take a leadership role and clean up our own act with our own employees. Some 13,000 women and a few men in our employ will benefit. I am grateful to the Minister of Finance for being so generous with the funds at a time when they're not that readily available, because the entire program is $40 million. I'm not asking a question. I just wanted to say to the minister that I'm very appreciative.

MR. CLARK: Of course, we'll canvass this in the estimates of Minister of Women's Programs and Government Services. I don't want to do that, but there clearly is an overlap. We don't have any problem with negotiating a pay equity program with the trade union movement in the public sector — narrowly defined — as a first step towards moving beyond. The problem I have is that the Minister of Finance responded by saying that this was the sole extent of their commitment to pay equity. In fact, he went to great lengths to say that they wouldn't impose it. The Minister of Women's Programs said something a little bit like that, but not quite as definitive.

What we want to do is move from the public sector narrowly defined, as it is today, to the public sector broadly defined. That will no doubt require not just moral leadership, which is worthwhile, but actual legislation. The government had no problem instituting Bill 82, for example, which restricts....

HON. MRS. GRAN: Why don't we negotiate it?

MR. CLARK: The minister says: "Why not negotiate?" I don't say that you should impose how much they pay to each employee. I'm talking about requiring them to negotiate a pay equity arrangement with their employees; I'm talking about legislating requirements for them to negotiate. That's very important, because municipalities, school boards, hospitals, universities, and that public sector broadly defined.... It simply won't happen just as a result of moral leadership, no matter how good the program is for the public sector narrowly defined. At least that's my view on this side of the House.

It's worthwhile starting in the public sector the way you have; it's simply important now to take the next step. It has to go to the private sector as well. Again, I don't think it need be an intrusive role, a heavy-handed state. It's intrusive to the extent that you're saying there is this historical inequity we want you to solve. But so were child labour laws, when we said they couldn't work at 14. That's government intervention that says we don't want child labour — government intervention

[ Page 12683 ]

on employment standards. We have employment standards legislation now which governs the private sector's ability to manage their employees. This government now has legislation which limits the ability of the employers to act when it comes to employee-employer relations. In terms of requiring time and a half for overtime, in terms of limiting the work week to 40 hours, that's very important. Those are all government initiatives that limit the scope of private companies.

After we get our own house in order — my own personal view — and get the public sector broadly defined, we will then have provided legislative inducements to require the private sector to move in that direction. I think it can be done without forcing them to pay certain wages, without moving in an overtly heavy-handed way. I believe that's possible. I think that will be a challenge. But it will require — I'm absolutely convinced of this — legislation, in the final analysis, to require private sector employers to deal with that historic discrimination against women, which the Minister of Women's Programs certainly agrees is a serious problem.

I appreciate her interjection. When it gets to those detailed questions, I'm sure that minister is the more appropriate minister to ask. I appreciate the specific answer from the minister.

Maybe just one or two last questions to the Minister of Finance, in terms of how GPSD is moving to the next stage. The first stage was the $12 million pay-out bottom-loaded to women. Is it the intent of government to work with unions to come up with a job evaluation program? I'm not quite sure how the ministry — I guess it's the Ministry of Finance that's actually implementing it — sees moving that forward. Is there a discussion about what kind of job evaluation? How far along is that process? Have consultants been hired? I wonder if the minister could give us an update on the mechanics of the Ministry of Finance's implementation of the government's pay equity program?

[5:00]

HON. J. JANSEN: just to clarify for the record, I said earlier that I thought individual elected councils and boards that represented the various agencies had some responsibility as well and some autonomy. I said that I found it offensive for us to decide to take over management of their operations, that we instead look upon this as what we are going do as an example that other agencies will follow. I also said that I find it offensive that we go into the private sector and tell them what to do, because the private sector can manage its own affairs, thank you, without government intervention. They don't have to have a knock on the door, saying we're from government and we're here to help.

The answer respecting the continued aspect of this program and where we stand is that we are having discussions with the BCGEU. As I said earlier, we don't intend to do it unilaterally; it is being done through consensus and agreement with our unions. The BCGEU and we are looking at the terms of reference for consultants to be hired. Once that's agreed to, then we'll move to the next step of putting someone in place to start the process.

MR. SMITH: I want to get into a number of areas with the Minister of Finance as well, particularly in his role as Minister of Corporate Relations. But before doing that, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I appreciate the relative quiet in here for the discussion on this issue of pay equity, because in this part of the room it's sometimes difficult to hear what is going on. I want to contrast this relative quiet with the noise and guffaws and fooling around that went on today when the Minister of Government Services was trying to answer a question. I couldn't hear it, so I went and looked at the Hansard Blues. Quite honestly, I think it's bloody awful that that kind of response to that question was going on in this place. It was disgraceful, given the subject matter being discussed, and I say sincerely that I appreciate the difference right now in relation to this issue, because they're both very important issues, and they deserve respect, at the very minimum, from all members.

First of all, I want to deal with a corporate relations matter that I raised earlier on, and then with why I think it's important for us to discuss the Ontario budget in here and why it's perfectly in order and appropriate and quite important. The people of this province are entitled to know how this Minister of Finance is or is not going to use the resources of his office to protect the people of British Columbia — or not protect them, as the case may be — against the policies that we see issuing forth from a province where members of this Legislative Assembly have bragged that they participated as active transition advisers. Mr. Chairman, I can't imagine anything more appropriate to discuss than whether this Finance minister has any intention of following that kind of advice as he administers scarce public dollars on behalf of the taxpaying citizens of this province.

As well, I want to say that there can be nothing more critical to the administration of that minister's office than for the people of this province to know what they might expect by way of a comparison. For years and years in this assembly, when succeeding Ministers of Finance have stood in this chamber to talk about the administrative practices that they are going to pursue and the philosophical undertaking that they are going to follow with respect to administering their office and ensuring a prudent, well-managed financial situation in this province, they have been subjected to comparisons to show where the minister might improve or might not improve. Those comparisons have always been to Sweden, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Australia or New Zealand, depending on the time-frame and which year we were in. So I think it only appropriate that members of the opposition be allowed this year to make that comparison between this minister's financial administrative practices and Ontario's, because it is topical and important. There is a distinction between the philosophies going on, and it is only sensible that that comparison be part and parcel of the discussion that takes place in here.

[ Page 12684 ]

Furthermore, it is consistent with our legislative practices in this province year after year — since 1952 — when those comparisons have been made time after time with other jurisdictions in order to show how well or how poorly this administration was or was not doing. This new generation of new socialists should not run away from those kinds of comparisons, because they are important. People are talking about them. Frankly, I'm surprised at the extent to which people are talking about them, because normally, sadly, what takes place in this chamber matters precious little to people around the province. Frequently, what is said here takes six months to be heard in Williams Lake or Dawson Creek in any meaningful way in terms of what people discuss in the street, because people have other interests. I suppose when you sit here day after day you say: "Thankfully so!"

People in those communities are concerned and are talking about those differences in the way you handle the public purse. Those differences are very profound and very real. There is no question more germane to the mandate of this ministry than an assurance from the Minister of Finance that he will protect the people of British Columbia from the Ontario experience. I demand to know from the Minister of Finance, because I haven't heard him say what his intentions are, how he proposes to accomplish that protection and what assurances he's prepared to give the people of this province that in administering his office, we will not have visited upon us this Ontario experience.

I tell you in the simplest of terms.... The second member for Victoria was talking about job creation, how money was spent and so on around the province, but what he did not talk about by way of comparison in terms of how you administer the funds in British Columbia through the office of the Minister of Finance is that the stated purpose in Ontario, for the just slightly under $10 billion deficit this year — not a deficit that came about as a result of responses to economic conditions, but a deficit planned in advance for four more years.... There will be an ever-escalating incremental deficit in that province. The stated reason for having a $10 billion deficit in Ontario was to create 70,000 jobs. Think about that. I'm not making this up; that comes out of their own budget document. The purpose of a $10 billion deficit is 70,000 jobs. Good grief, that is in excess of $1 million per job. For goodness' sake, you could go along and create ten times the number of jobs by handing out $100,000 to people in Ontario and simply telling them to spend it in Ontario to stimulate the economy You could create 20 times that number of jobs by handing out a mere $50,000 for them to go out and spend in that province.

The stated purpose of a $10 billion deficit is to create 70,000 jobs. If there could be a better definition of profligate spending, I would love to hear it, because I cannot imagine anything more absurd than to run up a $10 billion deficit for the purpose of creating 70,000 jobs. It simply doesn't make any sense. If I can follow the Ontario budgetary system, it's a definition of madness — absolute flaming madness to burden the people of that province with that size of a deficit for that purpose. It makes no sense. It is being talked about around the province of British Columbia because this new generation of new socialists wants to have Swedish-level social services and pretend they can get them at the same time as they pay American-level taxes. It doesn't work, and it's a deceit on the people to raise the expectation that you can have all of these services and pay that level of taxes. You can't do it.

Not only is it a deceit on the people when you do that, it is in fact a generational problem. It is perhaps the greatest of all manifestations of the 1980s. The spend, spend, spend, me generation has now got its own Premier in the province of Ontario, where we're going to spend like madmen, predicting even more mad spending for four more years, knowing full well that the people who are going to have to pay the price for that me-too selfishness are not going to be this generation, who are going to live high off the hog, well beyond their means, but their children and their children's children. Mr. Chairman, there can be nothing more selfish than that. That's what we're seeing in Ontario.

The first question I have for this Minister of Finance is this. We have witnessed for all too many years in the province of British Columbia comparisons — and properly so — of other jurisdictions that could run the Finance ministry better or worse than ours. Those comparisons about administrative practice, about how things would be done elsewhere, have been allowed in this chamber because they are appropriate and proper and one of the only ways that we can flesh out the attitudes that the Minister of Finance of the day has. The people have a right to know what the attitude of this Minister of Finance is. They have to know whether he's one of those me-too types who's going to go out and run up that kind of deficit; whether he is the kind of person who has no regard for the next generation of taxpayers; whether he's prepared to roll the dice in this generation and to heck with the consequences; whether he's the kind of planner who's going to predict ever-increasing deficits of $10 billion a crack, compounding one on top of the other. The people have a right to know whether that is his attitude or not.

They have a right to know that, because the comparison has been made, and the reason the comparison has been made is that this new generation of new socialists has gone around and said that it was their group who supplied the advice that brought us to this point. Not only have we a right to know who those people were, who sits in the empty chairs of advice that they have given, but we have a right to know that from the people who stand here and tell us they want more legislated freedom of information. But more importantly, the people of this province demand to know whether the attitude of this Minister of Finance is consistent with that level of profligacy, or whether this is a prudent Minister of Finance who has respect for this generation of taxpayers and the next generation as well.

[5:15]

HON. MR. FRASER: I too would like to ask the Minister of Finance some serious questions to add to those asked by my colleague from Kamloops. The

[ Page 12685 ]

question would be: who is on that secret transition team the NDP from British Columbia sent down to help Mr. Laughren from Ontario? I think it's spelled Lockren, but he went to New York and they laughed and he ran, so I just changed the pronunciation a little bit. Red Floyd.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

It seems to me, when we talk about the Ontario budget, that the Premier of Ontario said: "If you want to blame anybody, don't blame me. Blame the Prime Minister. Brian made me do it." I thought: isn't it so typical to be in office just a very few months and to say: "I really didn't do it. He made me do it."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Attorney. We are on the estimates and not the budget at the moment. If you could direct your comments to the debate of the estimates of the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. FRASER: Actually, I am referring to the estimates of the Minister of Finance, because all this ties in. All this separates us from the opposition. All this separates responsible government from profligate spending. All these things count, and that's why it relates to the Minister of Finance and that's why we ask him all these questions.

By the way, when you referred to the members for Victoria, one of the things I remember about the two members for Victoria is a promise they made. Remember? They promised to give all their raise to charity. The two members for Victoria had a press conference, you will remember, and said: "I promise to give my raise to charity." Now, I wonder if he could prove that he's done that.

MR. BLENCOE: Check my account.

HON. MR. FRASER: No, he's not going to prove it because he probably can't. Here's a promise that was made that wasn't kept. It goes along with the same kind of thing; he promises to give away only other people's money and never gives away the money of his own that he promised to give away. That's an interesting effort.

I would like to think I could be proven wrong, but I doubt that I can, because promises are so easy when you're spending other people's money and so difficult when it's your own.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Attorney-General. We are on the estimates of the Ministry of Finance, and I would appreciate debate in light of the vote description as set out in the estimates. Would you please come to order.

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, we're closing in on the question at hand, and the question of course is the responsible actions of the Minister of Finance with respect to spending in British Columbia. I want to compare the fiscal responsibility of this minister with what happens in other provinces, because it's a fair comparison. You have to understand the differences between the government — the responsible government — and the opposition, which is promising to spend huge amounts of money. Doubling and tripling year in and year out, they promise from Point Grey.

An extra $3 billion, says the Leader of the Opposition, who in fact hasn't demonstrated that he would be capable of leading. Indeed, when we talk about him, the major contribution of the Leader of the Opposition at the recent convention was to propose a motion which caused him to evade discussing a very difficult motion. That was his contribution. He will never be strong enough to lead the government. He's not actually, in my view, strong enough to lead the opposition.

So, Mr. Minister of Finance, can you tell us about spending? Can you tell us a little more about the loonie? The reason I want to know about the loonie.... If you want to visualize the $9.7 billion debt this year in Ontario — which we don't have here, and which we'll never have because of this minister — 9.7 billion loonies face to face, thin-ways, will go all the way from here to Ottawa and back twice.

Not only that, their budget will show serious debt for another four years, and it's costing this province money. That's how you tie it in, because we help pay those welfare rates, and we help separate their problems with the rest of the country. It's not right that they should impose upon us. They've got enough problems of their own; let them try to solve them. We've solved them here. We've done the right thing for so long, and that's why the budget in B.C. Is in such good shape and that's why we have to make sure it stays in good shape.

I asked the Minister of Finance to give us more numbers and to keep defending every budget, because he can. We will prevail because he has the will to say no; he doesn't say yes to everything. He says yes to the important things and no to the things that shouldn't be done — keeping the government in line and keeping the people out of debt. That's the kind of leadership we want.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I want to address an issue on the Corporate Relations side of the minister's responsibility which deals with a question that I think is going to be increasingly important in our society over the next while, and that is the issue of concentration and, as well, the issue of competition, which issues go hand in glove. I raise it because under subsection (2) of the minister's estimates, in salaries and costs, there is an amount of $2,000, which I see is supplementary. I just want to make a suggestion that he might give some consideration to its expenditure.

Over this decade I think we are going to require an understanding that the greatest need our society will have is the formation of capital. We're also going to have to understand that in terms of taxation policy and our competitiveness, we're going to have to be far more productive. We're going to have to do things that are going to make us much more able to compete in the international environment than we are now. That is going to lead us in a couple of areas, it seems to me, to get very heavily involved in the question of concentration and competition. On the one hand, for commodity interests there is a real argument to be made that

[ Page 12686 ]

greater concentration may in fact be important in terms of productive capacity, in order that we can compete internationally. On the service side, it seems to me that some of the anti-competitive interests we're seeing being taken up are not in the interests of this province at all, and certainly not in the public interest of the people of British Columbia.

I said before, when I spoke on this issue in earlier debate, that one of the areas that I think we and the minister should look at in terms of administering his office and allocating his resources is finding a greater role for the province to play in the issue of competition policy. As we're going through this time of constitutional change in Canada, it seems to me highly appropriate that we insinuate ourselves and impress our jurisdiction into that whole area, because it impacts upon us very much. It will impact upon us more and more as we go through this decade.

I used Southam Inc. as an example, and I want to correct some things that were said in response to that issue in relationship to the minister's office relative to corporate responsibility. I had referred to Southam Inc. as a Toronto-based multinational, and one of their apologists in Vancouver who's on their board suggested that that was proof positive I didn't know what I was talking about. He inferred that that isn't the case — that in fact they're not a multinational.

Well, I just want to underscore that that director clearly hasn't done too much homework, because last year their organization, for instance, had sales of $250 million in the United States. That sounds a little bit like more than one nation to me; therefore it sounds a little bit like a multinational to me. They just acquired in March, for instance, Bedinghaus Business Communications Inc. in Cincinnati, Ohio; and they just picked up the Dittler Bros. operation as part of their Southam Graphics Group in Georgia, I believe it was, where they made Mr. Bob Hartman its president. Indeed, one of their salespeople in Los Angeles was awarded their president's award. So they are multinational, and they are offending the competition laws of this country or trying to offend them. Not only that, there is a conspiracy of silence going on about it, because they have chosen the venue for the Competition Tribunal hearing to be Ottawa so that it's conveniently out of sight and out of mind for the probing eyes of the media they claim to represent here in British Columbia.

I think that that is not in the interests of British Columbia. One of the reasons why it isn't raised here is that it's kind of like libel chill. Just in advance of an election there's no interest for the opposition or, indeed, for government members seeking re-election to want to take on Southam Inc., which, after all, now controls most of the daily newspapers in British Columbia and is seeking to subvert, as well, by way of control.... "We can't meet the competition, so let's take them over." They're doing that with 38 local dailies.

We're not going to see an opportunity to have that important public discussion on competitiveness dealt with in this province, because it is in advance of an election, it is a bit like libel chill, and the company has chosen Ottawa as the venue where it is going to have this matter heard.

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to dump on Southam Inc., but as I used them as the example last time and they chose to try to use the old red-herring diversion of pointing out that they aren't a multinational when in fact they are, which was not particularly germane to the discussion in the first place.... I do think it's important for every single member of this chamber to give some thought and concentration to the issue of competition and to do so in relation to the constitutional discussions coming up. It is going to be particularly important to the province and the people of British Columbia. It impacts on us in different ways. It will be especially important in facilitating the raising of capital, which is going to be the major issue that ultimately will be played out in the 1990s. In terms of the service industries, and particularly the communication industry in this province, it is clearly adverse to the public interest to have this kind of activity going on.

My question, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of Finance is this. Has he given some consideration in terms of the administration of his office — and if he hasn't, will he — to the issue of competition policy? Will he as well in that respect give some consideration and some input to the ongoing discussions that will be taking place between this and all other provinces and Canada, with respect to the rebuilding of our Confederation and the division of powers so that ultimately this province and all other provinces — just as we hope to do in issues of trade by way of natural extension — can have further, more direct, more appropriate, better input into the whole issue of developing policy with respect to competition and concentration, and perhaps more importantly, be able to effect the kinds of tribunals we have, the mechanisms we have for dispute resolution, so we do not see a situation developing where — as I say, it is analogous to libel chill — in front of an election, politicians are going to be wary of taking on the multinational Southam in all of its configurations in British Columbia, and they in turn are going to try and get the tribunal hearing heard in Ottawa where it's out of sight, out of mind, and there will be less likelihood of public interest interveners?

[5:30]

So the first part of my question is whether he gives some consideration to the broad issue, in terms of his office, of a role that would be appropriate to the province to play with respect to competition policy and dispute-resolution mechanisms. Secondly, I would urge the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations to give some consideration to seeking intervener status in this particular hearing. It is not in the public interest to have this kind of concentration take place. There is a need for the citizens of British Columbia to be represented at those hearings. I know that we've never done it before; that's not an argument as to why we shouldn't do it now, because we've never had the problem before, either.

Mr. Chairman, it is not in the interests of anyone in the service sector to have less competition in the service sector. It does not help our tax base; it does not create more wealth; it does not create more job opportunities; and it certainly does not create more

[ Page 12687 ]

public expression in the free press to have that kind of a concentrated situation which, in the minds of the people writing our Competition Act, offends the concentration laws of our country.

I make that plea to the minister, and use the opportunity to correct the position taken by the resident apologist for that organization in his response to my somewhat benign comments the other day about concentration and competition. The reaction was much greater than I think was appropriate to what I said, and it only demonstrates to me that there's likely a bigger problem there than any of us had ever twigged to before.

I think that as a matter of public policy we should examine it, because we're in that framework now from the broader picture. I would urge the minister to give some thought to having the public interest of this province served on behalf of the small business community by seeking intervener status at those tribunal hearings.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I rise in this debate, the estimates of the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations, to discuss some issues that I have concern with as a former Minister of Advanced Education, as the current Minister of Health and as the Member of the Legislative Assembly for a growing area of our province — namely the city of Prince George.

One of the major administrative responsibilities of the Minister of Finance, from my point of view, is that of chairman of the Treasury Board. By statute, the Minister of Finance is always chairman of the Treasury Board, and the board, by its own statute, has many serious and significant responsibilities in the fiscal affairs of our province, not the least being the regulation of capital spending and capital projects for the various ministries. They all have to go through Treasury Board and are all important, because we all want to build our bridges, universities, schools, hospitals and capital infrastructure. The proper stewardship of capital funding is clearly the responsibility of the chairman of Treasury Board, the Minister of Finance, and it's clearly within his administrative responsibility to show proper stewardship and to ensure that our province always has the best bond rating and the best position in the money market so that we can carry on with capital financing. That is the thrust of what I want to say this afternoon in the closing moments of this debate.

Let me speak from a personal point of view — from the former ministry that I had the good fortune to be in charge of for two and a half years, the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. Let me just put on the record some of the advances we made in terms of the capital budget in that ministry under this administration and some of the significant increases we made. For example, in terms of the capital financing of Advanced Education, it was increased sixfold; it will actually be close to seven-fold by the time this 1991-92 budget is concluded in terms of capital spending. It went from $25 million in 1986 to close to $200 million in this fiscal year. So clearly it has shown a remarkable increase in capital funding, all of which has been approved by the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance and has gone through that process.

On reflection I might point out that when the New Democrats were government, they cut the capital spending program for the Ministry of Advanced Education by 25 percent, which resulted in overcrowded classrooms, students being turned away and a shocking situation in the community college and university system — a 25 percent cutback from 1972 to 1975. However, that wasn't the case in this current administration. Similarly, from 1986 to 1991 we've also seen some remarkable capital programs in the Ministry of Health.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm going to get to Ontario in a minute, Mr. Member, and I'm sure you recognize that. I'm talking about the minister's responsibilities as chairman of Treasury Board and the fiscal health that must be maintained for our province in order for us to carry out responsible and appropriate capital spending.

Similarly in the Ministry of Health, the capital budget for this year will be in the order of $200 million. In the two ministries that I've spoken of — Advanced Ed with its university and college expansion and Health with its expansion of diagnostic and treatment centres, additions to hospitals and various other facilities — we're looking in that area alone at a capital budget of $400 million for the 1991-92 fiscal year. That's clearly very important. One of the projects closest to my heart is, of course, the University of Northern British Columbia. Its capital and planning funding is in place now. Its capital budget for this year is well in place and in the order of $50 million. By the time the doors open in September of 1993, the whole project will be a capital fund of approximately $150 million.

I want to pose these questions to the Minister of Finance. I will be adjourning in a few moments and giving him time to reflect on what I'm going to say and maybe respond to questions tomorrow. Following the horrendous Ontario budget, which first of all led to a deficit that was 200 percent — that's double — higher than the 1990 deficit, which then led to the projection that their deficit in Ontario under a New Democratic government would be $70 billion after four years of that government's continued spending.... Given the result that they now have been downgraded from a triple-A bond rating to a double-A, we know that the cost of borrowing from the money market will be far more expensive for similar institutions in Ontario — to borrow for universities, schools, hospitals and other capital projects for the infrastructure of the people and of the many ministries that use these. It has been pointed out to me that this downscaling of their credit rating, when it amounts to higher costs for borrowing money, would be the equivalent of $5 million on $200 million of capital. That just happens to be what the budget for Advanced Ed and for Health is this year for its capital funding. So $5 million each would be $10 million more that it's going to cost the people of Ontario to build similar projects in their province than

[ Page 12688 ]

it would in our province. I find that alarming. My rough calculations indicate that the borrowing in Ontario for projects that we're building this year just in Health and Advanced Education would cost an extra $10 million. In other words, instead of $400 million for the capital projects on the books, the same amount of debt is going to allow for only $390 million of capital projects on the books, and that is tragic. That is using regressive, repressive socialist philosophy to in fact take money away from the people and the very capital programs you're trying to....

HON. MR. FRASER: And give it to the New York banks.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, give it to the New York banks — who really need it. Instead of building a hospital or a university, they're making some fat cat on Wall Street fatter. The people of Ontario are losing, and that really is critical, and I find that most upsetting.

My plea is to the Minister of Finance, who is also the chairman of the Treasury Board, not to allow that to happen in British Columbia. We're a growing province. Our population is growing every day. The members from the Fraser Valley know what a critical building situation we're in now in terms of hospitals, universities and college expansion. We clearly need access to those money markets, Mr. Minister. We clearly need to be in the best possible credit-rating position that a province can be in. Unless we have that, we are doomed. Our social infrastructure of universities, schools and hospitals is doomed.

No one is listening to me. I think I've touched a nerve. They seem to be a little testy over there.

Clearly, with that downgraded credit rating, Mr. Chairman, Ontario institutions are doomed. They will never recover from that. As that bond rating further drops, they will not be able to afford in any good conscience the possibility of going to the money market. In other words, capital construction by government — capital borrowing — will stop in Ontario.

In closing, I want to assure this committee.... I want the Minister of Finance, who is the chairman of Treasury Board and the one responsible for our economic health, to assure this committee that we're not going to embark upon that slippery slope of socialist debt that's been entered into in the province of Ontario. It is critical to our schools, to our hospitals, to the students, to the many people who use government programs and who are in need of government buildings.

With that said, Mr. Chairman, I will take my role as House Leader and, unless there's any serious objection, move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:44 p.m.