1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 1992
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 5, Number 3
[ Page 3007 ]
The House met at 2:09 p.m.
The Speaker: Hon. members, it has been brought to my attention that some documents have inadvertently been distributed in the House, which, of course, is against the practice of this House. I have asked that they be collected, and I remind all hon. members that nothing should be distributed in the chamber without the permission of the Speaker.
B. Copping: Hon. Speaker, I'm very pleased to introduce to the House today my niece Esther Halton, my nephew Joseph Hillaby and their son Graham Hillaby. They have driven across from Calgary to spend the night with me. I'll be pleased to be able to visit with them after 11 tonight.
D. Mitchell: We have in the public gallery today two very special visitors. We have Bonnie Pyplacz, who is the economic development officer for the North Shore Economic Development Commission. She is also currently serving her third term as president of the B.C. Economic Development Association. With her is Mr.Robert Fine, who is the economic development officer for the Sea to Sky Economic Development Commission. Mr. Fine is currently serving his first year as vice-president of the British Columbia Economic Development Association. I ask all hon. members to make them welcome here today.
Hon. A. Hagen: It's a great pleasure for me today to welcome old friends from New Westminster: Wes and Laura Janzen and Carl and Marg Vick. They are citizens who, although retired, continue to be very active in many services in the community. They represent the best of New Westminster and of British Columbia. I welcome them warmly today, and I ask you to join me in that welcome.
R. Chisholm: Today we have sitting in the members' gallery Mr. George Rush and Mr. Tim Singh, who are with a delegation of farmers. They have travelled here today to make a statement on the economic viability of farmers of British Columbia at the present time. Would the House please join me in making them most welcome.
F. Randall: In the gallery today are two longtime friends, Abby and Lynn Wilander, who are accompanied by my wife today. They are longtime residents of Coquitlam and supporters of the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain. Would the House please make them welcome.
U. Dosanjh: I am pleased to introduce to the House today Harder Bal, a political activist from the former riding of Vancouver East, currently Vancouver-Kensington, and the vice-president of my constituency association. I would ask the House to make him feel welcome.
Hon. A. Petter: In the House today are 16 students who are participating in the Voyageurs '92 exchange program. This program strives to promote national and intercultural understanding by allowing some 38,000 young Canadians the opportunity to visit other regions in Canada. The host students are from the federal constituency of Saanich-Gulf Islands and are accompanied by their group supervisor, Ava-Marie Super, who is also the chair of the local organizing committee. The guests, accompanied by their group supervisor, Louis Boulanger, are from the great city of Sherbrooke, which is known to us all as the largest producer of hockey sticks in the country and a major contributor to national unity through that enterprise. I would ask the House to make them all very welcome.
Hon. D. Marzari: One more introduction for the House, to welcome Robert Mitchell, owner and operator of Powder King ski resort at Pine Pass. Would the House welcome him.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'd like members of the House to welcome a good friend of mine, Jock McKenzie, who is the former vice-president of the IWA in this country and is here visiting. He is retired now in the Fraser Valley.
Hon. C. Gabelmann tabled the annual report for 1990-91 of the Ministry of Attorney General.
[2:15]
ELECTRONIC ACCESS TO STATUTES
The Speaker: Hon. members, before we proceed with the day's business, today I am pleased to announce on behalf of the House an important innovation in the way that the Revised Statutes of British Columbia and House materials are made available to the people of British Columbia. This project, which is a cooperative venture of the Law Clerk of the House, the chief legislative counsel of the Ministry of Attorney General and the Queen's Printer of the Ministry of Government Services, has been evolving over the past year.
It is a new system that will revolutionize the dissemination of House materials and the Revised Statutes of British Columbia. Two new services are being offered. Firstly, the Revised Statutes will be available on laser disk and floppy disk, with high-speed searching software for use in personal computers. The electronic version of the Revised Statutes, including bills passed before this House adjourns, will be available through subscription as soon as possible after the adjournment, and thereafter twice a year.
Secondly, the House materials, including bills, Votes and Proceedings and Orders of the Day, are now available on-line through regular phone lines by modem, and are updated daily. This service has already proved its usefulness through the last three months, and it also provides an update to supplement the disk version.
In adopting this new technology, it's important to note that British Columbia is at the forefront across Canada in providing to the public at a reasonable price this ready access to the products of this Legislature.
[ Page 3008 ]
Later this afternoon, both products will be demonstrated in the Douglas Fir Room, on the hour and half-hours beginning about 3 p.m. All members and interested others are invited to experience the high-speed capabilities of the searching software. Having seen that demonstration myself, I really encourage all members to attend one of the demonstrations.
Finally, I am sure the House would want to join me in congratulating and thanking all of those who have worked so cooperatively to achieve this very significant innovation.
Hon. L. Boone: I wish to add my congratulations to the people who have worked to make this open-government initiative possible. Some of them have joined us in the gallery today, and I'd like to recognize them: Brian Greer, acting chief legislative counsel; Vern Burkhardt, Queen's Printer for British Columbia; Ian Coates, director of the Queen's Printer printing plant; and Ken O'Connor, composition systems manager. Ken O'Connor developed the features and structure of the electronic statute product and led the staff at the Queen's Printer in producing it. He is also responsible for operation of the Queen's Printer bulletin board, and he will be operating the equipment in the Douglas Fir Room this afternoon.
This is truly an easy-to-use system that will save time and money. The search capability makes it easy to find what you are looking for, even if you're not sure where it appears in legislation. Researchers, lawyers and their support staff will appreciate being able to move portions of the law directly into an electronic document instead of typing it all in from a piece of paper.
I urge all hon. members to find a few minutes to take a look at the system in operation in the Douglas Fir Room this afternoon. Please join me in congratulating these hard-working government people.
K. Jones: It is with pleasure that we applaud the work done by the legislative and Queen's Printer staff in developing a modern technology tool for all of us to utilize. It's a tool that some of our members have already been using on a trial basis, and they say that it is working very well -- it's a great tool. It opens up an opportunity for us to really get a feel of where the different issues are in the statutes, and how to use them to the fullest. I extend full congratulations to the staff for their fine work in developing such a wonderful tool.
BUY B.C. PROGRAM FOR FARM PRODUCE
R. Chisholm: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister explain why the farmers of British Columbia are dumping their produce all over the steps of this Legislature?
Hon. B. Barlee: I think I should elaborate on that slightly. First of all, this government is not about to embark on a knee-jerk response to an advertising campaign that does not work. A Buy B.C. campaign should be comprehensive.
I believe the member for Chilliwack mentioned the success of the Ontario experience yesterday. Well, let me elaborate slightly on that. He stated that Ontario was extremely successful.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. And I would encourage the minister to keep his comments brief.
Hon. B. Barlee: I'm saying that we have to have, first of all, a very comprehensive campaign. Perhaps that member does not know, or perhaps he should be informed, that American produce is flowing across the line at approximately one-fifth of its usual price. In other words, a carton of lettuce which sold for $20 in California sells for $4 in British Columbia when our producers come on stream. That is not within our jurisdiction; I believe the critic well knows it. It's very difficult for our farmers to meet the American price, which essentially is dumping.
I spoke with the Hon. Bill McKnight about three and a half hours ago.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order! Again, minister, please conclude your comments.
Hon. B. Barlee: Yes, I will.
That member well knows that this is a federal problem. It is solved in other jurisdictions through the federal government.
R. Chisholm: To the minister of buck-passing: I wish you'd answer the question. You didn't do it in estimates either.
The minister has talked about stopping and inspecting produce coming into British Columbia. He has not done it; he should do it. The minister has talked about having produce trucks stopped at the border and inspected for safety reasons. He has not done it; he should do it. Finally, the minister has talked about Ottawa's responsibility. He has not held them accountable; he should.
It's time for action. What is his answer? It's time to do it.
Hon. B. Barlee: I think the member should be in the House of Commons, because he is addressing a federal issue again. Stopping the produce at the border is a federal problem. The customs inspectors are a federal problem. We have contacted Mr. Bill McKnight, who, by the way, is not of my political persuasion. He is concerned; he has been concerned.
By the way, it is very interesting that on June 8, in this very House, one of the Liberal members got up and stated that the NAFTA agreement was the most important agreement facing British Columbia in the last
[ Page 3009 ]
century. The NAFTA agreement, unfortunately, does not protect our farmers.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, order.
Minister, would you conclude your reply.
Hon. B. Barlee: Yes, I certainly will.
Quite obviously, I wish that the member would ask me a question that comes under our jurisdiction.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
R. Chisholm: I hate to remind the minister that he is the farmers' representative, and he should talk to Ottawa.
Broken Promise No. 33: "We will actively promote 'Buy B.C.' marketing strategies." My question is to the Premier. Do you recognize this promise? When will we see this program? How long after the growing season will it be implemented?
The Speaker: Hon. member, the Chair notes that that is future policy. I would ask the hon. member if he wants to rephrase his question.
R. Chisholm: The hon. Minister of Agriculture stated that it was...
The Speaker: Just the last part, hon. member.
R. Chisholm: ...policy in the estimates, hon. Speaker.
The Speaker: Quickly, hon. member.
R. Chisholm: How long after the growing season will we implement a Buy B.C. program?
The Speaker: I regret, hon. member, that I can't allow that question, as it is future policy.
C. Serwa: My question too is to the popular Minister of Agriculture. Small wonder that the farmers and growers in the province are furious with this government, and especially with the Minister of Agriculture. A few minutes ago, at the growers' demonstration on the front steps of the Legislature, our Minister of Agriculture couldn't even tell the difference between a head of cabbage and a head of lettuce. [Laughter.]
The Speaker: Order, please. Would the House come to order.
C. Serwa: Hon. Speaker, now that our red-faced Minister of Agriculture has learned what a head of cabbage looks like, will he also remember to keep his word and immediately implement a Buy B.C. program promised last fall?
Hon. B. Barlee: I think perhaps that member was not outside. I did not get a chorus of boos; I got some applause. I think the farmers realize that they have a friend in this House, and indeed I am. I also believe that the farmers of Okanagan West, which is the member's riding, are very pleased to have me there. They cashed something like $7 million worth of cheques, which I think you took some credit for.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order!
Hon. B. Barlee: So I'm cheered. Our farming community is doing quite well. Out of 175 sectors, there are three at peril, but that's all. I think we'll resolve that in good time.
The Speaker: Before I recognize the next questioner, the Chair will remind this House that question period is for 15 minutes. We must listen to the questions and answers in silence if question period is to be effective.
C. Serwa: The minister stayed on agriculture, but it was a lot of baloney.
I'll address my question to the hon. Premier. On January 24, 1990, you spoke to the fruit-growers' convention in Penticton. You pledged to establish an innovative Buy B.C. program, backed up by $2.6 million in government advertising funding. You promised to "immediately move 10 percent of the government's $26million advertising program into the agricultural industry." Will you keep your word? Will money that's in this year's budget be used for this purpose?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I appreciate the question. We have carried out our commitments to the tree-fruit growers, unlike the previous government. As the hon. member was well aware -- as was the previous government -- our deficit was not $400 million as they said before the election and it wasn't $1.2 billion; it was $2.5billion. So the hon. member is well aware of the financial mess that we inherited from the previous government.
I want you to know that we have worked very actively, as the minister has said, with tree-fruit growers in the Okanagan to finally bring some stability to his riding, which the member should have done when he was in government. We have brought some stability and predictability, and we have good relationships with the tree-fruit growers, and we are doing the same thing with the vegetable marketing boards and farmers in the Fraser Valley. Today we did just that: we told the representatives of the growers in the valley that as of today we were going to work with them to get the wholesalers and retailers in this province to open their doors to B.C. farmers and their products. We told them that they were going to help....
The Speaker: Order! Could the Premier conclude his comments, please.
Hon. M. Harcourt: Yes, thank you, hon. Speaker.
[ Page 3010 ]
I'm looking forward to much more help, rather than a hindrance, as we had from the previous government, on this issue of helping our farmers. We're prepared to work with them to prepare a Buy B.C. program that will work -- not just throw more green stuff after the green lettuce that has been plowed into the ground -- and to make sure it actually works.
[2:30]
C. Serwa: Final supplementary, hon. Speaker. I think the Premier understands that a government is measured by its deeds, not its words. As the Premier may know, one Kelowna-based company has developed a little green Buy B.C. sticker that the proprietor wants to see on all made-in-British Columbia products. I'll be happy to table one, and I will do so after, so that the Premier can stick it on his desk. The Social Credit caucus is currently putting these stickers on all outgoing mail. Will the Premier follow our lead and ensure that in future all government and Crown corporation mail will be well marked to encourage British Columbians to buy B.C.?
The Speaker: I regret, hon. member, that that is future government policy. If the hon. member would like to rephrase his question....
G. Farrell-Collins: The people of the Fraser Valley once again know how valuable the word of the Premier is; this time it has to do with lettuce and not gas drilling.
My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Again from the 48-point election platform that was brought forward by this government: "We will actively promote 'Buy B.C.' marketing strategies." When did the minister and the Premier decide that this wasn't going to be a good policy -- before or after the last election?
Hon. B. Barlee: I think we've taken a very systematic and serious look at it. Concerning the head of lettuce or cabbage, I had difficulty identifying it because I wasn't sure if that head of cabbage was a Liberal head or a Socred head. So I had some problems.
Concerning this program, we have a director and two contractors working on it. We've been working on it for six months. We are not going to take a knee-jerk response to it. When we do produce this program, I think even the opposition will be very happy, and I know the farmers will be happy.
G. Farrell-Collins: We know that after the last couple of weeks and the broken promises by this government, there won't be anything but Liberals coming out of the Fraser Valley. They certainly won't be NDP.
The opposition has tabled letters in this House from other provinces -- such as Ontario, which has an NDP government, New Brunswick and Alberta -- where buy-local campaigns, according to them, have been wildly successful. Why won't this minister be honest with the farmers of B.C. and admit that the reason we don't have a buy-B.C. program is that this minister couldn't get the money through Treasury Board if he tried?
Hon. B. Barlee: I believe the member, if he would be kind enough to listen to me, has not really done his research. Ontario spent $10 million to $20 million between 1978 and 1989 -- with a Liberal government, by the way. Their program indicated that at the end, if the vast majority of the public recognized the products, they would be willing to buy them. This was a program that was delivered only by direct advertising, which did not work.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. B. Barlee: According to their research figures, the market share dropped from 33 percent in 1978 to 29 percent in 1987; that is a true market drop of 12 percent. We don't go down that road. We don't waste taxpayers' dollars. When we have a program it will be an effective program.
The Speaker: Final supplemental.
G. Farrell-Collins: If the minister would take the time to read the documents that were tabled in this House pertaining to his own ministry, he might realize that some of the facts he has been stating are not accurate.
The minister has talked a number of times about how wonderful the federal government is. He has been talking to the minister, Bill McKnight, and the wonderful things the minister is going to do. Is he aware of what happened to the last NDP government, the one in Ontario that took Brian Mulroney at his word?
The Speaker: The bell ends question period.
C. Serwa: I request leave to table a document. The document is a sample of Buy B.C. labels: one for yourself, hon. Speaker, and one for each of the ministers.
Leave granted.
R. Chisholm: I beg leave to table a document. The subject of the document is a brief from the province of New Brunswick, which states their program is 100 percent successful.
Leave granted.
PLANTS OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Hon. D. Miller: I rise to make a brief ministerial statement. I am very pleased to bring to the attention of members of this House an excellent new publication called Plants of Northern British Columbia, edited by three Forest Service researchers. Those researchers are
[ Page 3011 ]
Andy MacKinnon, Jim Pojar and Ray Coupe. I should mention that financial assistance for this production was provided by the research and silviculture branches of my ministry, and there was assistance from FRDA, the forest resource development agreement, a joint federal-provincial forestry project.
In addition to the terrific job done by the three editors from the Forest Service, seven authors and 30 photographers worked on the book, which is available through bookstores. The book is amply stocked with lush colour photographs and detailed line drawings. The book covers more than 600 plants growing in the northern two-thirds of this province.
I wanted to bring the members' attention to two common lichen that are growing in northern B.C.: common witches' hair and powdery old man's beard.
Plants of Northern British Columbia is a superb publication and the only one of its kind.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
K. Jones: Point of order. Since when was it possible to use the ministerial statement to do an advertising campaign?
The Speaker: The guidelines for ministerial statements are quite broad. They are to cover the administrative responsibility of the minister. I would ask the minister to keep in mind the comments that have been raised.
Hon. D. Miller: I'm sure the members, when they get an opportunity to read the book, will understand why it's worth talking about and why it's worth informing the members about.
Plants of Northern British Columbia is a superb publication and the only one of its kind. As such, it's a real tribute to the dedicated and talented Forest Service personnel that took part in its production. The book is an easy-to-use field guide that will be an invaluable tool for foresters, wildlife biologists and anyone who enjoys spending time in the great outdoors. I'd like to applaud the staff who produced it, and I recommend it highly.
W. Hurd: I appreciate the advice and the ministerial statement from the minister on a valuable book on silviculture. Since his own budget has suffered such a dramatic cut in those areas, I'm sure that book will be useful to those who might have approached the ministry for direction on silvicultural matters. It's always worthwhile to know that resource material on British Columbia's forest industry is out there. We certainly hope that he'll make that book available through his ministry to schools in the province, which find themselves with a dramatic shortage of textbook materials on British Columbia's most important industry.
J. Weisgerber: I thank the minister for making the House aware of this new publication. I suspect that a book like that takes a little bit of time to write and prepare, and I suspect that if the minister were completely forthright with the House, he would tell us that it was started during the last government and that the commitment for funding also came from the previous government.
Hon. G. Clark: It's obviously the end of June. I call Committee of Supply.
The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Streifel in the chair.
ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER
AND EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OPERATIONS
On vote 6: office of the Premier and executive council operations, $4,376,000.
Hon. G. Clark: I would like to inform the House -- we haven't discussed this -- that there are two votes under the Premier: votes 6 and 7. The custom is, I believe, to canvass both under the office of the Premier. Both staff are here, I understand, so we could do that. If it would help members of the opposition, I could take the liberty, Mr. Chair, to give some guidance in terms of trying to do this in an orderly way, so that we don't trade topics sporadically, but try to do discrete efforts. Obviously that's in your hands, just in terms of guidance to the Chair or to members on that side of the House.
D. Mitchell: With respect to the government House Leader's comments, I don't think it's the intention of the committee to keep the Premier here ad infinitum, but in terms of the order in which we'd like to deal with the two votes, I think we'd like to just see how today goes on that. I note that the Premier has officials here encompassing the responsibilities of both votes. If we could approach it today on a fairly free-form basis and see how much progress we make, we will try to be as orderly as we can. If we commence by asking the Premier to introduce the officials to the committee, that might be an appropriate place to start.
Hon. M. Harcourt: It is certainly a very good suggestion, and I intended to do that in my opening comments to the committee. I have, of course, the Deputy Minister to the Premier, George Ford, who is seated here to my left; JoAnne Oatman, who is our administrative officer of financial operations and is seated behind me here; Wilson Parasiuk, who is the chair of the B.C. Trade Development Corporation and is on my right; and Steve Mostardi, who is the vice-president of marketing for the B.C. Trade Development Corporation.
If I may just give some guidance to members of the committee about the estimates you see before you, the estimates and the amount that you see are similar, although less than the ones for the Premier's office that we looked at in March. The complement in the Premier's office at that time came to 64 people; it is now 70. That is not the addition of new bodies; three people
[ Page 3012 ]
who used to be in various other departments of government were seconded and have been brought fully into the intergovernmental relations office to be part of the ongoing, very intense activities that are taking place right now around the constitution and federal-provincial relations.
The three others are part of an outreach department, which is part of my commitment to the people of British Columbia to have an open, accessible Premier's office and to make sure that the communication channels are open with the Premier and the Premier's office for the people who write, phone or want to meet, members of small business or the larger business community, workers and farmers and those involved with the multicultural community. They have as full and complete access as can possibly be brought about by a Premier's office.
That is the complement of the Premier's office. As I said, those are the only changes since we last looked at the Premier's office estimates in the latter part of March.
On the Trade Development Corporation, we have had some substantial changes of the budget by a $1.6million reduction as part of our efforts to reduce spending and to spend smarter. I think you'll see as we go through that we have been able to tighten up the operations of the Trade Development Corporation as it moves toward its business plan of being as self-sufficient as possible in its activities. It is targeted and disciplined in its export-driven mandate to increase the amount of business our export industries can develop in targeted markets.
[2:45]
That $1.6 million cut has come in general operations and from the B.C. Business Network being eliminated because it was duplicating federal efforts. We thought that would be a good thing for the taxpayers to cut out, as it was the duplication of an excellent federal program. There were other changes brought about to tighten up the budget of the Trade Development Corporation.
The last thing I'll say is that I'm delighted with the new board of directors. I'm sure the other members of the Legislature will agree that the board of directors is certainly much more representative of the province. We have appointed many more very talented and capable women from throughout British Columbia, who bring a great deal of wisdom, experience and success to the Trade Development Corporation board. And there are representatives from the various regions of British Columbia, including one of our aboriginal leaders who was successful in the Burns Lake Native Development Corp., which is a model for how we're going to bring about a successful move towards self-government and self-sufficiency for aboriginal people.
I'm quite prepared to go into the details of both the Premier's office and the Trade Development Corporation. I kept the Trade Development Corporation as the minister responsible because of the importance that I wanted to place on trade, export trade in particular. One out of every three jobs in British Columbia depends on exports.
Those are some of the changes that have been brought about in my estimates and in my ministerial responsibility for the Trade Development Corporation since we last looked at the estimates for 1991-92 in March.
D. Mitchell: I thank the Premier for his opening comments on his estimates for this year.
I think we should start on the Premier's office, because the Premier made a couple of comments in his opening statements that require a little elaboration. He indicated that within his own office the staff contingent is a large one -- and indeed it is. I believe it might be the most expensive budget that we've seen in many years for the administration of a Premier's office. In fact, it might be the most expensive one we've ever seen in the history of government in British Columbia. The Premier has indicated there has been an addition of some staff, and he has offered an explanation, in part, for some of the staff additional to what we saw back in March, when we had the interim supply bill come through the House and the special warrants that we debated at that time.
The Premier has also indicated that some of the new staff are devoted to monitoring issues on the constitution. I'd like to have some clarification on that for the benefit of all members of the committee. From time to time in this House during this session, we have certainly questioned who has the responsibility for the constitutional portfolio in this government. Clearly the Premier has given that portfolio to one of his ministers, who, on a part-time basis, juggles it with perhaps one of the most important portfolios in government, given the party that's in power, which is Labour. But we now have extra staff being hired in the Premier's office to monitor the constitution as well. We require some clarification on that. Who is in charge of the constitution? Why is the Premier's office hiring extra staff, partly for that purpose? Why is there the general increase for administration in the Premier's office in this budget that is presented to this committee today?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The complement in the Premier's office is very similar to that which has existed traditionally over the last many years. I'm somewhat surprised that the member would make a statement like that. There was a 2 percent increase in the Premier's office budget this fiscal year over the last fiscal year. As I explained, that 2 percent is directly related to my commitment to having the Premier's office as open, available and accessible as possible. That amount relates to the outreach department in the Premier's office.
The Premier's office has had the responsibility for intergovernmental relations, so of course that's why there is an expertise in the office in federal-provincial relations, part of which is a resource on the constitution. That staff is working very closely -- so there's no duplication of staff -- with the minister responsible for the constitution, the Minister of Labour and Consumer Affairs. That staff is utilized by the minister on the constitutional reform package that we're trying to put together.
As a first minister, I deal with the other first ministers on a variety of federal-provincial and consti-
[ Page 3013 ]
tutional matters, which don't necessarily involve the constitutional reform package that I have assigned to that minister to deal with.
D. Mitchell: The Premier's comments to the committee here today are quite enlightening. They reveal something about the inner workings of this government. When the Premier was here in March when we debated the special warrants, we had a very interesting debate about the trade portfolio and about the fact that the Premier has responsibility for the B.C. Trade Development Corporation. Yet we also have a Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade, which looks at trade policy. We tried to get an elaboration or an explanation as to where the ball lies. Who is in charge of trade? Is it the Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade or is it the hon. Premier himself? We didn't get a clear answer on that. The Premier said at the time that there was a clear overlap, and that the Premier's office was involved.
Now here we are on the constitutional portfolio -- perhaps the most important one in the province today and in our country -- and we find out that the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs certainly has some responsibilities in this area, but the Premier is also monitoring things, has some responsibility for intergovernmental relations and, in fact, is hiring a staff complement within his ministry. They are not necessarily working in tandem with the Minister of Constitutional Affairs; they are monitoring things on their own, because as a first minister, of course, the Premier has relationships with other first ministers.
I think what we're getting in this committee is a glimpse of how the government is operating. In the Premier's office we're developing a bureaucracy that is monitoring the other bureaucracies within the government. There is the possibility for overlap. But I wonder if this is a question of control. What is really happening here?
The Premier has indicated that it's only a 2 percent increase, but still, with that increase, I think we have one of the largest Premier's offices -- I think it's the largest one in terms of administration -- in the history of government in the province of British Columbia. When it comes to the constitutional portfolio, I'm still not really clear about who is in charge.
Maybe one way of asking this question might be to ask the Premier, in terms of the minister whom he has assigned to the constitutional portfolio, if he would be willing to admit that the minister has too much on his plate. Is that why the Premier is now intervening by hiring extra staff to help bird-dog these issues?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm not sure if the member heard me the first time. Hopefully he'll listen and hear me clearly this time. I said there were no new people added to the Premier's office to deal with the constitution. These were people who had been traditionally seconded under the previous administration and this administration from other departments: a couple from the Attorney General, one from Multiculturalism and one from another department of government. Instead of them being seconded and shown in those ministries, they are now working, as they have been all along, in the intergovernmental relations branch of my ministry. There have been no new people added whatsoever, and I hope that's now clear to the member.
D. Mitchell: I still have some concerns about the organizational model that the hon. Premier might be using as the leader of the government. The organizational model doesn't seem to be very clear. It would be interesting to look at the organization chart that the Premier might use. I'm not sure how enlightening that would be, because it might go in a lot of different directions.
In terms of the degree of centralization within the Premier's office, I'm intrigued to know a little more about how this works. We're here to approve the budget for the hon. Premier, so I hope you'll bear with me for one more question on this. Let's use the example of the constitution, since the Premier introduced this by indicating that some of the staff within the Premier's office are monitoring intergovernmental relations issues.
We have, within the Premier's government, a minister assigned the constitutional portfolio. That minister has the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services, which is a huge portfolio in the province, especially given the labour chaos we are facing right now, in large part a result of the overexpectations associated with the coming to power of this government and promises made to its labour allies. Would the Premier be willing to agree at this point that it makes no sense to have one minister responsible for the constitutional portfolio -- saving the country, in effect, a very important portfolio -- and at the same time to be responsible for Labour and Consumer Affairs? Would that be one reason why the Premier is taking what he has described to the committee as a role in monitoring intergovernmental relations?
The Premier has indicated that he is playing a role, and I'd like to learn some more about that as well. In the current round of constitutional discussions up until this point, the Premier has been very noticeably absent from any of the discussions. Certainly the other first ministers -- whether the first minister from Alberta, the Premier of Saskatchewan, the Premier of Ontario, the Premier of Quebec, the Premier of Prince Edward Island or the Premier of Newfoundland, to name just a few -- have been very noticeable in the discussions on the constitution. But the Premier of British Columbia has been noticeably absent -- conspicuously so. I wonder if the Premier could explain why that would be, and whether there is change on the horizon during the period covered by this budget that we're being asked to approve. Is the Premier contemplating any changes as a result of the apparent inherent conflict in the organization of his government?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm sure the hon. House Leader is aware that the vast majority of first ministers have not been participating on a day-to-day basis with the constitutional dialogue that's taking place in this country. I think by and large we have made great
[ Page 3014 ]
advances in the last little while. Certainly Premier Bourassa has not been participating at the meetings, nor has his minister of intergovernmental affairs. Most of the other Premiers have not been either.
I have been talking with the other first ministers and the Prime Minister. I've made it very clear from the beginning that we in British Columbia feel very positive about the need for a constitutional reform package. We have been very clear about where we think that package should be. I think over the last many months we've made great progress. I would urge the first ministers to have their constitutional ministers continue the dialogue. We have made great progress. There is a bit of a snag right now on a few issues, but I think that we should get back to the table. We should urge our constitutional ministers to do that. I hope in the near future to be able to say that to the other first ministers face to face.
I want to reiterate, though, that the intergovernmental relations office has existed in the Premier's office for a significant length of time. There is no change at all, except that instead of having two or three of the intergovernmental relations staff being seconded from another ministry, we decided to bring them into the Premier's estimates and into the Premier's ministry. It's not a question of monitoring what other ministries are doing. It is to relate to the other provincial governments, as I do at the western Premiers' meetings that have taken place, which I chaired recently, as I do as the chair of the Premiers' conference which will be taking place in Prince Edward Island in the next couple of months.
We have an intense series of relationships with the federal government that require some resources. The resources of the province are very frugal. If you were to compare the staff and resources of our intergovernmental relations office with what is available in other major governments.... I can tell you that in Quebec there are 79 people at a cost of $8 million. In Ontario there are 80; the cost is $7.5 million. In Alberta 72, at a cost of $9.2million. In British Columbia there are 17 at a cost of $0.7 million. I think that the people of British Columbia are well served by the very talented people who have been of great assistance to me in my role as first minister and have been a very great resource on the constitutional reform package to our minister, who has played an essential role in the dialogue that has taken place in the last five months.
[3:00]
M. Lord: I ask leave of the committee to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
M. Lord: It's my pleasure this afternoon to introduce to the House a group of 55 grades 5 and 6 students from Royston Elementary School in my riding. This group of students followed the provincial election very closely last fall, and they have been studying government. This trip to the Legislature is part of that. Accompanying the group is their teacher, Mr. Keith Kroeker, as well as a number of helping adults: Mr. Valen, Ms. Hodge, Ms. Craven and Ms. Wheatley. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.
D. Mitchell: We've been discussing aspects of the administration of the Premier's office and the organization of the government, and have been using the constitution as an example. The Premier has cited some interesting statistics of other jurisdictions and staffing complements. I hope that's no reflection on the fact that British Columbia hasn't played a more prominent role in national affairs or, in particular, on the constitutional front in recent years -- and whether or not the Premier is trying to reveal the reasons there in quoting those statistics in terms of bodies.
The Premier makes an interesting point about the intergovernmental relations portfolio always being present in the Premier's office in recent years, and certainly that was true in the previous administration. The reason I raise this as an issue, though, is partly in response to the Premier's opening comments. Also, in the period preceding the last election when the hon. Premier was the Leader of the Opposition -- and, indeed, during the election campaign itself -- the Premier indicated that if elected he as first minister would maintain responsibility for the constitutional portfolio.
After the election it became apparent that that was not to be the case, and he maintained responsibility instead for the B.C. Trade Development Corporation. We certainly don't begrudge him that, because trade is very important to British Columbia, and for the Premier to take the leadership role on that is a very significant act. But he didn't follow through as he had indicated and assume responsibility on the constitutional front.
There has been some speculation in the general community and in the political community as to why that might be. Some of the speculation centres on the fact that perhaps the Premier is being very prudent -- perhaps overly prudent and cautious -- and that if someone is going to stumble on this it shouldn't be the Premier but perhaps should be one of his ministers. That would be difficult, if the minister who has that portfolio right now is simply being set up to fail, and the Premier would come in later on to save the day. I hope that would not be the case, but I would like to ask the Premier again on this issue about the organization of his government. It's confusing to the general public observing that we have a minister responsible for constitutional affairs who, on a part-time basis, is trying to help save the country. I think he's a competent minister, but how can anyone handle that portfolio and at the same time serve as Minister of Labour and Consumer Services?
I would ask the Premier whether or not he would agree that organizationally and functionally this simply cannot work, and whether or not, during the period covered by this budget that we're being asked to approve in this committee today, the Premier is now going to recognize that and take a look at the serious organizational problems within the government that centre as well on the administration within his own office.
[ Page 3015 ]
Hon. M. Harcourt: We're following a very curious line of questioning. First of all, the opposition House Leader said that the office is too large for the Premier's office, and I made it very clear that it was a similar size to what it has been in previous administrations. Then he said that the department of intergovernmental relations inside the Premier's office is too small. I think that that's probably what's confusing to the people in British Columbia -- which approach he's going to be taking in his line of questioning, and whether he's trying both out right now to see which one he's going to be most comfortable with.
I can say he is suggesting that as well as being Premier, I should also take on the responsibility of attending all of these meetings that have gone all across the country. Then, of course, he would probably say that I was travelling too much outside of the province. But I suppose that's what oppositions are for -- to find whatever there is to criticize. I think, though, that the people of British Columbia want me to be Premier and to concentrate on the first-minister responsibilities that I have. I think that I am adequately staffed with the skilled people required to carry out that role.
In regard to trade and trade policy, we are very well served by our Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Small Business, who of course has been developing our policy on NAFTA, which we think is not going to be good for British Columbia. We don't like the theory that it's based on, which is the branch-plant, hub-and-spoke theory of trade. He has made it very clear that the position of this government is that we want to trade with our friends in the hemisphere in a more open, democratic and egalitarian way. So the minister has been developing very clear trade policies, economic development policies and small business strategies.
My role is with the Trade Development Corporation. I'm sure the member has had the opportunity to read the material on the corporation, the annual report, and if not, I'd be more than glad to send him a copy. The corporation has a very explicit role, which is to be driven by exports of British Columbia products and services. It is there as a corporation to help British Columbia diversify its exports, not just in the value-added natural resource area that we need to move into, but in the high-tech, knowledge-based industries. So its role, as part of that trade strategy, is to expand our exports.
The member asked why the Minister of Labour also has part of the intergovernmental and constitutional responsibilities, which is to help do the background work for first ministers to get together on the constitutional reform package. The answer is very simple. As Premier I have a wide range of responsibilities, part of which did not allow me the time to travel over the last five months, as the minister has had to do, to Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal, Halifax and St. John's, and to carry out the daily detailed discussions, for two or three days at a time, that have taken place. It would be impossible for me, starting up a new government in the first six months as we have done, and travelling to our major investor and market areas to let people know that we're open for business and we welcome their business, to also have carried on those detailed constitutional discussions for a reform package.
It was a judgment call on my part that my responsibilities were in those areas that a Premier should be concentrating on in the first six months to a year of a new government. The Labour minister has performed extremely well and ably in keeping all the doors open across this country. He is respected, has the confidence of constitutional ministers and others in every province, and has played a very positive and constructive role in helping us to move toward, hopefully, a successful and modest constitutional package which can be approved this year.
In terms of the Labour responsibilities, he has set up a labour panel which is going to create, hopefully, a new approach to labour-management relations, not just in terms of bringing in a new, fair and level playing-field code, but in a series of other areas which we hope business, labour and others will be able to be involved in, some of which came out of the summit that I hosted recently at Pearson College. We had 90 business, labour, academic and government leaders come together to talk with each other and to fit a new labour code into a more collaborative team approach in British Columbia.
I think the Minister of Labour responsible for Constitutional Affairs has performed his role as Labour and Consumer Services minister very ably and has been very ably representing the aspirations of British Columbia as expressed to the legislative committee. There was an all-party committee that came back with what British Columbians wanted to see in the changed constitution. He has represented those British Columbian views very ably at the constitutional discussions that have taken place in the last four or five months.
J. Weisgerber: Given the length of the questions and the answers, it looks like we may be here for a while. In any event, I'll try and make mine a little more concise and hope that the answers will follow.
I want to start by commending the Premier on the fast action coming out of the conference that he chaired at Pearson College. We know that the conference took place last Thursday and Friday, and for the government to have already implemented some of the decisions that flowed from that conference by this Wednesday is truly amazing. As a matter of fact, it stretches credibility a bit to believe that some broad-ranging discussions took place in the latter part of one week, and we come back here in the first part of the next week and find that it's part of government policy and has already been implemented. I suggest that either it was part of the policy beforehand, or the Premier is using a bit of exaggeration to make his point.
In any event, I wanted to ask a question before we got off the question of staffing in the Premier's office. The Premier indicated that he has three people in intergovernmental affairs, and there are a total of 17 people working on those projects. Simple mathematics would suggest that that would mean three in his office and 14 in the office of the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. If that's correct, and if they are the only people involved in the process, can he tell us
[ Page 3016 ]
whether people like Jack MacDonald are associated with the Premier's staff or the minister's staff?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The staff in the intergovernmental relations office include people like Jack MacDonald. They are offering very wise advice, and not just to myself, as the minister who has the intergovernmental relations office under this jurisdiction. The point I was making is that three of the people in the department that Mr. MacDonald is the ADM for were seconded from other departments. Rather than have them found as FTEs or as staff in those other departments -- for example, two are from the Attorney General's department -- they were working out of the Premier's office. We just said that those three people should more accurately be described as full-time staff in the intergovernmental relations office under Jack MacDonald.
J. Weisgerber: Just so I understand, can the Premier advise us how many people in his office are working in intergovernmental relations and how many people in the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services offices are working on intergovernmental or constitutional issues?
Hon. M. Harcourt: There are 17 in the intergovernmental relations office in the Premier's offices.
J. Weisgerber: So when the Premier said that there were 17 people and a budget of $0.7 million, he was talking about his own staff, and those numbers didn't include the people working for the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. There is another group of people -- however large -- working in another ministry. Is that the fact?
Hon. M. Harcourt: As I understand it, and this was probably canvassed when the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs was before you with his estimates.... My recollection is that he has two people who are working with him temporarily on this constitutional package that we're hoping to have approved as a reform package.
J. Weisgerber: If my sense of it is correct then, there are 19 people in the British Columbia contingent who are dealing with constitutional changes. I'm curious. If that's the number -- and we seem to be having a little trouble getting that straight -- how many in the previous government worked on the Meech Lake accord and other constitutional changes that probably were at least as time-consuming as the events unfolding now?
[3:15]
Hon. M. Harcourt: Mr. Chair, I want to make it clear. I didn't say they are all working on the constitution. I think I made it clear to the opposition House Leader that they are working on a variety of matters. They're working on relationships with the other provinces. They are working with some of our international activities. They are involved in our federal-provincial relations. They are not working solely on the constitution -- and I would hope not.
Hopefully, the sooner we can get away from putting our energy into the constitution, the more we can put into cleaning up our finances, getting in the black and getting our house in order, the more we can put our time into working with B.C. business to create new enterprise and new jobs, the better. So they are not all working on the constitution; that is some of their activity.
J. Weisgerber: Well, I'm only trying to clarify the Premier's comments. The Premier read off to us the number of people who worked in the Ontario contingent and how much they cost; and the number of people who worked in the Quebec contingent -- not the Quebec contingent, but the other provincial contingents. We heard how many people they had, how many hundreds of millions of dollars they were spending; and the Premier proudly said that the British Columbia contingent was only 17 people, and they cost only $0.7 million. Now we find out there are 19 people, but they aren't really all working on that job. Quite honestly, I'm only trying to determine how many people are working on the constitutional issue now and how that compares with the previous administration? It seems fairly simple and straightforward.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I was under the impression that I had sent both of the House Leaders a copy of the organizational chart, dated May 29, of the Premier's executive council operations. If you have lost it or didn't receive it, I'll certainly make sure that you receive a copy of that again. But to be exact on how many people are working on the constitution, there are five from the intergovernmental relations department working on constitutional matters, and there are two working with the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the constitutional discussions that are taking place today.
J. Weisgerber: Well then, what we have is the situation where other provinces -- I assume that the numbers the Premier gave us earlier are correct -- have 70 or 80 people in their contingents working on constitutional change, and not 17 people but five are working on behalf of British Columbia. I also assume that the $0.7 million is probably too large a figure, given the fact that there are only five rather than 17 working there.
It would appear that if we're ever going to get a definitive answer, we're going to go a long time here. I'll be willing to listen and hear the answer. I would also, at the same time, like to ask the Premier, with regard to the three outreach workers he referred to.... I understood him to say that the reason for the addition of these people to his staff was to make the Premier's office more accessible to British Columbians. That's something that everyone strives for, I would expect. Quite honestly, I can't imagine an office that was any more accessible over the last five years than the Premier's office. I would be curious to know what these three people are doing in his office that wasn't already being
[ Page 3017 ]
done in the Premier's office prior to his election as Premier.
Hon. M. Harcourt: Just to correct a misapprehension that the leader of the third party may have been under, I did not say that there were 17 people working on the constitution in the intergovernmental relations department of my office; I said there were five. There are two others working in the office of the Minister of Labour and Constitutional Affairs. There are five out of 17. I also gave the numbers for Alberta, Ontario and Quebec for the intergovernmental relations offices, which include some that are working on the constitution. I hope that clears it up for the member.
J. Weisgerber: I'm not sure about the pause. The Premier seemed to be standing there expecting some response from me. I was only hoping that he would continue and answer the rest of the question related to his so-called outreach staff.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I just want to be sure that that answers the issue around the intergovernmental relations offices, and how many are in the other provinces and how many are working on the constitution here in British Columbia -- that is, the total. I just want to make sure that the member is clear on that; then I would be more than pleased to answer the question on the outreach department.
J. Weisgerber: Well, I'll take the Premier at his word; I always do. I was left with the impression in the introduction by the Premier that he gave us a comparison of the number of people working on the constitution in each of the provinces. If that is incorrect and he is telling us how many members there are in each of the intergovernmental relations offices, I suppose that is interesting. But it's certainly not nearly as important to the issue at hand as if he had given us the number of representatives working on the constitutional issue in each of the provinces, because we seem to be comparing different numbers.
I'm not certain how significant that is, but you've given me the clarification. We now know how many staff each of the intergovernmental ministries have. Perhaps I could just finish, then, by asking the Premier if he is aware of how many people the provinces that he mentioned earlier have working on the constitution, recognizing now that the government of British Columbia has five?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I don't have those figures. I can tell you that we feel that we're well served by the five-person team lead by Jack MacDonald of our intergovernmental relations office. I'm sure the leader of the third party would agree that Mr. MacDonald and his staff are recognized among the best in the country. The minister also has, as I said, two people who are constitutional experts working with him, and I believe they are serving British Columbia well. It's seven in British Columbia. I can speak for British Columbia. I can give you the raw figures for the other intergovernmental relations offices and compare them to British Columbia, and you can see that ours is a far more modest and frugal operation. I think that's the way British Columbians would like to see it.
On the question of the outreach office and how it differed from the previous governments' Premier's office, I'm sure the leader of the third party has far more knowledge about the way the Premier's office operated in the previous governments. He may have tried to blank his memory of some of those days. But I don't have inside information. I wasn't in the cabinet meetings. I didn't talk to the Premiers in previous administrations about their office. The numbers are roughly similar. There are 67 people from the previous estimates, three of whom were added to the 64 who were there before in the Premier's estimates in the previous administration. We added three people to meet my commitment to have a far more open and accessible Premier's office.
I've outlined the number of interest groups and specialty citizen requirements that they have when they call the Premier's office. Sometimes people want to start with the Premier's office. If they have a specific question on the environment or on aboriginal issues or on agriculture, we very quickly make sure that they get through to the key people they need to talk to in the other ministries.
J. Weisgerber: I don't blank anything out of my memory, nor do I practise selective memory. It seems to me that the Premier comes here, lays out a bunch of comparisons, which, on the first or second question, turn out to be inaccurate, and then, when asked for specifics, the Premier says: "Well, I don't know. I don't know how the Premier's office worked before." Surely to goodness, when you took over the Premier's office, there was a staff there. You knew how many of them there were. I assume you found out what their jobs were and what they did. What I'm curious to know is what these three are doing that the existing staff weren't doing.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I think I made it clear that there were 67 people in the previous Premier's office. Approximately half of those were there to serve the cabinet operations: cabinet committees, meetings of cabinet, some of the policy work that was done for cabinet committees and for cabinet, including the intergovernmental affairs department.
In the other division of the Premier's office, a significant portion of those 33 people are there to answer correspondence -- there are thousands of pieces of correspondence -- to answer phone calls and to arrange my schedule. I would think probably around 20 of those would be involved in just that: answering correspondence and dealing with my schedule and with people who wanted to see me about attending a banquet, or going to a Prince Rupert sea festival -- those sorts of very important and very interesting functions that a Premier in his ceremonial, social and political role plays. The functions of the Premier's office are very similar to the previous Premier's office, but we felt that there wasn't enough focus on reaching out to people. It was more reactive. It was more passive,
[ Page 3018 ]
instead of actively searching out people's opinions and making sure they knew what was in the government of British Columbia. We decided we needed an outreach department to maintain regular contact with business leaders, trade union leaders, community groups, the multicultural community and other communities. That was a decision I made after looking at the organization of the Premier's office, because that resource was missing.
J. Weisgerber: That was clearly what I wanted to know. As I understand it, these three individuals undertake, on the initiative of your office, to call people and make them aware of the events that the Premier is involved in and perhaps arrange for him to attend functions. That would seem like a legitimate kind of exercise for a member of his staff.
When he raises that point, it raises again the question, in my mind at least, of his decision to replace the person who looks after the Premier's appointments. It's been reported in the Gordon Hanson affair that in fact Mr. Hanson's wife is now the person doing the work that Theresa Hudson did previously in the Premier's office. Also reported was a substantial increase in the salary paid to Gloria Williams as opposed to that paid to Theresa Hudson. I wonder if the Premier could indicate to us what significant qualifications the new secretary has that would warrant the $2,000 a month bump in salary in that particular position.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I think the person that you were speaking about was an order-in-council appointment who left at the beginning of November. Therefore there was a need for somebody to play an important role in the Premier's office and to be -- I guess the word is "gatekeeper" -- the person that deals with the hundreds and hundreds of requests that the Premier's office gets for attending occasions throughout this province. Gloria Williams has a great deal of experience and skill in dealing with people, has been involved in dealing with protocol and has good communication skills. She's performing very ably in that role.
[3:30]
J. Weisgerber: I will just wind up this series of questions. Given that the previous person seemed to have those qualities as well, and that I had the opportunity over the three or four years that I was involved in cabinet and government to work with the previous employee, I'm wondering if the Premier is suggesting that the previous employee was underpaid. He seems to have no rationale for the difference in pay or for the added salary, which is significant.
I think any British Columbian would think that a $2,000 increase a month in a position was something more than the normal cost of living bump that comes along every once in a while. I'm wondering, then, if it was that the previous lady was so badly treated by the former government.
Hon. M. Harcourt: As the leader of the third party noticed, the previous employee was in a similar position but quite different role from the department that we put Gloria Williams in charge of -- and she was able in that role. For that same reason, because I had the confidence, had worked a number of years with Gloria Williams and saw her skills in the areas I described earlier, it was my decision to choose her to head up a much more substantial -- not in terms of numbers, because there are four people in her department, but in the volume of activity that she would be expected to be involved in -- function in the Premier's office.
L. Stephens: I have a few questions to ask on the B.C. Trade Development Corporation, but first of all I would like to say how much I enjoyed the Premier's summit on trade and economic development on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of last week. I thank you for the invitation. I would also like to comment on the superb organization that Mr. Parasiuk afforded all of us who attended. It certainly made it an enjoyable summit.
In your opening remarks, Mr. Premier, you mentioned that there was a $1.6 million reduction in the budget. I would like to know what portion of that pertains to trade, the Trade Development Corporation. You also mentioned that the.... I'm not sure if you meant the Premier's office or the Trade Development Corporation would be working smarter and would be as self-sufficient as possible. I wonder if you could elaborate on the self-sufficiency. Is the Trade Development Corporation contemplating charging fees for service or some type of remuneration for services rendered? What did you mean when you were discussing self-sufficiency?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I was delighted to have the member for Langley at the summit, along with the member for Peace River North. I think all who attended found it a very useful experience. I hope that we can have more opportunities for the leadership in British Columbia to get together in tranquil surroundings to look at the province as a whole, rather than from our partisan or interest-group perspectives.
In regard to your question on the budget cuts and on fees being charged, yes, there were cuts. As I mentioned, $1.06 million was cut from the B.C. Business Network because it was duplicating an existing, capable federal program that was available across the country. As in our constitutional negotiations, we want to cut out duplication of government, to cut out extra expenditure of tax money. So that decision was taken.
This is in the net reductions, because we had some changes and increases in a couple of areas. Approximately $820,000 of the corporation's operating expenses were reduced through efficiencies and voluntary expense cuts. I can get you the details if you want further information. As well, in the export loan guarantee program, $750,000 in funding for the reserve fund was eliminated because it was felt that the $3 million reserve that was there for the approximately $29 million in outstanding loan guarantees was sufficient, given the success of the program. Of about 55 loans that had been made, only one has been called. That was about $294,000, some of which we'll recover through negotiations with the banks and others. The program was
[ Page 3019 ]
working exceptionally well, so we didn't think we needed to add to the reserves; there were sufficient reserves there to cover the outstanding loans. A couple of others aren't in danger, but we're watching them closely. The rest of the loan guarantees have worked extremely well.
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps we can shift direction just a little bit, but still dealing within the executive council and the responsibilities of the Premier. No doubt the Premier has become aware once again of a letter that he wrote on July 5, 1991, to residents in the Fraser Valley with regard to the natural gas drilling issue. I'm wondering if the Premier can advise this House what process took place between then and now that convinced the Premier and his cabinet to change their collective, or his individual, mind on this issue.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm not sure of the letter being spoken about. Is the member speaking about a letter that I wrote as the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the drilling and storage of gas in the Fraser Valley, and that we needed to have a moratorium until the concerns of the citizens were dealt with?
I think the member is aware that test drilling did take place in Delta. The citizens in Delta were actively involved in the lead-up to the drilling. The review of the impact and the aftermath, and the recommendations of the Anderson commission -- I think there were 59 or 60 different recommendations -- have been actively pursued by the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. A significant number of those recommendations have been incorporated into the ministry's activities and plans. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is the appropriate minister to put that question to. I'm sure that the member has been asking questions, through question period and through the estimates of the minister, on the issue of drilling and gas storage.
We have made it very clear as a government that the question of gas storage is one to which we say no. That is a very strongly held position of the people in the valley, who are concerned about it being turned into a gas storage area. On the question of drilling, the member will recall that the minister has made it clear that a public participation process will take place. The public in the affected areas in the Fraser Valley will be involved before drilling goes ahead.
G. Farrell-Collins: The reason for bringing this issue up in the Premier's estimates, of course, is that it was a promise made by the gentleman who now sits in the Premier's office of this province. That's why the question is going to him directly and not to the minister. The minister didn't write the letter; the Premier did.
One of the lines of the letter says, and I'm quoting the Premier now: "I also want David Anderson's 59 recommendations brought back to the Fraser Valley residents for full public consultation so that all the questions can be answered about the environmental and the economic impact of drilling and storage." As I said earlier, I'm wondering what specifically caused the Premier to decide not to do that. Just now in his statement he made reference to consultation with the people in Langley. According to what the minister had said.... The information put forward by the minister in the package given out to us last Friday clearly states that the drilling consortium will select members for this council; that in fact, the energy consortium themselves, not the residents of the community, will develop this consultation process.
I have another letter by a gentlemen -- a very well-respected gentleman, I think -- of the community, Charles Bradford, who was an NDP candidate that I ran against. He, of course, was also involved in this issue and spoke very strongly for it, and he gained a lot of credit in the community for that. It deals with a comment the Premier just made with regard to storage: that this government stands firm that there won't be any storage in the Fraser Valley. I'd like to read this letter to the Premier at this time and let him know how he sees the position that he and his government have taken after the election, as opposed to that of the former administration before the election:
"It should be reassuring to read the provincial cabinet has decided not to approve 'storage' of natural gas beneath Fraser Valley farms and residences." This is February 13, 1991. "But when one combines the conclusion in the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Fraser Valley Petroleum Exploration that it is 'premature' to evaluate underground storage until there is additional exploration of the Fraser Valley geology, with the referral of the subject of 'exploratory drilling' by provincial cabinet back to the Energy ministry for further study, one gets the definite impression that valley farmers and residents are right back where they started.
"There will simply be a cooling-off period, followed by the approval of exploratory drilling based on the conclusion in the report that the risks of exploratory drilling are slight, while energy security, economic and environmental benefits may be considerable. In the event that suitable geologic structures for the underground storage of natural gas are documented during this exploratory drilling, we will undoubtedly be met with renewed threats of greatly increased costs of natural gas to lower mainland users, followed by the speedy approval of underground storage by provincial cabinet to rescue these beleaguered users.
"Do not be fooled. It is vitally important to stop this Fraser Valley petroleum exploration project dead in its tracks. After all, once the fox is in the barnyard, it becomes that much harder to keep it out of the chicken coop."
"Charles Bradford
"Fort Langley-Aldergrove New Democrats"
I wonder if the minister can enlighten for me any difference between the position that is illustrated by a candidate that ran for him in the last election and the position his government has taken now.
Hon. M. Harcourt: As I said, that is a matter that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources announced. There will be a chance for public hearings in the Fraser Valley. I'm sure that those kinds of questions are the ones that the residents in the Fraser Valley will have an opportunity to have answered.
[ Page 3020 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps the Premier could inform me and the people of the Fraser Valley what form those public consultations will take.
Hon. G. Clark: Point of order. Of course, all of us are intrigued by the thoughts of the member for Langley on the subject. I think it is very clear that this is not within the administrative responsibility of the Premier of British Columbia. There is ample opportunity to ask those questions. The member has asked questions in question period; that's the appropriate forum; but certainly not in the estimates of the Premier of British Columbia.
[3:45]
The Chair: Your point of order is well taken. I would caution the hon. member that the Premier has answered. This comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, if he would bear that in mind during the investigation of the Premier's estimates.
G. Farrell-Collins: The hon. Premier has clearly taken the lead in this issue. He is the one who forwarded these letters to the community. He is the one who has come into the community to discuss it. I think it is well within his jurisdiction, if he is taking the lead on the issue, for us to be discussing it at this point.
The Chair: Order, hon. member. Cautions from the Chair are not debatable. Please keep your examination of the Premier's estimates under his jurisdiction.
J. Weisgerber: Point of order. Clearly we are starting off on the Premier's estimates, and we are starting off in a positive kind of way. But let's understand, the Premier's office and the Premier himself are responsible for the activities of government. If we are only going to debate the expenditures under the Premier's office, then they are going to take a very short time. It has been the tradition of this Legislature to allow wide-ranging debates on the Premier's estimates, and I would encourage the Chair to consider the precedent in this House.
Hon. G. Clark: Everybody in British Columbia knows that when that member was a member of the previous administration, it was true that the Premier ran everything and members of cabinet were merely puppets. Obviously that is not the tradition in this House; that is not the tradition in parliamentary democracy. It is quite clear that the rules of the House are that the Premier is responsible for certain administrative matters.
I might also say, if I could, that the member referred to letters written by the Leader of the Opposition that are clearly totally out of order when it comes to questions governing the office of the Premier. That has no bearing in those questions. Members have ample opportunity to question members of the executive council on these questions. It's quite clear that there is no intention on the part of the government to constrain the debate on the wide variety of subjects that the Premier can discuss. I simply raise for a point of order the fact that detailed questions around gas drilling in Langley are clearly not the purview of the Premier.
J. Weisgerber: The minister of defence rushes in too quickly, first of all. There still is no need to defend the Premier. There may be before the day is over. We have the Premier-in-waiting referring to former ministers being puppets. Yesterday we saw the government howling in protest over someone being called a lap dog. If I had my druthers, I'm not quite certain whether I would be a puppet or a lap dog. I think the minister of defence protests far too much.
The Chair: Before we continue, I would just offer that although the points of order are well-spoken and well-intentioned, we are examining the office of the Premier. A certain amount of latitude has been recognized in the past. I would just offer that we bear in mind that we are examining the estimates of the Premier. Keep the questions within the jurisdiction of the Premier. Clearly, a letter written by a candidate before the election was called is not under the jurisdiction of the Premier.
G. Farrell-Collins: I certainly believe, and I'm sure that most members of the House and the public would agree, that a letter written by the Premier is within the jurisdiction of the Premier's estimates. That's why I brought it up. The question with regard to the gentleman who was a candidate for the New Democrats, in a letter that he wrote, was merely to ask the Premier for his feelings as Premier. Perhaps he could shed some light on the change in the decision that he took as Premier of this province. I certainly don't think that any of those questions are out of order. His correspondence is well within the jurisdiction of the Premier's office.
I guess I should ask the question again, because I didn't get an answer to it last time. The Premier mentioned a couple of things. He made a statement in the media yesterday or the day before, I believe, with regard to this issue. He was explaining this letter to the media -- to this House through the media, I assume, and to the people that he wrote it to. He mentioned something about the underground storage tanks that may or may not be going in in the Fraser Valley. According to his government, they wouldn't be. Perhaps he could advise this House what procedures he as the Premier would take to ensure that the gist of this letter and the promise that he made to the people in the valley would be followed if ever an application came forward for underground storage tanks. For that matter, what are those tanks?
The Chair: Does vote 6 pass?
The hon. member for Richmond-Steveston.
A. Warnke: It is a pleasure to address questions to the Premier in these estimates concerning the Premier's office. I want to follow a line of thought introduced earlier by my colleague from West Vancouver-Garibaldi. I think it is most appropriate that we follow
[ Page 3021 ]
some of the discussions that the member and the Premier had concerning the organization of the office of the Premier with regard to the constitutional discussions. As everyone knows, and the Premier has mentioned several times, we are at a position in our country where the constitutional discussions are very critical.
I would suggest that what I will not pursue here.... I do feel compelled to make this statement, because there might be people either watching or who will read Hansard, who will ask why the opposition didn't ask certain questions with regard to specific policy proposals of the Premier while the Premier's estimates were up. Indeed, it is a fine opportunity to do that, but I think, as the Premier and others, as a matter of fact, have mentioned, these are sensitive times with regard to the constitution, and perhaps at this particular moment, this particular day, it is inappropriate to get into any detailed discourse, debate or whatever concerning the constitution and British Columbia's position on those very sensitive matters.
That's not what I'm going to pursue here today. Nonetheless, the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi was quite correct in raising some of these questions as to the administration of the Premier's office and its relationship, of course, with the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs. There were a couple of answers coming from the Premier on which I think I would like to seek further clarification, because it is not exactly clear where British Columbia's position is coming from. This is based on the answers given by the Premier earlier in the day.
Let me put it to you this way. The Premier, in the last analysis, advocates a position on behalf of British Columbia. Of course, the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs, up to this time, has put forward a position, and we do not have to worry about this -- whether it's debatable or not -- because only last week the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs put forward, I suppose, a trial balloon. Nonetheless, the minister clearly advocated in this House that perhaps a very solid position for the government to take is something called the House of the Provinces. Therefore, when the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs advocates something like the concept introduced by that minister last week, I wonder whether the Premier could, perhaps through a series of questions.... Is the minister advocating a particular position on behalf of the government? Might it be construed as advocating a position on behalf of the government of British Columbia? Is this a trial balloon? Further on that, I wonder if, therefore, the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs is the Premier's adviser on constitutional affairs, or is the Premier at the same time soliciting advice on constitutional affairs from his own staff, and how does the Premier balance those two?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I think the Minister of Labour and Consumer Affairs and responsible for this round of constitutional change.... His estimates were up last week, and I think there was fairly extensive discussion at that time about his attempts, on behalf of British Columbians, to break the logjam. What he's trying to do is say: "Listen, we've made great progress, but we've still got a long way to go to close the deal" -- if I can put it in those kinds of terms. The minister was attempting to break a very serious logjam around the question of institutional reform of the Senate. The Premier of Saskatchewan put forward a proposal.... The assembly of the provinces is an old British Columbia idea. It has been put forward for at least two decades that I'm aware of, through a variety of administrations. We're searching for a way of breaking out of the logjam on two or three key issues. It was in that spirit that that proposal was put forward. It's within what British Columbians are saying: "We want a constitutional package, we want to have a say on that in a referendum and we want to move on." As I have said -- and I don't say this in a light-hearted way at all -- I don't want us to fiddle with the constitution while the economy is burning and while we have hundreds of thousands of people unemployed in this country. I want us to put our energy towards the creation of wealth, in an ecologically viable way. So we want to get on with that. We want to get on with the fiscal challenge that we face in Canada and with the very tough global competition that we talked about at the summit that we held last week. It was in that spirit that British Columbians had a range of areas wherein I think there is great consensus -- Senate reform is one of them. I hope that the minister has played a helpful role in trying to break that logjam on the issue of Senate reform. That's why that proposal was put forward.
G. Farrell-Collins: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
G. Farrell-Collins: I just noticed in the gallery a friend, an NDP supporter -- perhaps past, I haven't talked to him recently. He is also a professor at Simon Fraser University whom I had the pleasure to study under. I'm not surprised to see him in the gallery, because I certainly know of his interest in politics. But I bet he's surprised to see me here on the floor. I would like the House to make Chris Harris welcome.
A. Warnke: I posed a number of questions. But I still have one, in order to comprehend the nature of the Premier's office and its relationship to other offices, including the Ministry.... The Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs acts as the Premier's adviser. I'm wondering about the relationship. What sort of liaison is there between that ministry and the Premier's office? What is the relationship between the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs and the Premier regarding the liaison and the advisory role on the constitution?
[4:00]
Hon. M. Harcourt: The Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs gets advice from his staff, and I get advice from the minister on the progress of the constitutional reform efforts to date. The key staff who were advising him are of course from within my jurisdiction in the Premier's office, through the intergovernmental relations office. They are very experi-
[ Page 3022 ]
enced and capable people who have advised Premiers over the years, with some skill. It's that skill, combined with the respect that the other constitutional affairs ministers have for our minister, which has allowed us to play the role that he's presently playing. But I am seeking the advice of the Constitutional Affairs minister on what I hope will be a constitutional package that will finally bring the first ministers together -- not as we did in Meech Lake, but far better this time, with full consultation with the Canadian people from all over this country, from all walks of life. We will come to a Canadian compromise that will help us move on and move beyond the logjam that we're presently facing in our constitutional and national life.
I am hoping that the constitutional ministers can get back to the table in the near future and resolve some of the logjam around the Senate, the veto, the economic union and the question of aboriginal self-government. We can then have all the first ministers, including Premier Bourassa, come to a full-blown conference on the constitution, where we can reach agreement on a package of reforms which can then go back before the people of Canada -- which Premier Bourassa can take back to Quebec, and which I can bring back before the people of British Columbia in a referendum -- and we can move on. We can hopefully get a successful conclusion to the uncertainty and instability of not having our constitutional future and the future of the country clear and settled.
A. Warnke: I have a follow-up from that. Actually, I think the Premier has laid out perfectly the relationship now between the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs, that minister's staff and the Premier's staff. I'm also wondering whether the Premier's staff has any sort of advisory role on constitutional affairs, particularly in terms of the Premier's staff's ability to solicit information from the public, solicit the positions or seek professional advice, and so forth. Does the Premier's staff involve itself in advising in that sort of capacity?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The Premier's staff, the minister and I take guidance from the excellent work that the legislative committee of this Legislature undertook. It reported back the consensus that was reached from a very substantial number of meetings around British Columbia, which involved hundreds, if not thousands, of British Columbians who came forward to show their pride in Canada and who wanted to see this country knit back together. We are guided by a consensus that I believe was genuinely reached and agreed to, in a spirit of bringing Canada back together, by members of this Legislature. As to the need to go out to further experts, the best experts are our citizens, and we think they expressed themselves loud and clear. The legislative committee reported back to this Legislature those opinions on a variety of issues that guide not just me, but the minister I have had going to various meetings across this country over the last five months.
A. Warnke: To just confirm what the Premier has been saying, there is no attempt to solicit advice at this stage from the public, professionals, or whatever, because of the confidence in the report that has been handed in by the legislative committee earlier. Is it also true, as far as the Premier knows, when the Premier is soliciting advice, whether the Ministry Responsible for Constitutional Affairs is involved, whether there is any attempt to solicit advice from professionals or from the public? Or is there some sort of consensus now between the Premier and the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs that there is some satisfaction that the legislative committee now represents the public of British Columbia? I just want to confirm that.
Hon. M. Harcourt: The answer is basically yes, but we won't know for sure until the people of British Columbia have a chance to vote in a referendum. Then the people will have a chance to make their decision known. I think the member will agree that we had quite a broad consensus on the constitutional issues that were important to British Columbians and to people in the west concerning the division of powers, self-government and institutional reform of the Senate. There is a clear approach by our government, through the minister who is attending on a daily basis, to this question of what British Columbians want to see pursued for British Columbia and for a united Canada, but we won't have an absolutely definitive answer until we have the referendum. I hope we will be able to do that this fall.
A. Warnke: Since the Premier has raised the question of the referendum, I'm wondering if the Premier's office, especially in preparing a budget for this coming year, has any substantive role in the referendum. Obviously in terms of the mechanics of the election itself, I believe that's handled by another department. But I'm wondering to what extent, if any, the Premier's office would be involved in the referendum process.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm sure the member is aware that responsibilities for the election rest with the Attorney General's office. The Attorney General has made it clear that we are going to make sure that British Columbians who are 18 years and older, and those who may be excluded by any enumeration, can vote up to and including election day. So that responsibility, if and when the referendum is brought forward, rests with the Attorney General.
A. Warnke: I have just one other question before other members might want to ask questions. I just want something clarified. The Premier did mention that when we deal with the constitutional package, we intend to bring first ministers together. I believe I understand what the Premier is saying. But when he was saying that, did the Premier mean that British Columbia is somehow going to play some specific significant role -- perhaps hosting a first ministers' conference and inviting the Premier of Quebec and so forth?
[M. Lord in the chair.]
[ Page 3023 ]
The Premier also mentioned further consultation leading to some sort of compromise. That confused me as well as to what the Premier had in mind when he spoke a moment ago about consultation. Is that again with the public? I believe I understood him to mean that this is related to the referendum.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I think the question of consultation is one that we have addressed. We have consulted widely with the people of British Columbia, and now and again we seek outside opinions of experts, or experts will seek us out. And that is still continuing. The question of when the first ministers would come back together in a full constitutional conference of first ministers is decided by the chair of that, who is the Prime Minister.
I have made it very clear that the first ministers wouldn't have a fruitful conference unless there was a constitutional package which had been agreed to by the constitutional ministers. They could then bring it to the first ministers, and then of course the Prime Minister would call a meeting of those first ministers. So I think it's premature for a full-bore constitutional meeting, nor would it be very effective if, at the end of the day, before we went back to our legislatures, the Premier of Quebec wasn't a participant at that table. It would not be helpful at all, unless we all voted either in the legislature or in a referendum -- as we're going to do in British Columbia -- at the same time on a constitutional reform package.
I may be meeting in the next week or so -- and it would be an informal meeting -- with the other first ministers. I would certainly not attend a meeting that involved a full-bore constitutional conference unless the constitutional ministers had completed their task. I don't want a repeat of Meech Lake. We don't need Meech Lake Two. We need a constitutional reform package that can succeed.
J. Weisgerber: I think probably we are prepared, if the Premier is, to engage in some debate around the B.C. Trade Development Corporation. Perhaps the most efficient way to do that would be if the Premier would like to give us a bit of a summary of the activities and the organization, and then we could proceed with some questions from there.
Hon. M. Harcourt: As a member of the previous government, the member, I'm sure, is aware that the Trade Development Corporation was established in 1989 as a Crown corporation. It's main role is to promote B.C. exports. It reported originally through the Legislature through the Ministry of International Business and Immigration. However, since the change of government, it reports to the office of the Premier because of the importance that I and our government place on B.C.'s export-driven economy. We wanted to expand those markets and be much more disciplined and targeted in our efforts of working with the private sector to expand opportunities into Asia and the Americas and Europe, and it's a corporation that serves British Columbia well.
As you will recall, leader of the third party, when I was Leader of the Opposition, I was supportive of the goals of the corporation, and I think that it was a very useful innovation in British Columbia because of the importance of exports to our economy.
To carry out that mandate, which is export-driven, it was organized into three divisions: marketing, the export advisory services division and the corporate services. The marketing division works more closely with the more experienced exporters in British Columbia to develop targeted export marketing programs and trade shows, such as the one I attended in Japan, where we celebrated B.C. Week in Japan and had 65 different firms from British Columbia present. Our staff have judged that for an investment into that effort of $800,000 for staff salaries and other resources, it could result, over the next two or three years, in approximately $45 million in extra sales and exports. So it's an important part of the Trade Development Corporation's activities.
It has been organized into seven sector branches: agriculture, fisheries and food, general manufacturing, government marketing, high-tech, natural resources, forest sector development, service industries and the B.C. Film Commission. As I said, they are there to work with a number of our more experienced exporters -- the very skilled exporters B.C. has.
[4:15]
The role of the export advisory service division is to provide financial advice and assistance and to extend counselling, training, information and education programs to potential and new exporters. That's very important to help the smaller firms in particular, who are used to dealing in either the domestic market or ones close by, to get out and compete in the global economy. There are all sorts of tremendously successful British Columbians. Our natural resource, forest, mining, oil and gas, fisheries and traditional agricultural industries have been very successful. In high-tech, firms like MacDonald Dettwiler, Epic Data, Ebco Industries and many others are out there with the best in the world and can compete with anybody.
We're hoping to expand that, based on the mentorship that those successful B.C. enterprises can offer smaller businesses who maybe started in a garage like Dr. John MacDonald, a physicist at UBC, and can grow into one of the great high-tech industries in the world. We hope that that export advisory division can supply information, encouragement and help with skill development so that small B.C.-based industries can grow into the MacDonald Dettwilers, the MacMillan Bloedels and the Canfors of British Columbia.
The services that are provided through the export advisory service division are the business information centre, export counselling and training activities, export finance -- I mentioned earlier the loan guarantee success to date -- and the B.C. Trade Showcase. If you get a chance, it's well worth going down to the old CPR station and going into the B.C. Trade showcase. I've had the honour of hosting four or five receptions there. People from Thailand, Japan, the European Community and others were very impressed by the display and by the skills of B.C.'s businesses.
[ Page 3024 ]
The corporate services division supports the efforts of these two operating divisions by taking responsibility for the legal and regulatory aspects of the corporation, finance and administration, personnel, communications, public relations, information systems and planning activities. They provide services through four branches: finance and administration, communications, corporate secretary and information systems.
If you would like to have some more fleshed-out information about that very skilled corporation, I could certainly send you a copy of the annual report, which provides the mission statement and its goal in its second stage of development of moving towards more self-financing and pay-as-you-go activities, and a much tougher, tighter and more clearly developed set of priorities for expanding our export trade.
J. Weisgerber: The next time I'm tempted to rise with a question like that, I hope a large invisible hand pushes me back into my seat and gives me an opportunity to reconsider the question that I was about to ask.
Perhaps, then, we can be a little more focused in our questions and hope the answers will follow. Could the Premier give us a sense of the organizational structure at the corporation and perhaps the number of employees, the management structure and the way that might have changed since he took over as the minister responsible?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'd be glad to flesh out those details, now that I've given you a description of the mission statement, the two operating divisions and the support division. The total staff is 101. The number of staff in the corporate services division is 29. In the fiscal year of 1991-92 there were 28. There are a variety of shifts within that, but basically one staff person has been added to the corporate services division.
In the marketing division there were 36 in 1991-92; there are now 37. There was one extra person added to the film commission activities. I'm sure the member for Peace River South is aware that British Columbia has become the third major film production centre in North America; eat your heart out, Toronto. After Los Angeles and New York, British Columbia -- all over the province -- has become a very significant player in international film, video and other industries. Under the previous administration, when I was Leader of the Opposition, we were all supportive of trying to make that happen. As a matter of fact, when I was the mayor of Vancouver, one of my staff put a great deal of energy into working with Dianne Neufeld and others in the film commission to make sure that it was the big success that it is. The third area is the export advisory services, which had 34 people in fiscal year 1991-92 and has 35 in 1992-93. The extra staff person there has been added to the B.C. Trade Showcase because of its success.
J. Weisgerber: The Trade Corporation has certainly been an efficient organization since it was established, and from all reports, it continues to be that.
What I would like to know is, more specifically, the senior management structure and the responsibilities of the chairman and the president and who shares the responsibilities as chief executive officer.
Hon. M. Harcourt: We have an organizational structure within those various commissions, as in the statement I outlined, to expand B.C.'s exports: the three divisions that I described and the 101 staff that I outlined. The senior management structure has three vice-presidents for those three divisions and a chair, a CEO and a COO. The chair is Wilson Parasiuk, who I'm sure you are familiar with. He very ably helped to organize the summit that recently took place last week at Pearson College. If you would like to know Mr. Parasiuk's qualifications, I'd be more than glad to give you that information.
We have a chief operating officer, who was in charge of the corporate services before: Ms. Oksana Exell, who comes with tremendous experience in business. She used to head up the Canadian Federation of Independent Business in British Columbia and has succeeded in her role as the vice-president in charge of the corporate service sector of the corporation, and is fulfilling a very important role now as the chief operating officer. That's the structure. There is Mr. Parasiuk, who is the chair; the chief operation officer, Oksana Exell; the three vice-presidents and the staff people that I outlined below that. They are governed by the Crown corporation statute that sets them up and a board of 23 people.
If you would like the information on who the members of the board are, I'm more than prepared to provide you with that information too.
J. Weisgerber: Perhaps a little later we can have a bit of a discussion about the board. In the meantime, if I understand correctly, the corporate structure is a chairman, Mr. Parasiuk, and a president who also acts as chief executive officer, and that's Oksana Exell. I'm much more familiar with Oksana Exell than I am with Mr. Parasiuk, simply because of the various circles that both of them travel in and the circle that I might travel in. I run into her more often than I would Mr. Parasiuk.
My concern is that we have a Crown corporation made up of 101 employees. By almost any standard in this province or anywhere else in the country, a corporation of 101 employees is a relatively small business. I'm sure that even under the Income Tax Act it would qualify as a small business, and probably at the bottom end of the range of small businesses. I think you would look long and hard in the private sector or in any other Crown corporation to find a corporation that has a full-time chair, a president and CEO, and three vice-presidents. It seems to me that that kind of an organization chart is extremely top-heavy in any corporation.
I'm curious as to how those individuals, particularly the chair and the president, share their roles and what the roles are. I won't be obtuse with you; I'm curious to know what kind of organizational structure and what kind of activities would require those two full-time positions, bearing in mind that the Crown corporations that I'm most familiar with -- B.C. Rail and B.C. Hydro -- are hundreds of times larger than these corporations. For example, up until this government took office, B.C.
[ Page 3025 ]
Rail had a chairman who worked for a per diem of, I believe, $350 a day. He charged that per diem only on those days that he chaired the meetings, even though he was in the office much more often than that. I believe the taxpayers paid, in that case, about $10,000 a year to the chairman of B.C. Rail. I'm curious to know what expanded kinds of responsibilities the chairman of this corporation must have.
Hon. M. Harcourt: The size of the corporation and the basic corporate structure was established before we got into government. There were 98 people under the previous administration. There was a chair, a CEO and three vice-presidents. The only change is that we wanted to place a greater emphasis on the importance of exports and trade to the B.C. economy by putting the corporation under the jurisdiction of the Premier. One out of every three jobs depends on exports. We also wanted to have a more proactive Trade Corporation that could be involved at the very senior levels with the international business community, one that could be very aggressive and well-organized for trade shows and investment missions and go to our major market areas where we have opportunities.
We need to have a very senior person who can be on the ground here most of the time running the day-to-day operations of the corporation. We also wanted to have a very active chair who wasn't just there to chair the meetings; we wanted someone who was there to meet the senior business and government leaders who want to do business with British Columbia, and then to be involved in the activities with our major market areas outside of British Columbia.
We made a slight change to the structure of the Trade Corporation to upgrade the emphasis on exports. We think Mr. Parasiuk and Ms. Exell are an excellent combination of senior people at the helm of the corporation. I've given you Ms. Exell's background, and you're aware of it. Mr. Parasiuk, I'm sure you're aware, has two master's degrees, one of them is from Oxford where he was a Rhodes scholar. He has 24 years experience as a deputy minister, a minister, an international businessman with an extensive network of international friends and contacts around the world and a very skilful ability to relate to the business community. I think you'll hear from the comments that I have received about the summit and his involvement with Globe '92, the arrangements that he made for my trade missions to Toyko, Hong Kong, Guangzhou and New York, and when we visited the major financial centres and went into Europe, that he is widely respected both here in British Columbia and around the world.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
J. Weisgerber: I suppose the difference being.... It appears the staff has increased by three; in fact, at least one of them was a full-time chair who was added to replace the cabinet ministers who traditionally chaired the corporation at no additional cost to the taxpayer. With all due respect, I suggest that the current president and CEO is very capable. I have no argument with that. Nor do I have any argument with the capabilities of the chair. But let me say, and I suspect we'll never agree, that a corporation of 100 or 101 does not warrant a full-time chair, a full-time president and CEO.
My only other argument with that issue.... There has been a great deal of speculation about the relationship of the chair to the party, and those things are on the record. As well, the indication is that the chair qualifies, as a deputy minister would, for one and a half times the normal pension benefits. I'm wondering whether or not that pension benefit, and it's a substantial benefit that is enjoyed by deputy ministers, extends to any other service that the chair may have had in previous governments, provincial or federal.
[4:30]
Hon. M. Harcourt: The one and a half times, as I understand it, does not apply to previous service by the chair, which I think is different than the practice under the previous government.
D. Mitchell: The line of questioning on the B.C. Trade Development Corporation is obviously one that is going to have to continue.
I wonder, for a small break here, if I could ask the Premier whether or not he has any announcement to make today about the office of the agent general in the United Kingdom.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I don't have an announcement to make about it, but the minister responsible for that -- the Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade -- has made an announcement about it.
D. Mitchell: This gets to the heart of the organizational confusion within this government as to the responsibilities for trade. There is confusion among the general public, and there is widespread speculation about the reorganization that is required in this government in order to address the confusion on the trade side and in so many other areas of this government. Regarding the announcement that the Premier has referred to, he seems to be bashful. He seems to be reluctant to make the announcement himself or to inform members of this committee as to what the content of the announcement is. Would he be willing to confirm that former NDP MLA Mark Rose has been announced as the new agent general in the United Kingdom?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Yes, he has been appointed to replace Garde Gardom, who was the Attorney General under the previous government.
D. Mitchell: I thank the Premier for coming forward with that. I'm not sure why he was reluctant in the first place. Mr. Rose, the former opposition House Leader, was respected by members of the House. Could the Premier indicate what Mr. Rose's qualifications might be for that position, given what he has said previously about the need to rationalize the operations
[ Page 3026 ]
of B.C.'s trade offices abroad and the need to take a much more aggressive, business-oriented approach to promoting trade abroad? Could he comment on the qualifications of the former MLA for that position?
Hon. M. Harcourt: He's not only a former MLA; he is a former MP. He has been a university professor of some distinction. He was a member of a municipal council. He has wide experience in the world. He has been a critic in a number of areas important to British Columbia -- agriculture being just one of them. He is a person of great experience, and I think he is respected on all sides of the Legislature or Parliament, where he has served with distinction.
It is important, as the minister said, that we have a person with some skill in communicating the message in Europe that British Columbia is open for trade -- and he'll be well served by the staff at B.C. House -- and to also address some of the misinformation about the state of B.C. forests and some of the environmental practices here. We need to have somebody with the communication abilities of the present agent general, Mr. Gardom, who has served us well, and who can reach out into the European community to get across the message about the true state of British Columbia, rather than the misinformation campaign that has been taking place. We need somebody who has skill internationally, as Mr. Rose has demonstrated -- somebody who has the respect of British Columbians across the political spectrum and who has the ability, as I'm sure you'll all agree, to communicate in a very poetic way at times, and in a humorous way at other times, the British Columbia message. I think the combination of very skilled investment, trade and tourism staff that Mr. Rose will be working with at B.C. House in London will make sure that we are well served.
It is the Minister of Economic Development's ministry which is responsible for not just B.C. House in London, but the other trade offices we have around the world. He can let you know that we are going to be pursuing a very tight, clearly focused business plan with very specific goals that are being set with results for British Columbia.
J. Weisgerber: On that topic let me say, first of all, that I think Mark Rose is a good choice for the appointment in London. He was well respected in this House by members on both sides. He showed himself to be a very able individual, and I certainly will be proud to have him represent British Columbia in London.
While he's straightening out the misinformation over there about our forests, perhaps you could send him a little note and have him straighten out the misinformation that has recently been disseminated about the state of our economy. Tell them that British Columbia is in good shape, that our deficit is the lowest in the country, and that our debt-servicing costs are the lowest in the country. Tell them not to be afraid to invest in British Columbia. Tell them to ignore the misinformation that has flowed out of this province over the last six months or so. Send with Mr. Rose the real story, and let him tell Europeans what an excellent place British Columbia is to invest, to do business and in fact to emigrate to.
Hon. G. Clark: As tempting as it is to respond to that remark.... Can I say that obviously we could finish today, but the Leader of the Opposition isn't here. In terms of protocol, it's quite clear that we want to afford him an opportunity to discuss the Premier's estimates. So I will just advise the House that we will be returning to this at 10 a.m. tomorrow. I hope that from 10 a.m. to 12 noon we can accommodate the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Social Credit Party and conclude this very interesting discussion of the Premier's estimates.
With that, I move the committee rise and report absolutely astonishing progress and ask leave to sit again.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 71.
MEDICAL AND HEALTH CARE
SERVICES ACT
(continued)
On the amendment.
B. Jones: Hon. Speaker, I rise to respond to the opposition's tactic of a six-month delay. In fact, it would probably be a year delay, because I don't expect the Legislature will be sitting next January. I think we should dub this amendment the "Rafe Mair-Norm Finlayson Dilatory Amendment." Why should we call it the "Norm Finlayson-Rafe Mair Dilatory Amendment?
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
Firstly, because Rafe Mair, the Vancouver hotline host -- you remember Rafe Mair; he was a former Social Credit minister; in fact, I think he was a Health minister -- has not been kind to the Liberal opposition in recent days. He's been unkind, in fact. He has dumped all over the official opposition. He has accused them of being wimpish, ineffective and a discredited opposition.
He's saying: "You are not going after that NDP government enough. You can't fold for the summer. You can't storm the barbecues. You can't get out there with the families. You've got to stay here and make life difficult for those New Democrats. Make them sweat. Hold their feet to the fire. You've got to stay here and do anything; it doesn't matter. Bring in delay motions; bring in referral motions. Be repetitious, be boring; it doesn't matter whether the minister has refuted all your concerns about the legislation. It doesn't matter about the cost implications. Just go ahead and fan the flames of discontent out there. It doesn't matter because you can be irresponsible. Only the government of British Columbia has to be responsible. So what do we say? What do we see? We see Rafe Mair, the puppet master. We see Rafe pulling the strings, and we see the Liberal opposition....
[ Page 3027 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order. The member is clearly inferring that the members of the opposition are puppets of Rafe Mair, and I find that term offensive. I would ask the member, the hopeful minister, to withdraw it.
Deputy Speaker: I am sure that if the hon. member for Burnaby-North was referring to the Liberal opposition in that manner, he would withdraw those statements.
B. Jones: I certainly wasn't referring to any individual members, but the collective. But if that member in his sensibilities is offended, I would gladly withdraw any offensive remark.
I think the analogy is an appropriate one. We know what puppet masters and marionettes are, and I think we see Rafe Mair pulling the strings.
G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order. I made the point just moments before that I was offended by that line of inference. The member withdrew the statement, and then immediately made the same statement and expounded upon it. I'd ask him to withdraw that one also.
[4:45]
Deputy Speaker: The chair takes the point of order. If one of the hon. members in the chamber is offended by language that he feels is unparliamentary, it would be appropriate that the member would refrain from using that term again and withdraw it.
B. Jones: Very clearly the language was not unparliamentary, but if the member is offended, if he is sincerely offended by the concept that Rafe Mair is there as the puppet master, the members opposite are marionettes and Rafe is pulling the strings, then I would gladly withdraw all those offensive words.
But the other half of the author of this amendment is Norm Finlayson and other staff members from the BCMA. I understand that if one phones the executive director of the BCMA these days, they are referred to the Liberal caucus office phone number, and, in fact, if you call the Liberal caucus office phone number, you are referred to the office of the member for Richmond-East.
What we have is BCMA staff in Victoria feeding lines, providing information. In fact, I sense a real improvement in the quality of research in the last few days. The staff is here from the BCMA, and they are giving the marching orders to the Liberal opposition. This is not their amendment. This is the BCMA amendment; this is the Rafe Mair amendment. This isn't a Liberal opposition amendment to delay this legislation for six months. Very clearly we have the BCMA staff as the ventriloquist and the Liberal opposition as the dummies.
G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order. It's the same point of order for the same member who persists in using language that is offensive to other members of this House, including myself. I would ask the member to withdraw the remark and stay to the gist of the amendment itself.
Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, the point of order is well taken. I would caution all hon. members to respect the chamber and the proceedings. I am sure the hon. member for Burnaby-North did not mean to offend the hon. members, and he would then withdraw that remark.
B. Jones: Absolutely. I did not mean to offend the member. In terms of that member and his frail nature and his sensitivity, if anything I have said in this chamber offends that member, I gladly and heartily withdraw every word that offended. But I wonder -- perish the thought -- what might happen should the Liberals ever, in the worst of all possible worlds, end up on this side of the chamber. What might they do in this situation? We have the Liberal staff in the Liberal caucus, the BCMA staff in the Liberal caucus office.... I wonder who might determine the budget. This $1.271 billion budget that this government is working so hard to try and control -- I wonder who might determine that budget. I wonder if the BCMA might determine the budget under a Liberal administration. I wonder who might write the legislation. I wonder if it might be the same authors of the research, of the lines that have been fed to members opposite in the last few days. Obviously the research of the BCMA is much better than the Liberal caucus research.
D. Symons: On a point of order. As entertaining as this may be, I believe the member is wandering quite far from the motion before this House.
B. Jones: In fact, I am describing the authors of this amendment, and it's not really the members opposite. I describe this as the Rafe Mair-Norm Finlayson dilatory amendment, an amendment to delay legislation, legislation that I was in the process of suggesting, were there a Liberal administration....
D. Symons: Point of order again, Mr. Speaker. The member continues on this track. This is all supposition and hypothesis and dreaming on his part, and he persists in that vein. It is not addressing the question before this House.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members. The Chair accepts the point of order and would ask that the member for Burnaby North address the motion to hoist.
B. Jones: Of course. We have a hoist motion. We have a dilatory motion. We have a motion to delay, a motion to obstruct, a motion that does not recognize that we had an election on October 17, that we have a New Democratic government which is trying to manage this budget with all the clarity and fiscal responsibility it can manage, and that members opposite have a narrow partisan perspective. They want to delay it. But I don't even think this was their suggestion; I'm
[ Page 3028 ]
suggesting that it came from other sources. If we had the delay that they talk about, the BCMA -- the physicians of this province -- would not just get an increase in the budget of 4.7 percent, which has been included in the budget. Guess how much that increase would cost. There would be another 4.7 percent increase, and 4.7 percent in terms of the cost of delay. That's the implication of the brilliant strategy of the Liberal opposition.
I wonder what might happen to this bill under a Liberal administration. Would there be a tripartite commission composed of three members from the government, three members from the BCMA and three members jointly chosen by the BCMA and the government? I wonder what would happen to that commission. The House Leader of the official opposition suggests, about our tripartite commission, that it delegates sweeping powers to the commission and that doctors are only a minority on the commission. What we have now is one senior public servant, Dr. Kit Henderson, who is the Medical Services Commission. This government is taking those responsibilities and transferring them to a tripartite body composed of three, three and three -- equal representation between the public, the government and the BCMA.
That is a very progressive step. That is a step to which the House Leader of the official opposition says: "Why have a commission?" He doesn't like the commission. He wants somebody else to set the budget. Perhaps he wants the government to set it. Perhaps he wants the BCMA to set it. Who does he want to manage the budget? Does he want public representation not to be there? Does he want physician representation not to be there? I certainly hope not.
Nothing could be fairer than what has been proposed in this bill, which the opposition -- through the advice they're getting and listening to blindly -- would hoist. This hoist motion would do away with a tripartite commission with equal representation from those three bodies. The doctors like the tripartite commission. The government likes the tripartite commission. But members opposite don't want that public representation; they don't want the physicians represented there. I don't know what they want, but they don't like the commission. The reason they don't like it is that they are so green they wouldn't know a good idea if it jumped up and bit them.
They suffer government envy. Everything that the government does is bad; this side can do nothing right. They, with their eight months of experience in political life in this province, know everything. Everything this side does is bad, and everything that they do and say is worthwhile. Well, it's just the opposite. Their sole perspective, their sole raison d'�tre, is to discredit the government.
Let me give you an example of that. I want to read to you a statement by the Minister of Advanced Education and Training in question period, on a question from the hon. member for Richmond East, and the interpretation of that by the opposition House Leader. The member for Richmond East asked: "What effects would capping physicians' income have on British Columbia's ability to attract and retain medical specialists graduating from our universities?"
G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order, I might remind the member of both standing order 40(3), irrelevance in debate, and standing order 43, irrelevance and repetition in debate, and ask him to keep to the amendment please.
Deputy Speaker: The point of order is taken by the Chair. I would ask the hon. member for Burnaby North to mention periodically the motion to hoist.
B. Jones: We have before us a hoist motion. It comes from a party that is discredited. I want to show you the lengths to which this particular opposition will go to distort the facts in order to propose arguments, motions and amendments like this. I want to show you the extent to which the Liberal opposition will go to do anything to delay a government bill -- anything to obstruct, anything to follow the marching orders they've been given by Rafe Mair and Norm Finlayson.
Let me read again the question: "What effects would capping physicians' income have on British Columbia's ability to attract and retain medical specialists graduating from our universities?" Members opposite will have to listen to the question, the answer and the interpretation. Here's the answer of the hon. Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. He said:
"...British Columbia remains, and will remain, an extremely desirable place to live and to practise medicine, nursing or any other health specialty. In comparison with any other place in the world that one could possibly be working, this is probably the best place to work.
"...there is no evidence that I'm aware of that there's an exodus of specialists.
"There are perhaps a few particular areas such as neurosurgery and geriatrics and certain areas of psychiatry where my ministry is working in very close consort with the Minister of Health to deal with those issues. We look forward to continuing cooperation with the faculty of medicine at UBC to deal with those problems."
That was the question; that was the answer. Now what was the hon. opposition House Leader's interpretation of that answer? The opposition House leader said:
"...what a message to be sending them: that there is no future for them here in British Columbia. That's what the Minister of Advanced Education said yesterday: 'Let them leave. Let them leave the province.' That's what the Minister of Advanced Education said. As a physician himself, he should know better. We don't want this government to be sending that kind of signal to medical practitioners in this province. 'Let them leave; let them opt out of the system.' If they want to leave the province, if they want to head south and practise there, where they're more welcome, then let them leave. What he was saying was good riddance to them, good riddance to the best and brightest minds in this province."
Does anybody in this chamber see any similarity between what the Minister of Advanced Education said and what the opposition House Leader said he said?
[ Page 3029 ]
Interjections.
B. Jones: One member.
I think that when we are paraphrasing or quoting others in this chamber, out of respect we should try to at least get somewhere close to the intent or the words that a member had. Is that comment by the opposition House Leader a fair representation of what the Minister of Advanced Education and Training said? Absolutely not. Is that comment from someone who purports to be appealing to fair-minded British Columbians? Or is that a plain distortion; a narrow, partisan perspective; a say-anything, do-anything opposition, in order to delay, obstruct and bring in dilatory motions like the one we have before us? That member cares not for the word; that member cares not for the integrity of the minister and his reputation. That member is quite prepared to totally distort and misrepresent the words of the hon. minister, who happens to be one of the most honourable people and one of the persons in my life that I would consider to be of the absolute highest integrity.
[5:00]
[The Speaker in the chair.]
G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order, the member has just stated that the opposition House Leader misled -- "clearly misled" were the words he used -- this House and made inappropriate remarks regarding the minister. I don't believe that was the case. I ask the member to withdraw those statements.
The Speaker: Unfortunately, hon. member, the Chair did not hear the remarks. But if they were said, then I'm sure the hon. member will withdraw them.
B. Jones: To clarify what I said, for your information, I talked about misrepresenting the word, misrepresenting the intent and discrediting the Minister of Advanced Education. If there is anything I said in there -- anything, a single word....
G. Farrell-Collins: That's not what you said.
B. Jones: That's exactly what I said, and the Blues will show that. But if anything I said in there offended the sensitivities of that member, then I gladly withdraw those comments.
Those reckless comments made in this chamber yesterday by the opposition House Leader come from a source that is quite prepared to dishonour, I think, one of the most honourable members. We are all honourable members, but of all the people I have met in my long life -- and I have met many people with the highest integrity -- the hon. minister is certainly among the highest of all. I think what members opposite will find is that when they fling mud it mostly sticks to them.
We have an opposition that has brought forth this dilatory motion, this motion to obstruct and to delay, from an opposition whose leader may be sued for his sloppy research with respect to an airline company, from an opposition who has a member....
The Speaker: Order, hon. member. I'm going to ask the hon. member to withdraw that comment, as it may have impugned the motives of another hon. member in this House.
B. Jones: Thank you, hon. Speaker, because certainly I do.
This is from an opposition that can't get its act together, that even on a motion to go to an evening sitting finds that half of its members vote one way and half vote another way. They remind me of the Progressive Conservatives. The Progressive Conservatives say: "Progress, but not now." When the government suggests that we want to study an issue, they say: "We're wasting time and money. We're studying the thing to death. Stop dithering." When the government acts, what does the opposition say? "Delay. We need more time. You haven't consulted. The sky is falling." You can't have it both ways. A constructive opposition that had concerns about this legislation would have before this House at this time a series of amendments.
An Hon. Member: They're coming. You'll see them.
B. Jones: I'm sure Norm Finlayson is down there writing out the amendments right now.
This is an obstructionist, irresponsible tactic by the opposition. It ignores the costs; it ignores the fact that the monetary clock is ticking. It's ticking at the cost of about $170,000 a day; it's ticking at the cost of about $1 million a week; and it's already been ticking for three months. Figure it out. This legislation is needed by this province to manage this budget. This comes from a party that went from obscurity to official opposition by saying: "That's why nothing is done in the province of British Columbia." That's what they want. They want to obstruct; they want to delay; they want to oppose. They offer nothing new, nothing constructive. I will certainly add my vote to ensure that this motion receives what it richly deserves, which is the same treatment as the previous, identical motion to delay that we saw before.
D. Schreck: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
D. Schreck: Hon. Speaker, one of the great benefits of marrying into a Greek family is the rewards of that extended family. In the galleries this afternoon are two new residents of Victoria who have moved here from Manitoba: Andy and Mary Baracas. Will the House please join me in making them welcome.
W. Hurd: It's always a pleasure to follow the hon. member for Burnaby North in debate, who is so experienced in marionettes. We note that this particular hon. member has been the one responsible for negotiating with the province's doctors. He's had sort of a behind-the-scenes role. All I can say is that that's the reason nothing ever gets done with the doctors in this province.
[ Page 3030 ]
The debate over this amendment didn't start a few nights ago. We've been dealing with the government's attempts to get a bill through on capping medical fees for doctors for almost five months over the last fiscal year, and certainly for the last three months of this session. A lot of credit for the fact that we're now in a state of dismal failure has to go to the hon. member for Burnaby North, who played an important role in getting us to the point where we are in the House today. I'm happy to report that the B.C. Medical Association, having gone through negotiations with this hon. member and the Minister of Health, is now quite happy to be dealing with the Liberal opposition, because they haven't got a single decent answer from this government in four months of negotiations. That's the reason that we find ourselves in the situation we're in today.
One of the facts that the BCMA brought to our attention was an offer they made to this government about why we should hoist this bill for six months. The offer they made was that they're prepared to forgo any adjustments to the provincial budget that might result from delaying this bill. In other words, they're prepared to negotiate a lower rate to satisfy the demand of the people of the province for more consultation on this bill. That is an offer that they have made. They have communicated it to the opposition. They may have communicated it to the government, for all we know, but they apparently haven't got a response.
It's absolutely unbelievable to the opposition that the hon. member for Burnaby North, who has been assisting in these negotiations with the doctors for lo these three or four months, can stand in the House today and suggest that these negotiations are being conducted in an open and honest climate of complete fairness, and that the only problem with this bill is the role played by the official opposition. I certainly hope that this hon. member has a new portfolio to pursue in the coming sessions, because he certainly richly deserves a promotion for the job that he's taken on of negotiating with the province's doctors. He really deserves it.
We have seen, as I said, a track record of pathetic negotiations with the B.C. Medical Association, who have lost all faith in dealing with this government. We continue to see that type of tactic from the government as we sit in the chamber today. They have not accepted a constructive amendment that was offered by the opposition to refer this matter to a legislative committee. They have steadfastly refused to do that. Instead we have a motion that is, I agree, a less than desirable option than the motion to send it to a legislative committee, but one that the opposition had no choice but to support.
Hon. Speaker, I always make it a point to bring my copy of the 48 election points of the New Democratic Party into the chamber. As I've said before in this House, it's like my American Express card; I never leave home without it. It comes in handy for legislative debates, bills and estimates. You name it, and there's a quote in here that you can pull out and throw out on the floor. And the government stares back at you without a single ounce of shame.
I want to refer particularly to item 39, which is "Hospitals and health care throughout B.C. that we can count on." The last one really gets to me: "A New Democrat government will seek the cooperation and work closely with our health professionals and workers in making the health care system work more effectively." Well, how effectively has it worked? This is our third bill, our third attempt in this session to negotiate fairly with the province's doctors, and we haven't got it right yet. The government stares back at us without an ounce of shame or regret for what has happened in this House in dealing with the doctors of this province and says that the only problem we've got is the opposition.
I don't know how many letters the member for Burnaby North or any other members of the House have received, but I have a fistful of them here from medical doctors, who can't all be bad or lacking in understanding of what it means to be a doctor in this province. Some of the lines in here about this particular legislation.... It's absolutely unbelievable that the members of the government could be receiving this kind of correspondence from concerned physicians in the province and fail to even consider the fact they might not be negotiating with their representatives fairly.
We've asked ourselves many times in this chamber: why is the government treating the province's doctors this way? As I've said before, this effort by the government to deal with its doctors is not an initiative from the Minister of Health. It goes back to the Minister of Finance, who said in this House that doctors are fat cats, they earn three-figure incomes, and therefore we're going to make them pay. That's exactly what we're dealing with in this chamber today. This is class warfare against the doctors of this province, and that's what this government is all about. They wouldn't treat a union in this province that way, but if it's the doctors, they can afford it. "We're going to teach them a lesson." That's the kind of negotiation process....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Would the House please come to order.
W. Hurd: As I was about to say, that's the spirit of negotiation that the hon. member for Burnaby North has brought to these negotiations. He is still unrepentant. He still suggests to this House that nothing that has happened in the last three months is the government's fault, and that the million-dollar ad campaign by the B.C. Medical Association was just something they did on a whim, because they didn't have anything else better to do, and the negotiations with the province's doctors were proceeding in an orderly way. All I can say is that if I had been responsible for negotiating with the doctors that way, that's the story I'd be spinning too. This hon. member refuses to accept any responsibility for the fiasco that this particular bill has become and the fiasco that we've had in this government's dealings with the medical profession in this province. There is no accountability.
[ Page 3031 ]
I would also like to read into the record a letter that has come into my possession that relates directly to this amendment. It's a letter sent by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale when he was running as a candidate. He is now chairing the select standing committee of this House to which we sought to refer the bill last time. It's a very interesting letter, hon. Speaker, because it indicates that there was a whole series of problems identified by this member when he was running as a candidate. This is the kind of thing we've seen from this government. We've seen statements made when they were candidates, and statements made when they were government. And what do we find today? We find an almost diametrically opposite plan of attack when they are dealing with a very realistic amendment in this House.
An Hon. Member: Who wrote the letter?
W. Hurd: As I recall, the letter was sent from the hon. member, and he was identifying a critical problem with regard to physicians' billings. That problem basically involved -- and I thank my colleagues for a copy of the letter -- the fact that British Columbia was in violation of the national health act for maintaining an eligibility system that results in less than universal coverage.
This hon. member indicated that when he was involved with the Mount Pleasant Health Centre, three physicians had to devote almost one full-time person to chasing down MSP eligibility. In other words, what was happening was that patients were coming into doctors' offices with ineligible benefits, and the doctors were ending up having to eat the cost, because they couldn't prove that these members were eligible for coverage under the Medical Plan. In fact, the Medical Plan was denying the doctors any compensation on that issue, so they had to eat the cost.
You'd think that this particular member, having identified this problem as a candidate, would do his utmost to make sure that this was reflected in the current legislation before this House. We're disappointed again, because there's no mention of this particular critical problem, which sees British Columbia as the only province in this country in violation of the national health act for not providing benefits to less than 25 percent of the people who aren't eligible. This from a government that purports to be the fathers of medicare -- a problem unique to British Columbia that's not even reflected in this legislation.
[5:15]
It's almost unbelievable, but then, as we know, this government has identified the doctors as the major problem with our health care system, and until we bash them about the head, we're not going to get the problems in health care in this province solved. Well, as an opposition member I would like to express my deep gratitude to the hon. member for Burnaby North, who has delivered the opposition into the situation we find ourselves today, as the only party in this province with any credibility in dealing with the medical profession in this province. Despite his wonderful experience in negotiating with the province's doctors and the years he has on the Liberal opposition, he has delivered us an issue on a golden platter and is even now steadfastly refusing to accept any responsibility for it. I would like to go on record now as thanking that hon. member for his real contribution to the Liberal opposition.
I'm not dissatisfied or in any way shamed about supporting this amendment. I'm ashamed as a British Columbian that I have to stand here in a parliament that chooses to treat the doctors the way it does, but we can't accept any responsibility for that.
I would also like to take this opportunity to apologize to that excellent broadcaster in Vancouver, Rafe Mair, who has been impugned in this House as a past member of the Legislative Assembly by the member for Burnaby North.
An Hon. Member: Poor Rafe.
W. Hurd: Poor Rafe. I mean, he just doesn't deserve it.
I know that the hon. member for Burnaby North has a very inflated opinion of his own bargaining power, but I want to assure that member that Rafe's ratings will not be affected one iota.
M. Farnworth: To hoist or not to hoist, that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous Liberals, or to bring reason against this sea of hoisters, and by opposing end them; to hoist no more, and by a law to say we end the heartache and the thousand natural shackles that health care is heir to. It is a consummation devoutly to be wished. To pass, to legislate, perchance to succeed. Aye, there is the rub. For what success may become when we have improved this present system must give us pause. Theirs is a hoist that makes the calamity of sitting long in August. For who could bear the whips and scorns of ink-stained scribes? The opposition? Wrong. The folly of this mistimed hoist, the law's delay. The insolence of opposition that spurns the merit of this bill and taxes our good patience. Who but these Liberals bear to grunt and sweat under this weary hoist, except they dread the resolution after passage, the undiscovered truth from whose brilliance no Liberal will dare turn.
This gives the government the strength to bear the opposition ills we have, and thus the natural hue of resolution will not be sullied with this Liberal farce. With a pale cast of thought, this bill an enterprise of great pith and moment. With this regard their hoists shall be defeated and lose the name of action.
Apologies to the Bard.
D. Symons: It is with great difficulty that I rise to speak to this motion after the previous speakers from the opposite side. Indeed, they have had a great deal of hot air to put forth, but not a great deal of message or intent behind it. It has been entertaining, I must say. The Bard is very good, I must admit.
We've had the hon. member for Burnaby North speak of the expense that delaying this bill would have. We have known that the doctors are willing to forgo that and build into it so that it will not cost the province money in the event that the thing is rewritten in a
[ Page 3032 ]
positive way. But these government members are masters of patronage. How can they, who appointed and increased the number on boards, appointed their friends and insiders to positions, talk about being frugal in this House? It doesn't ring true to hear them speak that way.
I think the problem before us is that we're dealing with Bill 71, which is a rehash of Bills 13 and 14 that were brought hurriedly before this House. At least they quickly realized that these bills were faulty and took them out. But what did they do with them? Did they go through them carefully to rewrite them with proper consultation, thought and time to bring forth a good bill? No. They simply threw the things together, shuffled the deck a little and came up with Bill 71, which we have before us.
This is the reason why we are encouraging it to go to committee, which was certainly the wise thing to do. Let's take this bill and look at it in committee, an all-member group of this House, so that we can carefully go through it and ensure that when it comes back before the House, we have a good bill that would be accepted by all and end up being a credit to this province.
What have we seen happen? The government defeated that; they don't want to discuss things, go through them carefully and have a good bill come before the House. They want to ram it through their way. Maybe they'll bring in a few amendments along the way; maybe they'll change things a little if it doesn't seem to quite fit, after the damage is done. This seems to be the technique of the present government. We've seen this happen to other bills before us as well. We are saying no, that is not the way to go. We must have proper consultation with people before bills are brought forward. This has clearly not happened. The government claims they've discussed this with the individuals affected, but we can see by the reaction from the medical profession in British Columbia that obviously the consultation did not go on long enough, nor was it thorough enough. In fact, much of the consultation seems to have taken place after the bill was written. Only when the doctors see what's before them and react to it will the consultation take place: here's the bill; take it or leave it.
What we're seeing in Bill 71 is actually a club held over the heads of the BCMA in order to make them kowtow more quickly. This is just not the way that you negotiate. You do not club them to death. This bill is doing that. This is a significant rewrite of the Medical Service Act, and it deserves a lot more consideration than the few days that were allowed.
To use an analogy of something that happened not too many years ago, it is very similar to bills brought forward by the third party here against the teachers of this province. We saw that when Bills 19 and 20 came through, this certainly did not create a good atmosphere for education in this province. We're now seeing that same mistake brought forward by the current government with a new target but the same techniques. It didn't do well before with the previous government; it's not going to do this government well either. It doesn't work.
They seem to think that somehow the doctors are the engine driving the cost increases in medical services in this province. If you look carefully at it, I think you'll find that the percentage of the money that has gone to the doctors for medical care in this province over the years has remained constant; it has not increased. So what they are trying to do is not going to help the matter a great deal. We have a lot of other stakeholders in this and a lot of other expenses in this, like capital expenses in buildings and the staffing of the hospitals. All of these things are expenses that aren't addressed by this government, so looking at 20 percent or less of the medical bill is not really going to address the real problem. We need a complete, careful look at the whole of medical services delivered in this province. This bill is simply a bashing of the doctors to attempt to make a little bit of political hay out of picking on a group and claiming that they're fat cats when such is, in many cases, not the case. If indeed there are some doctors and patients that are abusing the system, by all means address that issue. But you don't bash the whole pile of them because there might be one person abusing the system, which is precisely what this bill is doing.
In the long run it will hurt medical services in this province. It could possibly eventually ration and restrict access of people to medical care.
Interjection.
D. Symons: We will indeed.
It can put restrictions on patient tests that can be ordered. It can put a doctor in a conflict-of-interest situation, where that doctor has to look at what he thinks may be the best services he can provide, the best medical treatment he can provide, the best tests he can provide for this person he has before him, or he can look at the fact that he's also going to be responsible for the fees that come out of this, the cost that comes out of this, and he may end up having to cut back and pay for it basically out of his own pocket if he's wrong in doing it, but he might also misjudge the situation and face a malpractice because of his not giving the complete care that should be given. You put the doctors in a very untenable position by giving them that sort of choice to make each time they face a patient.
I believe the doctors have agreed that they would allow binding arbitration, and to me that seems like a very significant concession to give. We would then have a third-party arbitrator coming into it, and I cannot for the life of me see why this government could not accept that at this time and then rewrite the bill very carefully and bring it in at a later session. But since they seem unwilling to do that and seem unwilling to discuss freely and openly and to have proper consultation with the doctors of this province, I see no other alternative but to delay this bill for a while so that we may have a sober second look at it.
We find that other bills that come before this....
An Hon. Member: Who's sober?
D. Symons: Well, we know the ones that aren't sober in this House, because this must have been
[ Page 3033 ]
written in a drunken rage against the medical profession of this province.
It certainly has a lot of things that are not in the best interests of medical care in this province. For that reason, I would wholly support the delay of this bill for six months. I support the motion before us.
L. Stephens: It is my pleasure to rise today and speak in favour of the amendment to Bill 71 to delay reading for six months. It was my previous motion to send it to the legislative committee. I sincerely regret the defeat of that amendment. We have no option but to ask for this delay for six months.
Canada has one of the best health care systems in the world. Everyone, regardless of income level, race or religion, is guaranteed the right to proper medical help. The Canadian doctors who provide this service are required by law to complete a university internship program lasting from eight to 14 years before they are allowed to practise medicine under the medicare system. What is the rush? There is no need to rush this bill through at this time.
For the first time in Canadian history a provincial government has set a fixed cap on the amount of money it will spend on health care services for the people in the province. The B.C. government has unilaterally set a global cap on the amount of money going into the Medical Services Plan. The fixed budget allows for population growth but does not allow for inflation, an increase in the cost of living or an increase in the use of health care services. Aging, patient demand and enhanced medical technologies are contributing to a record annual 4 to 5 percent increase in patient use of health care services in B.C.
[5:30]
Has consultation been done? In effect, doctors are being asked to limit the number of health care services available to their patients based on how much money is left in the budget at the end of the month.
There needs to be further discussion. Should doctors be required to absorb the cost of overruns on a fixed, global budget? Should individual caps restrict the amount a doctor can bill medicare -- caps which can be readjusted without notice at any given time? Is funding available for keeping pace with advances in medical research and technology? Should medicare be rationed on a regional basis as the government sees fit?
Patients in B.C. will no longer be guaranteed equality in health care. The Canada Health Act states that all provinces are required by law to negotiate a fee structure for doctors. In British Columbia the master agreement became law in 1974, and for the past 18 years it has given doctors and government a framework for discussion, negotiation and consultation over health care issues. No government is above the law, hon. Speaker. Once this boundary is overstepped with one group, there is nothing stopping it from happening with another. This bill should be hoisted to allow time to reassure the doctors and, more importantly, the citizens of British Columbia that our health care system is being looked after in the best interests of all.
I have some letters from physicians in my constituency. I'm not going to read them all. There are a couple of excerpts that I would like to read to you. This particular letter is from a family practitioner who feels extremely strongly about what has been happening. He goes on to say:
"You allow the public to see physicians for any and all real and perceived problems and expect the physicians to provide care to the public 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Yet you penalize them for providing this service by capping their gross incomes, not taking into account overhead costs required to be available to provide these services, hours worked or years of training and expertise required to be competent to supply these...services. You take away the doctors' negotiating rights, putting them in the same position as only one other group in society -- i.e., incarcerated prisoners in our penal system. This Bill 71 should be postponed."
I have another one from an ophthalmologist, a specialist -- we've been speaking about them during this debate. This doctor is also one of my constituents in Langley. She goes on to say:
"As physicians, our sole responsibility is to our patients to provide the best possible care. It is not possible to serve two masters. We simply cannot be held responsible for increases in costs incurred by progressive population growth, aging, utilization, new technology, etc. As I understand it, all of these together result in increases in the annual cost of health care in the order of 8 percent. Yet the government now allows only a 2 percent increase in expenditure, which means a realistic decrease in income to physicians of 6 percent. This 6 percent penalty on a yearly basis compounded by increasing overhead costs has the potential to erode physicians' income by 55 percent over five years, and is intolerable."
I've had a number of letters from constituents. As you may be aware, we have a high number of seniors in my particular constituency. Many seniors count on their doctors to a very great degree. This is from a couple who go on to say.... I will read a few paragraphs:
"The intention of the NDP government to ration and diminish health care in our province...has frightened and outraged many of us seniors with visual problems, especially those involving eye conditions being treated by an ophthalmology surgeon who specializes in retinopathy and laser therapy. There are only eight of these specialists in British Columbia.
"If Bill 71 is passed, some specialists will have their incomes capped, forcing them to economize by closing subsidiary offices, curtailing service and releasing staff."
Many of these seniors cannot get into the downtown areas, and they find it extremely frightening that they're going to have to find these specialists that many of them desperately need. They have great difficulty in accessing the services of these doctors.
"Waiting-periods for treatment will lengthen considerably. Some patients may lose their sight.
"Ophthalmologists have a high overhead. Their equipment is very expensive. They must pay highly trained staff and lease large offices."
He goes on to say that these services that seniors depend on are in jeopardy.
I will finish by saying that for all of these reasons that I and those who have spoken before me have given, I strongly urge the minister to delay the reading of this
[ Page 3034 ]
bill for six months. I will be voting in favour of the amendment.
K. Jones: It's a pleasure to rise in support of this amendment. We have a crisis in the agricultural area, as has been shown by the major demonstration outside the Legislature by the B.C. farmers this afternoon. But we also have a crisis in the health care area, as has been contributed to by Bill 71. This bill is adding to a great deal of confrontation that is occurring between the people providing the health care services and the government. It is a bill of confrontation. That is the reason why we members in the opposition have felt that there was a real need to review the direction of this bill, to give the opportunity both for the minister to reflect on the content and direction of the bill and also for the community to give her the advice that she obviously needs to be able to be more reflective of the concerns of the people of British Columbia. We are asking at this time only that the bill be amended to permit a six-month delay in its implementation to allow that time of reflection. It is strictly an accommodating resolution: an amendment that allows for a much more rational approach to bringing a very serious and all-encompassing type of legislation to the people of British Columbia.
As my fellow member for Surrey -- Surrey-White Rock -- has indicated, the doctors have indicated a willingness not to have additional costs incurred, which the government has been trying to imply would be a result of taking this time for reflection. This is just a tremendous contribution by the doctors in trying to bring a more effective approach to health care. I really commend them for taking such an open and financially impacting decision. It's one where their costs are still going up, but they're willing to consider that there is a need for this discussion and for input from the people of British Columbia. There is a need to bring the minister into a wiser frame of mind and give the government a greater opportunity for reflection, so we can have a very satisfactory type of legislation that will meet the needs of British Columbia, not create the adversarial situations that are now being reflected by the government and people in all aspects of health care.
It's not just doctors who are impacted by this legislation. Nurses and other professionals in the health care area, the PSA and the BCGEU in some areas -- it's a whole series of people, as has been indicated by other members. They are all being impacted by that decision, and therefore they need to have an opportunity to bring forward their views and concerns to this government for adjustments to this bill.
I'd like to bring forward some comments of doctors in various parts of British Columbia who are expressing a great deal of concern about this. I'm reading from a letter from a ophthalmologist from Abbotsford:
"The NDP government seems intent on destroying health care and the medical profession at the same time. They have now decided that despite having one of the finest health care systems in the world, they will change it in a short four-week period into a form which will hardly be recognizable. Instead of affordable, high-quality and available health care, they will impose substandard, unavailable health care.
"While recognizing the financial constraints within which government is required to work, I am amazed that they have been unable to come to grips with a pragmatic reality concerning our health care system. The imposition of user fees and the deinsuring of non-essential items similar to the Oregon plan is but a start. Certainly, the possibility of opting out all physicians and allowing them to deal directly with their patients should be considered. This would allow government to decide what items they wish to insure and to what extent. Doctors would then be free to maintain a high standard and offer high-standard, quality care to the public. The small additional payments required from patients would act as a disincentive to overutilization, which is, after all, the key problem. In addition, it would allow people to seek those medical treatments which may not have the same efficacy as government-paid-for services. This would allow competition between physicians and probably in itself resolve the undersupply of physicians in our northern parts. The fact is that there is no shortage of reasonable suggestions which can make the current health care system more cost-efficient while maintaining the important standards of our current health care system.
"Many of my colleagues in ophthalmology and other specialties have already made the preliminary inquiries regarding transferability of training and the process of obtaining work permits. The recruitment process which the Americans are using is highly effective.
"Unfortunately, the B.C. government's approach is also difficult to resist, and if the current bill passes into law, I fear for the safety of my patients and I fear that that which makes Canada unique will have been destroyed.
"The great irony is that a socialist government adhering to its socialist political dogma is responsible for the demise of that which socialism brought to Canada.
"It is essential that this bill not pass. Negotiate with the BCMA."
And that's Dr. John Blaylock from Abbotsford.
I have another very articulate presentation from another doctor, who lives in Maple Ridge.
[5:45]
The Speaker: Order, hon. member. I would just ask the hon. member to remember my comments of yesterday. I urge all hon. members, when they are quoting letters or other documents, to do so as briefly as possible and only to the extent that is needed to make their point in debate.
K. Jones: I did delete some paragraphs out of that letter.
This doctor is a family practitioner, and he states:
"Patient care will be rationed by placing a cap on the total moneys available for health care, especially when restricting individuals or groups.
"I have concerns about patient records and allowing government inspectors access to these records.
"This bill also does not provide for negotiating with physicians, and there is no provision for resolving disputes. Many other provinces have binding arbitration as a means of settling disputes.
"The end result will be one of longer waiting-lists for treatment and surgery. Many well-qualified doctors will leave the province, and this will be a great disaster for the people of British Columbia."
[ Page 3035 ]
That's from Dr. Karmali.
I have another doctor from Prince George. This doctor earnestly feels that Bill 71 has to be defeated. This doctor has practised for 22 years in the Prince George area, and they have the following problems: "Our mortality rate is 34 percent higher than the rest of the province. Our cancer rate is 46 percent higher than the rest of the province. We have no public health doctor. We have chronic recruitment difficulties for medical manpower. Passage of this bill will be the final nail in the coffin for north central health care." That's from Dr. Dykes of Prince George. Having lived in the north myself for many years, I can attest to the great difficulties that both the people in the north and the people on the north coast of British Columbia have in constantly trying to get proper health care into those areas.
When we have examples like this bill -- which hasn't had the consultation, does not have the support of the people of British Columbia and does not serve a useful purpose in this province -- being brought forward at this time, I say that we must have a government that is prepared to accept the fact that it is a bad bill. It needs to be taken back and reconsidered. It needs to be delayed. It needs to have more public input, because through that means we can properly involve all of the people in British Columbia in what is one of the most vital things to them: their basic health care.
That has to be done by agreement, not by socialist government imposition, by a government that says that they're better than anybody else, that they can think for everybody else and that they have the world vision of how things should be done. They don't, and they need to learn to accept that input can come from all people in this province -- people who have various views and various ideas, live in various parts and have various problems that they deal with every day. Those are the people who should be deciding on how their money is spent. It is not the government's money that's being determined here. It's not the Finance minister's money that's being spent. It's yours and mine. It's all of us. We have to make sure that we all have a voice in the type of legislation that is coming out of this House.
I get the impression today that this government is not prepared to provide that type of consultative government, a government that involves the people. Therefore it is necessary for us to have this legislation delayed so that consultation can be done, so there can be a sober second look at this legislation. It certainly has not had a sober look to start with. It would be in a lot better form if it had been given a serious look.
I think it's probably attributable to the fact that there was a great deal of difficulty in the Ministry of Health over the past months. Therefore such problems, which have precipitated the replacement of the deputy minister, are being shown in this bill. That's one of the problems that we're facing. I think that's a very strong justification for this bill to be withdrawn or, at least, for this amendment to be permitted so that there would be a delay before it's implemented.
Hon. G. Clark: I move adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Clark: I move that the House at its rising stand adjourned for five minutes and sit no later than 11 p.m. tonight.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.
[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada