1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only. The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 1993
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 9, Number 10
[ Page 5583 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. A. Hagen: Visiting the Legislature today are members of the B.C. firefighters, who are meeting with MLAs about issues of importance to them. We welcome them on an annual basis, and I'd like the House to welcome them to our assembly.
V. Anderson: I'd like to welcome to the House today Larry Buttress and Malcolm Boswell of the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver, who are visiting the House today.
Hon. P. Priddy: There are two people I would like the House to welcome today: Denise and Michele Della Mattia, who are extended family of some of the people who work in this minister's office.
J. Dalton: There are several visitors in the gallery that I would like the House to welcome. Mr. Ken Michael, a long-time friend and a rugby buddy of mine is accompanied by Fan Chan and her daughter Mimi Wang. I would also like the House to welcome a constituent and neighbour, Mr. Tim Hollick-Kenyon.
Hon. P. Priddy: Since the Minister of Social Services is not here, there's someone in the gallery who is a friend and colleague, and an activist in a sister riding to mine: Fred Girling. I ask the House to make him welcome.
GOVERNMENT SHARES IN MACMILLAN BLOEDEL
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I would like to make a statement respecting a matter that has been before the House in recent days. Members will be aware that Stephen Owen, commissioner on resources and environment, last week released a public report respecting the government's Clayoquot Sound land use decision, to which the government is preparing a response. Mr. Owen's report recommended in part that the government request the conflict-of-interest commissioner, hon. Ted Hughes, to undertake a special assignment, pursuant to sections 15.1 and 16 of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, to inquire and report to the Legislative Assembly on the issue of potential, real or apparent conflict of interest arising from the government's ownership of shares in MacMillan Bloedel.
In recent days, in response to this issue, I have referred members to the Financial Administration Act, which provides that there is no actual conflict of interest between the various roles of government, be they those responsible for investment of taxpayers' dollars or those of taxation and regulation of corporations. However, government acknowledges the importance of public perception in these matters. We accept the need for this issue to be resolved to assure the public that there was no impropriety in the government's actions and to protect the integrity of, and the confidence in, the Vancouver Island CORE process.
To this end, cabinet today has approved an order-in-council appointing, pursuant to the Inquiry Act, Hon. Mr. Justice Peter D. Seaton as sole commissioner to immediately inquire into and report on this matter using terms of reference reached in discussion with Justice Seaton. These terms of reference are: (1) whether the government was in a conflict of interest related to the purchase by the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations of additional shares of MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. on or about February 9, 1993, and the government policy regarding Clayoquot Sound; (2) whether there was compliance with sections 36 to 36.2 of the Financial Administration Act in relation to the ownership and purchase of shares of MacMillan Bloedel Ltd.; and (3) to make recommendations to protect the public interest arising from consideration of the above matters.
As I have noted, the recommendation of Stephen Owen was that this matter be dealt with under the Members' Conflict of Interest Act. However, as I have stated in this House on previous days, the government has concerns respecting Commissioner Hughes's previous role as Deputy Attorney General during the time that pertinent amendments were made to sections of the Financial Administration Act, which are part of this inquiry. While the government and, I am sure, all members of the House maintain the utmost confidence in Commissioner Hughes, the government's concern about this specific issue persists. I am certain members will agree that in the appointment of the hon. Mr. Justice Seaton to inquire into this matter, we have put in place a process worthy of the public's confidence.
W. Hurd: The opposition is pleased that the government has initiated an investigation into the share purchase by the B.C. Endowment Fund, but I think it's important to acknowledge the reason the opposition asked the conflict-of-interest commissioner to be involved. Clearly the rules for individual members in this assembly not only spell out a real conflict, hon. Speaker, but they also spell out a perception of conflict, which every member of this assembly is governed by.
It therefore continues to be the position of the opposition that Mr. Hughes should have been the one to initiate this investigation. However, we accept the fact that the government has decided to appoint an outside investigator, and we look forward with a great deal of interest to what recommendations he may come up with on the principle of government owning shares in a corporation which can clearly benefit from a decision of cabinet.
C. Serwa: This is a most interesting ministerial statement. Talk about an initiative to close the barn doors after the horses have left. This really takes the cake.
[ Page 5584 ]
Interjections.
C. Serwa: Yes, indeed. This perception is reality. There are two issues here. One is a genuine conflict of interest of the government of the day in acquiring those shares just prior to the announcement, and the public has a right to be concerned about it. The second issue that they've tried to roll into one is the integrity of the commissioner of CORE. That commissioner's integrity was in fact compromised by the Premier of the province, who insisted that the commissioner of CORE accompany him. That compromised the integrity of not only the commissioner but also of the CORE process. So there are two separate issues here.
It was interesting also, in the matter of the instructions in the preview of this, that the instructions are in fact subjective. The purpose is to assure the public that there was no impropriety in the government's actions. Are these implied instructions to a justice, to Mr. Justice Peter Seaton? They certainly are clearly evident that these are implied, rather than objectively stating the need for the question. And in allowing the justice to come back in with his recommendation, we have implied a set of directions for the justice. I'm disappointed in that particular bias exhibited by our Attorney General.
There seems to be implied here some question of the integrity of Mr. Hughes. It is questioned whether Mr. Hughes, because of his former association as deputy minister of the Ministry of the Attorney General, is fit to judge this. I would suggest quite the contrary, hon. Speaker. It's specifically Mr. Hughes's strong integrity, fairness and sense of balance that particularly concerns the government. That's clearly evident. It's been demonstrated in this particular case by the quality of an individual like Stephen Owen, who was staunch enough in his sense of fairness and justice to make a statement with respect to the public perception.
[2:15]
So while the government has made a step in the right direction, they've made the step much too late. Because of decisions already taken, it will be impossible to clear up that public perception that indeed the government has compromised themselves, the commissioner of CORE and the process in order to make some quick dollars on a fortuitous share purchase.
DAY OF MOURNING FOR KILLED OR INJURED WORKERS
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House that today has been proclaimed a day of mourning for workers killed or seriously injured on the job in British Columbia last year. The cost to workers, employers and to our economy was staggering last year: 161 workers killed on the job; 3,600 workers permanently disabled; 7,700 workers taking time off because of injuries; 160,000 WCB claims for injuries; and 3.1 million days lost because of workplace injuries, not including fatalities.
I know that I speak for all members of the House when I say that we deeply mourn the 161 British Columbian workers who were killed on the job during 1992. Their deaths are a tragic loss for their families, friends, co-workers and employers.
Members may recall that on the same occasion last year, I pointed out that the best way for us to express our deeply felt regret at the loss of these workers was to redouble our efforts toward making our workplaces safer. There has been no greater injustice in British Columbia than the absence of health and safety regulations for the 30,000 men and women who work on B.C. farms and ranches.
Workers' compensation has existed in this province for 75 years. Over that time there have been too many injuries, too many deaths and too many families that have suffered. In the last ten years alone some 59 long-term disability claims have been paid with regard to injuries in the agricultural sector -- a total of 1,096 injuries, with claims totalling about $5.1 million.
The time has come to provide justice and protection for these farmworkers. I'm pleased to advise the House today that on Friday, April 30, 1993, farmworkers will officially have the protection which has been denied to them for so long. On the 30th I will be meeting with farmworkers and the Workers' Compensation Board to officially sign the regulations and bring them into full force and effect.
I would like to express the government's thanks and appreciation to the committee drawn from the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and the Canadian Farmworkers' Union and chaired by WCB governor Mark Thompson for the remarkable work they have done to achieve this milestone farm safety agreement. By any standards, what they accomplished was significant, because the safety regulations had to cover a wide range of agricultural operations, such as tractor and equipment safety, pesticide and chemical fertilizer use, personal and protective equipment use, farm structures and farm operations. During its first five months of deliberations, the committee drafted the 150 regulations covering all these complex operations. What makes the achievement even more remarkable is that it was attained through a process of consultation and consensus, not only with the Federation of Agriculture and the farmworkers' union but with hundreds of farmers and workers who attended public hearings held early in March in the Okanagan and Fraser Valleys. Twenty additional suggestions made at the public hearings were incorporated into the final regulations.
British Columbia is also pioneering a new process for implementing health and safety regulations on the farm. The WCB, along with the board of directors of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and the Canadian Farmworkers' Union, are establishing a Farm and Ranch Safety and Health Agency, which will be known as FARSHA. While the WCB will retain its legal right to ensure the new regulations are enforced, the agency will assist it in an advisory role in establishing inspection programs specifically modelled for the agriculture sector and making representations available to the board for inspections. The agency will be responsible for developing a wide range of educational programs that will assist farmers and farmworkers to become familiar with the new regulations and to use
[ Page 5585 ]
them to their advantage. I should add that all materials regarding the new safety measures are available in Punjabi, Chinese, French and Japanese, and that the wording of the warning signs is in the language of the workers.
I understand that the Workers' Compensation Board will soon be approving a budget of some $200,000 for the agency to begin developing and implementing its educational program. As I mentioned earlier, we salute the agriculture industry and the WCB and its committee for this monumental agreement and for the fact that it should be operating as early as this summer.
In the industrial, forestry and construction sectors we have made good progress in reviewing and updating our safety regulations in these fields during the past year. Our task for the future is not only to reduce the number of accidents on the job but also to cut down the number of occupational diseases in the workplace. Therefore I want to put all members on notice that in the months ahead there will be additional and significant changes, with regard to both regulations and procedures, at the Workers' Compensation Board to better protect the interests of working men and women.
Before I conclude my remarks, I would be remiss if I did not mention the passing last week of Cesar Chavez, the leader of the United Farm Workers in California. He fought for better working conditions and improved levels of safety for the people who picked vegetables and fruit for the tables of North America. Before Mr. Chavez, these people were truly outside the American dream, marginalized by the colour of their skin and the labour they performed. His boycotts secured, first, the right to certify as a union and, second, the right to work under safe conditions. These campaigns reverberated across the continent. I know that Mr. Chavez was also instrumental in developing the Canadian Farmworkers' Union.
G. Farrell-Collins: What the minister says is true to a certain extent, regarding the fact that there has been some progress made on a number of issues at Workers' Compensation and on health and safety of workers in general. But I think all I need to do, in reply to the minister, is quote the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca when he spoke in this House some time ago, because I think he summed it up best. He said:
"The perception persists of a large, unwieldy bureaucracy not meeting the needs of injured workers. Workers and their reps voice concerns that the system is becoming so incomprehensible and legalistic that it's not really available to them. There's poor linkage between claims and rehabilitation.
"Pension delays are far too long. There's no face-to-face with pension decision-makers. There's no literature on how the pension system works. Pension reviews are not balanced in the area of loss of earnings and percentage of disability."
He went on to say:
"There are complaints about policy consultation: too much paper, too many studies and not enough actual positive change and results. There is concern within the WCB that there are too many committees and that responses to reports detract from the real mission of WCB to protect, rehabilitate and compensate workers.
"What is happening after all these studies are lined up? In the claims area, it has resulted in another management study, an internal study, extended deadlines and more subcommittees on those issues. In the appeals area, there are review board delays -- a 6,000 case backlog. This is unacceptable. Some 1,000 hearing slots were lost last year. The average waiting period just to get a hearing date is seven months. There are strained relations between the review board and the appeal division.... 700 appeals are in the inventory, but it seems to be a problem maintaining commitment to continue to try to meet statutory duties of timely decisions."
In conclusion, the member stated: "We have complaints about workers' treatment, the delays at WCB, executive salaries and pension schemes, a deteriorating financial picture and statements like: 'We have to get more workers kicked off WCB.' I can tell you...that kicking isn't needed at the workers; the kicking is needed elsewhere."
While the minister has made some progress, there is a heck of a lot more work to be done at WCB, and I would hope that in the next few years you'll get down to it.
L. Hanson: I and my party certainly join in extending our sympathies to the families of people who are injured in the workplace. I think all of us have had first-hand experience in dealing with people who have difficulty with the system in getting what they felt was a fair examination of their case. I do know that there has been some progress made in those areas. I'm not sure that the progress has completely answered all of those problems, but certainly there has been some progress made.
I have some concern with the minister's statement about what a great situation it is with the regulations relating to the farmworkers, because the message that I'm getting is that it isn't as happy an arrangement as the minister might have suggested. But I suspect that we will learn more about that as time goes on and as those regulations are actually applied to the farming community. There is no doubt that we as government and as citizens of British Columbia should recognize and join the people -- and their families -- who have been so badly hurt by accidents that happen in the workplace. Our side of the opposition certainly supports that.
ADVANCED EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNOLOGY STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. T. Perry presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Advanced Education, Training and Technology Statutes Amendment Act, 1993.
Hon. T. Perry: I am pleased to introduce today Bill 15, Advanced Education, Training and Technology Statutes Amendment Act, 1993, which contains
[ Page 5586 ]
proposed amendments to the Institute of Technology Act, the Open Learning Agency Act and the University Act.
The Purpose Of These Amendments Is: (1) to allow for the recovery by the government of savings resulting from strikes or lockouts at the British Columbia Institute of Technology, at the Open Learning Agency and at provincial universities; and (2) to repeal section 2 of the University Act, which provides that the Lieutenant-Governor is the visitor of each university, with authority to do all acts which pertain to visitors. I assure the hon. members that the Lieutenant-Governor supports that initiative.
Bill 15 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
SHAUGHNESSY HOSPITAL CLOSURE
V. Anderson: My question is to the Minister of Health. Last night a community rally, led by the health union members, was held outside the Vancouver city hall. A letter from Ken Georgetti was read which called for the provincial government to immediately establish a process of public consultation regarding the Shaughnessy Hospital decision; and saying that consultation ends with a decision, it does not begin with one.
Dare the minister say no to Mr. Georgetti's call for renewed public consultation?
Hon. E. Cull: Mr. Bert Boyd has an extensive consultation process underway, which involves dozens of people -- both inside and outside of the hospital -- in determining the relocation of the services of Shaughnessy Hospital. If there is anyone -- workers, community people or particular health-interest stakeholders -- who want to join into that task force, they are more than welcome to join any of the committees which are looking at specific services.
[2:30]
V. Anderson: We did hear from Mr. Boyd last night, but he did not provide any of the answers that you talk about. Also in that rally last night Carmela Allevato spoke on behalf of her members, saying: "Let there be no misunderstanding. We stand for keeping Shaughnessy open. We stand for public consultation."
Will the minister say yes to the considered demand for a public review of the Shaughnessy decision from the very people with whom she is now trying to negotiate a contract?
Hon. E. Cull: The decision to close the old Shaughnessy Hospital building is a sound decision. There is a surplus of 500 acute care hospital beds in the city of Vancouver and a shortage of over 800 beds in the growing areas of the Fraser Valley. This decision will allow us to reallocate $40 million in savings to those parts of the province which need more acute care hospital services, and we stand with that decision.
V. Anderson: My final supplemental is to the Minister of Women's Equality. The major theme in the presentation at that rally last evening was that this is a women's issue, because it affects the women's centre and the women's assault program, and the emergency services that support those, and all the other auxiliary services that are part of that. We heard the vice-president of the Canadian Automobile Workers' Union and Maureen Whelan of the Health Sciences Association demanding a new task force for public consultation regarding Shaughnessy Hospital. Will the Minister of Women's Equality listen to these women's demands and encourage the Minister of Health to have the public consultation they demand?
Hon. P. Priddy: This minister and this government will continue to listen, as they have throughout the last 18 months, to women in British Columbia. This government, including this ministry and other government members, has worked closely with the Women's Health Centre at Shaughnessy Hospital and has ensured that the services for that centre are supported and safe, and it will continue to do so.
L. Reid: My question is to the Minister of Health. Last night the Vancouver City Council moved a motion to create a task force to review the programs and to ask the transition team to defer the decision to close Shaughnessy Hospital. Yet the Minister of Health stood in this House on Monday and said that she had the support of the Vancouver City Council to close Shaughnessy Hospital. Why did you say that you had that support?
Hon. E. Cull: The support of Mayor Gordon Campbell of Vancouver was evident by his presence at the press conference and the remarks he made at the press conference and also, I believe, by the remarks he made last night.
L. Reid: The mayor did not speak to the question last night. He in fact has said that he has the support of his council, which he does not have. He is not representing anybody in this province any better than this government is.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. The Chair did not hear the question, and I'm sure that the minister did not. I would ask the member to repeat just the question portion, please.
L. Reid: At the same meeting last night, Dr. Blatherwick stated that he too was not consulted about the future of Shaughnessy Hospital. Yet this same minister stood in the House on Monday and said....
The Speaker: Order. Hon. member, I only asked for the question. If the minister heard the question, will she please reply.
[ Page 5587 ]
Hon. E. Cull: After hearing the remarks of the member from last night, I went back and checked Hansard to see exactly what I had said about Dr. Blatherwick. I'll read it to her. Dr. Blatherwick, "after reviewing and considering all of the analysis" -- that we presented to him -- "said that he, too, supported the decision to close Shaughnessy." I understand that in recent discussions -- as recently as this morning -- he confirmed this to my staff. Mayor Campbell was on CKNW this morning, and I believe that he said it "was very ironic that some members of city council who have demanded that the province do some cost cutting are now shooting at the one person who had the courage to take on a difficult job" -- Mayor Campbell's words.
The Speaker: A brief final supplemental, hon. member.
L. Reid: This minister's transition team indicated in a report dated April 26 that the following programs should remain at Shaughnessy Hospital: medical genetics, the women's health centre, family practice and in-patient services. If the transition team is saying that programs should remain at the hospital, how in fact does the minister reconcile her decision, against the best medical advice of the day, to close Shaughnessy Hospital?
Hon. E. Cull: Unfortunately, the member hasn't been paying much attention to the details of this debate over the last number of weeks, because we've made it very clear that there are some services that will remain on the Oak Street site: the women's health centre and services that are necessary to support Children's Hospital and Grace Hospital. When our transition review team has finished its consultation with the community, the medical experts, the workers in the hospital and the others in the health care community in greater Vancouver, they will be making decisions about what stays at Oak Street and what goes to other hospitals.
FOREIGN CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN B.C.
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development. Yesterday in Asia the Premier tried to convince investors that the corporate capital tax is not ideologically driven. Has the minister had any success in convincing investors in B.C. that this preposterous statement is true? And how can the minister possibly support the corporate capital tax when he knows that it's the major reason investors decide against coming to British Columbia?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In reply, I think I have recognized that any tax is an impediment to people investing. However, we are remaining competitive with the jurisdictions around us. The proof is that when the Premier was on his trip, he announced a $50 million to $80 million investment in Tod Mountain by Asian investors.
J. Weisgerber: If he announced that yesterday, he was further behind than we thought he was.
A supplemental to the Minister of Economic Development. The minister says that the corporate capital tax isn't ideologically driven. We do know that it's driving investment away from British Columbia. Will the minister stand up to the Minister of Finance and demand that this tax be withdrawn?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If the member is asking if he's going to find a split in this cabinet like they had in the previous government, the answer is no.
If the question is are we going to deal with some of the problems created by some of the taxes -- as this Minister of Finance has -- by changing and raising the threshold of the corporate capital tax to benefit 3,000 businesses, then the answer is yes.
And if the question is can we verify that investment is up, we'll quote an independent study that Peat Marwick did on their own, tracking Asian investment. It indicated, by intentions of companies, that investment is going to be up $4.7 billion this year -- up from $1.8 billion last year.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
J. Weisgerber: First of all, the minister should know that he can do his job without causing a split in cabinet. Secondly, I doubt very much that Li Ka-shing was impressed to learn that the level had been raised to $1.25 million.
We do know that the fixed-wage policy is ideologically driven, and it happens to consume just about the amount that the corporate capital tax raised. Will the minister do what's right for the investment climate and for the business community in British Columbia and demand that both of these items -- both the corporate capital tax and the fixed-wage policy -- be withdrawn?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer is no.
COMMITMENT TOWARD KAON PROJECT
L. Stephens: Yesterday the Minister of Finance informed us that Ken Georgetti, along with others, was on a trip to Italy to promote the KAON project. To the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, does this mean that the province has committed its $250 million share to this project?
Hon. G. Clark: As the KAON project and negotiations around the KAON project are the responsibility of the Ministry of Finance, I want to clarify some remarks yesterday for the House's information.
The trip to Europe is by Stan Hagen, Eric Denhoff, Tricianne Burke-Smith, Erich Vogt and Ken Georgetti. At the request of the federal government, the province agreed to participate in this effort to secure commitments from other countries around the world. The costs for Mr. Georgetti are paid for by the federal government and not by the provincial government. The
[ Page 5588 ]
only provincial government contribution is Eric Denhoff, who is the lead negotiator for the KAON project.
To date we have a formal commitment from Germany to participate in the KAON project. We are very close to achieving some commitments from other European countries. This is a pan-British Columbian initiative, an important one started by the previous administration. We're working very hard to try to secure this world-class facility here and to get our share of federal government funding for science and technology, which has not been the case historically in British Columbia.
L. Stephens: The Minister of Finance did not answer the question: did the province commit to its share?
And to the Minister of Advanced Education, what special qualifications does Mr. Georgetti have to advocate a high-technology physics project to foreign investors?
The Speaker: Before the ministers answer, the Chair heard two questions to two different ministers. To whom is the question directed?
L. Stephens: To the Minister of Advanced Education.
Hon. G. Clark: I assume that question is to the minister responsible. The province has committed some of the capital costs to the completion of the project -- up to one-third of the capital costs. Just on the eve of the election, as a matter of fact, there was an announcement about a commitment of up to one-third of the capital costs. The remaining one-third of the capital costs is to come from international partners.
We have a tentative commitment from the United States for $100 million; we have a firm commitment from Germany. We need commitments from Japan and some other countries, and as well we need some commitments and cost-sharing with respect to operating costs, which we believe are federal responsibilities. That has yet to be negotiated.
I want members to know that it is important in these kinds of initiatives, particularly when you're travelling internationally, for us to show to the world the face of the leader of the labour movement, then the president of the business council, the leaders in the science community in British Columbia, and a world-class scientist like Erich Vogt, together with the federal government represented by Mr. Stan Hagen, and the provincial government represented by Eric Denhoff.
If we are to secure international commitments, that kind of Pan-Canadian and Pan-British Columbian perspective is important. Frankly, it is very disturbing that we are seeing for the first time in this House the opposition party oppose this kind of initiative on the part of British Columbians. They should reconsider their position.
[2:45]
Hon. M. Sihota: Prior to calling second reading of Bill 3, I should advise members and the Speaker that Labour and Consumer Affairs estimates will be taking place in Committee A.
Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 3.
BUILD BC ACT
(continued)
On the amendment.
L. Hanson: I rise to speak in favour of the amendment. I think that the first line of the reason that was extended for the amendment, which reads, "...all measures for which a separate spending authority is being created can be executed within all current ministry operations...." is really the key to this amendment.
There is nothing in Bill 3, B.C. 21, that could not be done within the authorities of the existing ministries. One of the main purposes of Bill 3 is to coordinate economic development and job creation. When we look at the text of the bill, we see that coordinating the government's activities to achieve overall economic development and job creation goals is one of the purposes. Another purpose is to ensure that all regions of the province benefit from the economic expansion and diversification. It goes on to say that it is there to encourage public and private sector investment and job creation activities in an innovative manner. I submit that all of those responsibilities already rest with a variety of established ministries.
We look at the bill again and it says the minister is the chair of the committee -- the Minister of Finance, I assume, because it is his bill. Then we look at what the committee may do. The committee is going to provide advice to the executive council respecting appropriate regional and sectoral employment equity and training goals for government spending. I don't know what that doesn't cover, because it probably would be easier to state in the bill the things that committee can't do than the things it can do -- because it can do almost anything. It can develop new initiatives that fulfil the purposes of the act. It can carry out other functions that may possibly be assigned to it by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. In other words, if the cabinet decides that another function should be assigned to this Crown corporation, it is simply a matter of passing an order-in-council and it will happen.
Some of the things that the bill suggests it can spend money on are community-level capital projects, and employment and job-training initiatives. I don't know where the Ministry for Advanced Education is, but I guess they're not doing their job very well. It will spend money on enhancement of resource initiatives and infrastructure initiatives.
It goes on to talk about the authority that is being created in the area of transportation: "The purpose of the authority is to plan, acquire, construct, improve or cause to be constructed or improved transportation
[ Page 5589 ]
infrastructure throughout British Columbia...." Here's a real dandy that's added to that: it's purpose is "to do such other things as the Lieutenant Governor in Council may authorize" -- another blank cheque.
When we look at the powers and capacity of this authority, one section says that subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations, it can provide financial assistance by way of grant, loan or guarantee. I thought that that rested with Treasury Board, the government itself, or at the very least, with the Ministry of Economic Development.
Again, when we look at the bill and at the powers and capacity of the new authority, it finishes up with this statement: it can also "do such other things as the Lieutenant Governor in Council may authorize" -- another blank cheque.
Under section 21, "Tolls and charges," it says: "Subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the authority may establish a system of tolls or charges to be paid to the authority in respect of the use of a highway, bridge, structure or other property of the authority." Again it is not coming back to the Legislature. There is no discussion on where those tolls may be applied, just that the authority is there if the cabinet can put those in place.
Then we look at another section of the bill, under "Limit of outstanding debt": "The outstanding debt of the authority arising from borrowings, as calculated under subsection (2), must not exceed the amount established for the purpose of this section by the Lieutenant Governor in Council." Again, the only authority needed to set borrowing limits for this new wonder-of-all-wonders Crown corporation is the executive council, not the Legislature.
I have listened to the glowing remarks from members of the opposition who have spoken in opposition to Bill 3, but I also listened with some interest to the glowing remarks from the government benches. If we were to believe half of the things that this bill is going to do for British Columbia, we could close the rest down -- and this will make British Columbia a utopia like we have never known. It's going to create jobs; it's going to take over the responsibility of reforestation from the Forests ministry; it's going to build our schools -- we're not going to have any more portable classrooms; it's going to build our hospitals, build all our public buildings and build our highways; and it's going to train our people so that they can take their place in British Columbia and enjoy the benefits of this great province. The list goes on and on. I was just reminded that the Minister of Labour -- in a very emotional speech the other day -- suggested he was going to be able to build ships in Esquimalt as a result of this wonderful B.C. 21 bill.
When you think about all of these things, the question has to come to your mind: why do we need this Crown corporation? What is the reason behind it? There isn't anything that this bill can do that we aren't able to do with the existing ministries. Maybe the ministers in charge of all of those ministries are not doing a good job. Maybe the problem is that they haven't been living up to their mandated responsibilities. Maybe that's why we need this new Crown corporation which is going to do everything for everyone.
If we're going to reduce the responsibilities of the various ministries by giving the authority to this Crown corporation, I suspect that a reasonable, thinking person might suggest that we don't need as many ministries. Maybe the Premier's intention with this bill is to come up with five or six ministries -- because with the responsibilities that will be left with those ministries, that's probably about all we'd need.
I suppose the other approach that could be taken is that if there is a question of the abilities of the various ministers to perform their functions, maybe the Premier should look at replacing some of those ministers. Maybe some of them should be taken out; there should be a cabinet shuffle, and we'll put some of the backbenchers in. When you see what is happening across the way, there certainly are a number of members that would enjoy having the responsibility of a ministerial position. I think it's pretty obvious that a number of the fellows and ladies on the substitute bench would just love to get into the inner sanctum. But the people of British Columbia are asking: why do we need a super-Crown corporation to do things that are already the responsibility of the various ministries?
In speaking on the amendment to the motion, the second part of that stresses the need for public consultation -- for the public to have an opportunity to understand this bill before it becomes law. Maybe the reason we have to have this bill is that the individual who appears, from many perspectives, to be the power behind the throne -- the person who is really running government -- feels a little insecure. Maybe through being in charge of the Crown corporations secretariat, he has a confidence problem in that he doesn't feel that he really has the power he covets. Maybe the reason is that he would like to have more. Maybe the control of B.C. Hydro, B.C. Rail, B.C. Ferries, B.C. Transit, ICBC, the Assessment Authority of B.C., BCBC, the Lottery Corporation, the Pavilion Corporation, the B.C. Trade Development Corporation and the PNE is not enough. Maybe he needs this new entity, which is going to have its fingers in every pie -- that used to be the pie of various ministries -- to give him the confidence that he truly runs the government of British Columbia. Maybe there is another reason. Maybe we have run out of spaces to place all the NDP supporters from Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Ontario, and even a few home-grown ones, at the public trough. Maybe there are not enough spaces left.
[3:00]
When it is convenient, this government points to what is happening in other provinces. Well, I have some information, particularly about highways and capitalization initiatives. I see that the Minister of Highways has joined us, and I am sure that he will find this very illuminating. The capitalization of highway construction projects is not done in Alberta; it is funded out of the annual budget. It is not done in that great socialist province of Saskatchewan; they fund it out of their annual budget. It is not done in Manitoba; they
[ Page 5590 ]
fund it out of the annual budget. And believe it or not, Ontario, which has a socialist government just as we do here in British Columbia, funds highway construction projects out of their annual budget. But because of their political bent and because they think in a similar way to this government, they are exploring the concept of transportation capital corporations, just as in British Columbia, so that the costs of building those highways will be off the books.
Quebec funds its highway construction projects from the annual budget. Prince Edward Island funds their projects from the annual budget. Nova Scotia does their funding from their annual budget. By gosh, now here's one: New Brunswick capitalizes highway construction over a period of years. But they don't do it through a Crown corporation; they do it up front. One of the motivations behind this bill, as we see it, is not to do it up front.
After all is said and done, I suspect that the real reason is simply an attempt by this government to hide from B.C. citizens the true deficit and the amount of borrowing this government has to do, caused by the deals they have made to help their labour union allies and fund the numerous patronage appointments. I suspect that this government may also be getting concerned about British Columbia's credit rating. When we've just seen what happened to Canada and their credit rating, I suspect that this government has good reason to be concerned. I think all British Columbians should be concerned. But even though in B.C. 21 -- Bill 3 -- they have tried to muddy the waters by assigning a whole bunch of duplications that are now the responsibilities of other ministries under the title of B.C. 21, I don't think even that is going to accomplish the desired effect. I think that the financiers and the people who loan money worldwide are much too wise to fall for this hocus-pocus, this smoke-and-mirrors game that is being played by this government.
This government campaigned loud and long on the policy that if they were elected, they would provide fair, open and honest government. For a government that promised an end to favours for political friends, for a government that promised that they would not spend more than you, the taxpayer, can afford, this bill shows that not one word of that election rhetoric was honest or was meant. This bill is a deliberate attempt to deceive British Columbians. That's why I support the amendment that's before us.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Hon. Speaker, may I have leave to make an introduction?
Leave granted.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I would like to introduce the class from Aberdeen Elementary School in Kamloops, who are in the precincts today with their teacher and parents, enjoying the climate of Vancouver Island and learning some things about government. I ask the House to make them welcome.
C. Tanner: I'm speaking on the amendment. To remind the House and everybody else who might be listening, I'd like to just read a couple of paragraphs of the amendment: "That all the words after 'that' be deleted," followed by "...all measures for which a separate spending authority is being created can be executed within all current ministry operations...."
That, in a nutshell, is the reason why I'm supporting this amendment. I think the public wants to know -- certainly this side of the House wants to know -- why this government wants to change courses. Why does this government want to suddenly start financing by this method, in a Crown corporation, when in fact they have three or four departments which in the past 100 years have managed to raise the money and spend the money? And now, for some reason unbeknownst to us -- unbeknownst, I think, even to their own backbenchers -- the cabinet has decided that they want to create another Crown corporation. There can only be one of three reasons, as far as I can see. One is that they don't respect the bureaucracy and the departments which are presently fulfilling this function within the government as we know it.
As the previous speaker from this side of the House just said, no other government in Canada does it this way. We're doing something different. Can it be that this cabinet, these people who are trying to find their way into government, these people who are just learning the job after a 17-year hiatus, are doing this because they don't respect the system that we've had in government, right across Canada in all governments, all these number of years? They have no respect for the system, so they're going to create a new one.
Or could it be that they've got something to hide? Could it be that they want to do something here that they can't do within the departments? We on this side of the House are not clear as to what the motive is for what they're attempting to do. Is it something they don't want us to see?
A Crown corporation does not operate the same way as a government department. It does not have to present estimates; it does not have to come to this House and say: "This is what we want to spend you money on, John Q. Public." It operates like any other private corporation and reports back to the House when the actions have been completed. That is not the way that we finance public projects in this country -- in any of the provinces or in the federal government. Why does this government want to invent a new system?
Perhaps there's a third reason, and this is what I suspect they're up to. It's not that they don't respect the departments that presently exist; it's not that they've got something to hide; it's because they want to help their friends. They want to spend money in a different way than they want us to see. They want to do something which is not above board. I think they're hiding behind a Crown corporation to do so.
When the government stands up and so proudly boasts about this new Crown corporation it's going to create, let's assume that there is some logic in what they're going to do that is not apparent to us. The natural question that follows then is: how do Crown corporations operate? What's the success of Crown corporations in this country, the ones in British Columbia in particular?
[ Page 5591 ]
If we read from the quarterly report that the Ministry of Finance puts out, it reports the operating highlights of the Crown corporations for the past nine months and the past year since this government's been in charge of them. It starts off:
"The unaudited operating results of Crown corporations and agencies for their most recent reporting period are presented in this section.
"British Columbia B.C. Ferry Corporation reported a net loss of $7 million for the nine months ended December 31....
"During the first nine months of 1992-93, operating income of British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority was $210 million, compared to $235 million for the same period last year. Domestic revenues increased 4 percent, while operating expenses increased 13 percent and finance charges increased 2 percent."
We've got a good record here of two out of two so far.
I quote again from the financial information put together by the Ministry of Finance:
"Net income of the British Columbia Railway Company" -- another Crown corporation -- "for the year ended December 31, 1992, was $51 million, down $5 million from last year. Operating revenues increased 1.1 percent and operating expenses increased 3 percent.
"The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia" -- this is an example of Crown corporations in operation, and this government wants to create another one -- "reported a net loss -- last year, in only nine months of operating -- of $64 million...compared to a net loss of $98 million last year."
Hey, we've got an improvement here. They didn't lose quite as much this year as they did the previous year.
Here we've got the Insurance Corporation of B.C., the British Columbia Railway Company, the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority and the B.C. Ferry Corporation -- all great Crown corporations and all losing money.
For the year ended December 31, 1992, the B.C. Housing Management Commission increased expenditures 22 percent, to $104 million. Another Crown corporation. But let me not fool the House. There are Crown corporations that make money -- you bet. The net income of the British Columbia liquor distribution branch for the 40 weeks that ended January 2, 1993, was $413 million -- up 12 percent. Aren't we proud of the liquor control branch? If I had a monopoly of the product, I could make a profit too. So wherever there is competition, they blow it; wherever they've got complete, utter and thorough control, they can make a profit.
But there is another one. I've got to tell you about another Crown agency, the British Columbia Lottery Corporation. They made some money last year: $177 million in the first nine months. So when we have a Crown corporation that has a monopoly and no competition, when they don't have to operate like any other private corporation, when they have all the product and all the market, they can make some money. The Lottery Corporation made money, the liquor distribution branch made money, but every other Crown corporation lost money. Madam Speaker, you've got to ask: why would they want to create another loss?
[3:15]
Madam Speaker, it's been brought to my attention that we don't have a quorum. Would you like me to continue?
The Speaker: The hon. member has drawn attention to the fact that there is no quorum. I will ring the division bells for a quorum.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
Deputy Speaker: I call the committee back to order. There appears to be a quorum, and I would ask the hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands to please continue.
C. Tanner: To bring to the members' attention where I left off, I know every member in the House was absolutely fascinated by my explanation that Crown corporations haven't been incredibly successful unless the government happens to have a monopoly. We wonder why the government would choose this method to fund, supposedly, the hospitals, the aircraft carriers -- or whatever it is they are going to build in Esquimalt -- the hospitals, schools and highways of this province. We wonder why they would change from what has been the norm in this country, wherever you go in any province in Canada. Why would they make this horrendous wrench to the left and find a completely new way of funding, unless they had an ulterior motive? I also illustrated the fact that Crown corporations haven't necessarily proven very successful; in fact, they seem to be quite a liability.
I will not let that subject go without pointing out to the House that all the debt incurred in those Crown corporations ultimately is the debt of the people of this province -- ultimately of this government and future governments and of future children and taxpayers in this province. Because the debt is in a Crown corporation doesn't in any way negate the fact that eventually the people of this province have to put their names on the line for that debt -- however it's incurred, whether it's incurred directly by the government or in a Crown corporation.
Mr. Speaker, the second part of the amendment reads: "...there has been no public consultation with the taxpayers of the province as to their desire to set up a separate spending authority outside of legislative purview." But I suspect that it's even worse than that. I think we've seen, in the last two or three days, the creation in this House of another party. I was labouring under the misapprehension that we had the government, the NDP; we had a few ragtags and bobtails over here, the third party; we had a very loyal opposition here; and that was it, with a couple of independents thrown in. A new party has been created in this province, and I guess we should celebrate. The party is called the cabinet. We've got a line somewhere down the middle on that side, and the people on one side are called the cabinet, and the people on the other side and halfway down are called back benches.
Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I should remind you that we are debating the reasoned amendment...
[ Page 5592 ]
C. Tanner: I'm getting to it.
Deputy Speaker: ...on Bill 3, and I would ask that the hon. member relate his remarks to the motion.
C. Tanner: You've inadvertently emphasized the point I want to make. Thank you. The point I'm making is that the way those people in the back benches speak about this bill is different from the way the people in the party called the cabinet speak about it.
Let me give you a couple of illustrations. The member for Cariboo North, talking about the bill earlier in the debate, said: "I hope the Minister of Finance will make sure that the fair wage policy is included in the work that gets done." We surely understand that somewhere down the line -- in their caucus or convention or party philosophy, or maybe by note in this House -- they've talked to each other. What this member is asking of the cabinet party is something we've had for some time, and what they're suggesting is that the regional development that the government intends under this legislation will occur, according to these members, if small local contractors agree to pay wages that will result in bankruptcy. The fair wage policy is a formula for disaster for any small contractor. One assumes, from what the members have been telling us, that they are going to be building schools and hospitals, building boats in Esquimalt, and building highways all over the place. All of these things are going to be done, one hopes, by small contractors employing people so that we can get the public who are out of work back to work. But if we do it at a request to the Finance minister by a member of the NDP back bench from Cariboo North, he's going to bankrupt the contractors of this country. He's going to leave them in such a state that they won't be able to hire anybody; they won't get any work at all.
Perhaps I can quote another one of the.... Whoops, he's not a backbencher. Apparently even the cabinet is divided.
N. Lortie: That's three parties.
C. Tanner: There are so many parties over there that you can hardly keep track of them all.
The member for Saanich South said: "We do have a need for government to show a leadership role with respect to employment creation." The NDP does not see private initiative as the engine of economic growth. Apparently they feel that if they create this new Crown corporation, if they create an entirely new financial arrangement, if they create some way to raise funds -- which they couldn't do last year within government -- in secret, all of the problems of the world are going to be solved. Member after member on that side of the House stood up and said: "We're going to have hospitals in my constituency. We're going to have roads in my constituency. We're going to have schools in my constituency."
Where were they last year? Where is the money coming from under this brilliant new piece of legislation? Where is the money coming from which wasn't there last year, and where is it going to come from in the future? From tolls on some highways and roads, which might raise a few million dollars? Or the 1 cent gasoline tax? Come on. Everybody knows that 1 cent on gasoline raises about $30 million a year, and they're going to do all this with the new corporation that they're creating?
Could it be, Mr. Speaker, that, unlike hospitals, unlike school boards, unlike hospital boards and unlike municipalities, this Crown corporation won't have limits on its spending? It won't have any limits on how it spends the money that it raises in some fashion unbeknown to us. Could it be that the very restrictions that we impose on those other elected and important boards in this province -- schools, hospitals and municipalities.... That Premier, when he's in the House, so proudly stands up and proclaims: "When I was the mayor of Vancouver, we never went over budget." Well, of course they didn't go over budget, because there are restrictions imposed on municipal governments by this very provincial government. The hospitals, school boards and municipalities of this province are creatures of this government. The exception to spending public money in this province is Crown corporations. I've illustrated time and again that a Crown corporation, generally speaking, will either lose money or make money only when they've got a monopoly. We've had no decent reply yet. Why, I ask, does the government side think they need a Crown corporation?
One of the most shocking things I've heard in the year and a half that I've been in this House is the Minister of Finance yesterday standing up here and berating this side of the House and saying that if we didn't pass this bill very quickly he couldn't get a bunch of people out in the woods planting trees. Has anybody ever heard such nonsense? Silviculture won't work unless we plant this new Crown corporations bill? Come on, who does he think he's talking to? What promises is he making that he can't fulfil? What's he saying to these people who are out of work and looking for employment? Does he honestly think that they've got to have the passage of this bill before they can get those people to work? That is not true.
They've got all three departments in which they can do those sorts of programs. Why don't they get on and do it? If you believe what you hear from some of these members on the back benches of this hidden party in the woods, this party that doesn't belong to this cabinet, they're creating utopia with this bill. Hallelujah! All our problems are resolved. We've got B.C. 21 -- Bilk B.C., as my friend from North Vancouver-Seymour said. He had it right on. We're going to stick it to the public. We're not going to tell them how we're going to do it. We're not going to tell them how we raise the money. We're not going to tell them how we spend the money. But you trust us, friends, we'll look after it for you. Well, utopia is not here today. You do it the same way you've done it for the last 100 years in this province and in all other provinces in Canada -- through the bureaucracy that we've got.
D. Jarvis: Point of order. If the Minister of Advanced Education -- I realize he doesn't know too
[ Page 5593 ]
much about the procedures of this House, from what he did yesterday -- insists on making disparaging remarks to the speaker, I think he should be sitting in his own chair, should he not? Or is he being moved up to the front benches?
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. For all members, standing order 36 specifically refers to the matter of how to be recognized. Hon. members, I am sure, are apprised of the standing orders and should keep them in mind.
J. Tyabji: On a new point of order, hon. Speaker.... Actually, it's not relevant anymore because we've just gone up by one, but I was going to draw attention to the fact that the Liberal opposition is carrying the day in the House, as we're bordering right below a quorum.
C. Tanner: In deference to my friend down the road here, I appreciate the fact that the Speaker pretended not to know his designation too, because I forgot it. Thank you very much.
There is one final point I'd like to make -- apart from the fact that the Crown corporation business is a sham, apart from the fact that the back bench doesn't know what the cabinet is up to, apart from the fact that other elected money raisers and money spenders in this province have restrictions on how they spend their money, apart from the fact that the opposition has tried time and time again to get some reasonable explanation out of this minister, and apart from the fact that the Minister of Finance comes up with facetious replies to legitimate questions. The business associations of this province are writing to us in droves. They're saying: "Why do they have to do it this way? Why don't they do it the way that we understand, the way that it's been done for years and years before?" Why does the business world not understand this if the Minister of Finance does? Why is it that everybody else is wrong except the Minister of Finance? Could it be that our Minister of Finance has come back from New York with a pocketful of dollars, and there are some conditions as to when he's got to spend them -- some timing conditions? Could it be that by April l that money is no longer available, and if it doesn't get spent we're no longer able to use it? Could it be that the Minister of Finance is deceiving this House, and is not telling the whole story? I leave that question open.
[3:30]
L. Reid: I rise today to support the amendment. I believe it's a reasoned amendment. I believe it's time that we took a serious look at where this government is headed, and why this government believes that there should not be accountability for all British Columbians.
If I might speak to the amendment in more detail, we're having extreme difficulty understanding why we would wish to put ministerial accountability at arm's length. That, indeed, is what this Build B.C., Blackjack 21, asks us to do. Certainly number one in our reasoned amendment is that all measures for which a separate spending authority is being created can be executed within all current ministry operations. Fundamentally, we believe that the current mechanisms in place can perform the tasks of Bill 3, the Build BC Act. We're not clear why an overlay is necessary to the enterprise. We see this very much as an additional layer of bureaucracy that will be put in place, that will once again allow the members of this government, the members of this cabinet, to step away from their responsibilities to British Columbians.
Number two is that there has been no public consultation with the taxpayers of the province as to their desire to set up a separate spending authority outside legislative purview. Responsibility and accountability to the British Columbia taxpayer is the issue of the day and one that my colleagues and I in the official opposition have canvassed in detail and will continue to canvass. There is no justification in my mind for doing anything other than being accountable to the taxpayer. It continues to amaze me that we have members of this assembly who can stand up and justify creating an arm's-length entity to somehow remove themselves from accountability.
We had the Minister of Labour yesterday talk about fairness to all British Columbians. This legislation is not fairness to all British Columbians. It's a legacy of debt. It allows this government to legitimately create a mechanism of debt. What a legacy for us to be handing down to future generations! You will certainly not see such a legacy supported by the official opposition in this province.
Yesterday the Minister of Labour said: "Bill 3 stands for all British Columbians." What stands them up -- bankruptcy? Stands them up in higher mortgage rates? It's not an appropriate document in my view, because it doesn't address who pays for this debt. Is it a debt we're taking on for all time? I would suggest that it is. I would suggest that if we allow in any way, shape or form for accountability to be removed from ministers of the Crown, we are indeed creating a legacy that we will not be proud of. In this province we have a parliamentary and democratic system of government. We have a system where we believe in direct accountability. Today we have British Columbians calling for direct participatory democracy. They want to have some say in the issues that are advanced and want to know how the issues are going to go forward. This will not, in any way, shape or form, refine or enhance the process.
If this were truly responsible government, we would not be talking about mortgaging our future, and for me, that is the issue under Bill 3, the Build BC Act. I see it as a gamble that will not pay off for British Columbians. In fact, they're being asked to play a huge game with their own money, without any accountability. For me, it's almost as if you received a financial statement that only had the anecdotal comment written in. The numbers would be missing; the bottom line would be missing. That's an issue for British Columbians and for this government, because the majority of British Columbians do not feel that the NDP government are the finest money managers they've ever seen. They don't believe there's tremendous understanding on behalf of tax policy in this province, and they're not convinced that removing spending authority from legislative purview is the way to go.
[ Page 5594 ]
The official opposition in the province shares that sentiment. In the midst of chaos over taxation, in the midst of a tax revolt, why in the world would this government believe that British Columbians are going to say: "Yes, let's remove accountability from our government"? We have many British Columbians who want exactly the opposite. They want increased accountability and responsibility on behalf of their members, and they certainly expect it from the executive council in the government of British Columbia. It's a privilege to be able to offer wisdom and insight from a cabinet post. We expect that from the people we pay to be in those positions -- and we pay them a good sum of money to effect decent decisions for the people of British Columbia. I have no idea why they're choosing not to deliver a service that they are currently being paid to. I, for one, cannot justify the fact that they would remove themselves from the responsibility for which they are being paid.
Any attempt by this government to support Bill 3 and Build B.C. is another opportunity to reinforce double taxation in this province. We're going to see the taxpayer paying for the minister to do the job as well as for this new agency to do the very same job. It's a dilemma. Obviously we don't need both entities. So which one are we going to dissect out of the system? Which one are we going to calve off and allow to do something else? I would never favour any increased bureaucracy in the province of British Columbia. I think we've seen many newly created positions from this administration over the last number of months. I'm not interested in seeing another one.
On a daily basis the Minister of Finance says we cannot afford increased taxation and additional positions. If that is indeed the case, why are we proceeding with a new entity which is going to be looking at a new infrastructure and new people who will be receiving salaries? If we can't afford it, we should not be proceeding; if we can, the Minister of Finance is misleading this House. There is no opportunity here to play both sides of the fence. Either you stand for increased fiscal management or you stand for increased bureaucracy. There are only two options, and this government must stand up and say which one they are willing to support.
I strongly believe that this piece of legislation -- Bill 3, Build B.C. -- will increase the debt load in this province. In my travels around the province I have not found a single person who is interested in increased debt or increased taxation. I reiterate: we have individuals in the ministry portfolios who can do the job of Build B.C., of Bill 3. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that those individuals are currently not doing their jobs, and the question British Columbians should be asking is: why? Why are we justifying a ministerial portfolio at the taxpayers' expense for a job that's not being done? If that's not the case, I would encourage and urge them to go out and do the job -- not stand up in the House and say: "I'm not able to do my job. I need the creation of this entity to go forward."
I'm not interested in creating another entity. No matter which way the official opposition takes this, it is another layer of bureaucracy. It will result in increased taxation and double taxation. Taxpayers in this province will be paying twice for the creation of roads and for silviculture programs. Those are expenditures funded under the budget, and they should remain as line items in the budget. To remove legislative purview of financial expenditure has no value in the eyes of the official opposition. Our role is to provide checks and balances in this system. Our role is to ensure that the dollars are spent in a fiscally appropriate manner. If there is no opportunity to discuss expenditure in this House, there is no way for any checks and balances to be put in place. That is a significant issue, and it is probably the cornerstone of this piece of legislation. If you take away the role of the opposition in terms of accountability, you have taken away a significant piece of legislative democracy. You have taken away the role of a parliamentarian within the province of British Columbia.
If this government wants to stand up and say: "Well, we're moving away from democracy and heading into some other form of government," fine, stand up and say that. But don't cloud the issues by saying: "No, no, we're truly here to support democracy. We're going to be undemocratic and unparliamentary, but we don't want you to be aware of that." I think that's what this government is saying to British Columbians.
This piece of legislation is selling a bill of goods to British Columbians. There's no way this legislation is going to enhance the process, to refine and assist the delivery of those services to British Columbians and the taxpayers of this province. There's absolutely no way that is going to happen under this legislation. It's neat, clean and undemocratic. I can't justify a piece of undemocratic legislation coming forward in a House that pretends to stand for democracy. At the end of the day, that is the issue -- a separate spending authority, no legislative purview of expenditure and no guarantee that this will not increase the level of taxation and debt shared by British Columbians.
Again, I support the amendment strongly. It's time some reason was introduced into this debate and into this piece of legislation, because it frankly does not carry any sober second thought before us today. I supported the amendment for a six-month hoist because I firmly support the notion that we need some public consultation. Again, this government rose up in record numbers and said: "No public consultation. We're frankly not interested in asking British Columbians what they think about a piece of legislation that will incur greater debt and not provide enhanced service." There's no question that this government was not interested in public consultation.
Last night this government was brought to task for not being interested in public consultation. It's a litany of the same behaviours. And in my view, British Columbians will rise up as these behaviours touch their pocketbook at an increasing rate. There simply are not the dollars out there to pay double for the same service. As to why there is any legitimacy in doing that, I've yet to hear a member on the government bench suggest this is the way to provide greater accountability. I don't believe anyone has ever spoken to the accountability question from the government side of the House. I don't
[ Page 5595 ]
believe anyone has ever spoken to the enhanced service component of this particular piece of legislation. It's a tremendous issue. We've had members in this House stand up and talk about job creation. We've be asking them about that for many months. They know that they do not have a strong job creation platform for this province.
My comment today is that this is not the platform. If this is all British Columbians have to look forward to, it is time to call the election, because this is not a reasonable job creation program for the province. We have been waiting for 18 months -- a year and a half -- for this government to come forward with a stimulating job creation program. The hon. minister would say that this is it. I can only say that you have to do better. British Columbians are calling upon you, on a daily basis, to do better and to be innovative and creative, not less accountable. There is a tremendous difference, and you are missing the point on a regular basis.
C. Serwa: They just don't get it.
L. Reid: I couldn't agree more.
This is not about decreased accountability; it is about a call for job stimulation and job creation. If this is all there is, British Columbians will continue to wonder about this government and to be disenchanted with it, because they have not delivered on the promises they said they would deliver on. Frankly, I think it's time governments in this country actually provided some kind of program, which they said they would do prior to election.
[3:45]
We have the 48-point platform, but we are not making tremendous strides on that. I don't believe that the platform said we should remove taxation from the purview of the people or remove accountability from the Legislature.
I intensely resent that this is somehow being held out as a panacea for job creation, because it's not a panacea. It's not even close to being a reasonable piece of legislation. It is not legislation that the official opposition can support, because it does not provide accountability in this chamber for the taxpayer. Frankly, this is the chamber that they have already paid for once. They have paid for the decisions that will be reached by the members of this cabinet and government. Why are we asking them to pay again? Why are we asking them to fund -- against their knowledge and, more than likely, against their will -- another layer of bureaucracy?
This is the government that said that when they came to power, they would streamline government and reduce government expenditure and duplication. This bill would duplicate services. We have ministers in positions today who can do all the items reflected in this piece of legislation, yet ministers -- and I am sure members of the government benches will do so later today -- leap up and say that this is vital to their future. Maybe so, but it's not so vital to the future of this province that taxpayers should be asked to pay again. It doesn't make sense.
At the end of the day, it is a really simple argument: this does not make sense. There are no guarantees or assurances. There is absolutely no certainty that this will improve service delivery. At the end of the day, I believe that all British Columbians are interested in is improved service delivery and getting good value for their dollars. They have paid the dollars, and they now have every right to expect decent service. This will not provide it.
My hon. colleague from North Vancouver-Seymour referred to Build B.C. as Bilk B.C. You have to give the gentleman credit. He is right on, in that the title Bilk B.C. honestly reflects this particular piece of legislation. It is an opportunity to take dollars willy-nilly out of the taxpayer's pocket and put it into a system that does not have accountability. There will be no opportunity for the taxpayers in this province to come back and scrutinize those expenditures with due diligence, line by line. Those expenditures will float off in the mist and will not come back to this House for consultation.
I can't say that I am surprised at this juncture. In my view this cabinet, this government, does not understand due process, does not understand consultation. Certainly in my work as Health critic, I can find you many, many thousands of people in this province who believe that NDP stands for No Due Process. They won't get an argument from me, because again we have individuals who will leap up and defend no due process. The only process British Columbians have at their disposal for appropriate taxation is the scrutiny from this House, the budget estimates process in this province.
We are currently in budget estimates for the Ministry of Health and for the Ministry of Labour. The Ministry of Forests has just been concluded, I believe. That is the only option British Columbians have to participate in this exercise. There is no scrutiny of Crown corporations in this province. There is no real responsibility tied to creating another Crown corporation, another entity, another layer of bureaucracy.
I can't support it. I think it's an opportunity to masquerade debt. I think it's another opportunity to have a double set of books when you're doing the accounting: this is what we're responsible for; this is what we've spent that we're not responsible for. I can't justify that. Frankly, hon. Speaker, I'd be surprised if we could find many British Columbians who would say: "Yes, tax me twice for the same job, and I will not have any opportunity to find out where my dollars went."
An Hon. Member: Incompetent business people.
L. Reid: Is it, as my hon. colleague suggests, incompetence? Do these individuals simply not understand the bottom line? Are we missing small business people in the government benches? Do we not understand how to raise funds, how to look at dollars and actually keep some taxation dollars in the pockets of British Columbians? Maybe it's time to share the wealth. That's certainly the position this government took when they were elected. They were going to share the wealth. They didn't stand up on all those podiums
[ Page 5596 ]
across this province and say they were going to take every last cent to create a new bureaucracy in Victoria. They said exactly the opposite. They said they were going to streamline the process, they were going to reduce duplication. I think they even said they were going to eliminate duplication and increase efficiency.
What's wrong with ministerial responsibility? I have no issue with that. I think that's why these individuals were appointed to those positions, because the minister -- the first minister, if you will; the Premier of this province -- upon election of the NDP government had the ability to choose the best people for the particular portfolios. These are the choices he made. We have to accept that. That is his role, his right, as the Premier. Having made these choices, these individuals must deliver some accountability to the taxpayers in this province. My issue is the taxpayer. My issue is the bottom line. There must be some accountability. To do anything else is taking taxpayers on a walk through the park: "Look at us, we're doing a great job. We can show all these things. We can put all this great propaganda at your door, but at the end of the day, we're never going to provide you with the numbers. We're not going to tell you what it actually cost. We're going to have one set of books over here, and one set of books over there."
That's a problem for me, because I think the increasing growth of Crown corporations will have an impact on the economy, but I'm not convinced that it will be a positive impact. In fact, I suggest that reduced accountability and the increase in Crown corporations will have a very negative impact on our economy. Our known numbers will be reduced. We will have fewer options to actually scrutinize any kind of process.
Time for some reflection, because the points that the official opposition has raised and will continue to raise look at the basic tenets of this amendment. I will speak to the amendment in terms of the necessity to create another spending authority. I've heard no one on the government side of the House justify that. I'm not clear why they would want another spending authority. It seems to me they're having many problems getting a handle on the one they've got.
Let's take the Minister of Finance as an example. Certainly when you have someone in his position saying that the new agreement for health care workers would cost $50 million, and you have the employer groups saying it would cost as much as $529 million -- fully ten times as much -- I would say that's a classic example of this government not getting a handle on the numbers. If they're having that much difficulty with one set of books, what do we have to look forward to when they acquire a second set of books, when they are running parallel accounts that are not scrutinized by the public? Those are significant issues, hon. Speaker.
I could never support the creation of a second taxation vehicle. That, I believe, is how British Columbians will come to view these Crown corporations: a second opportunity to tax the public, without restraint. British Columbians have told this Minister of Finance and this government on a repeated basis that there are no more dollars, that they simply cannot afford increased taxation. What has been the government's response? "We won't call it taxation. We'll call it creation of a new Crown corporation that will be funded from the tax base." Hon. Speaker, I ask you: who is going to pay, and how much are they going to pay? At the end of the day, it's the taxpayers, and they're going to pay a tremendous amount. They're going to pay a great deal of money without any kind of appeal process. It's a huge problem.
The theme running through this discussion over the last number of days has been: who is in charge? If indeed we're removing ministerial responsibility from our ministers, who is in charge? Are we going to be deleting ministries? I've not heard that. However, the Premier is away at the moment. Maybe he will come back and say: "I'm prepared to downsize my cabinet by nine positions, because I want to put those dollars towards this Crown corporation." If he came back and said that, the official opposition would have to take a look at that, because he would have had to come to grips with the issue and said: "You're right, it's not fair to doubly tax British Columbians to perform the same job." Can you imagine a little reason on that side of the House? Frankly, I would be impressed if he came back and said that it wasn't fair to expect British Columbians to pay twice. I don't think that's going to happen. They've certainly had limited sympathy with the taxpayer in this province.
I would ask: what is the urgency for this piece of legislation? It's not good legislation; it's not particularly well-written legislation. It has an insidious theme, a theme of removing accountability at every turn. So what's the urgency? Why would we want to get it in place so quickly that it would call for night sittings, that it would call for legislation by exhaustion on behalf of this government? And let me tell you, hon. Speaker, we've seen this tack before. We've seen bad legislation railroaded through this House. If that's the behaviour that bad legislation calls for, we can only assume that this is very bad legislation. So again, what is the urgency? Why are we proceeding at breakneck speed for Bill 3 -- Build B.C.? Why indeed, if this is innocuous legislation, would we have to sit during the night to debate this? My take on that is that this government wishes to push this through so that as few British Columbians as possible truly come to understand the insidious nature of this piece of legislation.
If they were truly proud of this, let's get that glossy package together and get it on every doorstep in British Columbia. Let's see this government truly sell this piece of legislation -- because I don't think it's possible. I can tell you, we've had no success with the neutral viewer taking a look at this and saying: "That's exactly what British Columbia needs." Nobody I have spoken to has said that. I would venture a guess that few people on this side of the House, if any, have found a lot of support for Bill 3, the Build BC Act. And let me be so bold to use the words of my colleague: we have found no one who is willing to support this piece of legislation, because they believe they have already paid for this service once. They expect their Minister of Transportation to build roads and their Minister of Labour to come up with a job creation plan -- not an arm's-length Crown corporation, hon. Speaker. It's a
[ Page 5597 ]
huge issue. My colleagues, over the last number of days, have touched on the slush fund. This will probably be the grandest slush fund of them all. Historically, we've seen, some pretty major slush funds in this province, where ministers might as well have called them pre-election funds. I'm not interested in another one that is going to return decisions in time for the next election that are not part of a plan, a process or a ministerial package that flows from this government to the people of the province for approval.
[4:00]
This government is not seeking the approval of the taxpayers in this province. I believe they are saying: "You're not going to like this, so we're not going to ask you to accept it in terms of review and estimates debate. We're simply going to put it out there to do its work. It's basically going to do our work, the work of government, and we're not going to review it publicly." That is an option under this particular piece of legislation, and it is not an option that the official opposition can support. It's not prudent legislation; it's not reasonable legislation; it's not legislation for the 1990s. At the end of the day, I believe British Columbians are looking for accountable and democratic government, and they're looking for that approach to be facilitated by first-class parliamentarians. I await this government becoming first-class parliamentarians.
C. Serwa: Just before I start speaking on the amendments with respect to Bill 3, I want to make it abundantly clear to you, hon. Speaker, that although I may seem to stray far afield sometimes in my discourse at the present time, be assured that every element of my speech will be relating to the elements, and in the fullness of time you will see clearly how it all comes together at the end.
The Speaker: I'm trusting you, hon. member.
C. Serwa: For the benefit of those who are paying attention to this particular debate through the media, I would like to re-emphasize the amendments that were tabled yesterday by the hon. member of the official opposition. The first part was: "all measures for which a separate spending authority is being created can be executed within all current ministry operations." I will be speaking on that. The second one is: "there has been no public consultation with the taxpayers of the province as to their desire to set up a separate spending authority outside of legislative purview." The third one is: "this bill will increase the amount of debt held by the province and will negatively impact on the ability of future generations to control their economic destiny."
Hon. Speaker, I will be speaking in support of this reasoned amendment for a wide variety of reasons. Of all of the bills that I have seen brought forward in the Legislature, this is perhaps the most repugnant. It makes no rational sense for this bill to come forward to this particular Legislature. Government members are trying to sell what I consider to be a bill of goods. They seem to believe -- and in all honesty and fairness, I think they sincerely believe it -- that it will create a miracle of economic recovery and an abundance of jobs throughout the province. They have been schooled and drilled and have endeavoured to sell that perspective to members in this Legislature and to the public at large. Virtually every action that the government has taken has been contrary to the expressed intentions of this bill.
It's a pleasure to see the Minister of Social Services in this Legislature, because she has been foremost among government ministers who have gone out of their way to try to create a dependent society in British Columbia consisting of employable men and women. And certainly, with her independent living initiative, they are now taking teenagers away from their homes. But the efforts of the Minister of Social Services -- and it's part and parcel of this broad question in job creation -- have not been very positive in the way of creating jobs. Under the former administration that particular ministry created a lot of jobs. You could call them a half a step from the GAIN program to full work. The Ministry of Social Services had done a superlative job in that particular area.
With the current minister and with the philosophy of the current government, what we have done is walk away from any opportunity or responsibility to create jobs through the Ministry of Social Services. We've seen that ministry increase by some $900 million in expenditures, not in job creation projects. We have seen that large amount spent simply in making British Columbia the destination resort for welfare recipients throughout Canada. That's totally unacceptable. What a legacy this particular Minister of Social Services and Housing will leave for the province of British Columbia -- a dependent society.
The question that we're dealing with, though, is the capitalization of large capital assets. Obviously, the budget of the province has grown dramatically over the past several years, and we're faced with some sort of dilemma. The Minister of Finance wishes clearly to hide the actual deficit of his socialist government, and so they've devised a scheme where they can kill two birds with one stone. They can disguise and hide -- or endeavour to -- a growing deficit. He proudly proclaims that the current year will be $1.5 billion. The reality is that we will be hiding another $1.5 billion behind this initiative, which will, pyramided onto last year, provide again a breaking of new barriers. We thought that the four-minute mile a number of years ago in Vancouver was really something, but it's really nothing compared to the ability of this current government to continue to break and set new records in deficit spending.
Why is it reasonable to capitalize assets? Is there a market for those assets? We're trying to draw some sort of parallel here to what we do in the real world, in the business sector. We can look at amortizing something -- let's say a road -- over 40 years. But can we sell that road? Does it actually have a tangible value? Does it increase some sort of revenue capability directly or indirectly? Or does it simply facilitate transportation with more lanes? We really have to look at that.
There are already mechanisms through all of the line ministries to attend to all of the concerns that have been
[ Page 5598 ]
brought forward with this Bill 3, which we aptly name "Bilk B.C." Fundamentally, it's the type of bill that, were it perpetrated outside of this Legislature, would clearly be identified as a scam.
What is the end result of capitalizing items such as roads and the transportation system? And why are we opposed? This is not really a partisan political issue; it's simply an economic issue. Why are we opposed so adamantly to long-term capitalization and amortization of projects? And 40 years, as I've said, is not unreasonable when it comes to roads. It's a matter of cost. If we spend $1.5 billion a year for the next five years, the reality is that in 40 years we will have to repay $30.8 billion to look after a $7.5 billion debt that we acquired building transportation infrastructure and schools -- and all the other commodities the current government put into this particular package.
But what does that really mean? Not only are we going to bind and limit the opportunities of the people that follow us for the next 40 years -- and that's over a generation; that's into the second generation, if we take an average generation of 30 years -- but we're going to dramatically limit their opportunity. We're going to buy today and limit their opportunities dramatically.
I don't feel that it's right to take $30.8 billion, pay it out as interest payments and provide nothing in the way of goods and services for that $30.8 billion. We will only have $7.5 billion worth of assets -- which will be depreciating over that 40-year amortization period, which we will have to rebuild -- but we will spend $30.8 billion over and above the $7.5 billion in order to acquire them.
I don't think that the taxpaying citizen of this province can be excited or enamored with this type of project. I don't know anyone who really believes that we have some sort of inherent right to live higher on the hog than we deserve. Our standard of living is something that we have to earn. It's not a gift carried by those who preceded us and who worked hard, who through their toil and labour worked to build this province for our benefit so we could utilize it not only to satisfy needs but all sorts of unrealistic wants. I don't know anyone in my community who feels it's appropriate to do that. We have to earn our living by productivity, and we have to justify it.
For 125 years, British Columbians have worked generally on a pay-as-you-go policy. It has worked. We've had roads and bridges and job-training schemes. We have built schools, hospitals and law courts. We've done everything that Bill 3, B.C. 21 is purporting to do. What was wrong with that? Was it unrealistic or unreasonable?
We're the beneficiaries of individuals who worked hard -- by the sweat of their brow -- to build this province to what it is today. What right have we to blow our children's and our grandchildren's legacy to a bright, positive, optimistic future, simply by excessive wants right now? It doesn't make any sense to me; I don't think it makes any sense to you, hon. Speaker; and I know darned well it doesn't make any sense to the people of British Columbia.
It is perceived as what it simply is: a bill to hide a growing deficit of the current government. It's a bill that enables unemployed party hacks -- if there are any left in the rest of Canada -- to come to a cushy, well-paid job in British Columbia. It's absolute certainty of good employment, wondrous working conditions and very little in the way of actual work or responsibility, but it has a tremendous pay and benefits package and, I'm sure, a severance package which will cost the next government dearly.
I don't think those are good enough reasons for Bill 3, and it's certainly not compatible with the motion put forward by the hon. member of the opposition. So we have to think about that. Is the aim to create jobs? Is that now the ambition of this current government? It is the only reason that I sought election as an MLA. I recognized the economic as well as social devastation from unemployment. But where was the commitment of this government in the past year and a half to create jobs? And what an abysmal record they have of creating jobs. They haven't even attempted to create an environment of opportunity where jobs could be created.
As a matter of fact, in their very first budget they took away jobs from young people going to schools and universities. They abandoned the Environment Youth Corps program, a program into which we had injected approximately $10 million on an annual basis -- a good first-time opportunity for young people to acquire work-related experience and to fit into other jobs in the private sector. They threw that one out the window. Again, in stark contrast to their commitment to our university students prior to becoming government, the next program they threw out the window -- one which created a lot of jobs -- was the subsidy program we had with the private sector to create summer employment for students going to universities. They threw that one out the window as well.
So where did this newfound commitment to create jobs come from? It certainly didn't come from the Ministry of Social Services. That ministry is aggressively campaigning to enable people and holding classes to teach people how to access the system -- not to help them find full-time jobs, not to help them in a retraining process, not to help them with their career. So I see that creating jobs is really a red herring.
[4:15]
How will this strengthen the economy? I don't see how it will strengthen the economy at all. I see how it will help the pockets of some individuals involved in it. I see all sorts of opportunities for doing things behind the closed doors of a Crown corporation -- not accountable to the public, only accountable to cabinet. I have very little faith in that level of accountability. This bill will allow the government to evade any type of accountability or responsibility or to avoid having any form of discipline exercised on their expenditures. That's what it will also enable.
It amounts to a horrendous tax bill. The public had given you a substantial amount of time, but you certainly caught the public's eye with your last budget, which was a tax, tax, tax budget. Now, for the first time ever, we have all sorts of groups -- unconnected politically, having never participated in any sort of a demonstration before in their life -- come together in
[ Page 5599 ]
various communities to voice their strong opposition. Those groups consist of professionals, labourers, elderly people and the very young -- a broad cross-section that never exhibited any strong opposition to the government before in their lives.
The loss of accountability is a very serious issue. Because we can defer payment, we're going to make lot of decisions that are not really going to be acceptable. We are going to wind up trying to satisfy short-term interests and hurt people over the very long term. I think the government has a much greater responsibility than that, but perhaps this is one of the reasons the government wants to move in this direction with Bill 3. It's wrong, it won't create jobs and it will not strengthen the economy; it will only help the government by hiding ever-increasing deficits.
The public is not ignorant of what is happening. The public is far better informed and aware than they ever were, through recognition of what transpired in the last budget. And I always have to refer to the words of Bob Williams, when he said: "If you think we were radical from '72 to '75, just wait until next time." So the moderate, reasoned, balanced, fair and businesslike approach that was promoted has dissolved into something that is quite dramatically different. It bothers me very greatly. It wasn't simply the loss of one or two election promises; it was the loss of a whole slate of election promises. It was popular politics played at its very shallowest form. The losers will be all of us in politics. The loser in this will be the credibility of government, and that affects the credibility of all of us. The ultimate losers in this exercise, of course, are the people we're here to represent -- who we are committed generally to represent.
It's not fair and balanced. Did it take courage to bring in this type of bill? No, quite the contrary. I don't think it took any courage whatsoever. It's a devious type of bill, designed for reasons other than the obvious ones put forward here. The Premier's announcement stated: "In essence, B.C. 21 is an expression of our government's commitment to do business in a new way, to make the best use of tax dollars today for the future prosperity of our province." There is absolutely no way that those words relate to Bill 3, because they're completely incorrect. First of all, we're not using today's tax dollars. We're foisting this off onto others over 40 years. What we're going to do is allow line ministries to defer anything that is in the way of capital, even the kitchen sink, into this particular Bill 3, and say what a fine job we're doing.
But the government is absolutely abdicating its clear-cut responsibility by transmitting responsibilities from line ministries into a Crown corporation which is not accountable. I suppose that in the end the government is going to say, "Well, don't blame us; they've done it," and point to the new Crown corporation. Talk about a waste of money. A government is elected to manage the fiscal affairs and provide goods and services for people in the province. They are abdicating that responsibility by trying to transfer it onto some sort of an organization, committee, society or retired home for politically correct individuals. They're abdicating it badly. British Columbians aren't fooled by that.
You talk about forestry initiatives and silviculture. We've planted over three billion trees now in British Columbia. We have outstanding silviculture initiatives and programs handled by the Ministry of Forests and its expertise and ability. If there is any interest in job creation, I could think of no better opportunity than to give a number of the individuals who are presently on GAIN, and who are capable and want to work, the opportunity to work in silviculture. It's a healthy environment. The pride and self-esteem of individuals comes back very dramatically and very quickly with that. They find other jobs in the private sector workforce. You don't have to create another Crown corporation to provide those jobs. Those jobs are available. A superlative job has been accomplished by the Ministry of Forests in the past five to ten years in that particular field.
We hear a great deal of Ms. Maloney, who has recently been appointed a deputy minister in the Attorney General's ministry. I think perhaps she, with her statements on wealth and her anger, envy and greed with respect to those that she perceives as wealthy, is clear-cut evidence of the radical direction that this current government has taken. When we notice that this Bill 3 will provide for self-liquidating funds, and when I look at Ms. Maloney's statements with respect to her ideas on taxing the wealthy.... It will be a tax on seniors. It will be a tax on everyone. As a matter of fact, she is saying that everyone should be taxed an additional 4 percent a year, and whether they are making any income or are on fixed income or whatever, all of their assets should be put together.
I am sure that she has the ear of government, but she is an example of one of those individuals who has always relied heavily on the public purse to keep her, and she has moved very quickly into the area of the public trough. Who is going to pay for the public trough that so many have nuzzled up to? The taxpayer of British Columbia. Who better at extracting the source of that funding than the current Minister of Finance, who is extracting more and more taxes and imposing new taxes and higher tax rates for spending. The other day, the minister spoke briefly on this. He said: "We need the money." The Government House Leader, the Minister of Labour, said: "We want to make things happen now. Why should we wait six months because of the hoist motion?"
In the first year of this government, they wasted several billion dollars on initiatives which were neither necessary nor appropriate. They were simply political payoffs to the union sectors. You can look at the fixed-wage policy, which is costing $200 million a year in the province.
Hon. R. Blencoe: That's rubbish.
C. Serwa: Ah, the Minister of Municipal Affairs says: "Rubbish." Do you know how they evaded that? It was a very clever scheme. They escalated the estimate costs so that the tender bids came in under the estimates. It's a very easy thing to actually accomplish.
[ Page 5600 ]
Rubbish! It's costing the people of the province $200 million a year.
In that same budget, we did a number of things. Right off the bat, the current government repealed several bills -- the Taxpayers Protection Act, for one. It put a limit on government spending. It was a reasonable, responsible type of a bill, which they could have well utilized. They also repealed another bill that put a cap on public sector wage increases. How much did that cost, hon. Minister of Finance? It cost the British Columbia taxpayer $200 million, $300 million, $400 million -- substantial, hon. Speaker.
The hiring of almost 2,000 new employees -- certainly over that last year and the intentions this year, well over 2,000 -- will cost approximately another $1 billion. Does the public out there need or want more government, or does the public want a leaner, meaner government that makes decisions and gets off the backs of the private sector and of the citizen who is working out there with no guarantee of a job for life, no cushy package of all sorts of health plans, pensions or security? The private sector out there is a different world than the public sector that the government has sold out the people of British Columbia to.
The other day the Minister of Finance said: "It's much like putting a mortgage on a house. You all understand that. All of the people in the province really understand that very few British Columbians can go out and simply put the money down for a new house. We buy a mortgage." But that's not even a fair comparison. You're taking something that we all acknowledge and that we all do, but we only go out and buy one house. We know what our income is. We have an idea of the security of our job; we know what it will be for the next number of years, and we make a commitment. So we buy one house, we put the down payment on it and we work towards paying that house. But we don't buy one house this year, another the next year and another the next year all on the same income that we have. It's not possible. That's the problem with this particular concept. There's no relationship -- none whatsoever. I couldn't think of a poorer example than Bill 3 and the actual purchase of a house. There's no relation whatsoever.
There will be no increase in income. To get an increase in income, you will have to do what the Minister of Finance has done: increase tax rates, impose new taxes on a defenseless society. As a matter of fact, because we're not delivering goods and services to people for those dollars, there's a great deal of mismanagement, and it's an unfair form of looting from society. So that comparison is not valid whatsoever.
The Minister of Finance also spoke of the pressure on this current government. There is no pressure on this government for massive capital spending, outside of the ability to pay-as-you-go. And why isn't there? You remember well the devastation that occurred in the early 1980s, where the economy was hurt. Individuals and businesses were going bankrupt throughout British Columbia. Everyone out there was hurting. There was a restraint package brought in. Government expenditures had to be cut down. We stand on the shoulders of giants who made those decisions, and the strength of our present economy, even to this day, was the result of a very courageous and brave decision made by a former Premier, Bill Bennett.
[4:30]
From 1986 to 1991 there was accelerated spending because of the services and the capital structures that people required. We built more schools, more hospitals, more court-houses and more roads and highways, all of the things that people needed, and that's why the accelerated spending from '86 to '91. But those matters have been attended to. In the period of the last government, there was a difference in the deficit from the start to finish of that government of $1.48 billion. In the very last year of our government, $1.4 billion came as a direct result of a cutdown in federal transfer payments to British Columbia.
So the minister's argument that we have to spend because we need more infrastructure is not appropriate. People are responsible. We don't have to spend in those areas. What we have to do, obviously, is look after health care, education and social services. But most of all we have to take other tacks and other initiatives that are responsible. This is a very irresponsible act.
The current government seems to believe that you can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Deputy Speaker: I regret to interrupt the member, but his time has lapsed.
J. Dalton: I'm rising to support the reasoned amendment that the opposition has put forward. There are certainly many aspects of this bill which trouble the opposition and obviously trouble the third party as well, and I will be covering some of these.
The first point I want to raise is in the form of a question: why the rush? Why is there such a panic to get this bill through the House this week? It's not just that the government wants to deal with this on second reading in principle, but we're also informed that it is their desire that this bill go through committee stage, third reading and, presumably, get royal assent by the end of the week. I'm going to offer my opinion as to why the government is indeed in such a rush. The Finance minister was away for a week scouting around the money markets as you....
An Hon. Member: Skulking around.
J. Dalton: Well, scouting around, skulking around, whichever you want to attribute to that minister.
He returned from the money markets in New York and Toronto, and wherever else he happened to touch base, looking unusually smug. I happened to see the minister last Friday, the day he was returning to Victoria, and I put a simple question to him. I said: "Did you bring back lots of money?" He just smiled in his knowing way. I suggest that the rush we now find ourselves in to put this bill through the House is because there is a financial game plan in mind, and this bill is part of that. This bill will dictate the direction in
[ Page 5601 ]
which this government is unfortunately going to take this province. They need the bill in place now in order to carry out that program and that process.
I can assure you, hon. Speaker, that it does disturb us in the opposition that a bill.... Last week we were told there was no great panic; put it on the back burner, and the bill will eventually come back on the order paper. Now we find we are having evening sittings. Perhaps -- heaven forbid -- we'll have more before this bill is finished. We find ourselves with a government that is trying to diffuse the work of the House by calling estimates in Committee A when the House is dealing with second reading of a bill. We spoke against that process the other day. Also, last evening the Government House Leader tried to call other estimates in Committee A, which of course is unprecedented in this House.
I'm bringing out these points because there's clearly a government agenda here that is not being disclosed. I think it has to be pointed out when we speak to this reasoned amendment that there is obviously some hidden information. It would be very useful to know why we should be debating this at length at this time. On top of that, it is well documented by way of the comments of the official opposition that we are very troubled by the tenor of this bill and by the direction in which it is going to take the province. That's just as important as any hidden agenda this government may have -- which, of course, would disturb anyone. I want to draw the House's attention to the question of why we are suddenly flurrying and scurrying around, dealing with a piece of legislation which, on first flush, does not seem to warrant the undue consideration it is now attracting.
I think it's also noteworthy that at this time, after six weeks of this session, the government has only placed ten bills on the order paper. This clearly is on the top of that ten. The government has been very slow out of the gate this session in getting legislation on the order paper, but they certainly have not been slow in putting Bill 3 on the front burner -- as I described earlier -- in order for the heat to be put up to get this bill put through.
Let's get to the reasoned amendment itself. There are three aspects to it -- all of which I'm going to speak to and all of which are things in the bill that we in the opposition clearly have to speak against. This bill is bringing in a completely unacceptable process of government spending. Just as important as that -- if not more important -- it's also introducing a government diversion of accountable spending, and I emphasize "accountable spending." We will find the spirit of that in one aspect of the reasoned amendment we put forward.
Let's think about the issue of accountability. Accountability is probably the most important thing that we in the opposition exercise vis-�-vis the operation of government. Accountability arises out of the examination of ministerial spending. Of course, ministerial spending is examined through the budget process and the debate on the budget, which we have concluded, and through the estimates, which we are currently examining. We've concluded two ministries, and others are ongoing.
It is through the estimates process and the budget debate that we discover the proper vehicles to examine the spending of this, just as with any government. As I say, we have concluded the budget; we are now into the estimates. It's the ministerial estimates that draw to the attention of this House and, more importantly, to the attention of the taxpayers of this province where the government is placing its priorities and how it's spending its money. I shouldn't say government money, because it's our money, the people's money -- but let's call it the government money for now. It's through the line-by-line examination in the estimates that we discover this process and that we have some assurance through this process, even though government spending may not be the way we in the opposition would like it, that the spending is accounted for.
Now what are we doing? We are creating through Bill 3 a separate vehicle -- in fact, probably two or three vehicles -- that is going to take it away from the opportunity of ministerial examination through the estimates to a Crown corporation, this rather exotic creature entitled the Committee on Building British Columbia's Future, and to the special account that's created in this legislation. These things certainly are of major concern to the people of this province, who have made it very clear through meetings, rallies and protests of one form or another that they are exceedingly unhappy with the escalation in government spending and the escalation in taxes. Later on I'm going to comment on some of the new taxes and revenue producers that are found in Bill 3. These are the reasons, among others, why we have put this reasoned amendment forward: so that this bill as it is currently structured will not now be read a second time but will be reconsidered.
Let's come back for a moment to the question of accountability. Through the process of what happens in this House -- and I should refer, of course, to the fact that we have estimates in the other committee room -- and through the other committee, that legislative accountability occurs. It's through line-by-line questioning of how the minister will expend his or her budget for the upcoming year that the people of this province will have some assurance and some knowledge of how their taxes will be spent and indeed have been spent -- with the scrutiny of direct questioning in this Legislature.
Bill 3 does not allow that process to take place. Bill 3 is diverting away from ministerial responsibility. I would refer to the first part in the reasoned amendment of the opposition put forward by the hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale. That provision is that all measures for which a separate spending authority is being created can be executed within all current ministry operations. That is the point that I am speaking to. Bill 3 diverts away from that very basic concept and is an unacceptable process.
Let's examine some other aspects of this bill that are troubling to the opposition. Too often the government expresses the attitude that public money is actually government money. In fact, an example comes to mind.
[ Page 5602 ]
Last year I saw some correspondence from the Minister of Government Services regarding community grants. In that correspondence she clearly laid it out that she was looking into the distribution of "government money." That is a falsehood. It is not government money that she or any other minister is referring to. We're talking about the people's money, and we're talking about the accountability process of how the people's money is spent.
I hope this government is aware that when they put budgets together and start playing around with the budgetary process, or things such as this smoke-and-mirrors Bill 3, the government is losing track of the reason we're all elected, which is to be accountable and responsible to the taxpayers of this province. Bill 3 is clearly taking away that responsibility.
The government goes on to tell us that they, in their magnanimous way, will dole out this so-called government money -- which, as I say, is actually public money -- in a way that they see fit. What are we going to see with Bill 3? The government will divert public money away from ministries into committees and corporations. The nominal responsibilities of such ministers will continue -- with the related costs that go with that -- and there will be duplicated responsibilities occurring through Bill 3. Again, coming back to the reasoned amendment, all current ministry operations can perform these functions, not what we see in Bill 3.
Bill 3 is creating new spending authorities, which this province certainly does not need at this time. What this province needs -- and clearly the people have demonstrated that through their outrage and protests -- is some downsizing of government, not playing around with a piece of legislation such as this one, in creating more spending authority and less accountable spending authority. We do not need new authorities to spend unaccounted dollars. And I would emphasize the point that the surrounding bureaucracies spend even more unaccounted dollars.
[4:45]
Let me now get into the essence of Bill 3. The Committee on Building British Columbia's Future -- that has a very glorious title to it -- is a creation of cabinet. In fact, it's noteworthy that the Minister of Finance will chair this committee. I suppose anyone looking at this at first blush would say: "How can anyone speak against the Committee on Building British Columbia's Future?" Clearly the people of this province will have to be happy with that. But when the people of the province realize what's behind this aspect, like creating more bureaucracy and more expense.... For example, there's a provision that members of this great futuristic committee can be paid an allowance -- and no doubt will be -- and can recover all reasonable travel and other expenses. More added bureaucracy and expense. We don't see any evidence through Bill 3 of downsizing government. What we see is very real evidence of creating more unaccountable bureaucracy through the cabinet and the legislators in this House having no opportunity to put the spending of this committee and the other things created in Bill 3 to the public process.
Let's think further about this Committee on Building British Columbia's Future. I would give a word of advice to the government, if they'd care to listen: if this government is looking for a way to build the future of this province, I submit they can do that by encouraging economic growth. Build B.C. is creating a government process of economic growth. This government seems to have the attitude that if it steps in and borrows untold millions or billions of dollars, creating all sorts of future debt for the next generations, that they're doing this province a favour. I suggest that there's no favours being created in the process that we see in Bill 3. It's anything but. What this province certainly does not need is more future debt heaped on top of debt, and all the ancillary taxes and things which we find later on in this bill in order to pay for the debt servicing, which is another very important financial aspect of this bill.
Let us think further about the Committee on Building British Columbia's Future. This committee will no doubt require bureaucratic support, so it is not just the members of the committee who will be drawing expenses. There will be a surrounding bureaucracy, and the end result is more expenditure of public money -- and for what purpose? As stated in part 2 of the bill, the purpose is to advise the cabinet on duplicated government services. We are really in a loop here: we are setting up a cabinet commitee to advise the cabinet on how it should spend the public money and the unacceptable future debt that is occurring out of that process. If you think of it, this committee is actually a public relations agency. That's really how I would describe the Committee on Building British Columbia's Future. It's a PR job that is given the authority to spend money, through this special account that is set up. This is where the duplication occurs. For example, in section 8: "Subject to the approval of Treasury Board, and on the recommendation of the chair of the committee...." I am sure that the Finance minister's recommendation will carry a lot of weight in the cabinet. I presume it does. They will then be empowered to spend money out of the special account -- on community-level capital projects, for example. These are things that other ministries have the responsibility to do.
There is an initiative in here for employment and job training. Is that not the function of the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology?
Interjection.
J. Dalton: I hear a member saying: "Not any more." I suppose that is true. Then why have the Minister of Advanced Education? I suppose we might refer briefly to the difficulty that this very minister had in getting a bill before this House. It took two days to initiate that process.
An Hon, Member: And it wasn't worth waiting for, either.
J. Dalton: No, it's a bill that probably has very little substance to it.
[ Page 5603 ]
Coming back to Bill 3, unfortunately there is a great deal of insidious substance to this bill -- very much so. What are we doing through the glorious committee on building the future of this province and the special account that it will be empowered to dip into? We're creating more debt, and no accountability goes with that. That is one of the concerns that we have raised through our recent amendment. We certainly have to make it very clear that it is a disturbing factor in this bill.
Let us move on to another aspect of the bureaucratic tangle that we see in Bill 3. It's found in part 4, and again we are going to find some duplication. When we are talking about all current ministry operations that are now being duplicated and a separate spending authority, which is contained in our recent amendment, what do we find? We find the Transportation Financing Authority, a Crown corporation, chaired by the Minister of Highways. I see that the Minister of Highways' eyes have lit up. Oh, he says, now we can start talking about his responsibility. I have to ask the question. The Minister of Highways has a responsibility through his portfolio, and we can put questions to him in the estimates process, as we will be doing. But now, what do we find? A created Crown corporation, chaired by the same Minister of Highways with the authority.... For example, look at section 23 on the borrowing powers of this authority. I think -- in fact, I know -- that people of British Columbia would be horrified at the extent of the power given to that authority, that Crown corporation, to borrow money on behalf of the people of B.C. Of course, all they're really doing is creating debt on behalf of the people of B.C. -- a very extensive and long-term debt.
What we're producing here is more bureaucracy, a Crown corporation with another layer of civil servants around it, to ensure that it's functioning properly, at least from the government's perception. The authority created in part 4 of the bill is just an extension of the Highways ministry itself, and we again have a duplication. Duplication is wasteful, costly, counterproductive and -- coming back to the point I raised earlier -- lacks the accountability that this House has a responsibility to undertake. Those factors have to be stated and re-emphasized, because they are integral parts of the failing and shortcoming of the bill.
What then is probably likely to come out of this particular revision? More debt and no annual budgetary process to account for the debt. The Minister of Highways heads up a corporation to do what his ministry should do. I refer to one provision set out in section 12 of the bill: "...the authority may construct, improve or cause to be constructed or improved transportation infrastructure." That is a Highways ministry responsibility. Why is this responsibility being deflected into Bill 3 and the new authority? It's being done in order to create more government bureaucracy, more opportunity for this government to misspend and incur more long-term debt, adding to the deficit of this province -- which is bound to be a factor -- with no opportunity for us in the opposition to thoroughly and accurately question the ministry -- or the Crown corporation in this case -- as to how that money will be spent.
If we think for a moment as to where this money is going to be spent, I have no conviction whatsoever that we're going to see a wealth of projects in non-government ridings. That probably goes without saying. This government is going to use the vehicle of this new authority to generate projects in government-held ridings. The province as a whole is not going to be well served: only one part of it will be. I suppose we're building up to the election campaign -- a very long-range planning process. I'll give the government credit for one thing: they're thinking long-term as to how they could possibly put a re-election campaign together. The Highways minister is trying to assure me that this is for the good of the transportation construction projects in the province. That may be a subliminal or at least a secondary purpose behind it. But I'm suggesting to the hon. minister that the main purpose is to ensure that ridings favoured by the government side will be well taken care of. Non-government-held ridings will certainly be very low on the list, if on the list at all.
Interjection.
J. Dalton: That is a fact. As I commented earlier, looking back at last year and some of the transportation construction projects, there's very little evidence of any taking place in non-government-held ridings, but there was a flurry of activity in government ridings. That's what's going to happen with Bill 3. We're going to see massive borrowing and extensive debt, all for the purpose of seeing how, in some far-fetched way, we can re-elect this NDP government. I must point out to this House -- and, more importantly, to the people of this province -- that in order to pay for this great generation of activity and construction, naturally there are new taxes. But this government doesn't want to call them taxes. I'll call them what the government fondly calls them: revenue producers. Let's look at the revenue producers that we find in Bill 3 in order to prop up this new authority.
Section 19, gasoline tax. We've already got quite a bit of gasoline tax, thank you very much, and now we have more gasoline tax. Section 20, car rental tax. Well, that will be great for the tourism business, won't it? This government has clearly abandoned the tourism business, and I guess it's demonstrated right here as well. The few tourists who may come into this province are going to find themselves facing another tax, which certainly they would not expect. And then the real horror story, I would suggest -- at least potentially so -- are these tolls and charges that are authorized in section 21.
How far are we going to extend this umbrella of trying to capture any nickel or dime that the people of this province may have left? How far are we going? Tolls allegedly will be created in order to finance projects, maybe the Lions Gate Bridge, or maybe -- I shouldn't say it, but I will -- Westview overpass. That's an intriguing prospect, thinking of a toll over the Upper Levels Highway in order for me to cross from my riding
[ Page 5604 ]
in West Vancouver-Capilano into the neighbouring riding of North Vancouver-Lonsdale. I can't think of why I would do that, but if somebody is going to charge me money to do that, I will say: "Thank you. I will go elsewhere."
[5:00]
So we have more revenue producers found in Bill 3. We've already had rates and licence increases. For example, the ferry rates have gone up this week. The small claims rates have gone up, which to me seems to really fly in the face of what this government stands for. Small claims court is a court for the people to access freely, and what do they do? They double and triple the rates in that court. And not only that, but the outrage is that they are charging a defendant, who wishes to show up in court for his day of defence, a fee for that purpose as well. That's just another example of these insidious revenue producers, and Bill 3 certainly has many of them.
What are we going to do through this authority? We're going to borrow today to produce wonderful projects in government-held ridings. And the taxpayer will pay back this debt tomorrow -- and tomorrow and many tomorrows after that. The debt created is not to be found in the Ministry of Highways budget but in a Crown corporation not accountable to this House through the estimates process.
D. Symons: It is a pleasure again to rise in this House and speak to the amendment, because I feel that there are a great many things on this bill that have not yet been said that need to be said. The amendment reads:
"...measures for which a separate spending authority is being created can be executed within all current ministry operations; (2) there has been no public consultation with the taxpayers of the province as to their desire to set up a separate spending authority outside of legislative purview; (3) this bill will increase the amount of debt held by the province and will negatively impact on the ability of future generations to control their economic destiny."
I believe those words are indeed true, and for that reason I believe we should be opposing the bill, as we currently are doing.
As I said the first time I rose to speak on this bill, on the surface this particular bill has the appearance of sounding good. But when you delve into it, you discover that there's a lot more to it than appears on the surface. It seems to me that the philosophy of this current government wants in a socialistic manner to have complete control, and to have that control away from public scrutiny. It's a socialistic step that we should be very careful about taking in this province. We have found that those countries that accepted socialist doctrine, the countries of eastern Europe, have now rejected it and are suffering greatly for their years under that authority, while this government in British Columbia seems to be moving in that direction. We find more and more of this we-against-them philosophy: that there's somehow a rich and a poor, and we're fighting a class battle. This bill is part and parcel of that whole concept, the ideology of this government to restructure society in its own image.
What we have in this bill is the beginning of B.C. 21 blacktop politics for the 1990s in British Columbia. The Minister of Transportation referred earlier to the fact that it will build highways. Indeed it will, but it will at the same time build an enormous deficit for British Columbia. The government sees Build B.C. as a giant re-election slush fund overseen by the Ministries of Transportation and Finance. This is a carte blanche for the NDP Coquihalla.
Tolls are taxes. Fuel taxes are supposed to be spent against the cost of construction and maintenance of a highway system. By taking the construction component out of the Ministry of Highways, the government is ensuring that our fuel taxes will go into the black hole of general revenue instead of the construction of our highway system. That indeed is the case now. We have approximately a 10-cent-per-litre tax on fuels in British Columbia. It varies in different areas, depending upon whether there's a transit surtax on that fuel tax as well. But generally it's 10 cents. That will create revenue for this government somewhere in the neighbourhood of $500 million each year, and they're going to add on to that. But what they're saying with the 1-cent-per-litre tax they're adding on is: "Oh, we're going to dedicate that to highway construction." My question to the hon. members here is: what about the other 10 cents you're already collecting from the drivers and from the transportation in this province? If they believe it when they say that the user pays, and the drivers in the province should be paying for the highways they're driving on -- indeed, they're already collecting $500 million from people in that respect -- then I think that money also should be dedicated, if you're going to be consistent, to this B.C. 21 fund. Where is that money? It's hiding in the general revenue of the province.
They're also collecting a large sum of money, around $300 million a year, through licences and other fees from vehicles that use the highways in this province. If they believe in dedicated funding, in using money for the purpose from which it was collected, why not put that money also into the Highways ministry? They don't need a Bilge or Build or Bilk B.C. -- whatever term you want to call it. All you have to do is take the moneys that are currently being collected from the drivers and their vehicles in this province and place it into the Highways ministry, and there will be sufficient money there to handle the construction, rehabilitation and maintenance of the highways, as there is now.
So we're trying to reduce the amount of money we're putting into the Highways ministry, because that appears on the books and can appear there as part of the deficit. We're going to remove that from that particular entity, where it's accounted for, and move it into B.C. 21, where it does not appear on the books as part of the deficit. Therefore, in its wisdom and smartness, the government can claim: "Hey, we are reducing the deficit. The deficit this year is lower than the last year. The rate of the deficit is decreasing." It is a false claim, because if you rearrange the books so that you're now taking the possibility of up to $1 billion out of other ministries and putting it into B.C. 21, that is really part of the deficit of the province for that operating year. Add it back into the $1.5 billion they admit to, and we
[ Page 5605 ]
have a deficit much bigger than last year -- much bigger than the deficit they keep claiming the third party over here left them to deal with. I do not want to be part of a government that's going to have to clean up the mess left by this particular bill.
Interjections.
An Hon. Member: That woke them up.
D. Symons: I'm glad they have recognized this. And I'm glad -- by their calling out now -- that they're admitting they're going to be leaving us a debt. From the catcalls of the government members here, it seems they are now admitting that they are going to be running the deficit and the debt of this province up, and they're going to leave it to somebody else to clean up. We have indeed had recognition from the government that that is the case, and I appreciate the honesty of these members in admitting that indeed that's what Bill 3 is going to do to the province. It really bothers me that they are so blatant in admitting that that's precisely what they're doing, and they don't mind that we pick up the mess that they are going to leave behind. To be fair to the taxpayers of the province, this should not be the case.
An. Hon Member: Tell us about your 60-year plan. That's a good plan. Come on, tell us about that plan.
Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
D. Symons: I believe, hon. member, that we are discussing Bill 3 today, and I wouldn't want to digress from Bill 3 into other areas.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, please!
D. Symons: I'm concerned that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways should be a clearing-house for government contracts. It should be reducing its paper bureaucracy, not adding to it with the creation of another Crown corporation, because what Bill 3 is bringing in is simply another Crown corporation. Primarily its main purpose, as far as I can see, is to remove expenses from the Ministry of Highways, as occurred in the previous administration under the program they called Freedom to Move. It's simply removing that aspect from the Ministry of Highways and placing it in a new Crown corporation.
The other items to be covered under Bill 3 seem to already be in place for the financing of hospitals, schools and public projects. I go along with the fact that those particular things were handled quite adequately in the old way. Why do we need Bill 3 to do what has already worked quite well in the past?
The only thing that's new to it is the fact that this particular component of the Highways ministry will disappear. It will very neatly help to reduce what appears to be government overspending by moving it into this new authority. I have great reservations about that particular way of cooking the books in order to fudge the truth of the deficit this government is running up.
The people of the future -- our young people today -- are going to be saddled with the debt. They're going to be saddled with the debt-servicing charges which will reduce future governments' ability to handle the expenses of that particular day, because part of the money they're going to be paying in taxes is going to service the debt that this government's going to be running up. That concerns me greatly.
What I find particularly galling when I look in today's newspaper clippings is that our Minister of Finance -- that fine gentleman -- is quoted in the Tuesday Vancouver Sun as commenting about the federal government's most recent budget. This minister is criticizing them for failing to make a dent in either the country's deficit or unemployment ranks after nine years in office. Reacting to Monday's budget, this gentleman -- our Finance minister -- noted that the deficit was $34 billion when the Tories were first elected in 1984, and that the deficit is still close to $34 billion. Well, I only wish I could say that about this government in its year and a half, close to two years, in government, because that's not the case in British Columbia. In that case, what the minister was admitting was that the federal government at least held the line, and by using something like Bill 3 to hide the facts, they are not holding the line at all. The deficit and the debt in British Columbia is increasing -- not maintaining any level and not decreasing, as that minister would have us believe. We have a real problem in British Columbia, and this problem is going to snowball if we allow this bill to just simply pass the way it's currently written -- as a blank cheque for this government.
This is of real concern to me, and I think we must remember that we cannot simply mortgage the future of our young people in order to handle the desires and wishes of this government to carry out certain programs -- as worthy as maybe some of those programs are. What we really have to do in this province -- and this government has yet to learn this lesson -- is deal with the problem of spending. We have to learn to live within our means, and this is precisely where the promise of this government has fallen flat.
We have recorded many instances of spending of this government that simply are unacceptable in today's economic climate. We have many more levels of government, more bureaucrats, more government hiring and more nice, cushy deals for party faithful that should not be done. If the government was to address the issue of downsizing the number of employees in the province, then we would in some way be able to start dealing with the spending aspect rather than the growth of the civil service in the province and the payroll of the province that the people in this province can no longer afford to pay.
Interjections.
[ Page 5606 ]
D. Symons: I am pleased to hear that the members there have some concerns about what I am saying, because indeed it shows they are listening.
[5:15]
With the spending rate twice that of the rate of inflation, the B.C. government is sending the worst possible message to individuals, to business and to the international financial community. Bill 3 establishes a new Crown corporation with unlimited spending and borrowing authority, and it will also attract new administration costs with a CEO and a board of directors, the bureaucrats and everything else that's going to go along with this new Crown corporation.
Of serious concern is that this new authority can take on long-term debt for expenditures which should be provided for the annual budgetary process. And therein is the nub of the real problem with Bill 3. We are going to be allowing the debt of the province to increase the debt that our future generations are going to have to pay off, the debt that future governments are going to have to address themselves to.
I can see that if we continue on in the way that this government cares to go, we're going to end up in the same situation that New Zealand found itself. That would be counterproductive to all the things that this government has been saying about the hallowedness of education, health care and social services. That country had a labour government and found that it had to basically pare back to almost nil in order to meet its financial obligations. Unless this government can find some way of currently dealing with the economic situation in this province, they are going to move us into the same situation that New Zealand found itself.
On examination of the bill, I see that there are no functions that cannot be handled by existing ministries. Will the Ministers of Transportation, Economic Development and Advanced Education and the department of human rights have their funding reduced proportionately to the moneys accrued to this new authority? I doubt it. Are we moving into a pattern of double financing, paying ministries to continue functions that will now be undertaken by this new committee? It appears so. Those are the real problems in dealing with it.
Looking at statements made by the government when it issued its budget, we find, when they talk about this new program, that it's going to deal with silviculture projects. I thought the Forests ministry had been doing that for years -- at least they claimed to be. I thought the forest companies were obligated to do silviculture. They were supposed to be. All that is needed is for the government and that particular ministry to carry through its mandate and do what it is supposed to do and insist that the forest companies do what they're supposed to do. If everybody lived up to their obligations, then the funding could come through the Forests ministry, rather than through new borrowing in the program that they seem to be introducing under this new bill.
There's going to be a redirection of programs to ensure that people on income assistance receive the opportunities and training they need to participate in other B.C. 21 projects -- an admirable goal. But if you're going to open up Highways, for instance, and bring people who are currently on the unemployment rolls into the highways building process, which is something that seems to be imbedded here, you're going to be laying off qualified people who are currently doing those jobs. You're simply changing one group of unemployed people for another. In that sense, I'm not sure you're really going to create much in the way of new jobs or helping people with new job opportunities. You can take people off the welfare rolls and put them on work farms, or have them working for a few years on a particular job, but once the new jobs run out -- once the highway and the hospital and the school are built -- those people are unemployed again.
F. Garden: They're new jobs.
D. Symons: Yes, new jobs -- new temporary jobs that have no lasting effect. We have to start training people for jobs that will move into the future, and the jobs they're doing are temporary jobs and therefore not the type of jobs we need in B.C. these days.
There's a new housing pilot project that's going to be addressed through B.C. 21. We need housing, and we need people building it, providing training for young people. No problem with that. But we already have quite a large unemployed workforce that would like jobs in that industry. I see no problem with hiring qualified people for the jobs right now, because if you simply bring a group in, you're simply replacing one group of unemployed with another group. There are only so many jobs. I don't know if the hon. members who are kibitzing me are aware that a fair number of qualified people in this province are unemployed.
F. Garden: You want to lay more off.
D. Symons: I'm not saying to lay more off. I'm saying let's hire them for the jobs they're qualified to do. You seem to be saying the opposite. I suppose you want them all laid off. That's not my idea.
A new student summer employment program. I believe it was this government that more or less jettisoned the program that they had in years past. I'm glad they're at least recognizing that in order to continue their education, students need an employment program. What we seem to have here are some old goals that theoretically have been the mandate of various ministries for years and should be taking place already. We hardly need a new Crown corporation to see that they take place.
It says here -- I'm simply reading government documents on this -- that it's a stimulus for private investment. It seems to be more government investment. There doesn't seem to be very much stimulus for private investment at all. That again is one of the major problems with this, because it's the private sector, the small business sector, that creates longlasting jobs. Public building projects do create jobs. They do stimulate the economy momentarily. But once that stimulus is removed and money runs out, we're going to have problems, because of this bill, servicing the debt, let alone paying off the debt. That's going to create
[ Page 5607 ]
some real hardships in the future. It will probably create more unemployment than these members think. The same sort of thing happened in California years ago when they did this sort of thing. They found that when they addressed the situation caused by previous governments, it created a great deal of dislocation in society. I'd hate to see that happen here, as it has in New Zealand.
In addition, we are finding that the B.C. Endowment Fund is going to be used to lever new private sector investment in British Columbia. I'm just wondering if B.C. 21 is going to use the Endowment Fund as its money source. Are they going to dip into the B.C. Endowment Fund? That's possibly a question for the Minister of Finance. I really don't think that is appropriate. I thought that the Endowment Fund was to work for British Columbia companies. With the government borrowing money from it, I'm not so sure that it will be doing that. I also feel that the fund needs to be better managed, not just simply rolled over into this new Crown corporation.
They are saying that there is going to be a new high-tech link between government and its suppliers to ensure faster payment and an increased use of local companies. Do you need a new Crown corporation in order to achieve that? As I look through this, I keep asking myself whether we need a new Crown corporation for this. The answer I keep getting is no. The mechanism for doing this is already in place. We have those particular problems.
I am just looking for the bill here, because I have not referred specifically to it. We can start looking at various items, many of which I will be addressing when we get into third reading. I think there are some areas where we can significantly improve the bill or make it more responsible to the people of British Columbia.
The first thing we find is that we are going to have a Committee on Building British Columbia's Future, consisting of the Minister of Finance and other members of the Legislative Assembly. It's basically going to be a cabinet committee. But we have quite a few of those already. Do we need another one? I doubt it. A member of the committee may be paid an allowance for reasonable travelling and incidental expenses, and it goes on that we're simply allowing for more per diems, more expenses and more government bureaucracy.
The committee may do the following: it may provide advice to the executive council respecting appropriate economic, regional, sectoral, equality payment and training goals for government spending. What in those words is not currently the role of the executive council? Indeed, I think each member on that council does precisely that, and if they don't they are derelict in their duties. So I'm not quite sure why they feel they need a new committee to do what the old committees are already mandated to do.
C. Tanner: Because they've got some friends they want to get jobs for.
D. Symons: Oh, hon. member, that could not be true, could it?
C. Tanner: I'm afraid so.
D. Symons: They're going to have a special account that's going to consist of an opening -- and the key word here is "opening" -- balance of $100 million, and then any money transferred -- and "any money" is unspecified -- to this special account from a vote as defined in the Financial Administration Act.... As well as that, further on here we find that it has borrowing authority. So the $100 million is only a very small amount of money to begin with, and it will quickly escalate to a large amount of money that the people of British Columbia, some time in the future, are going to have to pay back.
C. Tanner: The expression used to be one in a million; now it's a hundred million.
D. Symons: Hon. member, it's not even: what's $100 million? With this government, it's going to be: what's a billion?
Then they set up the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority. Indeed, as I mentioned earlier in my talk here, this is simply the vehicle whereby they're going to be removing money which normally would appear under the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, into a new corporation so that it doesn't appear under the Ministry of Highways' annual budget and therefore doesn't accrue, supposedly -- on the books, at least -- to the deficit and the further debt of the province. Of course, it does accrue to the deficit and debt that's going to appear in this new Crown corporation.
And it's hereby established that the corporation of B.C. Transportation Authority will consist of "a board of directors made up of" -- a new board -- "the minister and not more than 4 other members appointed by...." Indeed, it looks as though we have the chance for some more patronage appointments for various people. Along with not only the patronage appointment to the board are travel expenses, living expenses and all the other things that go along with that. Why? I thought this government had pretty well used up all of its friends and patronage appointments. I didn't realize there was anybody left, but apparently it seems that's the case.
An Hon. Member: New friends every day.
D. Symons: Well, you have new people who will hang onto your coattails as long as you'll give them a $100,000-a-year job. You'll find they are going to be fair-weather friends, hon. member, when you're out of office.
What's the purpose of this new finance authority? The purpose is to plan, acquire, construct, improve or cause to be constructed or improved, transportation infrastructure throughout British Columbia. What exactly is the mandate of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, if it's not to plan, acquire, construct, improve or cause to be constructed or improved, transportation infrastructure throughout British Columbia? I'm not at all sure that we are not duplicating responsibilities here. It certainly would
[ Page 5608 ]
appear to me, in my naivety, to be precisely what I would expect the Minister of Transportation and Highways to be doing. Indeed, when you read their documents, this is what they are doing. I'm not sure why we're doubling up and having some other authority. This could lead to conflict, because we have a Minister of Highways and Transportation who's reasonably competent. I would not want to see some other group second-guess him and come in with some other things where we will have conflict between the two because we now have another authority doing the same job. Who is going to be the arbitrator between the minister on one hand and this new authority on the other hand who's going to end up bringing them together and solving the problem? We will need, I assume, a third layer, which is yet to come, to end up being the arbitrator between these two, the ministry and a new Crown corporation. I'm sure the government has that in mind for some bill in the future, without bringing another layer to....
Interjection.
D. Symons: And it's a Bob bill? No, it's a bad bill. And we have that problem.
We had two bad bills in the previous administration that these members over here may remember. But we have a bad Bob and a bad bill before this House today. I do not want to see another Crown corporation added in to that Bob's bailiwick of companies that he's looking after.
[5:30]
We find that the Vancouver Board of Trade has written a letter to the hon. Finance minister. I had misplaced it in this mass of papers here, but now I have found it. In the course of this letter....
Deputy Speaker: Sorry, hon. member, I have to advise you that the allotted time has expired.
The hon. member for Chilliwack.
R. Chisholm: I have to disagree with my hon. colleague that this is a bad bill. It isn't only a bad bill; it's a disastrous bill. It's going to head us towards bankruptcy and corruption of the finest kind. This makes the BS fund look like peanuts, and it's high time that we realize that this thing is going to mushroom into a billion-dollar boondoggle for this government. I'm afraid that if we don't nip this in the bud, we are going to have real problems in this province. We already owe $26.4 billion, and they're going to have a Crown corporation with assets, or loans or debts, of a billion dollars more. They're allowed to make whatever loans or mortgages they want and to assess tolls. And guess what tolls are. They're taxes. That's all they are. It's just another word, but they are taxes, and they come out of your and my pocket.
This Crown corporation is an atrocity to our government system and way of life. We have Crown corporations. They do have a purpose, but it is not to be a boondoggle for a particular party or government.
B.C. 21 allows the government to transfer hundreds of millions of dollars in debt to Crown corporations at any time and in any way, shape or form. This policy allows the government to skirt the normal legislative process by funnelling money into political blacktop projects. B.C. 21 and the newly created B.C. Transportation Financing Authority will artificially reduce the 1993-94 deficit. As a matter of fact, I believe they're quoting $23.2 billion; in reality, it would be $26.4 billion in debt. Only $1 million in B.C. 21 spending will actually appear on the books this year, as an appropriation to the Build B.C. special account.
There will be another $80 million in borrowing power for the Transportation Financing Authority, which will show up as part of the province's accumulated debt and will be reported apart from the annual deficit. Here's one of the insidious aspects of this bill: it won't be part of the annual debt; it will not be reported in the same manner or through the Legislature. There will be another $166 million for the Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority, $93 million for the Regional Hospital Districts Financing Authority and $281 million for the School Districts Capital Financing Authority -- which will be borrowed this year but not included in the deficit. And there's the problem. Debt is debt. It doesn't matter whether it's a Crown corporation, a pension plan or accumulated debt -- it has to be counted up and tabulated. This is what we owe, and we pay dividends on what we owe.
This is the largest the debt has increased in the entire history of the province. In other words, this government has gone far beyond the former government. We have increased the debt by 32 percent. It's atrocious!
The minister claims that much of this accumulated debt is secured, and that argument I discussed before. I have not seen this government sell off a piece of highway, a building or whatever to pay off their debt. The plain truth is that the NDP is running up a debt at a historically fast pace, and no amount of creative accounting will be able to hide it. This government believes in higher taxes, bigger spending and more debt -- just the opposite of their election platform, I might add.
I'm going to talk about pertinent points in this bill, because I think this is what the public needs to know. There are organizations, business groups and a lot of individuals trying to find out what this bill means to them and to their pocketbooks. Basically this boils down to Build B.C. as a giant slush fund. It's a re-election slush fund, it's overseen by the ministers of Transportation and Finance, and it's a carte blanche for the NDP Coquihalla. Like I said before: tolls are taxes. Fuel taxes are supposed to be spent against the cost of construction and maintenance of our highway system. By taking the construction component out of the Ministry of Highways, the government is ensuring that our fuel taxes go into the black hole of general revenue instead of the construction of our highway system.
This bill destroys the mandate of the Ministry of Economic Development. The other components of the bill -- other than the creation of the finance authority -- all could be performed by existing ministries and functions. This is another aspect of the bill. Why do we have to have more bureaucracy? Why do we
[ Page 5609 ]
need this Build B.C. to take over the responsibilities of the line ministries? All of the things that we're talking about are taken care of by the ministries. Unfortunately, this government hasn't realized that bureaucracy means more debt and more costs.
Another problem with this Crown corporation is that it's an umbrella to protect ministers. In times of trouble and crisis, who do they get rid of? It's either the committee, commission, marketing board or Crown corporation head. This bill is an extravagant bill, designed to give the government another source of propaganda. It is too expensive. We cannot afford this PR machine. The people deserve the right to have input as to where their tax dollars are going. This should not be determined by a board of NDP Big-Brother-knows-best appointees as we have seen with other boards.
I'll now talk about a few of the clauses in the actual bill. Take a look at clauses 6 to 8. They state that the opening balance will be $100 million, which can, I might emphasize, be increased by a vote under the Financial Administration Act. In other words, this will start at $100 million, and it's going to go up from there. I've given you some numbers on where we can expect to see it.
The expenditures from this special account will be paid out in accordance with the purposes of the act, including the community-level capital projects, employment and job training initiatives, resource enhancement initiatives, infrastructure initiatives and costs associated with the administration of the special account. All admirable and laudable ideals. But hon. Minister, these are all covered by the ministries as part of their mandate. Why do we have to spend and have another bureaucracy to take care of their responsibility?
In clauses 9 to 11 the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority is established with a board chaired by the Minister of Transportation. The purpose is to plan, acquire, construct or improve transportation infrastructure in B.C. As my former colleague mentioned, this is the mandate of the Ministry of Highways.
Clause 12 -- some powers and capacities of the authority. As I said, it's to plan, build and improve transportation infrastructure and acquire property through expropriation. This one scares me. We have a Crown corporation that's going to have expropriation rights. It's bad enough when government does it without telling people what's happening -- and we saw that in other bills. We now have a Crown corporation with exactly the same powers. And who's in control of it?
"Provide financial assistance by way of grant, loan or guarantee." I hope this is done honourably and isn't done as patronage, because we've seen enough of that in this province. "Create subsidiary corporations to carry out the purposes of this act." That's a different one, too, isn't it? It can create its own businesses, its own corporations. In other words, this monster is going to become a supermonster. It has the right to go out and start other companies. On top of that, as we will see further on in the bill, they can float loans, they can put out tolls, they can increase taxes.
Clause 13 to 15. Here is another winner if I ever saw one. It defines the powers of the board of directors. Clauses 16 to 17 define the officers and employees who may be hired by the chief executive officer, whose office is established under this section. These employees will also have the Public Service Benefit Plan Act and Pension (Public Service) Act applicable to them. To me, that sounds like we have just another bureaucracy. Each and every one of them is a civil servant, with all the rights and powers and vested interests. Nothing has changed, except that we have increased the bureaucracy.
Clause 19. This provides the authority with revenues from the gasoline tax. In other words, they can tax you, and they can increase it. And if they can increase it, guess what? They are not a Crown corporation; they are an arm of this government, because government is the only one that can increase taxes. This will allow for, at most, a 1-cent-per-litre gasoline levy to be directed to the authority. This section will also allow for an additional levy to be directed to the authority in any area of British Columbia and prescribe the amount of tax to be collected under section 11.11 of the Motor Vehicle Tax Act. So guess what? They can increase the levy. They have taxation authority, like I said. It is starting to get scary. At least with this legislative body, they have to answer here in the chamber, but this Crown corporation won't be answering to any questions in this chamber.
Clause 20. The authority will collect the net revenue from the tax revenue collected under section 2.5 of the Social Service Tax Act. This is the $1.50 tax on rental cars. Again, they are taxing. Clause 21 allows for tolls or charges to be paid for the use of any property of the authority. In other words, they are allowed to toll roads and all the rest of this paraphernalia. Like I said, that is nothing more than tax -- not tolls.
Clause 22 -- another scary one, especially with this Finance minister. The authority, with the approval of the Minister of Finance, may invest or loan money that isn't required for the immediate purposes of the authority. In other words, the Minister of Finance has a free hand and can do whatever he wants with any money this corporation has. Maybe that's why he was in New York: drumming up new money to back this.
Clause 23 sets out the borrowing powers of the authority. It allows for any sum of money it considers necessary or advisable, and it may issue securities. In other words, it can go out and float whatever loan it pleases. That's kind of scary when you consider that they don't have to come back to the Legislature to justify that. When you take a good look at this bill, it makes one wonder where this government is going and what they are going to do to this province. Like I said, bankruptcy isn't all that far away. When you start talking about a $26.4 billion debt, $4 billion worth of pensions and a billion dollar boondoggle, you're looking at $2 billion or $3 billion in interest payments.
I just want to quote a former hon. member of this House, who was, I might add, a member of this governing party. Mr. Stupich is now an MP in the
[ Page 5610 ]
federal government. When he talked about the former government's infamous BS fund, he made some very interesting comments. One of them was: "There isn't one nickel backing it up, as we said before and as the minister himself has said before."
An Hon. Member: Who are you quoting?
R. Chisholm: I'm quoting a certain man by the name of Stupich. I think he is NDP. Also: "The BS fund will not be represented by anything in the way of assets." These are interesting statements from a former member of that government. "They will determine in advance what they want the deficit or the surplus to be when it's all over" -- another interesting statement from that former member. "They can arrive at any figure at the bottom of the statement. That's exactly what it's going to be used for." It sounds something like what we're talking about with B.C. 21, doesn't it? It's called Bilk 21, as far as we're concerned, not B.C. 21.
[5:45]
Here's another statement he made about the BS fund: "There is other legislation coming up, and this fund will grow or decrease as the government wants, in order to come out with a prearranged determination of what the deficit should be in that particular budget." He was debating the pros and cons of the BS fund.
H. Giesbrecht: Nobody is listening.
R. Chisholm: But some of the other members are. Maybe they are starting to wake up, because -- guess what? -- constituents are going to start asking questions. When they do start, the questions might be a little embarrassing for some members.
Another thing he said was that it's playing games with the public; it's trying to pull the wool over their eyes. Like I said, he's speaking about the former BS fund. We're now talking about the bilk fund. One of the other things he stated was: "We're opposed to this kind of smokescreen, this kind of delusion. We're opposed to this concept of setting up a BS fund that will be used simply to pull the wool over voters' eyes and be used simply for political election purposes." Sounds like the smoke and mirrors we're hearing from that side of the House.
An Hon. Member: You're repeating yourself.
R. Chisholm: It needs repeating, I'm afraid. Unfortunately, we have to come into this House and repeat some of the things that other members have said.
An Hon. Member: You're ragging the pup.
R. Chisholm: You say I'm ragging the pup. As a matter of fact, that member made this statement: "The opposition cannot criticize the lack of scrutiny opportunities for this bill, because it's their job to scrutinize every piece of legislation." The spending provisions under this legislation will be made by cabinet, and unless the NDP is planning to have a lot of leaks, the opposition and the public will not know about those spending decisions until after they're made. That's a scary thought, isn't it?
H. Giesbrecht: Don't you ever get tired of the sound of your voices?
R. Chisholm: Sometimes, hon. member, but I think the message might get through after a few times. Right? They can't all be that bad.
The Same Member Said: "It will bring prosperity to the slump in the resource industries." Our resource industries are leaving this province. They're in a slump because of the muddleheaded policies of this government. The only kickstart they've given to the resource sector is to kick mining down to Chile. When are these members going to wake up? We're losing our resource industries while these people muddle about, and it's high time we brought them back.
One of the things that helps us to pay our bills happens to be the resource sector. You can only go to the population so many times; their pockets are only so deep. We have to get small business and the resource sector to help pay for our social services. This government has got to learn that it has to invest in resource industries and small business. It has to tax to a certain degree and it has to cut back before it will ever start to reduce the debt. Right now we barely -- and I say barely -- pay the interest, and it's high time this government started waking up to that fact. We will never pay the interest on our $30 billion debt by taxing the population, because there's not enough money in the pockets. It makes me wonder where some of these thoughts of the members opposite come from.
I'll talk about another member. The member for Saanich South made another brilliant remark. He said that last year, this government cut the rate of growth to 7 percent, and this year to less than 6 percent, and that the rate of growth in government spending is now less than the rate of growth in the economy, once you include inflation. An amazing statement. Honestly, hon. Speaker, this is, sadly, typical of the economic literacy malaise of this NDP. First the minister includes government spending as part of growth in the economy. Only the NDP believes that if you take taxes from people and spend it on frivolous projects, you have actually created growth. He then compounds his illiteracy by adding inflation and GPP growth separately in order to make government spending look more responsible.
We can build all the colleges, roads and schools we want, but we have to invest in industry and in the resource sectors. They have to help pay their way. We can't do it all by public spending, because guess what? The taxpayer is taxed out. He's taxed to the max, but these people have yet to realize this.
Interjection.
R. Chisholm: But, hon. member, the population is starting to tell you what's going on. They are starting to react and to buck your policies.
Here's another statement....
[ Page 5611 ]
Interjection.
R. Chisholm: No, I'd rather read yours, hon. member -- they're more entertaining.
The member for Saanich South said most projects will be completed over a three-year period, with cost amortized over the useful life of the assets. An amazing statement. These costs will be carried by the taxpayers in addition to the cost of government, which this NDP government refuses to reduce. All I'm saying to you, hon. members, and I know it's hard to take it all in, is that we're adding to the debt. All right? This is one thing we can ill afford. We are now taking our children's future and mortgaging it. It's high time to stop.
I'd like to quote the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. This is a good one: "I have been to places in the United States" -- can you imagine that, he went across the border -- "where every day you go out you pay four or five tolls." Fancy that! My response to that, hon. members, is that it is the ultimate expression of political bankruptcy for the NDP to campaign against Americanization of health care and promote Americanization of infrastructure. When are we going to wake up? Like I said, hon. member, it's more fun reading your statements than responding to them.
Interjection.
R. Chisholm: Ah, the member for Skeena. Let's hear what he has to say.
An Hon. Member: I want to hear what that member for Skeena said. I'm really interested. Go to it.
R. Chisholm: Just wait for it, hon. member. It's coming, believe me.
The member for Skeena stated: "Is the opposition opposed to programs to ensure that people on income assistance receive opportunities?" That's good. Now hear my response, hon. members. We have a record number of people on income assistance because of the economic policies of this government. The Build B.C. fiasco will add to the debt and thus increase employment opportunities.
One thing you've got to learn, hon. member -- and I said it before -- you must invest. When you invest, guess what? It creates jobs. And when you decrease government spending to invest, guess what happens after that? It helps pay for your social services. Then you may not have to tax quite as much. Because the population is taxed out; they can no longer afford this.
H. Giesbrecht: You're getting thousands of calls.
R. Chisholm: I hope so, because guess what? That's your demise, those thousands of calls.
I want to quote from the member for Kootenay. And this is great. This is a member who's got a bankrupt ministry called mining that went to Chile or Argentina -- I'm not too sure. They went all over the world, but they're not staying here, I can guarantee you that. The hon. member said: "You have got to compare that to the method of financing that many municipalities and private companies use." My response to that member is: comparing the borrowing programs of Build B.C. to private companies demonstrates just how little the NDP understands the market system. Private companies can be sold or foreclosed if they can't pay their debts. Guess what, hon. member? This doesn't apply to government, so guess what? They can't be foreclosed. Mind you, maybe the International Bank would foreclose on us eventually if you keep playing in this ball game.
Here's another one from our distinguished member for Kootenay, and this one is even better. She says: "Believe me, the accountability is very rigorous. They have to go to the Treasury Board for their funding." Considering her not being part of the inner circle of the cabinet, which she isn't, the minister might not realize that Treasury Board essentially involves an all-in-cabinet discussion. Therefore borrowing and spending decisions will not be subject to public scrutiny or accountability. Think about that.
An Hon. Member: You're scare-mongering.
R. Chisholm: No, this is not scare-mongering, hon. members.
Do you realize that every major business association has spoken against this bill? The B.C. Chamber of Commerce, the Vancouver Board of Trade, the B.C. manufacturers' association, the Retail Merchants' Association and the bankers' association have all spoken. If there's nothing wrong with this bill, why is there all this resistance from the employers of British Columbia? The answer is simple: this bill is about debt -- hidden debt and hidden taxes. That's what they're afraid of, and that's what they're resisting.
There's another thing, hon. members. It's incredible that today as we debate this bill the peripatetic Premier is trying to sell business in Asia. [Applause.]
Well done, hon, members. It shows just how knowledgeable you are.
He's trying to sell business in Asia, when his entire business community back home is telling him that he is going in the wrong direction. The whole business community is telling him he is going the wrong way -- and guess what? He goes ahead anyway.
Interjections.
R. Chisholm: Yes, you had better talk to the chamber of commerce, and you had better talk to the rest.
The wrong-way Premier was quoted in yesterday's paper as saying that government supplies the juice, the clout, the credibility for business -- that's what he's telling people in Asia. What does the Premier mean by "juice"? The only juice between the business community and the Premier is what's left after he squeezes the business community dry. What clout is he talking about? After the clout administered by the business tax, it doesn't want to be clouted any more by this government. It has been clouted enough. As a matter of fact, it's not surviving. It's leaving; it's going south; it's going across the border. It's folding up and it's closing its doors. Guess what that means, hon.
[ Page 5612 ]
members? More unemployment. We have 73,000 single males on our social welfare rolls -- and growing daily because of the policies of this government. Let's start doing something about it.
Does the Premier really believe that he and his colleagues provide credibility to business? We have companies in this province that have been world traders for decades. They must be relieved to learn that they will finally acquire credibility, thanks to our Premier -- now known throughout Asia as Dr. Juice. The opposition has some juicy tidbits to share with our business ambassador when he finds his luggage and returns home. He has no credibility with business. In fact, his credibility with the dwindling roster of NDP supporters is receding. The bald truth is that when this Premier claims to have credibility with business, he is speaking off the top of his head. Why is this government eager to embrace more debt while making bumbling attempts to attract capital. Is it not absurd to be saying to investors: "Bring your money. We've lost track of ours"? It's no wonder that real investment dropped in B.C. last year.
I have letters after letters from different business communities. I could quote them, but I'm not going to bother. But I will quote a couple of facts, just so the hon. members know what I'm talking about. And in fact this comes from the Taxpayer newspaper.
An Hon. Member: That's a good one.
R. Chisholm: That's a good one, yes. They're quoting StatsCan. Do you want to call StatsCan down too, or do you rely on that for some of your research?
Deputy Speaker: On a point of order, the hon. member for Columbia River-Revelstoke.
J. Doyle: The member for Chilliwack is reading from a newspaper, and I think you're not supposed to do that in the House.
Deputy Speaker: If the member would keep that under advisement in making his speech.
R. Chisholm: I just wanted to be accurate in my quotes. As a matter of fact, all the quotes that they've been hearing are very, very accurate, unfortunately for this province. But I'll just read you the first line of a quote from this newspaper: "British Columbia has the fastest-growing debt in Canada...." I want you to hear it again: "British Columbia has the fastest-growing debt in Canada, according to a recent report published by Statistics Canada." All right. Now if you don't want to believe it, grab the paper, phone Statistics Canada. And the study revealed that between 1981-1991, B.C.'s per capita gross debt, which includes liabilities, increased by a shocking 569 percent.
[6:00]
That's from the former government and now this government has increased it by 32 percent. And as a matter of fact, they're the fastest-growing, this government. They should be real proud of that one. And that's rising from $1,144 to $7,657 for every man, woman and child.
The other thing I want to make a statement about was that we have a thing called debt-servicing. Right now, on roughly about $17 billion, we're paying almost $1 billion in debt-servicing. And every time we go in debt further that increases. A billion dollars would go a long way toward solving an awful lot of problems in this province, if we weren't in debt due to the past government, and especially this government.
It's high time we started to invest in ourselves. For example, every family invests $7,050 in health care per year. Do you know what you invest in mining per year per family of four? It's atrocious. We can't afford it. It's a whole $51. It's high time we realized that these people help to pay for our social services. Until we do, I'm afraid we're in trouble.
On that note, I would move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The Committee met at 2:58 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND CONSUMER SERVICES
On vote 49: minister's office, $350,350.
The Chair: Hon. minister, would you be so kind as to introduce your staff.
Hon. M. Sihota: With me today is the deputy minister, Mr. Heywood, and the ADM in charge of consumer services, Jacquie Rice.
If I may, I would like to take a few minutes to talk a little bit about the ministry, and some of our initiatives. As some of the members know, the ministry completed significant work last year with regard to the Labour Relations Code. With that now completed, the ministry this year is in the process of and looks forward with great interest to the amplification of decisions with regard to that code, and its implementation. Consequently, resources are being allocated this year in
[ Page 5613 ]
the ministry to bring about the implementation of that legislation.
As I'm sure the hon. members are well aware, about 40 percent of working people in British Columbia are covered by collective agreements; 60 percent are not. Therefore the ministry has set an important objective this year: dealing with the Employment Standards Act, and changes to employment standards, to bring about the creation of a contemporary Employment Standards Act that provides appropriate protections to workers in the 1990s.
I'm pleased to advise members who don't know, that Mark Thompson has been appointed commissioner to do that work, with an advisory panel of six other people, to bring about, in conjunction with the ministry, new changes to the Employment Standards Act. In addition to that, the ministry anticipates there will be some other initiatives this year with regard to the employment standards office.
[3:00]
As we were just noting in the House, today is a day of mourning with regard to those people who have been injured at worksites. This year the ministry will be putting a special emphasis on workers' compensation and the division of workers' compensation services. We hope, as the year goes on, to be able to provide hon. members with a greater degree of comfort with regard to both the regulation and the services that are offered by the workers' compensation system in British Columbia. That, I can assure members, will be a significant priority of the ministry this year.
In addition, with regard to other priorities, the ministry is pleased to announce that on April 1 a new minimum wage was introduced in British Columbia, and I would hope that as time goes on we will see increases in the minimum wage on a regular and orderly basis, to make sure the working poor in this province are adequately attended to in terms of the income that accrues to them at their place of occupation.
The ministry, of course, has other responsibilities, both with regard to fair wage legislation -- which, again, is a matter of ongoing review within the Ministry of Labour -- and other matters, which fall within the context of the Consumer Services component of the ministry. Work is underway with regard to enhancing rights concerning residential tenancy, debtors' assistance and consumer operations. This being Consumers Week, we have engaged in a series of new initiatives with regard to information being made available to British Columbians about their consumer rights. We are pleased to announce that not only are we preparing more fact sheets on new issues than we have in the past, but we're also doing it in a series of languages to reflect the multicultural nature of the province.
As Minister of Labour I also have responsibilities for B.C. Hydro. B.C. Hydro is, I think, one of the most -- if not the most -- exciting Crown corporation in this province. I think the activities of all other Crown corporations, quite frankly, pale in comparison to Hydro. Hydro plays a significant and major role in the economic development and well-being of this province.
Indeed, with the government's initiatives with regard to B.C. 21 and the employment activity and regional economic development activity that will be generated through the provisions of B.C. 21, I think it is an understatement to say B.C. Hydro will be playing a minor role. In fact, it will be playing a significant role with regard to the implementation of the B.C. 21 program that the government is envisioning. B.C. Hydro touches every British Columbian in one way or another, be it simply through the provision of electrical services, or through more creative programs like Power Smart and the Resource Smart programs we offer through that corporation, or through the economic development and job creation programs we've launched this year through Hydro.
Frankly, I' m quite pleased with the new structure that we've developed at Hydro under the leadership of Marc Eliesen. Mr. Eliesen -- who's currently in Asia -- is overseeing the corporation and its affairs. With the structure that we've established, I think we probably have one of the most efficient, well-run utilities in North America.
With that said, I look forward to any inquiries the opposition or the members may have with regard to the operation of the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services.
G. Farrell-Collins: It's with some excitement that I get involved in the Labour estimates because it is the first time I've had a chance to go through them. Some of us may remember that last year I was temporarily incapacitated and unable to participate in the Labour and Consumer Services estimates, and had to watch it on television from a hospital bed. It was a little restraining not to be able to enter into the debate and participate. I'm sure this year will be far more interesting -- for me, at any rate.
The minister outlined a number of major issues being addressed by his ministry in the upcoming year -- and the various components of it. We intend to canvass them at some length over the next little while. There are a number of timely and pertinent issues I'd like to ask about, issues that have come up very recently.
[D. Schreck in the chair.]
We might as well just jump right into it. One of them deals with comments in the media, as late as this morning, on an issue brought up in the House yesterday when the minister was occupied with other matters. It dealt with the appointment of Hans Brown to deal with what is a somewhat sensitive issue with the business community. The appointment of Hans Brown, a former NDP campaign chair -- I assume he's still a member of the NDP -- for two provincial elections, follows involvement in the party at great length. His NDP pedigree is probably beyond comparison. The fact he has been appointed to involve himself.... My understanding from the personnel people at your ministry, the Ministry of Labour, is that he has been hired to participate and be involved in the transfer of the appeals division from the employment standards
[ Page 5614 ]
branch to the Labour Relations Board. The minister may wish to comment on his suitability for that position, the consultation that I'm led to believe was intended to take place prior to that decision being made, and what impact this decision and this appointment will have on the relationship between his ministry and the business community.
Hon. M. Sihota: We're always interested in maintaining a good, positive relationship with the business community. The way in which we've structured the employment standards review process has been designed to achieve that goal. I understand that there are concerns with regard to the appointment of Mr. Brown, and because of my understanding of that, I've had occasion this morning to talk to Kathy Sanderson, the spokesperson for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and discuss the issue with her. I will be discussing the issue with her again in the near future. This morning I assured her that the government has not made any decisions with regard to the Employment Standards Act in terms of changes to the legislation. In fact, the work of the commission and its advisers is important in the development of legislation.
Regarding the work to be done by the commission, the terms of reference were in my possession, on the table, but they're not with me right now. I can get them from my office....
The terms of reference included, on an expedited basis, a review of section 2(2) and a determination of how the appeal system should be structured -- not whether it should be.... I did remind Ms. Sanderson of the fact that those were within the terms of reference. The government fully expects the commission to advise us on how the changes to section 2(2) should be made and how we intend to deal with the appeal system.
In addition, yes, it is true, Mr. Brown has a contract with the government; as I have indicated, there is a contract in place. He will render services that may be required by the chair of the Labour Relations Board, which will include a review of the appeal issue. But I don't think he will overlap with the work that is being done by the advisory panel. Let me also say that he is not being asked to review the Employment Standards Act. Certainly, in my discussions with Ms. Sanderson, that was her most salient concern -- as I understand it.
In anticipation of questions -- in fact, the hon. member may have assked the question already -- I wish to confirm that Mr. Brown is being paid a salary on a prorated basis equivalent to that of a vice-chair of the Labour Relations Board, which is in the neighborhood of about $90,000 a year.
G. Farrell-Collins: I guess we didn't quite get to the gist of the question. I'll try it again, and will perhaps throw in a few other things. Let me be very blunt. What are his qualifications? How was he hired? Was the position posted? Were there other competitors for the position?
Hon. M. Sihota: His qualifications, I think all members know. If the hon. member doesn't know -- he seems to know a lot about his political background -- I'd be happy to get a CV for him before these are completed. Mr. Brown has had extensive experience, particularly with the Hospital Employees' Union and the BCGEU, in terms of labour relations in the province.
Secondly, because the issue was a contract, it was not required to be posted.
G. Farrell-Collins: If it was a contract, was this gentleman singled out for the contract? Was the contract written for his benefit, or were there other people who were searched out to be able to perform the duties required by that contract?
Hon. M. Sihota: The contract was drafted to benefit the people of British Columbia.
G. Farrell-Collins: The second half of the question, then. Were there other people interviewed, met with, discussed with; were there names put forward with regard to that contract that was to benefit the people of British Columbia? It would seem that when the government is granting a contract that is to benefit the people of British Columbia, the government would want the best person for the job. I'm just wondering what process was entered into to ensure that this gentleman is the best person for the job.
Hon. M. Sihota: I don't know what the hon. member has in his possession that would suggest he isn't the best person for the job.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, it's clearly not my job to determine or to make a statement that he isn't the best person for the job. It's clearly the minister who is expending these funds, and the minister who is accountable to the public for the funds. I think the public needs some reassurance, to know what process was entered into to determine whether or not they have the best person for the job. Were other people considered, or was this the only gentleman considered for this position?
Hon. M. Sihota: I appreciate the hon. opposition member telling me what his job is. My job is to make sure that British Columbians get the best person available to do the job for the best value to the taxpayers for the quantum of the contract. In this case, all those goals have been achieved.
G. Farrell-Collins: So the minister is stating that this is the best person in all of British Columbia or outside to do this job. If that's the case, perhaps the minister can tell us how he is reassured of that, and what process he went through to determine that.
Hon. M. Sihota: I am assured of that, so I will assure the public of that. In terms of Mr. Brown's qualifications, as I said to the hon. member, I can get him the CV.
G. Farrell-Collins: Clearly the question is: what process did the minister or people in his ministry
[ Page 5615 ]
go through to determine whether this person was the best person?
D. Lovick: It's a contract; it's not civil service competition. There's a difference. That's what contracts are for.
Hon. M. Sihota: The process was just one of general consultation. In terms of what I said earlier with regard to the mandate of the employment standards review, and what the hon. member was asking with regard to Kathy Sanderson, I note that the terms of reference say:
"...to review and make recommendations on an expedited basis" --
and that's important; let it be understood that it is on an expedited basis -- "on three aspects of the existing Employment Standards Act...."
I should pause there and say about "expedited basis" that we've asked them to report back to us as quickly as possible. Our intention is to proceed with changes, if we can, this legislative session.
"...the legislative amendments necessary to deal with the repeal of section 2(2), which deals with variances from the act; the legislative amendments necessary to transfer employment standards appeals to the Labour Relations Board" -- again, to make that point, "the legislative amendments necessary to transfer employment standards appeals to the Labour Relations Board; the changes required to part 5.1, dealing with group termination notice, are made necessary by a recent court decision."
I should also point out that we want to proceed with amendments necessary to transfer employment standards appeals to the Labour Relations Board because this was an issue which some time ago the ombudsman recommended the government act on.
[3:15]
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm very familiar with the mandate of the panel; most people in the business community are. The question I was asking the minister concerned the process. The minister says the only process entered into in determining the appropriateness of this gentleman for the job -- being the best person available to hold that $90,000-a-year position -- was one of general consultation. Can the minister tell us who was involved in that general consultation? Was it between the minister and the gentleman who was hired?
Hon. M. Sihota: I think I've commented as far as I wish to comment on this issue, which is predominantly a personnel issue. Let me also say to the hon. member that he should be aware of the fact that we're talking about a four-month contract. That's all it is. This contract runs from March 31 to the end of July. One does not go through the same type of process one would if one were hiring on a long-term basis.
G. Farrell-Collins: My understanding, then, is that the minister feels it's not significant, when his ministry is spending $30,000 on a four-month contract, to go into any sort of extensive or even marginal search to determine who is available. The minister has clearly stated that only one person was looked at -- this person was brought in on a contract basis to deal with this issue -- and that no other search was done. Can the minister confirm that?
The Chair: The hon. member continues.
G. Farrell-Collins: I am merely trying to get a confirmation from the minister that in the expenditure of $30,000 for this contract, there was no search done -- no other person was considered for the job; there was just this one person considered for the job. Can he confirm that?
The Chair: Shall vote 49 pass?
G. Farrell-Collins: I find this very interesting that the minister can't even clarify one way or the other what the process was in hiring this gentlemen. Can the minister not stand up and say yes or no: that this was the process that was followed; that there was no other consultation; and that no other person was considered for the job, other than the gentleman who was hired? Is that true? I think the public, for the expenditure of $30,000, should be able to have some assurance from the minister one way or the other, or at least have that issue clarified.
The Chair: Hon. members, under the sessional orders for the conduct of this committee, I believe that is a division bell that we hear. Whether it is a quorum or a division bell, this committee should stand recessed in time so that all hon. members can check the business of the other House and then resume back here following a division, if a division is taking place immediately, or if it is merely a quorum call. This committee now stands adjourned.
The Committee recessed at 3:20 p.m.
The Committee resumed at 3:22 p.m.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
The Chair: The committee will come to order. It is a pleasure for the Chair to rejoin the committee.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm going to ask the minister one last time if he can confirm or deny the statements that I've made; that the only person considered for this position was Hans Brown, that no other people were considered and that no other process -- other than what he's already said -- was entered into in order to select the best person for the job.
Hon. M. Sihota: Surely, the hon. member doesn't expect me to talk publicly about names that were considered for any position within the ministry at any time. We don't as a practice release the names of everyone who applied for whatever position, be it short-term, long-term, contract or otherwise. It would be, I'm sure, a dangerous thing to start talking about names of people who were considered and then rejected; then of course we'd get into the issue of why
[ Page 5616 ]
they were rejected and so on. As far as the hon. member knows, we may have considered Gordon Campbell or Gordon Gibson or anybody else for the job. Just as the member opposite knows, when his party was elected in opposition the first person they hired was the former Liberal candidate in Oak Bay as chief of staff. We don't ask who else was considered before they put him on contract. The second person they hired was the former Liberal campaign manager for the member from Garibaldi. We don't ask who else was considered. I know that his caucus has contacted Mr. Chretien's office for assistance. Again, we don't ask who was and who wasn't considered. I'm not going to get into the business of saying who was and who wasn't considered. If they wanted to give a job to Mr. McKivett, if they wanted to give a job to Mr. Bennett, as they did -- the campaign manager and the candidate after the last provincial election -- that's their prerogative. They have to answer as to the wisdom behind that decision inasmuch as I have to answer for the wisdom behind the decision to hire Mr. Brown. With regard to Mr. Brown, I think he is a well qualified individual who ought not to have been excluded from consideration simply because of his political background.
I strikes me that it would be a sad day indeed in British Columbia if we were to give anyone who was applying for a job some kind of political blood check to see whether they were Social Credit, Liberal, Reform or NDP before we could offer them a job. I don't think that's the way our society functions. I don't think Mr. Brown should be excluded for consideration, inasmuch as Mr. Bennett and Mr. McKivett weren't excluded from consideration because of their political backgrounds when the Liberals hired them to do their caucus operations immediately after the 1991 election.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: We can get into debate of the Liberal caucus estimates for the last fiscal year if the minister wants to do that. I don't know that it's particularly in order, but that's fine.
After the election, this caucus brought on two people who were necessary immediately because there was no structure in place. We had no seats here. We had no offices here, and we still don't have much of an office here. But there was a reason for it, and I think the public understands that. Both of those people were hired on a somewhat interim basis. When we did go to fill the vacancies in those positions permanently, an extensive search was done: over 100 people applied. An extensive process was brought out when we chose the persons that were the most qualified for it.
The minister is trying to clutter the issue and trying to make it less clear than perhaps it really is by stating that the opposition is asking for the names of all of those other people who were considered. What's become quite clear through the debate today is that there were no others considered. There was no blood test done of other candidates because there were no other candidates. There was one candidate. That candidate was chosen. I think all one has to do is read through Hansard to find out that that was the case. No effort to make statements otherwise or to try and muddy the issue is going to get rid of the words that are already in Hansard and ascribed to the minister.
Given that that issue is dealt with and we're all clear on what the process was for that hiring, perhaps the minister would care to clarify the comments that he made in the form of a ministerial statement to the House on Monday with regard to the essential services provision as it relates to a finding by Mr. Lanyon, the chair of the Labour Relations Board. Some of the minister's comments seemed to be confusing to the chair of the school board -- or maybe they're not confusing. If we take the minister at his word, on exactly what he said, then he is not dealing with the issue. Perhaps the minister can explain a little more clearly the comments that he made on Monday as they relate to the provision of essential services in the school districts.
The Chair: Before the minister answers that, the Chair is having some difficulty in determining relevancy in this line of questioning undertaken by the member and in the responses from the minister. I would just caution the members of the committee, the minister and the critic from the opposition as to the rules of relevancy in examining the minister's estimates, and in dealing with items that have been and are before the House. I would offer that caution in general terms at this stage, and test how the committee settles in in the early stages of the examination of the estimates of the Ministry of Labour.
G. Farrell-Collins: Quite clearly, the last issue which was canvassed dealt with an expenditure of $30,000 from this budget year and is certainly relevant and pertinent. I don't see that there's any difficulty with that at all. I don't know if the minister has any difficulty with that; we just debated it for half an hour.
The second issue relates to essential services, a bill that this government brought in that is having an impact on the workings of the Labour Relations Board -- which certainly consumes a vast quantity of the expenditures of this ministry and is very relevant. Because if we're going to deal with the ruling on essential services....
The Chair: Order, order, hon. member. It appeared to the Chair that you were getting into the area of examination of the contents of legislation and the possible need to change legislation. That was the point from the Chair, hon. member. Carry on, please.
[3:30]
D. Schreck: Point of order. While a wide range is normally allowed in these estimates, dealing with virtually any matter involving expenditures under the minister's jurisdiction, a ruling by the Labour Relations Board on a particular dispute does not involve such expenditure. It is not, to my knowledge, the custom to review rulings by an independent body in the course of estimates.
[ Page 5617 ]
The Chair: Does the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove have an additional point of order or the same point of order?
G. Farrell-Collins: On the same point of order, initially. If the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale isn't aware that the deliberations and policy set by the Labour Relations Board and the impact of their decisions relate to the operations of the ministry, and if he isn't aware of the vast expenditures in the operations of the Labour Relations Board, then perhaps he could do some more research and come back to it.
The question that I barely had out of my mouth before I was interrupted deals with the provision and the level of essential services. If we're going to end up in a protracted debate in the Labour Relations Board over whether or not essential services do exist for schools, and to what level, certainly that's going to consume some time, money and effort of the Labour Relations Board. It's clearly in order for the debate that takes place in estimates. All any member of this House has to do is go back through Hansard and look at debates that have taken place in the past. It's clearly in order, and I intend to continue with it.
The Chair: On the point of order, hon. member, although the Labour Relations Board comes under the Minister of Labour, the rulings, decisions and hearings of the board are not examinable during estimates.
G. Farrell-Collins: I will take your comments seriously. I will be sure not to question the ruling of the Labour Relations Board, but merely the activities of the minister in his interpretation of the act and his referral to the board.
The minister made statements in the House on Monday, where a decision had been made by the Labour Relations Board and referred to the minister for action under section 72(2). The minister referred that matter back to the Labour Relations Board under subsection (1) -- in fact, quoted from it. So I'd ask the minister to clarify his position on this. What exactly has he asked the Labour Relations Board to be involved in? What sort of review has he asked them to undertake?
[D. Schreck in the chair.]
Hon. M. Sihota: This is probably the best example of a situation where the hon. member should have listened with care to the statement and not just practised the rhetoric that he was going to spew out later. I think if he had listened with care he would have appreciated the point that I was making. He didn't, and he was rather more interested in promoting his own private member's bill. I guess there are always times in this House which add to one's experience, and I would hope that now he would have benefited from that experience.
This was not a ruling, as the hon. member just said, of the Labour Relations Board. He's wrong on that point. Despite the fact that he suggested he has studied the issue since then, he still doesn't seem to understand that this was a report from the chairperson of the Labour Relations Board, based upon a report from the investigating officer who advised the chair.
It was an important issue because the decision which had to be made when the issue was raised was how best to deal with the application from the Vancouver Island North School District 85 with regard to the essential nature of services provided to grade 12 students. This was probably the first time we had to take a serious look at section 72, both 72(1) and 72(2), and consider how they segue in with the responsibilities of the minister when a report is provided to the minister.
It was important that a couple of things happen: first, that it be done the right way; and second, that the Vancouver Island North school board, through its trustees, have their day in court -- if I can put it that way. Given the procedural precedent that was to be set, it was important that it be done in the right way.
We took a close look at all of section 72, including 72(1) and 72(2), and at the decision made by Mr. Mullens, whom I believe was the investigating officer. It was interesting when one read Mr. Mullens's report -- I don't think the hon member has it, and if he doesn't have it, he should secure it -- that he simply laid out the positions of both parties. He did only that. He made no recommendation. The chair of the board then wrote requesting a designation under section 72(2).
It occurred to me, given the fact that there had been no recommendation in the investigating officer's report to the chair, who then reported to me, that there was a question as to whether or not one could trigger 72(2) without 72(1) having had the benefit of a full investigation. That had to be balanced on the other side with the importance of the school district having its day in court. I think it's important that I put on the record that I felt some kind of opportunity must be accorded that board to make its presentation in some form or another.
If you look at 72(2), it deals with the process of designation. When a report is received under 72(1), 72(2) requires that there be actual designation. It presupposes in many ways that the decision with respect to essential services is made. Yet there was no such decision made by the investigating officer. Certainly it was not a part at all of any recommendation that he had made, as I recollect. It simply stated the position of the two parties.
Section 72(1) contemplates an investigation to be made to the minister. It seemed to me, therefore, that the appropriate step to take would be to make sure that the parties had their day in court; that there was an investigation upon which a recommendation could be predicated; and that it should fall within the ambit of 72(1), not 72(2).
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps that, in the minister's mind anyway, makes his action of referring this matter back to the board again more reasonable, but I would question the reason to go through that process, having reviewed both subsections (1) and (2) of section 72. I don't think I need to quote from it. I'm sure the minister is familiar with it.
The report was done and the chair, Mr. Lanyon of the Labour Relations Board, made a recommendation to the
[ Page 5618 ]
minister. He said: "I request that you direct the board to act under the provisions of section 72(2) to designate as essential services those who sell these products and services that the board considers necessary or essential to prevent immediate..." -- etc.
Clearly, the chair of the board, speaking on behalf of the board -- to use his own words -- has recommended that they are to be deemed essential. Now they are requesting from the minister approval or a request from the minister to enter into the undertakings that are required by subsection (2), which deals with the actual designation process of essential services -- what they are and how they are going to be implemented.
The chair of the Labour Relations Board has made that decision, and he is speaking on behalf of the board in requesting action under section 72(2). Why was the minister reticent to take that advice, and why did he feel it necessary to go back to section 72(1) to go through a process that apparently has already been gone through?
Hon. M. Sihota: I don't know if the hon. member has a copy of the supporting report, but he is wrong when he says that the chair of the Labour Relations Board made a decision. He didn't; he made a recommendation. There's a significant difference there. Secondly, one has to take a look at the report upon which that recommendation was made. The report was one in which there was no recommendation made; rather, it set out the positions of the two parties. It was nonetheless important that there be an investigation, to make sure the investigation occurred. It was then asked for in a ministerial statement and simultaneous correspondence under the provision which allows for further investigation.
G. Farrell-Collins: I have a couple of points. First of all, if Wayne Mullins did an investigation and the minister is not satisfied with that investigation.... If Mr. Mullins made an investigation and then a report to the Labour Relations Board and then.... If I may, I think I need to quote from this so the minister knows exactly what it was that he quoted from last Monday.
This is Mr. Lanyon in a letter to the minister, stating that:
"After reviewing the report, I am satisfied that a strike by the Vancouver Island North Teachers' Association members poses a threat to the health, safety and welfare of the public in general."
That sounds to me like he's made a decision. He's obviously giving us his statement, and he's made a decision. Then he says: "I request that you direct the board to act under the provisions of section 72(2) to designate as essential services...." I've already quoted that. Quite clearly there was an investigation done. The chair of the Labour Relations Board made a decision and requested action by the minister under section 72(2).
The minister has not performed those actions. He has in fact gone back and asked for another investigation. I guess he didn't like the results of the first one. Now he wants to go back to section 72(1) and ask for another investigation. I don't know if it's to find out whether he can get different results or a different investigating officer, or what it is. In my opinion and in the opinion of the general public, and certainly in the opinion of the parents involved with these children, an investigation was done. The chair of the Labour Relations Board made a decision and then made a request of the minister to act in his powers under the act.
The minister has refused to do that, and rather is going back and doing another investigation. Why does the minister think it necessary to go through another investigation process? If he doesn't feel the first process was proper or sufficient, why did he enter into it in the first place?
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member does not have the opinion of Mr. Mullins before him. He's now seeking to substitute his opinion in the absence of that. I honestly believe that if he had before him Mr. Mullins' letter.... I'll get a copy of it for him so he can read it. It seems to me quite presumptuous for him to suggest that, all of a sudden, public opinion is consistent with his reading of the situation, when he himself doesn't have before him the opinion of Mr. Mullins.
[3:45]
We will get a copy of that for you in due courese, because I think you need to be educated on this matter. I think when you have that, you will understand the reasoning. The minister must be satisfied, and that satisfaction accrues both from the letter of Mr. Lanyon and the report.
At the same time, I feel strongly that to bring about a delay for technical reasons would obviously anger the board and the parents. In this instance I'm not prepared to allow for a technical delay. I want them to have their day in court. This process we arrived at achieves the objectives of, first, allowing them to have their day in court, and second, ensuring that there is compliance with section 72.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm not throwing my opinion forward here at all. My opinion is pretty irrelevant, I think, in this debate and as it relates to the parents in this province. What we are looking at here is the minister's own ministry making recommendations to him. These are not my opinions. These are the opinions of the chairman of the Labour Relations Board, who is required under section 72 to perform certain duties. An investigation was entered into by Mr. Mullins. That investigation was completed, and he made a report to the chair of the board. It's not whether Wayne Mullins says yes or no, or what he says; it doesn't matter. What matters is that the chair of the board, who is empowered under the act with certain duties and certain responsibilities, made a determination and spoke on behalf of the board, and then turned around and made a request of the minister to fulfil his legislative obligations. The minister has failed to do so.
I don't think it's a good enough answer for the minister to say that he wants them to have their day in court. Do those people want to have their day in court? I think not. What they want is for the minister to take the action that he is required to take under the section
[ Page 5619 ]
of the labour code. The recommendation was made by Mr. Lanyon that, in his opinion as the chair of the board, this matter did pose a threat in general terms to the health, safety and welfare of these students. In his opinion, we had now finished with section 72(1) and were at the stage where we needed the minister to step in under section 72(2) and take action. Clearly that was what the minister was called on to do, and he hasn't done that. He's chosen an alternative course.
I don't think any amount of condescension or trying to explain his way out of it is going to change the fact of the matter. Mr. Lanyon has asked for that, the minister has failed to respond to that and in fact has taken an alternative course of action. The reality is that regardless of what the finding was under section 72(1), the minister is at any time able to make that determination of his own accord under section 72(2) -- to determine that it poses a threat and make those decisions on his own.
I do understand the minister's reticence to dive in and get involved in these issues as a person. I can understand that. Jumping in and taking action under section 72(2) is perhaps not the best course of action at all times. But when you have a report and an investigation, a report and then a recommendation by the chair of the Labour Relations Board for actions for the minister to take, in my opinion there should be some fairly strong reason that the minister doesn't follow through with those actions. He should have some very strong reasons. To state that the board should have their day in court doesn't answer the question, because the board would rather not have their day in court. They'd rather just have this whole thing settled.
I ask the minister to perhaps explain why he feels it's so necessary to go through this process once again. How is this going to make the process any better? How is this going to make the finding any more sound? How is it going to change Mr. Lanyon's mind? How is it going to change the minister's mind? Why the necessary second investigation into this whole matter?
Hon. M. Sihota: For the benefit of the member, who clearly requires some assistance in understand this section, let me lay it out for him. The situation is as follows: he is correct when he says that all parties would prefer that the issue be resolved without this kind of an application. Of course, that's what everybody thinks. That's to state the obvious.
Second, with regard to what the hon. member says, the fact of the matter is that there are certain requirements under both sections 72(1) and 72(2). It is not for the minister, under subsection 72(2), to just simply rubber-stamp a decision that's made or a letter that comes from the chair of the Labour Relations Board. I think the hon. member must understand that there is a discretion that's vested in the minister in that regard, and it has to be acted upon in a careful way.
The significant consideration in this case is that there's an application -- and I would argue an important one -- brought forward by the school district. There's no doubt that there needs to be clarification with regard to jurisprudence, regardless of how I feel about it, on the issue of the provision of education services and the extent to which they are captured by section 72. There must be a process by which these kinds of applications can be heard and evaluated. There must be a basis upon which ministers can exercise their discretion.
The legislation contemplates that the minister will base his discretion on the recommendations of the chairperson of the Labour Relations Board. The minister, of course, must lift the veil behind that recommendation and be satisfied that the decision the chair has made is based upon a situation which gives the minister a degree of comfort.
I think where the hon. member's argument falls is really in the fact that he is lacking one important piece of evidence, which is the letter from Mr. Mullins. It seemed to me that in this situation it was important that the proper procedural precedent be set. It occurs to me that the proper procedural precedent must be one which recognizes the right of a party to have its day in court, to be able to make its argument, to have the other side be able to meet that argument, and based upon that kind of examination or hearing a recommendation would flow to the minister.
In fact, I wonder about the implications from a legal point of view with regard to doing anything to the contrary. It seems to me the worst thing that could happen regarding this application would be to have it rubber-stamped and then questioned outside the context of the legislation -- i.e., in court -- on the basis of procedure. That would get us tied up for months in terms of litigation in the courts, which I think ought to be avoided. Therefore I think it must be structured in a way that makes sure it's done right at the beginning.
So there are two overriding considerations here: (1) that we do it right; and (2) that it give the parties the day in court. After assessing the various options available to me -- including the discretion I have under subsection 72(2); including the report from Mr. Mullins, which the hon. member does not have and which I'll be happy to give him; including the need to make sure that the Vancouver Island North board was able to make its argument in an expedited way -- and balancing those, it seemed to me that the best approach was subsection 72(1).
If the hon. member wishes to question my conclusion, that's his prerogative. Quite frankly, we may have a difference of opinion. But my responsibility in this House is to advise the member of the considerations that I weighed when I made those decisions, and I've done that.
G. Farrell-Collins: If I understood the minister's comments correctly, it seems to me that he feels the provisions under section 72, which he brought into force last fall, are not sufficient to withstand a court challenge. Clearly the minister was not required to refer this back for a hearing under section 72(1). In fact, in the opinion of the chair of the Labour Relations Board, who should certainly be knowledgable on this issue, and given the way the minister defended that appointment, I would assume that Mr. Lanyon is more than qualified
[ Page 5620 ]
to make that type of determination -- to look at the long-term legal implications of such a process.
Clearly, what the chair of the Labour Relations Board asked was for the minister to act under section 72(2). If the minister feels that somehow his legislation, when flowing through the process it was embarked upon with the recommendations of Mr. Lanyon and the required action on behalf of the minister, would then come up for legal challenge down the end of the line, I would suggest that perhaps the minister has to go back to section 72 and modify that process somewhat so that we don't end up in this type of situation in the future.
There shouldn't be two, three or four paths to coming to some sort of resolution on this that then can be questioned by the courts later. There should be a clear process that makes sense, that works and that's not likely to be questioned by the courts because of a process. I don't know which way the minister wants to handle this one. Does he want to say that the bill itself is perhaps not as solid and as sound as he originally thought, or does he wish to agree with Mr. Lanyon's process and the opinion of the chair of the Labour Relations Board, whom he was very high on when he appointed him?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm beginning to wonder if the hon. member thinks there's some kind of underlying political agenda here -- and there isn't. It's just a matter of making sure things are done the right way.
He should know that simultaneously with this decision, I also made another decision under 72(2) -- and 72(1) as well, I guess -- dealing with the B.C. Systems decision, and exercised my discretion in that case as well. I think if he were to study the documentation in support of that with regard to the B.C. Systems situation versus this one -- and I will make available to him the supporting documentation, unless there's some legal impediment to doing so -- I think it would help him better understand the provisions that are the subject of this debate.
G. Farrell-Collins: I was led to understand that the minister had to leave at 4 o'clock today. We can certainly get into other issues if he wants to. I don't know if he wants to get into another whole area.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Okay. I think we're just going to have to disagree with the ruling of the minister. I'm comfortable that I have the support of the people involved in that area on my side. That's something the minister will have to deal with, and that that the MLA from that riding will also have to deal with as an individual and as their representative.
We could go on for a long time, and I imagine we will. The minister made mention at the beginning of his presentation that there are provisions being brought forward this year with regard to consumer protection. This is consumer protection week, and I don't know to what extent the minister can expand upon some of those policy directions that he's hoping to take within the ministry and to what length he wants to canvass that. I don't know if he wants to spend some time on consumer services for the next little while.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm always happy to talk about consumer services, but obviously, as the hon. member knows, we can't talk about legislation.
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps the minister then can walk us through some of the plans he has. I know last year he put on a fairly strong effort in dealing with some of the consumer fraud things that came up. There were some releases and some actions taken by his ministry in that regard that I think most people would concur with. I don't know if the minister has any particular issues he's looking at. I know the automotive dealerships' sales of used cars is certainly a big issue. It's one that was brought up as recently as this week by the media. I'm wondering, given that it is Consumer Awareness Week, if the minister could outline some of his plans, aside from legislation, to deal with some of the problems that exist in that particular area, which I know does occupy a great deal of his ministry's effort and a great deal of my time also.
Hon. M. Sihota: The automotive sector, of course, is one of the areas where we receive an abundance of complaints. Certainly in that regard we are looking at a variety of legislative policy changes, some of which, as I indicated, are under contemplation. Therefore I'm not prepared to talk about it at this point because the rules restrict me. But I would hope that in the very near future we could have some discussions with regard to that.
[4:00]
The hon. member indicated that it is Consumer Awareness Week. I should let him know that there is a lot that the ministry is doing in that regard. The hon. member may be aware that every year we put out a whole variety of consumer education material. We've done that again this year, but we've also covered off areas that we haven't covered off before: telemarketing, vehicle licensing, marital status, repossession of rights, repairs to rented homes, arbitration in landlord-tenant disputes, possession in landlord-tenant disputes.
Some of the more interesting documents that we produce and have produced for some time include the Consumer Assistance Directory and the Consumer Guide to Credit and Debt. Both of those are picked up by people the moment we put them out. We're always having trouble just maintaining demand. I'm pleased to report that this year those materials are available in Chinese and Punjabi, two of the most frequently spoken languages in this province. In addition to that, there is a Straight Facts associated with tenancy matters that is available in Spanish. That's the first time we've done that.
The production of the educational material that we've released has been amplified in a significant way, both in terms of the subject matters that are covered and the languages that are covered as well. It's important that we engage in active consumer education. Therefore this material is important in that regard.
[ Page 5621 ]
I obviously can't talk about legislation, but the hon. member is right: last year we took some steps with regard to broader consumer awareness and pointing to scams that happen out in the marketplace. We will be doing more of that as the year goes on. We've taken some care to identify a number of issues. We would hope this year, of course, that judges will not be as liberal in their comments about what we put out as they were last year.
G. Farrell-Collins: I have a colleague who would like to enter into the debate. I propose we can pick up on the consumer issues later. They are of significant importance, and I imagine we will canvass them at some length tomorrow.
G. Wilson: I have two fairly specific areas of questioning that I would like to look at with respect to this set of estimates. The first has to do with the labour situation that exists in many small, single-industry communities -- my own, Powell River, is one of them -- where there is a significant downsizing in industry. I want to talk about the role of the job protection commissioner and the role of the Ministry of Labour with respect to reviewing situations that may exist in light of new collective agreements that are being signed or, in some instances, past collective agreements that are being signed, where grievances may come forward and the dispute resolution mechanism or some assistance by government may be required.
I wonder if the minister might want to outline what he sees as the long-term role of the job protection commissioner. Is that something he feels ought to be looked at, and should be a functioning part of the Ministry of Labour with respect to the downsizing of critical industry? Or does he feels that that is strictly between the two parties -- management and labour -- and that the government has no role to play?
Hon. M. Sihota: I will comment, but I should remind the hon. member that the job protection commissioner falls within the context of the Ministry of Economic Development.
G. Wilson: I understand that.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'd be lying if I said that we didn't have anything to do with the job protection commissioner. Obviously when there are issues that require restructuring in the workplace and involvement in renegotiation of collective agreements with trade unions, we end up getting involved with the job protection commissioner. We will continue to do that.
If you work from the assumption that I always do, which is that the economy is getting better in this province -- which it is -- you can't lose sight of the fact that, good times or bad, there are going to be problems in critical industries. We've got to make sure that we've got the resources to deal with those problems. Hence we anticipate that the commissioner will remain in a corporate sense, and we intend to work with him as closely as we can.
With regard to small communities, I've just asked my deputy to get you an update on the Powell River situation. We'll try to have that before you're finished with your line of questioning.
G. Wilson: I appreciate that. I don't know the answer to this question, and the minister may or may not. There is currently a committee in Powell River that is looking at the possibility of job retraining and job re-entry. It is in part funded, I understand, by federal and provincial moneys to put in place a proposition that will allow workers, particularly those who are only midway through their work life.... I'm not talking about people who are one or two years away from retirement or who may have early retirement as an option. Does the minister see his ministry as having a role to play in establishing some kind of liaison in that regard? That's outside the job protection commissioner. It tends to be more of a job evaluation thing.
Hon. M. Sihota: There was a time when training issues fell within the context of the Ministry of Labour. That hasn't been the case for about a decade. Training issues are dealt with by the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. Again, I'd be lying if I said we weren't involved in those issues; we are. We are often approached for assistance by both employer and employee organizations. From time to time we find ourselves working in conjunction with the Ministry of Advanced Education on those types of issues, and we will continue to do that in the future.
I'm not familiar with the situation in Powell River, but there is no doubt in my mind that we need more of that kind of work going on in the province, in terms of dealing with retraining and adjustments, particularly as they relate to older workers. I make the argument with respect to any worker. It's an area where I think we've failed as a society.
If I may revisit past days, in my introductory comments I should have talked -- of course, I didn't -- about the other responsibility I have, which is constitutional affairs. The more I assess what happened last year regarding the constitutional negotiations, I feel -- notwithstanding the result -- that there should be movement on the agreements that were negotiated with regard to job training. I think the constitutional restructuring that developed as a result of those negotiations was in the public interest. What we were trying to do -- and what we did -- was eliminate vast areas of duplication and waste, where the federal government and the provincial government did the same thing. We brought about the transfer of authority to the provinces with national standards at the federal level. From an expenditure point of view, the system was set up in a wise way to generate better value for taxpayers' dollars and to be able to develop programs within a province that are more attentive to the province's economic needs. I appreciate that the hon. member and I often debated those issues. It is part of the federal-provincial tension that exists in this country.
In terms of my follow-up discussions over the past few months with those who were involved in the constitutional negotiations, I'm always impressed with
[ Page 5622 ]
the frequency with which all the governments, including the federal government, go back to that as an area. Notwithstanding the result of the Charlottetown accord, we should look at that and try to make some smaller constitutional change to deal with the issue of too much waste and duplication. People in Powell River or Esquimalt, or wherever else in the province they reside, demand that these systems be delivered in an efficient, effective way. I'm not persuaded that's the case right now.
G. Wilson: The situation in Powell River is very large in magnitude. We're talking about roughly 380 jobs, give or take five or ten, that are going to be reduced or lost permanently as a result of the machine closures at the MacMillan Bloedel mill. In comparison with Port Alberni, that is not as significant -- but it is significant within the community of Powell River, because these are permanent job losses. These are not seasonal losses or simply job losses that could be picked up as expansion or reinvestment occurs.
We are looking at a very serious situation, and I note with some interest that there has been a good deal of discussion about a trained workforce, new apprenticeship programs and opportunities to develop skilled workers in British Columbia. The committee now at work in Powell River is moving in that direction. I understand that the Ministry of Advanced Education is the proper ministry to deal with this, and I will do so in their estimates. But I think it does come down to the question of labour relations, when we start to look at the need for collective agreements to become a lot more flexible in terms of the initiatives that have to be taken by business to remain current, to remain at the leading edge of technology, and the impact that's likely to have on a declining workforce.
We had a big debate, as the minister knows, when they introduced the new labour relations code. As a result, there are some costs that are now going to be borne by smaller communities as a result of the inability -- or the inadvisability, perhaps -- of some companies to move toward technological changes because of existing collective agreements that may be impacted by the new labour code, in terms of notice and in terms of the kinds of conditions that are required. The minister might want to address that small point.
I recognize there's a limit to what the ministry can do with respect to existing collective agreements. Nevertheless, the Labour Relations Code, which was shepherded through this House last year, is now going to be administered by the Labour Relations Board. That board is financed in this set of estimates with an operating cost of about $7.1 million, and is presumably going to have a large role to play in the next round of negotiations between workers and management, in a time when there's a declining workforce as a result of technological change. The minister might want to talk a bit about where he sees the Labour Relations Board fitting into that process. The new labour code, about which we had some debate last year, suggested it was not going to have the kind of impact we're already starting to see in a community like Powell River.
Hon. M. Sihota: I really don't know how to answer the question. We will obviously monitor what happens. We'll watch the juxtaposition of the legislation versus the realities of the marketplace, and the decisions of the Labour Relations Board. To be honest, I haven't really looked at the decisions made by the board in that context, nor have I inquired recently regarding the assistance we're providing to parties in working out those differences under the section that requires them to do so. With the legislation being relatively new and the situations relatively infrequent -- albeit that the hon. member is right that the issues will arise in future -- it's hard for me to give you a complete answer.
[4:15]
G. Wilson: I can report favourably in the Powell River situation. There is a great deal of cooperation between the union and management in the situation. Although it's not a very pleasant experience for those involved, it is certainly not confrontational in that sense. But it would seem that there is a need by both the union and management to have some agency of government -- and I'm not sure it's the Ministry of Labour, it may be somewhere else.... Having consulted with both the union and the management in my community in Powell River, there would seem to be a need at times for there to be a third party present to assist with respect to some provisions for job re-entry, job training or whatever. that may be a component part of a future collective agreement. I wonder if -- rather than waiting for the crunch to come -- there is any provision in this set of estimates in this ministry to have some officers who might look at that particular section of the code and do some advance work with the parties that will be negotiating, in order to allow those parties the opportunity to come to grips with what's going to be a very contentious issue. In some communities -- Powell River I hope will not be one of them -- it might be a really hot labour relations issue.
Hon. M. Sihota: Those are all valuable comments and ideas. Maybe we should proceed with doing some advance work. Those are good points.
G. Wilson: If I could move in slightly, still focusing on the Powell River situation but outside of the private sector, in the public sector dispute.... The minister will not be surprised to learn that I'm disappointed there has been no mediator appointed today, despite the fact that there may be some movement. We've heard that there's been movement for the last four weeks, and still students are out of school. Can the minister tell us what he sees as the role of the Labour Relations Board, given the fact that we've got a situation where mediation is clearly necessary?
Hon. M. Sihota: Sorry. Can you ask that again?
G. Wilson: I haven't got there yet, actually; I was giving you the preamble. Let me give you the preamble again: I'm disappointed that a mediator wasn't appointed today, despite the fact that there were
[ Page 5623 ]
meetings until 1 o'clock in the morning or whatever. We've heard that before. I have not much confidence that without some kind of third-party assistance we're going to get a collective agreement that's going to work in that area.
I wonder if you could tell us what role you see that the board should play. To what extent are we are going to have mediation services made available for two parties? Where two parties can't agree, to what degree do you think the minister is going to take the initiative in the interests of the third party affected -- in this case the children of Powell River -- to take some action and say: "Look, recognizing we can't get the two parties together for whatever reasons, we need public mediation. And failing that, we need to have arbitration." I recognize the limits within the law that this minister brought in. But surely there's a role for this ministry to play in ending a dispute that's creating great hardship among the students in Powell River.
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member should know that the situation as it relates to education in general is one which gives the government a lot of concern. There is no doubt that the kinds of situations we're seeing in his community, or in Quesnel some months ago, or elsewhere, are issues we have to examine to see how they should be dealt with in the future. I'd be lying if I were to say those kinds of considerations aren't part of the range of matters that are sort of bouncing around my skull -- they are.
With regard to Powell River, the dispute there has been, as he knows, a very difficult one. It's taken a long time to resolve it -- probably too long, to my way of thinking. He knows what happened the other day, in terms of the trustees not coming down here to Victoria to meet with the teachers. But he also knows that there were some meetings last night which, as he said, went on to 1 o'clock in the morning. I'm apprised that there were sufficient developments there to give more than a glimmer of hope -- if I can put it that way -- to the parties affected. As a result of my discussions on Monday, we were poised to make some changes today. I'm not persuaded that today is the day to do that. However, I am persuaded -- and I want to make this clear -- that a third party will have to be involved. I think that will occur, but it won't occur today.
G. Wilson: With respect to the subvote for labour relations, which provides services promoting harmonious labour relations, including administration and support services to the board, you've had an increase of about $1.6 million in salaries and benefits. One wonders what these people are going to be used for in this proposition. Operating costs are down; we like to see that. But to look at $1.6 million in salaries and benefits in that subvote.... Yet we find that we've got young children being shipped out. I pointed out to the Minister of Education in the estimates the other day that when I flew down a couple of days ago from Powell River, there was a young girl in a very tearful departure from her parents. She had to fly to Terrace to go to school. This is what this is all about. It isn't about teachers and boards; it's about young kids who have to get disrupted from their parents, moved from their friends and flown to relatives -- some have not seen these relatives -- in order to get to school. Surely the minister recognizes that if we're going to have this body of people with $1.6 million in salaries and benefits, we can put some of those resources to work when we've got a dispute that seems to be stuck in the mud after four weeks. You know what it's like with a vehicle. When you're stuck in the mud, you think you have forward progress, but all you're doing is going deeper into the mud. I hope that isn't the case with the Powell River teachers. I would like some comment as to whether or not these mediation services are going to be strictly there when they're asked for. Or is there going to be some initiative to take these needed resources and make sure that the third party gets these kids back into school right away?
Hon. M. Sihota: They are there when they're asked for. As I've said in the past, we're encouraging preventive mediation. Let me say that in the Powell River context, there is a mediator that the parties have asked for. It seems to me -- and I say this with great interest in what transpired there last night -- that given the fact there was progress last night, and there is consensus among the parties that the progress should be allowed to move forward, they have found their own way to get out of the mud with the assistance of the person who has been involved to date.
I would be reluctant to place into that dispute a fresh face if there is progress, and I'm told there is. I'm told that there is consensus among the parties that the progress is moving in the right direction -- albeit in its fourth week. That, I must confess, is a matter of concern to the parents, to you as an MLA who has done a pretty good job of putting the heat on the ministry to look into that dispute, and also to me. I have to tell you that, given what happened there last night, I'm somewhat encouraged. I hope -- as I'm sure you hope -- that the consensus that seems to have developed among the parties will result in an immediate resolution. We will see how things develop.
G. Wilson: By way of a final comment, I would hope that whatever progress there is there can be communicated to the parent group prior to tomorrow's rally and mischief -- whatever they have planned. Some people are angry enough to get a little carried away, and I hope that that doesn't happen in tomorrow's rally. If there is some hope, this ministry might want to pass that on so that we can avert what might be a rather ugly scene.
I have a last set of questions, and then I'll hand it back to my able colleague here. It has to do with the section on constitutional affairs. I notice that there are some dollars allocated to that section. What, if anything, is this ministry doing in that little section? Or has it decided that it's better not to get involved again?
Hon. M. Sihota: You know, once burned, twice shy. I wanted to make sure that the staff gave me the assurance of the understanding that I had, and they did. There is actually no money allocated to constitutional
[ Page 5624 ]
affairs this year. We're not anticipating any constitutional activity this year. Obviously, if there were, we would have to make a request to Treasury Board. You have to remember that some of the cost may be picked up out of intergovernmental affairs in the Premier's vote. At this point we're not anticipating any work on the constitutional side, and I don't have any work ongoing on the constitutional side. In fact, the bulk of the expenditures last year were on the basis of contractual services, thinking that the issue would eventually be resolved.
G. Farrell-Collins: We started to get into some of the consumer services issues. I suppose we can spend some time.... The minister made some comments on the automotive industry, which I'm certainly intent on following up -- perhaps tomorrow.
I did want to ask the minister about one issue that has come to my attention. I've had two people call me in the last six weeks with regard to credit reporting for commercial operations as opposed to credit reporting for private individuals. I'm wondering if the minister has any plans to make some of the changes. I'm aware that the last government had proposed some changes to sections 15 through 18, I believe. Maybe the minister can't comment on it if it is coming in legislation; I don't know. It's an issue that has come up, and I'm wondering if he has any intention to address that or whether he can or can't comment.
The Chair: The Chair must advise that future policy is out of order.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister made some comments with regard to consumer services and the things that he was planning. That's one area that has come to my attention in the portfolio. If the minister is not able to comment on that, just wink and nudge and I'll move on to something else.
Hon. M. Sihota: All I will say at this point is that we are well aware of the issue.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'll leave it at that. I think that's probably an area.... If the minister is aware of it and it has come to his attention, I'm sure he's addressing it. I'd be glad to give him my aid in whatever way possible to ensure a speedy resolution of that problem whenever it comes before the House.
I want to ask the minister a question regarding some comments he made. My understanding is that he intends to take to a national ministers' conference the issue of auto registration and a national registry. I'm wondering if there are any allotments this year to do with the planning of that as it comes on line. Or is he intending to wait until he gets a little better feel from the other ministers of consumer services across the country, to see whether or not that's something they want to get involved in. It is an issue that has come up, and I know he has made some comments publicly on it. Perhaps he can give us an idea of the plans for this coming year regarding that.
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, there have been allocations made in a general sense within the budget, because it is an issue that the ministry is dealing with. The meeting that the hon. member refers to is the deputy ministers' meeting -- a pan-Canadian meeting that is designed to resolve this important consumer issue. Accordingly, it will get some attention in terms of resources from the ministries.
[4:30]
G. Farrell-Collins: One of the other issues -- perhaps the minister can give us some guidance on it -- that came to light in the past year was that of the level of inspection of meat products that are sold by various supermarkets, etc. It was certainly a concern that came up. I don't know if that falls under the federal wing for inspection, but from a consumer services point of view it's an issue that was a big problem. I'm wondering if he has any plans to address that or if that's something he will be taking up with the federal minister.
Hon. M. Sihota: Those matters fall under the federal powers of Weights and Measures Canada. Other issues in that vein fall under the Ministry of Health for inspections.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister made some other, related comments at the beginning of the session today. I want to ask a few questions on that before we get too far off. Residential tenancy was one of the issues he made comments on in the very beginning, and some of the plans that he had to deal with that issue. Perhaps he can expand upon that a little more than he did initially.
Hon. M. Sihota: Again, I can't deal with issues of future policy. I can simply assure the hon. member that he can anticipate some action from the ministry with regard to that. I'm not going to talk about when.
Last year we made some steps towards improving the quality of service within the rentals office. The residential tenancy branch performs -- and the hon. member knows -- the functions of the rentalsman with the exception of rent review. We took in about 170,000 telephone inquiries last year. We launched a 1-800 system last year, which made it more accessible to all British Columbians. That has continued this year. Perhaps unlike other ministries, where there have been some cuts, the Minister of Finance was pretty good to us in terms of making sure that that kind of service remains. We still deal with about 1,500 clients who walk into our Burnaby and Victoria offices each month. I think if anybody ever took the time to see what happens in Victoria, they'd be amazed at the demand on the service. If memory serves me right, after medical services premiums and motor vehicles, we are the third-busiest agency in government, which gives you an indication of the frequency of the problems that we have. It probably also gives you an indication of the need to attend to the problems, in addition to the service that we provide.
We are also trying to do more in terms of education, and we are putting out information this year on....
[ Page 5625 ]
Renting in British Columbia is one of the most popular brochures the government puts out. We've prepared a number of straight fact sheets and supplied them to community newspapers. There has been a significant increase in promotional material and educational activities, including more public speaking by the branch to get out and tell people what we offer -- which, I guess, works both ways. In one way it educates people, and hopefully it will prevent problems; but it also probably does increase some of the demands on the office. We have scheduled about 15,000 arbitrations per year, and we are dealing with arbitrations as efficiently as we can, with a roster of arbitrators who are worked very hard.
I don't have the number here in terms of the actual quantum of expenditures for the residential tenancy office, but I can tell the hon. member that if there is one area where I am totally persuaded we are getting remarkable value for the dollars expended by the public, it's this area. We are doing a remarkable amount of work providing services to a remarkable number of people in an incredibly efficient way. I have to say that the people who work there deserve a lot of credit.
I want to put that on the record, because people are doing just an incredible job there. I think it would assist all hon. members, if they could ever find the time, to go down there and spend a couple of hours with the folks. I will provide you with a number, not that it really matters. The fact is that we're spending a lot of money on residential tenancy -- $3.5 million -- and we are probably getting service equivalent to about $5 million to $5.5 million. It's just incredible what goes on down there.
G. Farrell-Collins: I wouldn't mind having a look at some of those numbers or hearing what some of those numbers are before you put them away. With regard to the increases, the minister mentioned that a 1-800 number was in fact installed. I would imagine that's increasing the demand. I am just wondering if he can give us some numbers as far as what the increase in requests has been with regard to the 1-800 number. Has it gone up dramatically? It sounds like the minister said it was really doing its job. These questions can go to the deputy, if we choose. I believe that's permitted now under our rules, hon. Chair. Is that correct?
The Chair: It is at the discretion of the minister.
G. Farrell-Collins: That's fine, if he wants to forward them on. They're merely technical numbers. It may be easier to do if the assistant deputy wants to deal with that. I'd be glad to hear some of those numbers, and see what sort of an effect they're having. If they're doing a good job, then I think it's important that we hear what they are, and how they're benefiting.
Hon. M. Sihota: We've gone from about 140,000 to 170,000.
G. Farrell-Collins: Is that increase predominantly from the regions, now that they have easier access to the branch, or is it more an increase from the lower mainland? I'm curious as to how well the 1-800.... From the regions? Okay. That sounds like a good plan and a good process put in place. If I can just keep going.... I've got some more stuff on Consumer Services coming later. I'll probably do it tomorrow.
Maybe we can get back right to square one and look at one issue. I notice that with vote 49, if we want to just deal with some pure numbers, we have an increase of 11.38 percent in the expenditures in the minister's office itself, from $314,532 to $350,350. Perhaps the minister can give us some idea as to why there is an increase of 11 percent, and what the rationale is for that.
Hon. M. Sihota: If I heard you right, you're talking about the minister's office. The increase in salary costs in the ministry account for $46,200. That's as a consequence of two clerical reclassifications totalling about $8,000, and negotiated salary increases as part, I guess, of the GEU agreement, which sees salary increases of about $39,800.
G. Farrell-Collins: It may be my math, but I'm having difficulty with this. I see a $39,800 increase as a result of a settlement which, my understanding was, cost us 2 percent this year, if that's correct.
Hon. M. Sihota: Salaries.
G. Farrell-Collins: Salaries. We have a $39,800 increase, which is over 10 percent. I'm wondering where that number comes from. Maybe you can break that out a little more for us and explain it.
Hon. M. Sihota: The $39,800 is negotiated salaries and people moving up on the grid -- step increases but not staff increases.
G. Farrell-Collins: Just as he sat down the minister said there were no staff increases. There was no additional staff in the minister's office whatsoever in the last fiscal year -- the same staff, I assume. Were those step-ups that took place in accordance with a set schedule that's laid out, or were those at the discretion of the minister? How do those steps take place in his ministry?
Hon. M. Sihota: They're not done at the discretion of the minister. In some cases people asked for a review; in some cases there were reclassifications.
G. Farrell-Collins: If we move down to total voted expenditure by group account classification, we have a similar 16 percent increase in salaries and benefits. I would assume that that's the same process. What has been the status of staff in the ministry? Have we increased? Have we decreased? I understand that in some areas there must have been some increases, and perhaps there were some decreases elsewhere. Perhaps you could identify those for us.
Hon. M. Sihota: Do you want an overall figure?
[ Page 5626 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: I don't know. Do you want to do it one by one?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm just not too sure. Are you referring to the minister's office or the ministry in general?
G. Farrell-Collins: Do you want to do the ministry?
Hon. M. Sihota: It doesn't matter to me how you do it.
G. Farrell-Collins: Not the minister's office -- a line account.
Hon. M. Sihota: Okay, so I think we've dealt with the minister's office. The people who were there, I believe, last year are still there this year. You never know, these days.
Now you want to know, within ministry operations, our overall increase or decrease in staff as a ministry?
G. Farrell-Collins: Yes.
Hon. M. Sihota: Okay, I'll just try to get you that.
We've increased staff by a total of 17 people over the last year.
G. Farrell-Collins: Last year, leading up to estimates, as a critic I forwarded to the minister -- we sort of had an agreement -- a set of questions that I felt would speed up the process if we did them that way and got the answers for them ahead of time. We could get the details and the numbers out of the way. Then we could speed up the estimates process, rather than asking a question that takes five minutes to get an answer for because he has to look through the pages to come up with numbers and then stand up and answer. That probably would have been a better way to go. It would probably be better this year, I suppose, if we could have done that. Unfortunately, those numbers weren't forthcoming. We're probably going to have to go through it step by step and bit by bit.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: I got the information six months late, but I did get it. I don't know if he wants to do an update on that or not, but I finally did get it.
[4:45]
The minister says that 17 people were added to the ministry overall. Perhaps he can identify the areas they are in. I know they probably increased in one area and decreased in another area. Perhaps he can itemize those for us.
Hon. M. Sihota: We had an increase of one in the deputy minister's office, a loss of one in constitutional affairs to take us down to zero and an increase of one in personnel services. Therefore, in management services and constitutional affairs, there was a net increase of one. In labour relations we lost three people in the legislative review -- the code. We've had six additional staff in employment standards, an important area where we want to enhance services. As well, in collective agreements in the arbitration bureau there has been an increase of four.
In pension benefits standards, because of the changes in the legislation, where we brought in some interesting new regulations with regard to pension benefits.... In order to staff that, we're looking at an increase of seven people, for a total of 11 in that area.
In Consumer Services, the only increase in staffing is in residential tenancy. We've added two new positions. They go up from 36 to 38.
In total, we have 17 people: two in Consumer Services, 14 in labour relations and one in management services and constitutional affairs. Let me put it this way: my understanding is that we're running at a staff equivalent to what we were about five years ago. So it's a very lean ministry in terms of the administration side.
V. Anderson: There are two areas I'd like to explore. One of the areas I'm concerned about is aboriginal people. Are there any particular services in your ministry that deal with aboriginal people, in either the labour or consumer services area? That would be divided into those who are living in rural areas and those in urban areas.
Hon. M. Sihota: No, there's nothing specific within the ministry.
V. Anderson: I would ask if, either in the aboriginal-related or the multicultural area, there is anything that comes up in your ministry in consumer services, in practices or complaints that you've had through there, or in the rentalsman area, particularly in the area of multicultural or aboriginal concerns.
Hon. M. Sihota: As I indicated earlier -- I don't know if the hon. member was here -- we're putting out all sorts of information now in Punjabi, Chinese and Spanish. In fact, we've just produced a new booklet in Spanish because there's a large group of Spanish-speaking people found in rental accommodation. We're putting out, now for the first time, all sorts of consumer information in Punjabi, Chinese and Spanish.
V. Anderson: I was aware of those in consumer services. Is that also covering rental information, and all of the other items that have to do with rentals and appeals and the other items contained in it?
Hon. M. Sihota: Essentially, yes. There are some areas, of course, that we still haven't been able to cover off in terms of residential tenancy. But it's an important area and one we're moving on.
V. Anderson: In another related area, we hear a fair number of concerns through Social Services of people on social assistance who may or may not be misusing their rental accommodation, who may not be paying their landlords, or they may be walking out without paying. Is there a great deal of this that your
[ Page 5627 ]
ministry is handling through the rentalsman's function that is important for us to be aware of?
Hon. M. Sihota: We don't actually break out the information that way. But I know that in a general sense the government really does have some problems with regard to security deposits and people on social assistance. We're well aware of that. I've had some discussions with the Minister of Social Services on that issue, and I anticipate having more with her in the near future.
G. Farrell-Collins: One of the issues that I wanted to address fairly quickly -- I don't imagine it will take too long -- deals with the travel costs of the staff in his ministry. There was some issue, of course, as the minister knows, that came up a while ago in regard to the increase in those costs. I think overall in the budget they went from $60 million to $65 million -- a 9 percent increase. I'm wondering if the minister can explain how much of that is being consumed by his ministry and what the increase would be over last year's allotment?
Hon. M. Sihota: A number of points. First of all, the general budget is actually up by 5 percent to $57,000. Second, it should be noted, however, that almost $37,000 of that is for travel related to information and privacy, new initiatives that we've had to deal with in terms of the freedom-of-information legislation. So that is what accounts for the bulk of the increase.
Third, you should know -- I haven't looked at this; I don't know what the actuals will be -- that there is no anticipated increase in my budget for travel. I would think that with the constitution not being an issue and so much of my travel last year being constitution-related, in a corporate sense, you will probably be seeing a reduction in my travel demands for this year.
G. Farrell-Collins: Maybe I can just clarify that for a minute. The minister said the increase was 5 percent: to $57,000, or an increase of $57,000? Of $57,000, with $37,000 relating to freedom of information. Perhaps he can specify what costs those are, and how the freedom-of-information travel costs relate to his ministry.
Hon. M. Sihota: We're a very small ministry in the overall scheme of things. We have about 17 to 18 regional offices throughout the ministry, and we're going to be implementing the new freedom-of-information system. We have to go through all of our filing systems to make sure that everything is structured so as to comply with the regulations in the act, and so on. It's the cost of bringing in open government, quite frankly.
We don't have the kind of extensive travel other ministries do. We've had to bring on people to work with us in terms of setting up the systems for the implementation of freedom of information, and to be able to get to all those offices, and to get the people around and trained. To move to each of those offices, it's anticipated that it will cost the ministry $37,000 this year.
G. Farrell-Collins: I believe it was two part-time people and one full-time person that I heard were brought on. Are those people exclusively working on the implementation of freedom of information?
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, with regard to records management. That's what these people are doing. They are doing that work. I know there was a demand for freedom-of-information legislation. I think it is good legislation and I certainly support it, but no one ever said democracy is cheap. To bring forward a system where we can have access to this information, we've got to be able to fund the infrastructure necessary to deliver it. That's what these three people are doing.
G. Farrell-Collins: I have an interesting comment that relates to the implementation of freedom of information. The same requirements his ministry is having to go through are now being planned for school districts and other bodies, as the act itself expands to include those issues. I note with some interest that none of those areas -- school districts, hospitals, etc. -- are being funded to provide extra people to do that type of thing. That's my understanding, anyway. I'm not saying the minister is not making good use of these people, but I find it interesting that the ministry can afford to have these people specifically targeted to that, whereas within school districts and hospitals there is no allotment for that. That's just an aside.
Are those people brought on staff full-time or are they on a contract basis for the next little while? Is it a permanent position, or is it just a temporary position with a contract?
Hon. M. Sihota: One permanent, two auxiliaries.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
G. Farrell-Collins: We touched a little bit on the travel budget. What allotments are there in the various sectors of his ministry for professional services, i.e., contracting, new people who would be brought in to work on a temporary basis? I know we've already dealt with one that amounts to $30,000. I'm just wondering what other ones have been brought in.
Hon. M. Sihota: The ministry's actual expenditures for professional services are down from $3.3 million last year to $2.1 million this year. Of that $2.1 million, $1.2 million is for arbitrators to run the arbitration system for residential tenancy.
The other big-ticket item is about $200,000 for IICs and other outside work we have to do as a ministry in order to resolve a labour dispute. What we're witnessing here is actually a reduction in the budget. The bulk of it is going toward arbitrators for residential tenancy.
[5:00]
[ Page 5628 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: Can I assume that a good portion of that reduction took place in the constitutional affairs part of the ministry?
Hon. M. Sihota: You're overlooking the fact that we did a major review of legislation last year in terms of the Labour Relations Code. So it's a combination of those two.
G. Farrell-Collins: I assume that there is some decrease there and some increase in other areas. What areas would be increasing this year? Are they predominantly relating to employment standards? I assume that there is somewhat of an increase in the Labour Relations Board itself. I imagine those people aren't brought in on contract but rather on salary.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, it might be a good time for this committee to rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again, given the fact that there is all sorts of activity in the other chamber. Given my responsibilities as House Leader, I'm beginning to feel some pressure to adjourn this.
I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The Committee rose at 5:02 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]