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)
FRIDAY, JUNE 4, 1993
Morning Sitting
Volume 10, Number 20
[ Page 6873 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
K. Jones: I would like to take this opportunity to introduce Mr. Chuck Cadman, whose son Jesse was killed needlessly last fall. He is accompanied by a close friend, Mr. Garry Salmond. Their two families, together with a small group of concerned Surrey citizens, formed the organization known today as CRY -- Crime, Responsibility and Youth. They work tirelessly to bring to the attention of the public the need for action to deal with violence in our communities. Also with them today are supporting friends from Victoria, Gerald and Linda Hartwig. Would the House please acknowledge their presence today.
G. Janssen: Visiting the gallery today are my mother, Maria, and, from the land of the dikes, my brother Hank and spouse Marga. Would the House please make them welcome.
N. Lortie: Visiting us in the precincts today will be 13 grade 11 and 12 lifestyle students from North Delta Senior Secondary School. They will be accompanied by several adults and their teacher, Ms. R. Hansen. Would the House please make them welcome.
H. De Jong: From the beautiful constituency of Abbotsford, where the sun rises earlier than it does here, we have with us today in the precincts a group of students from Cornerstone Christian Academy, accompanied by Mr. Blair McHenry. I ask the House to give them a hearty welcome.
R. Chisholm: With us today are 52 grade 5 students from Sardis Secondary School in Chilliwack, here to see how the government operates. Would the House make them most welcome.
PROPERTY TAXATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1993
Hon. G. Clark presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Property Taxation Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1993.
Hon. G. Clark: Bill 29 implements measures I announced during my budget speech on March 30 of this year. In moving first reading, I'll state the primary purpose of the bill.
The Property Taxation Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1993, implements some of the measures contained in Bill 6, which was tabled on budget day. The government is not proceeding with Bill 6 because it contains extensive amendments the government no longer intends to implement.
This bill provides for an increase to the basic homeowner grant for 95 percent of homeowners and a phase-out of the grant for owners of higher-value homes. It also provides authority for passage of an order-in-council to exempt mine access roads built on Crown lands from 1993 property taxes.
I now move first reading of Bill 29.
Bill 29 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.
Hon. J. Cashore presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Environmental Assessment Act.
Hon. J. Cashore: This bill proposes a comprehensive environmental assessment process for British Columbia. The bill combines existing processes for the review of energy projects, mine developments and major projects into a single environmental assessment process. This process will ensure the fair and efficient assessment of environmental, economic, social, cultural and heritage effects of major projects. It provides an opportunity for project opponents, the public and government to work together to ensure that proposed projects are environmentally, economically and socially sustainable.
The bill is the product of consultation with the public and with representatives from industry, environmental groups, labour, first nations, and local, provincial and federal governments. It will foster some investment and development opportunities for British Columbia while at the same time ensuring that we sustain a naturally diverse and healthy environment.
I move that the bill be read a first time now.
Bill 32 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.
K. Jones: I ask leave to table a petition.
The Speaker: Please proceed, hon. member.
K. Jones: This petition of 3,728 names calls upon the Attorney General of British Columbia to direct the youth courts to apply the raise provisions of the Young Offenders Act so that all those accused of serious and violent crimes are tried in ordinary court.
Hon. M. Sihota: Before I call private members' statements, I wish to advise all members that I understand there is a significant event occurring in Metchosin this afternoon. We may have to adjourn about one hour early today. I want to give members of the opposition particular notice of that. With that said, I call private members' statements.
[ Page 6874 ]
YOUTH AND CRIME
K. Jones: It's a pleasure to stand here on such an important issue that affects all of us today. I'd like to share my concerns and those of the constituents in Surrey and throughout the province about the ever-increasing crime rate among our youth. The numbers are staggering, and the efforts to curtail the problem have gone amiss. In 1991, for example, there were 60,000 juvenile court cases. Violent offence charges have increased by 106 percent since 1986. The youth suicide rate has tripled in the past 30 years. The youth crime rate in Surrey increases with the population. I'm sure that's true of other parts of British Columbia as well. Surrey is one of the fastest-growing communities in the greater Vancouver district. As a result, we have these very serious concerns and needs. These numbers still do not seem to motivate any serious evaluation or commitment to turning these augmenting statistics around.
Contemporary crime does not stem from any mysterious forces within the individual committing the act. Criminality is learned and highly influenced by the individualistic, competitive and dehumanized social relationships in our ever-changing society. Many youth are led astray by various aspects of their upbringing -- that is, their family, school, and social lives. Poverty, inadequate housing, family breakdowns, social unrest, social deprivation and neglect are some other controlling factors. Our youth are subjected to crime-infested television shows, videos, video games, movies, comic books, etc. The recurring theme is hit, fight, kill. Patterns of violent or criminal behaviour are constantly reinforced and stimulated through those mediums. It is indeed encouraging to note that Keith Spicer, the head of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, has instructed Canadian TV networks to draft a code of ethics regarding violence on the airwaves. This is a definite step forward, especially when done in concert with the direction being given to the U.S. networks.
[10:15]
To bring this down to a more local, identifiable situation, I'd like to give to you part of a statement presented by Mr. Chuck Cadman to the Surrey mayor's advisory committee on youth violence. It describes a terrible experience that he and his family and friends have had to undergo:
"In the early morning hours of October 18, 1992, my life and those of my wife and daughter and dozens, if not hundreds, of relatives and friends were turned completely inside out and will never be the same again. Shortly after midnight, my 16-year-old son Jesse died. The cause of death was a knife in the back which pierced his lung and heart. Jesse and two friends had just stepped off a bus and were walking the last few blocks home. They were attacked by five or six...older and physically larger youths for no reason at all. Jesse died in the arms of his best friend.
"When the police arrested and charged a youth" -- who turned 17 three weeks later -- "within a few days, we feared that he would be tried under the Young Offenders Act and receive not much more than a slap on the wrist, considering the crime. We had always felt that the Young Offenders Act was a farce for violent teenagers, but at that point in time we decided to do something about it. The seeds of CRY were planted. The charging of a 16-year-old for the sexual assault and murder of six-year-old Dawn Shaw in Courtenay one week later, the rash of schoolyard violence and stabbings in months since, and the charging of a 17-year-old for the sexual assault and murder of Karen Black in Newton in February 1993 have only served to strengthen our resolve.
"The pain of life without Jesse is excruciating at times. He died on his paternal grandfather's eighty-firsty birthday.... We no longer hear his pounding drums in the basement or the acoustic guitar before bedtime. His final soccer awards were presented posthumously when his team, which struggled all season, rallied and won both the league and district championships. As I write these words, we are two days away from what would have been Jesse's seventeenth birthday. I do not anticipate a good week. These are but a few of the gut-wrenching occasions we have to look forward to for the rest of our lives. If, through CRY, we can prevent the similar pain of even one death, the effort will have been worth it."
I'd like to just hit on some of the areas of concern. One overriding concern for most people is fear for the safety and well-being of their children. Additional major concerns are the increase in the number of incidents of youth violence, the increase in the degree of brutality and the use of weapons, the increase in random and unprovoked attacks on innocents, the perception that criminals have more rights and receive more consideration under the law than the victimized public, the lack of justice and absence of deterrence, coupled with judicial leniency bordering on the absurd, and the fact that violent teenagers enjoy anonymity and carry no criminal record. Also, serious inconsistencies among judges are of great concern to all.
J. Pullinger: First of all, I would like to thank the member for his statement. I am sure that in most of his sentiments -- particularly our common revulsion over the consequences of violence, and over the violence itself -- the member speaks for all of us. He certainly makes a very good point, in that punishment is not necessarily the answer. Obviously it's a very emotional issue, as it ought to be, and a very serious one.
When we're dealing with this issue we have to look very carefully at goals. What are we trying to accomplish when we're dealing with young offenders? Perhaps the first and most important thing is the protection of society and potential victims of violence. There is certainly a key role for appropriate laws and punishments. We need to make sure that legislation and the judicial system dealing with young offenders -- in fact, offenders of all ages who engage in violence -- are appropriate. We need to make sure that we do have those laws and that young people who are violent are punished where that is necessary and appropriate.
We also have to recognize that the preventive side is very important. Simply to have punishment for offences is not the answer and does not necessarily prevent violence in our society. I think the best example of that is our neighbours to the south, where we know
[ Page 6875 ]
that they have a more violent society than ours. Our violence is increasing. There's a great body of evidence to show that simply putting more and more people in jail doesn't resolve the problem. As my colleague on the other side of the House pointed out, we must look also at prevention. That's critical.
It seems to me that when we have younger and younger people in our society doing more and more violent things -- wreaking destruction upon each other and abusing each other in society -- there is something terribly wrong. We have to look at the context; we have to look at ourselves as adults; we have to look at our society. We have to look at violent movies and television -- the huge amount of violence out there -- that provides all sorts of inappropriate, incorrect models of how we ought to behave toward one another. We have an enormous problem of violence against women and children perpetrated by adults -- on each other and on children. We need to look at all of that and make some decisions about our society as a whole, the society that we're raising our young people in. There is no question that that has an effect. There are volumes of studies to show that.
We very much need to deal with this problem. We have to deal with it in terms of the legal system to make sure that's appropriate. We have to look after the best interests of society. That means doing everything we can to prevent violence. I'm pleased to say that this government has taken a great number of steps -- from the Burnaby youth violence resource information project, to the gang youth emergency contact line, to a dropout-rate study, to action by the Ministry of Attorney General, to some aboriginal programs -- to deal with the very real issue of violence. I hope that in the next few years those programs will begin to bear fruit and that we start to see the rate of violence at least level off.
K. Jones: Thank you to the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith for her concern and sensitive remarks with regard to this issue.
I'd like to move from the problem to some recommendations. I would like to suggest that although the Young Offenders Act is federal legislation, the administration of it is the responsibility of the provincial Attorney General. It is our view that our judges are not making effective use of the tools available to them under the current Young Offenders Act. We should therefore insist that, until the act is revised, our Attorney General instruct the courts to apply the laws in ways that reflect the demands of society. It also has come to our attention that youth court judges invariably come from family law backgrounds -- family lawyers, family court -- rather than criminal law backgrounds. If this is indeed the case, then we suggest that the judicial appointment selection process be revised to reflect the fact that the youth courts are dealing with criminal matters, not child adoptions. A 17-year-old murderer cannot be viewed in the same light as a 6-year-old who throws a rock through a window.
I'd like to propose some revisions to the Young Offenders Act: reduce the maximum age; have no minimum age; allow only two opportunities to benefit from the Young Offenders Act; have violent offences automatically go to ordinary court; allow publication of identities and court proceedings; have separate correctional facilities for violent young criminals; have self-supporting institutions; and require parental and adult accountability. I put the emphasis on that latter one. I think that's where real effort will be successful in changing the whole thinking of our society towards youth and areas of violence.
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREAS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
E. Barnes: I'm almost tempted to respond briefly to the hon. member who just took his place, because of the relevance of what he talked about in terms of the daily lives of all of us, regardless of the work we're in. However, I guess I'll have to get on with my own statement or I'll run out of time; but I did appreciate the hon. member's remarks.
Hon. Speaker, I'm actually rising today to do somewhat of a commercial on behalf of an organization that's fairly new in this province. That's the business improvement associations of British Columbia, which were only authorized to operate as recently as 1988. I'm taking this opportunity to share with the hon. members an experience I had, because I was impressed at one of their annual conferences in Vancouver, on May 16, when I represented the Minister of Municipal Affairs and made a few brief remarks to this organization. I must say that I was impressed to see so many people who are generally in the small business industry working together collectively, pooling their resources and taking the initiative to develop commercially viable districts in their communities. What this reminded me of was the initiatives taking place right around the world in terms of healthy communities.
I made these remarks to these business people from a social worker's point of view. I suggested to them that their efforts were really that they were subsidizing themselves for the good of the community, through self-imposed taxation in effect. While they do receive small grants from the municipalities or local governments, they in fact are imposing mill rates on themselves, and are developing the community for the good of everybody in order to make their businesses more viable, interesting, attractive, cost-efficient, etc. So it was a different point of view for looking at the importance of small business. I don't think we can do enough in celebrating the efforts of these small entrepreneurs, who as individuals have tremendous stories to tell about what it takes to make a go of it on your own in this world. I think sometimes we get the impression that anybody who's in business is pocketing a lot of money and walking away with windfall profits. But I can assure you that the more you learn about what it really takes to be successful in small business, the more you realize the need to be organized, to be informed, to have a good understanding of the risks involved, good management skills, and all the kind of support that is needed when you try to branch out on your own.
[ Page 6876 ]
I'd like to point out a few examples to the members, hon. Speaker. Comparing business births -- new businesses -- with the number that fail, about eight out of every ten small businesses fail within one year of being started. In 1989 and 1990, small businesses accounted for 62 percent of total net change in employment in this province. But the interesting thing is when you break it down in terms of the statistics: 35,000 due to births; 25,600 due to deaths; 86,000 due to company expansions; 40,300 due to company contractions. According to the Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade, small businesses in British Columbia accounted for 62 percent of this province's job creation in 1990. Collectively, small and medium-sized businesses generated over $41 billion in yearly gross sales, with almost $10 billion in net income and a pay-out of about $8 billion for wages and related costs. But despite these numbers, B.C.'s smaller enterprises are often no more than shoestring operations. They are frequently undercapitalized, have high costs and relatively low margins of profit, and are often limited in growth potential because of the inadequate returns on earnings to reinvest in their growth. But these are the kinds of things that the Ministry of Economic Development and Small Business make available, the kind of information and assistance that should be available.
[10:30]
I would say that the actions taken in 1989, to create the opportunity for these associations to get going, was really an initiative that perhaps a lot of people are not aware of. In fact, it was in Salmon Arm, soon after the enactment of the legislation, that the first such BIA was created. At the present time there are about 26 of these areas in British Columbia, and I understand there are about 35 other communities that will be incorporating under the Society Act soon, to also start this kind of cooperative venture. It's actually an idea that takes a lot of support by people who sometimes feel that this is just one more tax, and they don't always agree. This isn't done unilaterally; it takes a community effort through a plebiscite of sorts in that community.
Has my time run out, hon Speaker?
The Speaker: Yes, unfortunately, hon. member, your time has run out.
E. Barnes: Okay, I will finish later.
L. Stephens: It's a pleasure for me to rise this morning to reply to the member for Vancouver-Burrard, and to thank him for his remarks. I'm pleased to see that members opposite appreciate the contributions of small business to the economy of British Columbia. I know there are a couple of members opposite -- a very few -- who are small business people. I'm sure they understand the importance of government regulations and taxation policies.
The business improvement areas and the downtown revitalization programs throughout the province have been an enormous benefit to communities in British Columbia. The programs encourage merchants, municipal councils and the province to improve the physical appearance and marketing presence of downtown areas for communities all around the province. An added benefit, which perhaps has been underestimated, is the increased pride in the communities and the greater sense of cooperation from the small business community.
As a small business owner myself, I was involved in a BIA and downtown revitalization program in Langley that we started about 1989. Unfortunately, it came to a vote this spring, and there weren't enough merchants who decided to take advantage of it -- so it's been put on hold for a short time. This was really unfortunate, because I've had the opportunity to see some of the positive benefits that accrue from programs such as this around the province. A number of initiatives are available to communities: the Village Square program, the fa�ade improvement program and the community entrance signs program -- to name just a few.
When Langley was looking at the possibility of a BIA program in '88 and '89, there were only about 13 in the province. Today over 70 percent of the municipalities in the province have used the programs available to respond to the needs of their community. Some examples are: Bastion Square, here in Victoria, was completed in the spring of '92; Fort St. James undertook a village cleanup campaign and construction of a public piece of art depicting their bush pilot traditions, and a one-third-scale replica of a Junkers bush plane was constructed; Salmo has improved its overnight camping facilities; Sicamous has focused its efforts on the houseboat business, with improvements to the waterfront; and Hazelton improved its village centre with new walks and lighting. The key is to create the impact needed to draw shoppers, tourists and vacationers to the cities, towns and villages of British Columbia.
As member for Vancouver-Burrard said, small businesses make up the downtown core, and they play an enormous role in the economic and social welfare of our regions, cities and communities. As all members know, including government members, it's small business that provides over 90 percent of new jobs created. Today more than ever before, we need vital, growing and prosperous communities. The opposition members on this side of the House encourage participation in the very worthwhile downtown revitalization programs available to all communities in British Columbia.
E. Barnes: I want to thank the hon. member for her contribution. Certainly she made the points that I am trying to make -- in fact, with precise details because of her experience in small business.
It may surprise some members that a few years ago I had a business of my own in Harrison Hot Springs. I attest to the difficulties of trying to make a go of it. I was in business for three years. At one time I had 19 people working for me, and our place was always packed. I was working 16 or 17 hours a day, seven days a week, and finally went broke. Not that I wasn't trying hard; I had a lot of cash flow, but the margin of profit was so thin. I didn't know about all of the risks, including the fact that it was a seasonal operation, when I first started. I had the idea I wanted to go into business. I thought: "Here is a way to be independent and make some
[ Page 6877 ]
money, to use some of my popularity to draw in a lot of people, etc." But I didn't bother to go to a business counsellor to find out how to make it work. I just thought you could start the thing up and it would work. I had quite an experience.
It's important, though, when you reflect on the realities of doing anything in society, to realize things are never as easy as they appear. I got this message when I went to one of the BIA's annual meetings. I understand that they have two a year, and I was at the one at the Biltmore Hotel on May 14. I just shook my head when I saw what those people were doing in the workshops and the effort they put into trying to make a go of it. It is by no means an easy trick. It's important to note that the 26 that are currently operating have a budget of a little over $2.5 million all together. They are learning the hard way, because they have to sell their ideas; they have to be reaffirmed in the community. It's a level of politics that a lot of us don't understand -- and I was one of them -- because a lot of people don't understand how the business associations really work.
There is a cost factor involved, and the ones that we have been talking about this morning usually operate from three to five years; they have a limited time to make a go of it. They have to keep renewing their mandate from the community. It's an uphill battle, because the costs are there and the benefits are sometimes hidden. It's an act of good faith that requires a lot of cooperation and a pooling of resources.
I am glad that I had the chance to bring this subject to the Legislature this morning.
AGRICULTURE AND ITS FUTURE
H. De Jong: In light of the statement just made by the previous member and the address that I will be giving, I think it's very appropriate that there are a lot of students in the galleries this morning, because their education will undoubtedly be very essential in the business world as well as in agriculture.
As I address this issue this morning, I do so with a certain amount of hesitancy due to the many uncertainties that may lie ahead in the industry. Let us never forget that the only absolutely essential economic activity on earth is the production and harvesting of food. In that sense, farmers, ranchers and fishermen obviously have real jobs. Due to our great variety of topography and climate, we enjoy perhaps the most diversified agriculture industry in Canada. I believe everyone in this House will agree with me that in spite of the fact that only 5 percent of this province's land base is considered arable, agriculture has provided economic strength and stability to many communities in British Columbia.
I believe that most people also realize that farming is no soft life, but one that demands a tremendous amount of hard work and determination. In spite of the new technologies, it is not getting any easier. Success in farming continues to depend on many factors beyond the farmer's control: weather conditions, labour conditions imposed by government, environmental conditions, safety regulations, financial conditions and, last but by no means least, tax implications of all sorts that have hit the agriculture community over the last few years. Labour disputes on the farm at crop time, or at processing facilities, give unions tremendous leverage over the processor, relating directly to the readiness of the crop, as well as the perishability of the crop, particularly in the case of fruit, vegetables and dairy products.
The fruit industry -- be it apples, pears or other soft fruit -- requires a high start-up investment in irrigation, storage facilities and, of course, a couple of years of waiting before the first crop can be sold, all adding to the price of the farm operation and hence affecting the assessed value for taxation purposes. While the start-up time may be a little shorter for dairy, ranching and poultry, the combined assessed values for those operations is extremely high and has a disastrous effect, particularly on the capital tax imposed by this government. In greenhouse farming, for instance -- an extremely competitive enterprise, yet one that is highly essential for food grown locally -- the land base needed is generally not as great as for other types of farming. The cost of facilities is extremely high: $500,000 per acre. The combination of land and facility costs, which are basic to the operation, drives up the assessed values to the point that in many instances they are higher than the combined cost for the serviced commercial properties we see along the main arteries leading into towns. Land and facilities are the tools of the farmer.
All the categories of farming are high-risk enterprises and face the risks of an uncertain marketplace in which competition is as much with imposed regulations as with foreign government subsidies. With the risks that the farmer faces everyday, they are confronted with.... I know from personal experience how diseases can strike a poultry flock and how quickly a farmer can lose a quarter of the herd due to bloating or grass tetany. A bloom can affect the fish farms on the coastline.
[10:45]
It should be remembered that farming is always very unpredictable; it's risky each and every day. The fruit and vegetable farmers are extremely dependent on weather conditions. For a promising crop of cherries, a thunderstorm on a Sunday afternoon can turn into a disaster in a matter of hours; for a crop of strawberries, rain for days on end in the early part of July. A failure can result from the vagaries of weather through no fault of the operator.
This government -- as well as local governments -- has not recognized these aspects of farming, so it seems. There appears to be no end of regulations placed on this vitally important industry. Farmers are continually dependent upon environmental conditions. In practice, they are probably the citizens who are most conscientious about the environment.
It is fair to say that many people involved in agriculture are very concerned about the regulations currently proposed by the Minister of Environment, particularly those pertaining to water use. The ranching industry has supported the agricultural code of environmental practice already in place. Why place further restrictions on the industry when there is no evidence of abuse? Is this simply a make-work project
[ Page 6878 ]
for bureaucrats anxiously trying to protect their budgets? The new wildlife and land use policy places virtually full responsibility for preserving the wildlife and wildlife habitat on the rancher, which is patently unfair. A working cattle ranch is not a deer farm. Shifting this cost by regulation to the rancher is not user-pay; it's more like a game of tag: you're it. Rather than trying to enhance agriculture, the government is targeting an already endangered species -- the independent agricultural producer.
J. Beattie: It's with pleasure that I rise to respond to the statement. The hon. member is an experienced farmer himself and knows very well of what he speaks. He understands the travails of working in the agricultural industry and brings a sensitivity to the problem that only a few of us in the chamber have experienced. I personally have been a farmer for 14 years. I know what he talks about when he speaks of the unpredictability involved in the agricultural industry. Having lost a number of cherry crops myself, there's nothing more heartbreaking than seeing your year of work go down the drain because of an inopportune thunderstorm.
But he also speaks about the honourable life that the farmer lives and the types of contributions that farmers make to the community. I'm glad to see the young people in the audience today because, really, agriculture is one of the most honourable professions that anyone can take up. That's something this government, with the help of the opposition, has to draw attention to through public education. Yes indeed, every nation depends upon the work of the people in the field, and that has been the root of this country's wealth. The wealth in all countries has been based on their achievements in the field. As the hon. member has said, new technologies have not made the work of the farmer any easier in many ways, because there are the vagaries of weather, of price and of the world situation, which has an important effect upon the way that agriculture goes on in this country.
I think that regulation and how society is developing do create some very serious problems, to which governments -- not just this government but the previous government -- have had to respond. The development of our urban areas is causing incredible encroachment upon the agricultural industry. This government and previous governments have had to make some very strong moves to address the environmental concerns of those non-farming elements in the communities -- i.e., with runoff of sprays into watersheds and so on. But that's not to underscore the fact that the prime purpose of agricultural land is to produce crops, and that's why there is right-to-farm legislation. Indeed, we will strengthen right-to-farm legislation, because as urbanization continues, the intent to have agricultural land must be sustained, and with that intent comes the farmers' ability to do their job on the land.
We have made some very strong moves to protect the integrity of the agricultural land reserve. One of them, for example, is the recent initiative to take away the appeal to cabinet of decisions about removing land from the agricultural land reserve. I think that's very important, because we appoint a strong commission to look at agricultural land in the province, and that objective voice is the defender of B.C. agricultural land. It's important that we don't have any political interference or any influence from local development concerns overriding the larger good of the province, which is to protect the 5 percent of the land of which the member speaks.
In the future, new technologies will indeed help bring agricultural ambitions to the fore and allow us to continue to produce and promote our products in a better way. The Minister of Agriculture, through his ingenious and very effective low-cost program to get British Columbians to buy B.C. products, is indicating how we can do that. We have to promote British Columbia products in this province. Through his restaurant program and the Thrifty's program, we're seeing more and more British Columbians take up the challenge of supporting B.C. agriculture.
I must say, hon. Speaker, that I have very deep concerns about the North American free trade agreement and how that will impact on our agricultural industries. It's important not to lose sight of the fact that products are produced much more cheaply in the Third World than they can be in this province.
I thank the member and take my seat.
H. De Jong: To continue what I was saying, the proposed new regulations, specifically those proposed by the Minister of Environment, cannot possibly be sustained by the industry. These regulations are primarily reacting to the far-out fringe of self-appointed bird-lovers, tree-huggers and "environmentalists" who like nothing better than to put a stop to everything connected with the environment's ability to sustain human life. Sustainable government must go hand in hand with any truly sustainable development. Our job on Earth is to be responsible stewards of nature. It is not our job to fall down and worship every black fly and newt. Is it not ironic, however, that the same people who want to make it impossible to earn a living as a farmer, scream the loudest when the exasperated farmer tries to make a living? These same people will cross the border and buy that litre of milk for 75 when they would have to pay $1 over here.
Farmers were told by the Minister of Agriculture -- and I'm glad he's in the audience this morning -- to be more efficient and to compete in the marketplace. One of the ways to do that is to increase production with the same overhead. To invest and increase production raises facility costs. These facility costs immediately affect the tax load of the farmer -- municipally as well as through the corporate tax. Peat Marwick Thorne compiled a report, when I was minister for a short time, which included some very vital conclusions. Farming is a very capital-intensive business. As a result, families who choose to earn their livelihood from this activity are often asset-rich and cash-poor. That's the life of the farmer.
It is therefore vital to keep overall spending by governments at sustainable levels, since massive public borrowing will simply add upward pressure to interests rates, which, together with escalating taxes,
[ Page 6879 ]
are all too often the modern equivalent of Biblical plagues of locusts. While some government positions are obviously vital, non-essential government bureaucrats look pretty much like locusts with briefcases to our farmers, who do not have a lifetime security in spite of performing a most essential job -- on which we all depend for life itself.
This is why the British Columbia farmer will never be a socialist, understanding, rather, that what we need is not more government but more cost-effective government.
ABBEYFIELD CONGREGATE HOUSING FOR SENIORS
J. Doyle: It's a great pleasure to stand in our House this morning to make on a private member's statement on Abbeyfield housing for seniors. Affordable housing is something which all British Columbians need and value. Young people, parents with young families, individuals with low and fixed incomes and others all need access to affordable, quality housing.
In the past the federal government provided the vast majority of funding for social housing in Canada. However, in 1991 Canada's social housing budget was cut by two-thirds. As a result, British Columbia will have fewer than 500 new homes built in 1993 for families in need. Our province's population is growing, and its needs are changing. After 1994, the federal government has said it will fund no new housing projects. We need new, innovative housing developments to meet our growing needs. However, federal cuts in housing and funding for housing makes this goal much more difficult to achieve. Further, the federal government is proposing that a proportion of the remaining national housing funds it provides to our province be reallocated from British Columbia and other larger provinces to the smaller, poorer provinces of our nation. As a result, our provincial government must continually search for and advocate options in affordable housing, while maintaining our contribution to the current housing program at 1991 levels.
In January of this year the Provincial Commission on Housing Options released a report entitled "New Directions in Housing Affordability," which offered a range of options for shaping an approach to policies and programs aimed at protecting and expanding affordable housing for British Columbians. Our Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing has made a commitment to move quickly to implement a number of the 57 recommendations contained in the report, which will complement several other affordable housing initiatives made in 1992.
[11:00]
One way in which the government supports community initiatives in the development of affordable housing projects is through the matching start-up grants branch program. On May 31, I joined the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing in the announcement of a $12,000 matching start-up grant to the Silver Springs Seniors Housing Society to help the society plan an Abbeyfield residence in Golden, under the capable leadership of Merle McKnight and her committee in Golden -- all volunteers for this worthy cause.
The province has increased matching-grant funds available for this program -- from $67,000 to $300,000 -- to help community groups undertake affordable housing projects. Twelve out of 13 of the grants issued since October 1992 have gone to seniors' projects. We hope that these grants will stimulate development of 300 to 500 additional units of affordable housing throughout B.C.
Housing societies and cooperative associations can apply to B.C. Housing for matching grants of up to $20,000 to help build non-profit projects for seniors, families, single women, persons with disabilities or others in need of housing. The grants may be used to cover expenses such as planning studies, preliminary drawings, land options and legal costs. Once completed, successful projects will operate independent of other government assistance.
A new direction of independent living for seniors in B.C. is congregate housing. It consists of independent apartments with a common living area, where most expenses are covered by a single monthly payment. The Silver Springs apartment plan for the Abbeyfield House in Golden includes the provision of all meals, power, heat, hot water, use of all common areas and cleaning of those areas, private apartments with private outdoor patios and entrances and wheelchair accessibility, as well as a variety of other services designed for the comfort and mobility of its residents.
Senior citizens, like all British Columbians, want to enjoy healthy, independent living. However, some seniors need extra support. The Silver Springs Seniors Housing Society in Golden, like all seniors' housing societies around this province, recognizes the need for this type of housing for seniors who enjoy their independence but would also like some assistance with day-to-day chores like cooking and cleaning. The Silver Springs Seniors Housing Society is a wonderful example of a community-based initiative to promote and maintain supported independent living for our province's seniors. The success of projects like Abbeyfield in Golden demonstrates that community solutions to housing needs without long-term government support are indeed possible.
The Abbeyfield House concept in Canada and British Columbia builds on the work of the Abbeyfield Society of the United Kingdom, created 43 years ago in London, England, under the leadership of R. Carr Gomm. Mr. Gomm had observed that many elderly London residents lived isolated lives, so he proposed opening a house with a housekeeper where lonely seniors could live together in a family-style environment. The first Abbeyfield House opened in 1959. Within the decade, over 300 Abbeyfield Houses were operating in England.
The Abbeyfield Houses Society of Canada was formed in the early 1980s, and was incorporated at the end of 1985. In B.C., the Abbeyfield concept that supported independent living is continuing. There are Abbeyfield Houses in Sidney and Kelowna. It now looks like Golden will also have an Abbeyfield House. In many ways, British Columbians have been pioneers
[ Page 6880 ]
in Abbeyfield housing. The Abbeyfield approach to seniors' living provides people with support and the companionship of a family-style environment. Abbeyfield houses have their own housekeepers, who provide meals and care generally for the residents. The residents have their own rooms, furnished as they desire, wherein both their privacy and their right to invite visitors are assured.
A. Cowie: Hon. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to respond. The Abbeyfield concept is an excellent one that I'm sure everybody here supports.
I'd like to say a few words about the need for seniors' housing in general. We are getting to a period in our history in this province -- and indeed, across Canada -- where we are going to approach a crisis situation with seniors' housing in the next ten to 20 years. So we need imaginative concepts like Abbeyfield in order to solve many of the problems. Today we need a provincial government.... Indeed, they have started with their housing report this year -- the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs has gotten that report out -- but it's barely a start. What we need is some innovation.
We need the B.C. Housing Management Commission to go out and promote a wide range of housing for active seniors. Many seniors want to look after themselves. Many seniors, as they approach the stage where Abbeyfield housing would be appropriate, want to have their own houses. At the present time they can't afford them. Or they're living in inappropriate houses, large houses, that they do not want. The municipalities have to be encouraged to look at innovative zoning so that different forms of housing can be built. Many of these houses or accommodations can be built with private funding. We do not need government funding. What we need is B.C. Housing to spend their time and money convincing the municipalities that this is good, showing the municipalities that there is a crisis not only for seniors but even for children or young adults starting out. So I would encourage this provincial government to look at all housing and encourage municipalities to become much more flexible, to have innovative and responsible zoning that meets the needs of our times.
Hon. Speaker, my leader and colleague from South Delta is intimately involved with the Abbeyfield concept and he wishes to take some of the time in this response, so I am giving that to him.
F. Gingell: I am most grateful to my friend, and to my friend down this side of the Legislature for bringing this subject forward.
The most enjoyable thing I did in the last year before I was elected to this House -- and unfortunately, I had to resign from the organization -- was to be a director of the Abbeyfield House St. David's Society in Tsawwassen. In July last year we opened our first house, on a site that will hold two homes. It is a nine-unit congregate-living home. We built it for a sum of about $450,000, which is a very economical use of funds. It has produced a first-class home. It's a first-class environment in which seniors live longer, happier, more fulfilling lives. I'm really pleased to hear that there are further sums of matching funds available, because at the St. David's site in Tsawwassen we are just about ready to start construction of our second house. In fact, I think the board met last month and made that decision, and they will be most pleased to know that funds are available. A senior can live in this house, with all their meals provided, for roughly $1,150 a month. We have made arrangements with a local charitable organization to subsidize any senior, so the amount that they spend monthly is not greater than 80 percent of their income. It's a very worthwhile project. I'd be most happy to arrange for any members of this House to visit the Abbeyfield House St. David Society's project in Tsawwassen, particularly if it will encourage them to encourage members of their communities to develop and build similar projects in their communities.
J. Doyle: I appreciate the support of the member from Vancouver and also of the opposition leader in the House. This is something which is not, as we realize, a partisan issue; it's something we all believe in. Let's hope there are more of them available.
In summing up, I would like to state that, as we know, 70,000 new residents arrive in British Columbia every year from offshore or from other provinces, and these people have to be housed. Many of those people that do arrive in British Columbia are seniors. They come to B.C. because of its beauty, good weather and, of course, because of its good political climate, I'm sure. It's also important that seniors can stay in the communities where they've worked and lived, if possible. It's most important that they stay with their friends, and the people they know, and their families. I'd like to again thank the society in Golden -- and there are many other societies in our province and in our country -- and those people who founded this organization in Britain many years ago. This idea of housing our seniors, or those in need, or those with disabilities, is, without a doubt, progress that we've been waiting for for some time.
Hopefully, there will be lots of these houses available. I'm also very pleased that our government, under the leadership of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, is increasing aid and support in the way of dollars to this type of housing. I also have to say shame on our federal government for backing out of their responsibility to all Canadians, especially to western British Columbia, because we're seen by them to be a have province. They're pulling some of that support back from us, and next year it will all be gone. They're backing out of their responsibility towards British Columbians and the people who wish to live, retire, and spend their senior years in our beautiful province. Altogether, the federal government have that responsibility: to be responsible for the housing of all of us, no matter where we wish reside. I say: who is more important than our seniors, who have given their working lives to British Columbia and Canada? Let's remember and thank those people. Many of them fought in the war; they worked in Canada to make this a better country and a better province. That's all I have to say, hon. Speaker.
[ Page 6881 ]
The Speaker: That concludes Private Members' Statements this morning. I thank all hon. members for their very interesting remarks.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply.
The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS
On vote 35: minister's office, $335,102
Hon. G. Clark: I'd like to summarize the Ministry of Finance estimates for 1993-94. In terms of staff and budgets, the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations is actually one of the smaller operations of government. However, it does have a far-reaching mandate and scope of responsibility that in some ways makes it the engine of the government -- although I'm not sure everyone would agree. It becomes a kind of central control agency for government, both in the human resources and financial sense.
This includes a diverse range of activities in the Ministry of Finance: provincial registry services; statistical and analytical information services; the investment side of government, which is some $28 billion or $30 billion; the debt management side of government; banking and loan administration; government accounting policy, including the comptroller general; and, finally analyzing and providing advice on the management of public spending and on the government's economic fiscal taxation and corporate policies.
[11:15]
The estimates for the ministry operations are comprised of six discrete votes. Vote 35 is for the minister's office. Vote 36 is for the operation of the ministry's seven divisions, namely: registries of ministry support services, Treasury Board secretariat, government personnel services division, office of the comptroller general, revenue operations, Financial Institutions Commission and TRIUMF-KAON vote. Vote 37 is a $10 vote for the operations of the Crown corporations secretariat. In other words, the Crown corporations themselves contribute to it, so it's a stand-alone operation of government. Vote 38 is a $10 vote for the disbursement and recovery of pensions and employee benefit contributions. Again, it is similar; there is no net cost to the taxpayer, other than the costs associated with pensions and employee benefits.
Vote 39 is contributions to B.C. Transit. As all members know, we have the largest provincial contribution to transit systems of any province in Canada.
I'm also responsible for vote 62, which is the management of public funds and debt, and for vote 63, which is a contingency vote of all ministries -- a contingencies and new programs vote. Finally, vote 64, the government accounting systems strategic plan. I know that my colleague across the way, in some respects, is more informed on these kinds of questions than I am. These three votes are shown at the back of the estimates under "Other Appropriations." I'd just like to remind members that while those votes don't show up in estimates under the Ministry of Finance, they are my responsibility and are therefore usually voted on at the end of deliberations.
The total expenditure requested for ministry operations in votes 35 through 40 -- the basic elements of the Ministry of Finance -- is $315.2 million, and the total expenditure requested for votes 62 through 64 is $1.02 billion. As well as funding in votes, the ministry operates self-sufficient programs through the following five special accounts:
1. The British Columbia Securities Commission. This special account provides for the operation of the commission and costs for administering the Securities Act and the Commodity Contract Act.
2. The provincial home acquisition account. The purpose of this account was to pay grants to British Columbia residents obtaining a home and to make loans secure by second mortgages. That ended in June 1989. The second-mortgage portfolio was sold to the Bank of Montreal. Previously mortgage financing was provided to qualified B.C. residents. The program is being wound up, no new loans are being granted and the existing loans are managed by the Bank of Montreal.
3. The provincial treasury operations. This special account provides for the operation of the provincial treasury, including investment, debt management, banking, cash management and loans administration services to its clients. The purpose of this special account is essentially to ensure that there is some profit maximization in the way in which the treasury operates and to ensure that one can carry over certain expenditures and revenue items one year to the other. Clients are charged the fee for the service. We ensure that it is under the private sector fee, but we like to operate in a businesslike manner in the provincial treasury.
4. Provincial treasury revenue. This account provides for net revenue generated from various financial agreements managed by the ministry. The program was established to take advantage of favourable financing opportunities, including warehousing and matched-book programs.
5. Insurance and risk management account. This account was created for the purpose of providing insurance and/or risk management services to government. Essentially, this was a few years ago when most governments in the country moved to self-insurance. We have an excellent risk management program, which provides self-insurance services for schools, colleges, hospitals and, in fact, the provincial government.
The ministry's purpose and goal is to maintain strong fiscal integrity in the province. This is achieved by ensuring that public money is collected, managed and disbursed in the public interest and that the provincial marketplace is fairly and effectively governed and has the confidence of all who use it.
It's fair to say that over the last year the ministry's accomplishments were -- some of them are still in progress -- the establishment of the Korbin Commission, a public sector and public service inquiry,
[ Page 6882 ]
which we should hear from very shortly; and the creation of a Treasury Board secretariat, which consolidated the Treasury Board staff in economics, policy and planning and statistics divisions to better serve the needs of Treasury Board. In fact, the Treasury Board secretariat has been enhanced in line with Peat Marwick's recommendations. We improved the government's budgeting process for fiscal '93-94 with much more stringent caps on ministry requests, which other provinces are now looking at, and by trying to look more diligently not only at incremental spending but also at program evaluation.
We issued the first successful provincial savings bond offering and raised $700 million. The target was $350 million. We can get into that later, but I want to advise members that we hope to refocus and actually downsize it this year. We'd like to try to do another savings bond issue, but come in around $300 million to $350 million -- closer to the target. To do that, we'll probably reduce the amount, in all likelihood, which an individual can generate. We're really trying to build up more of a retail base, a small base of investors in the province, rather than to rely on larger institutional investors who can move out after six months more readily. We want to maximize our return. Perhaps members opposite or my colleague across the way may want to talk about that further. In other words, it was wildly successful this year. Next year it will be a successful ongoing program, but we want to target it a bit better to ensure that we're diversifying our borrowing program.
As you know, the government's credit rating was maintained. That's an enormous accomplishment for the government and also for the Ministry of Finance, because a lot of work is done with the credit rating agencies and the deliberations with respect to information and reputation that the ministry has. I certainly don't take credit for that, but the reputation of the Ministry of Finance is very high with those agencies. We achieved a greater investment and borrowing diversification, although not without some little blips along the way in terms of our diversification program, and were very successful in maximizing the revenue to the government. The returns being made by the Ministry of Finance in their portfolios is a significant accomplishment in this climate.
We've made substantial progress on GPSD employment equity and pay equity objectives. The pay equity objectives are obviously of great interest to the government and other ministries, but the government personnel services division is the actual operational arm of government in these areas and has made great progress -- and there's more to come.
The Financial Institutions Commission has reduced its gross voted expenditures from $7.74 million in 1990-91 to $6.49 million while simultaneously increasing services. FICOM has been a real success story in terms of more efficiency and more service and is generally well received in the community.
The public accounts for '92-93 will be produced using the new government accounting systems strategic project -- the famous GASSP initiative -- for better and more timely financial reporting. The Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Government Services were just converted in May 1993. The initiative is proceeding probably slower than certainly I -- and, I think, my critic across the way -- would like, but within the fiscal resources available to the government.
We had the Peat Marwick review last year. A lot of it has been implemented, and we're continuing to implement the recommendations. As well, we recently established the Vancouver Stock Exchange Inquiry Commission to report into the responsibilities of the VSE and the Securities Commission, the adequacy of civil remedies and the effectiveness of the Securities Act. We can talk about that more later, but we look forward to Mr. Matkin's recommendations.
We have a series of initiatives under way for '93-94, including the implementation of the recommendations of the Korbin commission where appropriate; program evaluations across government -- again, that's well under way, but we hope to see some fruits of those program evaluations over the course of the year and continued implementation of the pay equity initiative; a high priority for the government and continued implementations of the Peat Marwick recommendations. We want to do a bit of a report card, over time, on that question -- probably fairly soon -- to give members of the public and the opposition a sense of the literally dozens of recommendations, how we are faring, and why we have rejected some. I have no problem about discussing that.
As I said earlier, we anticipate another issue of B.C. savings bonds this year. We want to have more of a role in defining new fiscal arrangements in Canada. We know there is going to be increased pressure for new arrangements with respect to health care funding. There is a lot of pressure from other provinces for user fees. While we reject that approach, there is no question that in the whole fiscal arrangements of the country -- probably after the election but within this fiscal year -- there will be renewed pressure on new arrangements. I would be happy to talk about that more over the course of this debate.
We hope to continue to expand our investment program into new markets and to implement new pension fund governance rules, which is an interesting area. We are working with some of the public sector unions and looking at ways we can bring in more rationale. The superannuation commissioner is the sole trustee and sole administrator; there is a bit of a conflict there. The Ministry of Finance invests the funds. We have engaged in elaborate discussions to see if we can't arrive at a governance model which gives public sector employees some input into governance and retains the investment portfolio in the Ministry of Finance but looks at ways in which we can deal with benefit improvements or changes to try to deal with some of our unfunded liability problems and also legitimate concerns of public sector employees about inequities between plans and improvements they would like. There are lots of demands for early retirement. Right now there is no table to hear those, other than to come and ask the Minister of Finance, which hasn't been particularly fruitful to date.
[ Page 6883 ]
We will complete the review and consultation necessary for some major revisions to the Condominium Act, the Mortgage Brokers Act and the Company Act, a process started by the previous administration which continues apace. These are major drafting acts that unfortunately haven't made it through yet this year. Over the course of this next year we think we will be able to refine them, have a lot of discussion papers and hopefully have them in for next year. Again, we have to see how that goes. A lot of system enhancement is necessary to implement a new Company Act in '94-95. We have to review that, but we think that we're on track and about a year away from fairly revolutionary changes to the Company Act, which will improve efficiency. There should be some ability for least-cost recovery on some of the new innovations
As I said earlier, the ministry continued to implement recommendations from the independent financial review. This year we increased significantly, if not dramatically, the number of tax auditors and collection officers in the revenue division. According to Peat Marwick, I think there are 16 new tax auditors this year. We dramatically increased loan collection activities, as recommended by Peat Marwick. We have more value-for-money audits in ministries and Crown corporations. I think we have conducted more in the last year than in all the rest of the years combined, but have a lot more work to do there. As Peat Marwick recommended, we are looking at capitalizing some capital expenditures with regard to researching and accounting policies; we have done that in the form of highway construction. We implemented a net revenue target for the B.C. Securities Commission so that they are more like a quasi-Crown, but they still have some of the control from Treasury Board. It means that they can, as they have done, increase a fee in order to improve service. They now have a regular fee for filings on an expedited basis. The Securities Commission will expedite the procedure for an increased fee. That is more a kind of private sector model, which I think in this case works very well.
I want to conclude my remarks by thanking the staff in the Ministry of Finance for their hard work and dedication. Ministry of Finance had a good reputation in British Columbia long before I occupied this chair. I think it's a tribute to the men and women who work there. It is the central control agency. It is vital to the functioning of a modern government. I am singularly impressed by the quality and dedication of the staff in the Ministry of Finance. There is not a single day where you can't go into the Ministry of Finance at 6 or 7 o'clock at night and see people working there -- usually on their own time -- to deal with the kinds of problems that we face. I expect that that will continue over time, and I think it's vital to the functioning of any government -- regardless of political party -- that you have very strong control agencies, both when it comes to human resource questions and, more importantly, when it comes to financial controls and spending decisions of government. I'm very proud to be the Minister of Finance and very proud of the people who work there. I look forward to working with them as we face some continuing challenges particularly in the fiscal regime over the coming year.
F. Gingell: I'm beginning to wonder whether the government has some new and nefarious plan with these various aromas that we have been getting in the House in this past week. On Sunday, there was a very strong smell in the Legislature -- I presume coming from the kitchens of the dining room -- of burnt toast. On Sunday, I thought that aroma was kind of appropriate. This morning, to me, it smells like popcorn. I'm wondering whether the minister has arranged this as an appropriate aroma to start off this very important discussion on Finance estimates.
[11:30]
There's no question that the public is looking for leadership to deal with a double-edged issue. The issue is the massive cost of government and the oppressive taxes imposed to carry this cost. The Ministry of Finance must respond to that demand for change by changing its traditional role. It has to truly lead if we are to have the financial discipline the public is demanding of government. Opposition must also show a willingness to respond to the demand for change. Criticism is no longer enough. In the course of my brief remarks this morning, I will be asking the minister to think about some new approaches to managing the finances of this province and developing tax policies that foster solid growth. Rest assured, there will be an ample supply of demanding questions as we progress through debate. We wouldn't want to let you down.
This ministry, in my view, is not demonstrating the creative leadership the times require. In terms of fiscal responsibility in the 1990s, there are two lists: a "what's in" list and a "what's out" list. The ministry is on the wrong list. Let me give you some examples. What's in? Decreasing the level of spending. What's out? Over spending at a reduced rate and calling it reduced spending. What's in? Decisive action on the current deficit. What's out? Justifying deficits on the grounds that they're smaller than somebody else's. What's in? A strategic plan to deal with long-term debt. What's out? Camouflaging debt in Crown corporations and other government agencies. What's in? Tax policies which foster growth, entrepreneurship, and incoming investment. What's out? Ideological taxation attacking class structure or taxation on assets ignoring profitability.
The Ministry of Finance must get on the right list. A good place to start would be in the budget preparation process. The public wants less government. The government's answer is to threaten the voters with loss of health care or education, if they have the temerity to suggest cost-benefit evaluation on government programs. As long as this impasse exists, with the public on one hand pleading for reduced taxes and government threatening plague and mass illiteracy, nothing will be done about the debt.
The answer would seem to lie in opening up the pre-budget dialogue. Before the ministry figures are cast in stone, let there be a public evaluation of ministry programs, their effectiveness and their long-term usefulness. I'm not talking about the typical travelling road show we've come to expect. That's when the minister and staff breeze into town, set up flip charts, lament the deficit, blame the feds, blame the Socreds, brag shamelessly, take down their flip charts and leave
[ Page 6884 ]
town. We believe that the process should be more like a strategic review. Ministries should be required to justify the premises upon which they are basing their requests for continued program funding.
Interest groups and the opposition should be able to challenge these assumptions. The process would enforce greater spending discipline, because a Finance minister will be less inclined to continue to fund programs year after year when the usefulness of such programs has been publicly challenged. At present a budget is introduced, and no matter how vigorous the subsequent debate is, it has no impact whatsoever on spending. In theory, the media and the public watch with rapt attention as cringing ministers are called to task in estimates debates for inconsistencies and omissions. In practice, the process is largely ignored. We need new approaches to place government spending intentions under meaningful scrutiny in a manner that can create real change.
We in government are all being asked to do more with less. This is not a partisan issue. It is not time to consider processes which would stimulate debate before decisions are taken. This is the kind of responsive thinking expected from a Ministry of Finance. On the same theme, it is time to end the fiction that every government program is of equal weight and importance and is established for eternity. Financing for new programs should be contingent upon a strategic plan showing some clear time frames. Either a program achieves its optimal purpose at some time, or it keeps growing, layer by layer, with each passing budget year. The principal and perennial purpose of any government program seems to be to obtain funding. We cannot close the door on new programs, because changing societies need new solutions. But all new programs need not be perpetual-motion machines.
The opposition is routinely described as being poised to wreak wanton destruction on our social services through indiscriminate cuts in the public sector. It is understandable rhetoric from a government that senses another one-term debacle in the wind. In a province with 300,000 civil servants, there might be some political points in portraying an opposition as an axe-man-in-waiting -- but not many. The fact is that public servants aren't fools. They know that rates of growth in government can't be sustained. They know that unless a prudent, enlightened approach is taken to government spending, a public backlash could force the wrong kinds of solutions in the future. Would it not be more responsible and fair to start examining some options now?
The Ministry of Finance should have insisted that the Korbin commission take on the task of exploring downsizing targets for the public sector. With planning and open discussion, a framework could be developed which would allow us to achieve essential reduction targets in a manner that would result in the minimum degree of individual dislocation and economic disruption.
Industries which have not had the courage and candour to warn employees about pending economic problems and to help them plan for inevitable change are not considered good corporate citizens. Governments who lull their public servants into false expectations of perpetual security are no better. At a time when the public is demanding greater accountability on the part of their politicians, how can we defend measures to remove spending from public scrutiny? It's their money. Crown corporations debt to $15 million greater than direct government debt demands a more open financial stewardship process. It is simply not enough to dismiss large portions of the debt as recoverable against future revenues. In Ontario that kind of thinking permitted the Ontario Hydro monster to grow to unmanageable proportions. The simplistic reasoning was that consumer and business demand would sustain this binge. Well, it didn't. So it's bad enough to import executive talent from Ontario Hydro, but please don't import their business savvy. Debt is debt.
Crown corporation borrowing influences the credit-worthiness of the province. Crown corporation activities displace or significantly influence private sector activity in the province. They are creatures of this government. This Legislature is where all government creatures, great and small, should be examined each year for disease, unseemly growth or just plain fat.
I'll conclude, if I may, with some brief comments on tax policy. Taxation is perhaps the greatest single detriment to economic growth. Business can train skilled workforces, as our competitors are proving, and technology-transfer can take countries up the curve very quickly. But productivity and technology can only do so much to compensate for unrealistic tax levels. It must be understood, therefore, that tax policy is economic development policy. Taxation cannot be levied in isolation to make up for the profligacy of the past if the result is to stop investment. There has to be open economic impact assessment before new taxes are introduced. This also applies to existing taxes, fees and licences. We need regular reviews to determine whether the deleterious effect of taxes on growth outweighs the revenue benefits foreseen when they are introduced. We must, by all means, resist the temptation to broaden the tax base through fees and the trend to augment such taxes through the clandestine route of orders-in-council. You might temporarily avoid the wrath of the public, but in the long term the economic opportunity that you destroy will come back to haunt you.
With this, Mr. Chairman, I conclude my opening remarks and look forward to a worthwhile debate.
Hon. G. Clark: Again, I want to thank my colleague across the way for some very thoughtful remarks. I'm sure that we can have some useful discussion.
Before I conclude, I want to rebut one tiny little part, just so we're clear. The member opposite accused the government of saying that any cuts would wreak havoc in health care or education. I understand why he would get that perception. But I think it's important for the record to note that health care, education and university education are over 60 percent of the government's budget. If you add in jails and courts, essentially the Attorney General's ministry, you're up around 70 percent.
[ Page 6885 ]
I don't disagree that cuts can be made; in fact, cuts have been made by this administration. Can more cuts be made? We can certainly engage in that conversation. The public wants us to, and I don't have any hesitation doing that. But I want everybody also to be realistic: you cannot cut the deficit dramatically without deep cuts to health and education. I would say that's not an opinion; that's factual. When you look at the budget and look at where the money is spent, it is impossible without deep cuts in education and health care.
So I look forward to that discussion. I'll be very interested in the constructive comments of my colleague across the way as to how we can achieve efficiencies in those sectors. We're working hard at it. We'll share our views on it, and I look forward to the views from the members opposite. While he holds the government to account on spending, I intend to discuss and hopefully hold the opposition to account for what I consider to be irresponsible statements that we can make these dramatic cuts that are painless, because they're not.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Clark: This has been a long week for members -- rare, a six-day week -- and I wish everybody a restful weekend, so we can get back to a very productive week next week with the remaining estimates. With that, hon. Speaker, I move this House now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:45 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]