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 11, 1993
Morning Sitting
Volume 11, Number 2
[ Page 7091 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
JUSTICE IN THE WORKPLACE
H. Lali: My statement is actually on Justice for Janitors Day. I rise today to make a statement on an issue that we as elected officials, on all sides of this House, must work together to promote: safety, fairness and the protection of human dignity for janitors and, of course, for people in other workplaces as well.
A safe job at a reasonable wage is the foundation for a comfortable, productive and rewarding life for most people. Yet for many workers in British Columbia -- particularly immigrant workers, many of whom are women -- this is not quite within reach. A large number of them work in the service sector, more specifically as janitors and cleaners. The service worker in Canada's free trade economy is generally thought to be a young professional, such as a computer programmer or bioengineer, working in a comfortable office in a stimulating, well-paying job. By the year 2000, janitorial occupations such as building housekeepers and maintenance workers will see a higher growth rate than computer programmers, systems analysts or secretaries. In fact, in the past 15 years the number of service workers in buildings has increased by 120 percent.
Who are janitors, and what occupational hazards do they face? Today most janitors and cleaners in British Columbia are women. Most are recently landed immigrants from such diverse places as India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, China, Fiji, Latin America and the newly emerging countries of eastern Europe. In the lower mainland, Punjabi-speaking people form the largest group, followed by those who speak Mandarin, Hindi, Tamil and Spanish. They often live one paycheque away from homelessness. To many Canadians, these people are invisible. Most of these women toil alone, late at night. Sexual harassment is not uncommon, nor is racism and bigotry.
Employment standards, health and safety standards and child labour laws are often ignored. For as little as $35 a night, many clean the equivalent of a single-family home every half hour. The gruelling pace and the constant exposure to powerful cleaning compounds make back injuries, severe skin diseases such as dermatitis and other such hazards part of the nightly routine. Those who protest are promptly fired and replaced.
According to a recent Statistics Canada report, despite the progress in shrinking the wage gap, the gender gap in Canada remains large. In 1991 women in B.C. who worked full time and full year earned 70 percent of the wages earned by their male counterparts. Women are far more likely to be working as janitors cleaning buildings than wearing judges' robes. Women today make up only 20 percent of all earners in the ten highest-paying jobs -- jobs such as doctors, lawyers and senior managers -- but even in these jobs women on average earn only 61 percent of the wages that males earn. In contrast, women comprise nearly three-quarters of all workers in the ten lowest-paying occupations, ghettoized in jobs as secretaries, child care workers, farmworkers, food and beverage servers, and janitors and cleaners.
Overall, women on average earned $17,900 in 1990, while men earned $29,700, a disparity of nearly $12,000. Across B.C. most janitors and cleaners on average earned below $11,000 per year, forcing many of them to seek a second or even a third job. In fact, in the past 20 years janitors' real wages have fallen. These men and women who do society's dirty work are only asking for the respect and dignity that their important work deserves: a safe and healthy work environment, a living wage, basic health care benefits and fair treatment.
Many of B.C.'s larger commercial property owners, real estate developers and the like, particularly those in urban areas where the largest numbers of janitors work, often insulate themselves from janitors' painful realities by employing janitorial contractors, many of them large foreign companies who in turn employ janitors. Many of these large property developers claim they can't afford more for janitors' wages and benefits and that rising rents will drive tenants away to cheaper, less-serviced buildings. But a recent study has revealed that janitors' wages on average represent less than 5 cents of every rental dollar paid by tenants. Cleaning services are most commonly passed on to tenants as separate lease-operating expenses.
Most tenants almost immediately notice the difference with union contractors, who treat their staff with dignity and respect. The results include better-trained staff, higher morale, greater productivity, well-maintained equipment, cleaner offices and improved security. Nearly half of downtown Vancouver's 500 janitors come under this category. They have a collective agreement. Some earn up to $12.45 an hour and have health care and other benefits. They work in safe, full-time jobs in an atmosphere of basic dignity and fairness, while their counterparts in non-unionized outfits often earn $6 to $7 an hour.
Hon. Speaker and fellow members, we must continue to work together to promote fairness and economic opportunity for all working British Columbians. We must encourage efforts to improve working conditions for the men and women who do society's dirty work. Employers and employees must work in concert to target and eliminate industrial hazards in order to create safer and healthier working environments. Workers must be fairly compensated for their efforts in workplaces, where the basic tenets must include a commitment to creating an atmosphere clear of intimidation, harassment and intolerance. Thank you.
A. Warnke: I have listened very carefully to the member for Yale-Lillooet. I was paying particularly close attention, because justice in the workplace is something to which many of us aspire. I hope the hon. member recognized that a number of people on this
[ Page 7092 ]
side of the House applauded the hon. member's statement.
[10:15]
I would suggest that, in addition, we could have some elaboration on justice in the workplace, because the workplace has become more complex than it used to be. It's not just a simple division of labour anymore. As a result of expanding and, indeed, dynamic technological change, not only a few workers in the workplace but also a variety of people, including what we used to call the white-collar classes, are exposed to all sorts of dangers in the workplace. I'm thinking particularly of hazardous materials such as chemicals that we would find in a workplace environment. Actually, specifically on that point, hon. Speaker, in the last few years, at least, there have been some significant attempts to tell white- and blue-collar people that they are exposed to a variety of hazardous materials and so forth. The idea, therefore, is how to improve the environment of the workplace so that we are less vulnerable. That was one aspect the hon. member touched on, and I think it needs some elaboration.
Secondly, the point the hon. member raised was socioeconomic in nature. I think people in society recognize the contribution of a variety of positions, including those of so-called low socioeconomic status and all the rest of them. One of the main problems a society faces is how to apply any justice in terms of recognizing the contribution of so-called low socioeconomic positions in society.
Naturally, we get into one of the areas that I would like the hon. member to respond to, which is the concept of equal pay for work of equal value. There is a broader recognition of that principle now than there was even ten years ago. One of the problems, of course, is the acceptance of certain kinds of positions as equal to other kinds of positions. There is a belief that both contribute to the development of an organization or a government, and that a custodian and a clerk are exactly the same and therefore warrant the same amount of money. Then there are those who suggest that these positions, because of their contribution to the organization, warrant just as much income as those who actually lead the organization: chief executive officers, we as legislators and premiers, and so forth.
Perhaps with a little mischievousness, I wonder whether we can level the salaries of all the MLAs, including members of the executive council, so that everyone here would have an equal wage. In a sense that's mischievous, but it gets at the heart of a particular kind of problem when we deal with this principle of equal pay for work of equal value. I recognize that what we strive for in the twentieth century is justice in the workplace. I believe that the days of enslaving a particular class and casting it into some sort of low socioeconomic status where they belong.... Fortunately, the attitude has changed. In the last ten to 20 years there have been improvements to ensure that justice in the workplace applies and that there is respect for those people who have so-called lower socioeconomic status compared to all other positions in a very complex society.
H. Lali: I seek leave to make an introduction.
The Speaker: Perhaps, hon. member, that could be done after your response to the statement.
H. Lali: I would like to address some of the initiatives that this government has brought in since its election in October 1991. First of all, I want to address the minimum wage. In February 1992 the minimum wage was increased from $5 to $5.50 an hour for workers over 18. Effective April 1, 1993, the minimum wage rose to $6 per hour for workers over 18 and $5.50 for those under. This represents a 20 percent increase since the start of this administration.
Other initiatives were passed by this government under the new Labour Relations Code -- for example, certification. In the past, mandatory certification votes and fierce representational campaigns had created a difficult atmosphere for bargaining first collective agreements. From 1984 to 1991 there was an increase of 100 percent in the number of unfair labour practices during certification. Under the new code, certification is automatic if a clear majority of workers sign membership cards. Employers, trade unions and employees now are prohibited from committing unfair labour practices during a union organization campaign. A vote must be held if support is between 45 and 55 percent.
Secondly, we dealt with successorship and decertification. Bill 19 allowed employers to escape their collective bargaining obligations by establishing non-union operations under successor and common-employer provisions. This measure is removed. The new code further states that employers can no longer move out of the province for two years and then come back and ask for decertification. The decision for decertification or certification rests with the employees, not with the employers, as it did in some instances under Bill 19.
Thirdly, we turned our attention to first collective agreements. For those engaged in initial certification efforts, the code sets out new procedures for first-contract resolution. If a dispute emerges in such cases, strikes and lockouts are prevented when a mediator is appointed. This will particularly benefit women, as they disproportionately make up the recent history in first-collective-agreement disputes.
Furthermore, the Minister of Labour has ordered an Employment Standards Act review, which is currently underway. It will deal with three areas: variances, appeals and group termination notice. On the last one, the original intent of part 5.1 was to provide the director of employment standards the right to collect unpaid wages in lieu of proper notice of group termination. The Supreme Court of B.C. recently deemed that the director did not have this right, because collection of wages was a civil matter. Changes to the act will enable the director to collect these unpaid wages on behalf of employees.
I would like to encourage all members of the House to attend or lend support to the third annual Justice for Janitors Day at noon on Tuesday, June 15, at the Waterfront Centre, 200 Burrard Street in Vancouver.
[ Page 7093 ]
The Speaker: I regret your time has expired, but the member may now wish to ask leave for an introduction.
Leave granted.
H. Lali: We have with us today 60 grade 7 band students from C.E. Barry Intermediate School in Hope, accompanied by their teacher Ms. K. Warner and several adults. Would the House please make them welcome.
REVOLUTION
G. Wilson: I rise on the subject of revolution, because I firmly believe that is exactly what is needed if we are to have the kind of change the people of British Columbia and Canada are looking for in their system. As we get into this discussion, we recognize that often when we talk of revolution, we think of violent acts, upheaval and change that is not done in a progressive and orderly way. But I think what we have to do, and what hopefully we can do as legislators in this building, is recognize who we are. We have to recognize that there is indeed a need and a time for change -- real and honest change -- if we are to take to the people of British Columbia and, I would hope, to the people of Canada, as a beacon to the world, change in the system of government that makes the aspirations, dreams and ambitions of people all over this province a reality.
I was moved yesterday by comments made in this House by the member for Vancouver-Burrard on the subject of Bill 33 and the whole question of freedom of speech and rights. He talked at that point of his dream for equality among people. In speaking on this question of revolution, I'd like briefly to read the words of Philo Judaeus of Alexandria many, many years ago, who talked about the statesman and what we are attempting to do. He said: "I will venture frankly to say that the statesman is beyond any doubt an interpreter of dreams...a man accustomed to estimate at its true worth the common, universal great dream, which is dreamed not only by the sleeping but also by the waking. This waking dream, to speak truly, is human life itself."
There are many in our society who fail to realize their dreams because of a system that has become so convoluted and complex that it requires change. I suggest that it is time now to move towards such change in our system that would open up this building and this assembly to greater degrees of access for the public. I think it is time for what I would call a civilized revolution, which will change the nature of our system of parliamentary democracy to allow a much greater degree of public input and direction and a greater emphasis on the independent minds of those who are elected to office to serve their constituents, with less of the kinds of party constraints that we see.
I took to heart the words of the Minister of Finance last week. He said that notwithstanding the kind of commentary we have from the opposition, there is no way that we can deal with deficit spending and deficit financing unless we are prepared to pillage our health care and educational systems. He said that if this political stripe forms government, there is no way that we can bring the kinds of changes that are needed. He may be correct, unless we change the very nature of the delivery of government services, the way in which we provide services to the people themselves. We have to start to implement parliamentary reform -- a revolution that says the dreams and aspirations of the people we seek to serve are what is most important.
When you think that 75 of us, sitting in this room, are responsible for passing legislation that will at some point inhibit the freedoms and rights of three million British Columbians, we must be very careful that we do that in a manner that looks after the interests not only of this generation but generations to come. What access do average people have to the systems and debates that take place in this House? Once a bill has come forward, what reality is there in terms of change and modification of that bill if, through a majority-rules system once the election has taken place, there is virtually no way for public input to have meaning or effect, should the government not choose to have that?
I'm suggesting that perhaps it is time for the two-sword-lengths division of these benches to be altered. Perhaps this House needs to be set up in a regional manner so that once the election is over, the partisanship will start to disappear. We will see that the benches are in fact determined by the regions from which we are elected, so that we can be much more directly representative of the regions rather than simply of the party rhetoric and dogma that took us to either government or opposition.
Perhaps it is time that this House was reformed in a manner that would allow the public to have direct access and representation in debates on matters of substance and import. When the Treaty Commission comes forward and aboriginal people in this country have their rights, traditions and customs debated in this House, the fact that there is an absence of any elected aboriginal people in this building and an absence of any direct representation is something that I think needs to be reformed. Perhaps it is time we changed the adversarial system of government and moved toward a civilized revolution that suggests that once the election is over, our primary and only interest is in the sound, sensible resolution of the kinds of policies, directions and governments that people in this province want.
The revolution that's needed is clearly a revolution in thinking. Unless we are prepared to weigh the traditions and understand that changing the traditional systems of delivery can be done in a manner that is positive to all people, and unless we are prepared to throw out some of those traditional meanings and revolutionize the manner in which we debate and implement legislation for the people of British Columbia, I think we run the risk of having a growing level of cynicism in our political system; and we run the risk of our youth becoming less and less believing that those they elect will do anything more than simply serve themselves or the interests of the handful of people responsible for their election.
[10:30]
[ Page 7094 ]
Yes, hon. Speaker, we need a revolution in this country. We need a civilized revolution that changes the system through which we deliver governance, the manner in which we tax our citizens and the way people are able to get the representation they need. We need to free our minds from the entrapment in the traditions that have made parliamentary democracy work. We have to explore new, different and more progressive ways in which we can govern for the people of British Columbia today and for future generations as they look to us for guidance and leadership, so that we may indeed -- as it says clearly in these words -- allow the dreams of our citizens to be realized.
L. Krog: I was quite surprised by the words of the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. I thought idealism was dead in the world, but obviously it is alive and well in this chamber.
One thing that struck me, though, was the suggestion that our job is to assist people in fulfilling their dreams. If you want to talk about real idealism, I would suggest that much of what drives our society is aimed toward a materialistic end. The fulfilment of those kinds of dreams will inevitably lead to the further destruction of the planet, and it will destroy life itself on this planet.
What is important in terms of a revolution in politics is not the kind of revolution that some people are talking about -- for instance, the Reform Party -- where members of every assembly should constantly and simply reflect the majority wishes of their constituents. That's a form of revolution in a sense, but it does not speak to our fundamental task as legislators, and that is leadership. Our job is not simply to reflect the needs, wishes and ideals of our constituents, or to reflect their desires, hopes and dreams. Given the privilege of our office and the resources with which we are provided, our job is to look into the future and try to direct and assist society in facing up to its obligations and responsibilities -- in other words, some realistic goals, perhaps a more realistic revolution.
In setting those goals, we have to take into account what the planet can sustain and deliver. What we have learned -- and are learning day by day -- is that we cannot sustain our lifestyle on this continent and maintain it as a beacon for others. Around the world, people are looking to North America as some ideal place where we don't have the violence and troubles of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and where people have the right to vote. But part of it is also a materialistic world and a lifestyle that cannot be given to everyone around this planet.
What we must do if we want to talk about revolution is say quite bluntly to the citizens of Canada and British Columbia that it is time for us to realize that we do not deserve and cannot sustain the level of material wealth that we enjoy. That's the kind of idealism and revolution politicians have to face up to. We cannot bring the rest of the world up to our standard in the foreseeable future, and that is a grim fact of life. We have an obligation as citizens of the globe to assist, in a sense, and also to face up to the reality that our lifestyle cannot be sustained. That is a real revolution. It is a revolution that most of us, I suspect, do not have the courage to face or to speak about. It is not a political message that we can take out to folks on the hustings during an election: "You've got more than you deserve, and you should have less, because your brothers and sisters around this globe are starving to death and dying in misery."
That kind of idealism, frankly, has more appeal to me than talk about a reversal of our adversarial system. I think our system functions quite well. What the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast did not address specifically is how he expects us to accomplish this. I look forward to his response to my remarks because I'm sure he's going to tell us, much more specifically than he did in his broader statement, how he wants to bring about his ideal revolution. Remember that wonderful line of Tennyson's: "In the Parliament of Man, the Federation of the world" -- with great deference to all members in this House of a gender other than mine. I look forward to that day.
But that day will not be accomplished by simply changing our political system. Revolution means changing the way we live and the way we deal with our planet and our environment. That's a revolution we will all have to have the courage to face. It's not a revolution of simply changing our political system and fulfilling the needs or the dreams of our people. Far too many of us look to material things for wealth and happiness, and they don't deliver. We are the wealthiest nation on the face of the earth, and you cannot tell me that our citizens are happy. The legislation introduced yesterday addresses one problem of our great and glowing society -- the fact of hate literature.
I see that my time is up, hon. Speaker, so I will sit down.
G. Wilson: I note with interest that the member opposite says that he thinks the system works fairly well. The member has only had an opportunity to serve in this House on the government side; if he sat on the opposition side he might not feel it works as well as perhaps it does in government.
I don't take issue with the commentary that what we need is a revolution in thinking. We clearly do. I have often said -- and I will say again -- that the most successful politician in the years to come will be the politician who realizes that we need to shift gears in our economy and who recognizes that the key is wealth and the distribution of wealth within limits to growth. I believe I was the first to say, when the Brundtland commission report on sustainable development came out, that it is a system that will not work -- it cannot work. In fact, I took great issue with the Bruntdland report because it did not recognize the reality of limits to growth. The most successful politician will be the politician who comes forward with a blueprint for government that recognizes limits to growth.
In my short life I have been privileged to hear some very great orators. I was there when Martin Luther King made his speech in Washington, D.C. -- I heard him. I was at Woodstock, where I heard many people chant about how we were going to change the world. And revolution in another system was there. No matter
[ Page 7095 ]
how the thinking of the populace may try to move toward revolution -- whether it be through the great oratory of a Martin Luther King or through the rock and roll sound of those gathered at Woodstock in New York -- the system by which we govern ourselves has to change: this institution; the rules that put in place the impediments to freedoms; the rules that keep us as a society working together. We need to change it in a manner that will provide and enhance equality among people. Our adversarial system works for a short period during an election, but afterwards often frustrates meaningful discussion and debate.
For the first time since I was elected to office, I saw the beginning of such debate yesterday when I heard the member for Nanaimo talking about an issue of great importance. I was moved by the words of the member for Vancouver-Burrard when he talked about this question of freedom and freedom of speech. Even though I come from a different perspective, we entered into an intellectual debate on an issue that is most fundamental to the freedoms of people in British Columbia. We need to have that opportunity for freedom to exchange ideas so that we can revolutionize the thinking among the people involved in this province -- the people involved in this chamber -- so that we don't simply see our role in opposition to oppose, but bring forward what I suggested we needed on the eve of the election: a more positive, more constructive and more directed kind of governance for the people of British Columbia.
LET THE MEANING CHOOSE THE WORD
D. Lovick: My subject today is language. More specifically, it is the abuse of language, and more specifically yet, it is about sexist language -- language that either excludes or denigrates women. The title for my remarks is borrowed from George Orwell's famous 1945 essay, "Politics in the English Language." In that essay Orwell provides a kind of wake-up call to the world, telling us that we must be roused from our intellectual and linguistic laziness and change our ways. It seems to me that the line, "let the meaning choose the word," is the whole bucketful of Orwell's advice, reduced and rendered down to about one spoonful. It's an important concept, I think.
I have been a teacher and a student of language for many years, and at the ripe old age of 49 I am embarrassed to acknowledge that it was only about ten or 12 years ago that I finally understood and appreciated the reality and the problem of sexist language. I am also embarrassed to note that it was only recently, despite having been in this chamber for a number of years, that the penny dropped for me that we in this chamber use, on a daily basis, a booklet which is blatantly exclusive and blatantly sexist. I am referring to Standing Orders. The standing orders of this chamber refer to Mr. Speaker, the Chairman and Mr. Chairman, and all references to members are "he" or "him" or "his." That's why there is a motion on the order paper, under my name at the moment, which says that we ought to correct that situation and change that language to be inclusive, rather than exclusive.
Another example of the problem -- lest anybody thinks I'm making this up -- was a few weeks ago, when I attended a committee on estimates in the Douglas Fir Room. The meeting was being ably chaired by the member for Victoria-Beacon Hill, who we all know is a woman. In the course of the estimates debate, one of the members who was asking questions of the minister kept referring to the Chairman. I think most of us would say: "Oh, that's an honest and understandable mistake." So nobody said anything. But then I detected that what was also happening was that the individual began referring to the woman who was chairing the meeting as Mr. Chairman. Clearly, there's something wrong. Let me hasten to point out, as an aside, that I have no wish to embarrass the member. Indeed, he was very gracious when the error was pointed out to him and apologized for doing so.
I tell the story, however, to illustrate the reality of sexist language. We are accustomed to asserting by our words that boys do some things and girls do other things; that some jobs belong to men and other jobs belong to women. Note that we usually assume that the jobs belonging to women are lower-paid and of lower status; I hasten to add that. But we use the same outworn, obsolete and incorrect language. Even when the evidence of a person actually sitting there is before us, we call the person by absolutely the wrong words. As Orwell said: "What is above all needed is to let the meaning choose the word and not the other way about."
Hon. Speaker, it is pretty obvious to anyone who reflects on the matter that language is a mirror -- perhaps even a barometer -- of our society, our culture and our value system. It reflects our values, I think it's safe to say, and it's probably true that the basic problem with language in our society is the result of the dominant value system, which can fairly be called a patriarchy. A patriarchy is simply a nice technical word for the concept of a society in which the men make the rules. I think that's still essentially the case.
Lest anybody question that conclusion, let me give one small example. We are a society that still uses phrases like "man and wife." Think about that. "Man" is obviously a different order of magnitude and kind than "wife." If we talk about a woman defined as wife, we're defining her in terms of only one thing -- namely, her relationship to another human being. Clearly there's something unequal in that rendering of two people's existences.
[10:45]
Let me quote something that is probably familiar to most of us:
"Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created humankind in God's own image, in the image of God was the human being created; male and female God created them."
I hope everybody here recognizes that that's not the one we're used to hearing. That is a gender-neutral rendition of Genesis 1:26-29. The real one, which we were all brought up with, says: "Let us make man in our
[ Page 7096 ]
image...let them have dominion.... So God created man in his own image...." The predicament with that, of course, is that it has generated a set of assumptions about men and women in our society that are demonstrably such that women tend to have inferior status.
As a good example of that, let me quote a bit of a classic historical record from an excellent book that I would recommend to everybody here: Casey Miller and Kate Swift's book called Words and Women, which is a magnificent study -- probably the best of all. They talk about how we view history. The argument built here is essentially that if we use language in a particular way and we don't challenge the assumptions, it leads us to a view of reality that is exclusive. The passage is as follows:
"When schoolchildren learn from their textbooks that the early colonists gained valuable experience in governing themselves, they are not told that the early colonists who were women were denied the privilege of self-government; when they learned that in the eighteenth century the average man had to manufacture many of the things he and his family needed, they are not told that this `average man' was often a woman...."
I see my time is up, Madam Speaker. I will endeavour to pull those other pieces together, and thank the House for its indulgence thus far.
L. Reid: I am pleased to rise in response to the words of the member for Nanaimo with respect to language and the power of language. We all understand that language is powerful. We all understand that it shapes perceptions, and it definitely changes attitudes. The issue we want to discuss today is: which comes first? Does the language we engage in shape our attitudes, or do our attitudes shape the kinds of interactions and dialogues we would be interested in having with individuals -- not just in this House, but with individuals in other parts of this country and this planet?
Some issues, disparaging remarks and comments often do set the flavour for any kind of ongoing discussion. As a society, we haven't acknowledged those issues particularly well. I certainly concur with the member's remarks in terms of where we need to go. I don't believe we have made progress in this area at all.
It astounds me that we still need to have discussions about separating people out and about not treating people fairly in society. We tend to promote vocabulary that does not serve anyone's best interest. Given today's political climate, language is changing. I don't believe language is a static situation. It will be changing as people demand changes and as there is some political will to put those changes in place.
If you take a look at the press today, issues of the Tory leadership are being discussed, and whether or not this country is ready to have a female Prime Minister. And at the end of the day, that is the issue. I reflect on a Globe and Mail article and a Vancouver Sun article of today's date as well. Lindsay Kines states: "It seems to be an anti-female kind of fear. There seems to be a problem that some people have with the idea of a woman having power...acceptable in the male context...." The fact that in 1993 we are still having that discussion is alarming at best. The article goes on in some detail to suggest that it's not fair, because no matter, children or not, women are not going to be seen as equal partners in a process.
It's a huge issue, and I appreciate the member for Nanaimo bringing it forward today. But it's an absolute tip of the iceberg in terms of where we need to go in our evolution. We have not come very far down that road.
Interjection.
L. Reid: The word is in "revolution."
"Ripples of Sexism Still Make Waves on Political Waters" is another Globe and Mail article. We talk about weighted language. We talk about how we understand that and how we see that it does impact on our thinking. But words like "family values" can start a revolution. Words like "ambition" can somehow not be used in the context of women. Somehow it's not appropriate for women to have ambition, to have courage or to demonstrate political will. Why not? What questions remain to be answered on whether or not women can be equal partners in this process -- in any process; in life? To suggest that women cannot participate equally in the process is suggesting that the process of politics is separate from life. Life is politics. We can't remove it from our day-to-day existence, and I don't believe we want to.
I believe we want to better understand the power of language. I believe we want to better understand how it shapes our attitudes and understandings, because we have not committed to understand each other fully in this exercise. We need to do that if we are going to make any headway at all.
There are manuals and books. Literature goes through the ages and finishes with two very fine manuals that have come forward under this administration that look at how to prepare language so as not to offend. At the end of the day, if government is concerned about the feelings, emotions and passions that people bring to the process, we don't need to have that slowed down in any way by crippling language; we don't wish to see it cripple the process. In many ways, it has.
I certainly concur with the member for Nanaimo. We have allowed language to take on powers, and we've simply initiated processes that have become uncontrolled enterprises. In this day and age, we need to ensure that language always reflects what we wish it to reflect. We haven't done it; I know we can. I certainly know that this is not a party issue in any way, shape or form; this is a human rights issue. At the end of the day, how we treat each other and people from all walks of life determines whether or not we believe in human dignity.
D. Lovick: I want to thank the member opposite for her comments and make three brief remarks in the limited time I have. First, I want to emphasize, following from the member opposite's comments, that language by definition is dynamic. Part of the problem we encounter is that the conservative forces out there, who are perhaps not so supportive of the move to
[ Page 7097 ]
women's equality, are, frankly, usually the same ones who have a very conservative view of language -- namely, it's fixed -- and therefore they object to phraseology like "chairperson," "he/she," etc. The reality, of course, is that language is dynamic, and dictionaries do not, contrary to popular mythology, attempt to stop language in its tracks. Rather, they report on the state of language at any given time. So there is indeed hope. Nobody needs to be defensive about saying we are introducing new words. The story of our language is the evolution of new words.
The second point I would like to make is that language does matter. If in our use of language we accept assumptions that women are inferior and should have subordinate status, that carries with it a whole other set of assumptions -- namely, that you can treat them as inferior and not deserving of the same dignity and status. That is precisely what leads to the epidemic proportions of endemic and systemic violence against women in our society. It starts with language. I'm not suggesting it's the only game in town -- far from it. But the mind-set starts and is reinforced on a daily basis by the abuse of language.
The last point I want to make is to simply say that I am pleased that the government of which I am a part has taken some steps. It has sent out a very clear notice that things will be different: first, by establishing a stand-alone Ministry of Women's Equality; and second, by producing a guidebook on gender neutral language for government employees -- an excellent booklet. It does clearly points out the problems and, most importantly, ways to correct those problems.
I think the member opposite is correct in saying that we have made progress, but it's so small. As I stand in this House, I remember reading in the newspaper this morning about the ritual mutilation of more than eight million women on the African subcontinent every year -- only on the basis of men wanting to ensure that those women are pure at the time of marriage. It's a ritual mutilation; that's what happens. It's called circumcision, but it's mutilation. Sadly, those kinds of behaviours are widespread. We in this chamber, by all our actions and words, must indicate our passionate, vehement protest against that kind of thing. Simple justice demands no other.
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM
J. Weisgerber: I guess today is the day for parliamentary reform. Indeed, I suppose it is the problem with titles when we indicate what we intend to speak about during private members' day, but perhaps it's useful to deal with this in a couple of different contexts.
I believe it is important for us to look at rational, orderly change to our legislative process. Contrary to the leader of the Liberal Party, I think that evolutionary change rather than revolutionary change in parliament and in government is much more reasonable, measured and cautious, perhaps. But I think a more traditional approach to parliamentary change and reform is useful to consider.
I believe also that we must look at how our constituents, the people of British Columbia, view what we do as politicians and the way we do it. We have to seek to demonstrate that the faith and trust they put in us as elected officials is well placed. Indeed, any poll on people's attitudes toward politicians would suggest that that's not the case. People have a very low opinion of us as MLAs, as MPPs or as Members of Parliament. There is a high degree of cynicism in this country about the parliamentary process. It's not directed at us as individuals but at the job we do and the way the process works. We have to try to enhance our credibility, to establish credibility for the process of this Legislature and to re-establish trust in people's minds that good decisions are being made here in a reasonable way.
I think some steps have been taken in that direction. I believe that the televising of these debates has served the people of British Columbia well. I believe that with television far more British Columbians understand, see and hear what is happening in this Legislature, and that's a positive step. I think the decision to move estimates to the Douglas Fir Room is -- and as it progresses, will be -- a very positive step that will allow us to focus on legislation in this Legislature.
I believe, though, that party discipline -- the process by which we bring legislation into this House with our minds made up when it arrives how we're going to vote on it -- is what has caused people to be very cynical about what we do. When we come into this Legislature and start to debate legislation, we do it from set positions. We do it almost as a series of rote arguments because, no matter how compelling the arguments might be, we've already made up our minds how we're going to vote. I believe that's one of the fundamental changes we've got to look at. We've got to bring to this Legislature real debate on legislation. We've got to give members an opportunity to convince other members, regardless of their party affiliation, of the benefit of their views on legislation.
There is a place in this process for the government to bring in essential legislation, particularly supply legislation, and that should be recognized as such and should require a clear majority in order to pass. But a wide range of legislation that's brought into this House shouldn't be determined along partisan policy lines. The legislation we discussed yesterday, the Human Rights Amendment Act, shouldn't be a matter of partisan politics. On that legislation members should engage in real debate and try to convince other members of the Legislature of the wisdom and validity of their point of view. Members should be able to consider whether or not they want to support legislation, without that being seen in any way as a threat to government.
[11:00]
It is always easy.... We've now been blessed with the Minister of Finance, who has come in to wave off as nonsense any suggestion of change. Having waited for an opportunity to be in the driver's seat, he has no intention of relinquishing any control now. The reality is that probably 70 percent of the legislation in this House shouldn't be dealt with on partisan lines. That's not revolutionary; that is evolutionary. It's been
[ Page 7098 ]
happening in England in the British Parliament since at least 1970. Here we are in 1993 thinking about whether or not we should dare to move into the area of allowing members to express their will on legislation. More importantly, we are debating in this chamber whether or not we should come here and represent the will, interest and opinion of the people who elected us and sent us here. We are trying to decide if it is more important to follow the party line than it is to be here to represent the people who elected us. I would suggest that in most cases, our primary responsibility should be to those people. I believe that if we were to reflect the opinions, wishes and needs of our constituents in an open way that is not a part of the party discipline system, we would have a higher level of debate and a much more interesting and open debate in this chamber. If the government is afraid to put its own legislation to the test, then we are here today on private members' day.
J. Pement: The concepts that the member opposite has brought forward in terms of the parliamentary processes that we are in are very interesting. The demand for change in that process is fairly well voiced in all our communities. A demand to be part of the process is always voiced in our communities, as well. But having change for the sake of change is another question that's out there. Are we using the processes that we already have here in the House to the best of our abilities as members and as the public itself? That has to be looked at, first of all. What are the processes that are happening within the House? What are the areas of input and consultation that could be there for us? Have we evaluated those processes? Have we looked at them very closely in terms of how they can work better, where they are not working and what we can fix?
Instead, we have people jumping up, waving banners and running on a bandwagon effect, and we have recall and referenda as the main focus of getting opinions across and policy developed within government. When I was running in the election, I found that there was a demand to know who you are and where you're coming from as a member. The demand was for what they traditionally call a platform. From that platform, people had a basis from which to work in terms of deciding who you were as a person and what principles and fundamental thoughts you had in terms of issues. That platform is very important. I found that if I didn't have a platform to work from, then perhaps I could just be a weathervane. Whoever I talked to, it would be a good idea; I could come up with the idea. Members opposite have to take a very close look at what they're saying, in terms of how we bring policy into the realm of government.
One thing that I found to be really good with this government is the use of the select standing committees. Those committees have been excellent in terms of going around the province and discussing issues with people. When I was on those committees, many times -- even if the issue seemed to have lost itself in the debate in the communities -- I heard people say to me: "I am so pleased to see you come and talk to us at the community level; I'm so pleased that we have the opportunity to talk to members of all parties and let them know what we really feel, and to discuss with all those members what the issues are within our community." It's too bad in some ways that the members opposite, particularly Social Credit Party members, drop out of these committees, because if they stayed they would be able to hear what people have to say. Every time it comes to the point where they don't like what they hear from members or from the discussion, they drop off the committees. I just can't understand it, because this is an opportunity to talk directly to people.
D. Lovick: And they still talk about the need for reform.
J. Pement: That's it exactly. They talk about reform, and they won't stay on the committees. Referenda and recall is an excellent example. This committee has gone out and talked to people, and it continues to do so. It has a schedule and continues to get input from people. The members dropped off; they will not listen any further. It's a process. Let's use the processes that are there for our Legislature. Let's talk to the people and tell them what the processes are.
The Speaker: In response to the reply, the hon. Leader of the Third Party.
J. Weisgerber: I'm tempted to get into the debate on select standing committees, because never has a government misused select standing committees in the way this government does. When committees are running around doing things on NAFTA in order to prop up the sagging fortunes of Audrey McLaughlin and company, we see select standing committees in their very worst form.
The member talked about using the processes that we have. One of the mechanisms we have in this Legislature is private members' bills. Friday is private members' day. We're here today listening to private members' statements and, according to the standing orders, the next logical piece of business would be to deal with one of the 21 private members' bills standing on the order paper. These are good pieces of legislation that could be debated without any fear of the government losing a vote; it's legislation that could be put forward to debate issues of broad public interest for an hour or two on a Friday. But no, we're going to do estimates instead. Even though those estimates could be taken to committee, as we had arranged to do, the government believes that it's more important to debate the estimates of the Minister of Finance than it is to debate private members' bills.
The member says it has always been this way. A couple of years ago, during private members' statements, Mark Rose stood up in this Legislature and decried the fact that the government never called private members' bills. Mark Rose was a good politician and a good parliamentarian, and he was angry and frustrated, as I suppose happens in opposition. Certainly the NDP understands far more about life in opposition than I ever will, I hope. Indeed, there always
[ Page 7099 ]
seems to be a push from the opposition, regardless of political stripe, to change and reform parliament to make it more reactive to members. It's unfortunate that the government takes the position that it will neither allow members to vote freely on its legislation nor take the risk of putting forward private member's bills that could be debated in the House.
I see that my time has run out again. These go by all too quickly.
The Speaker: I want to congratulate all members for what I think everyone will agree has been a very thought-provoking hour of private member's statements this morning.
C. Serwa: I rise on a point of order, hon. Speaker. The point of order is simply one of clarification. I think the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine unintentionally misled the House when she stated that I had stepped down from a select standing committee. That is untrue; I am still a member of that committee -- just for the record.
The House in Committee of Supply B; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS
(continued)
On vote 35: minister's office, $335,102 (continued).
Hon. G. Clark: Mr. Chairman, in estimates we can discuss anything the members of the official opposition would like, but the Liberal Party critic has asked to canvass two topics for the hour and a half or so that we're here today. One is pensions and employee benefits contributions -- for whatever reason -- and the other is the TRIUMF-KAONsubvote. Obviously I'm in the hands of members of the opposition on this question, but it would expedite matters if we could first canvass pensions and employee benefits contributions until that's completed, and then KAON. Then we could move on to other items. I just want to flag that for members' consideration in these debates, although I realize they are certainly free to ask any question they like on the Ministry of Finance.
[11:15]
K. Jones: Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to address the estimates of the Minister of Finance. It's always an interesting area. It's probably one of the most vital areas that we should be looking at, since it's the culmination of all the factors in the other ministries.
I'd like to start by addressing the area of pensions and employee benefits contributions under vote 38, but we're still on the general vote. I note that pension contributions and retirement benefits are 26 percent higher than they were last year. Employee health insurance and other benefits are 16 percent higher. One major cost increase within the benefits group is a 49 percent increase in unemployment insurance benefits; that's up by $13.8 million, for a total of $42 million. Could the minister give us some explanation as to the reason for the dramatic increase in costs? Is it as a result of making contract employees FTEs?
Hon. G. Clark: That's a very good question from the member, Mr. Chairman. I'll just try to explain, in general terms, some of the changes that have taken place. First of all, if you have the estimates book there, you will see that in the estimates for last year, it was $91.5 million for provincial pension contributions; in fact, the cost last year was $97.5 million. The reason for that is that when we budget for wage increases, we don't put it in the ministry's vote. It might prejudge the negotiations, because it would be there for people to see. Any wage negotiations go into contingency, and at the end of the year, they're filtered through the various votes. The actual expenditure last year was $97.5 million, not $91 million. So, first of all, the increase is not as large as members opposite have quoted.
Secondly, a large part of the problem, of course, was with CPP and UIC, which are both federal areas. I know that the Social Credit members will be interested in this, because they are strong supporters of the national Conservative Party. They would appreciate the dramatic increases in Canada Pension Plan contributions employers had to make as a result of significant underfunding. We had major increases in CPP and UIC, which the province had to absorb -- both thanks to the kissing cousins of the Social Credit Party, the federal Tories.
I'm surprised those members are still here. I know that Kim Campbell, one of their colleagues who sat in this House with us -- albeit she was a little distant from the executive council; she was sort of over near the NDP opposition of the day.... I'm surprised they're not there. But I know that when we look through the tax receipts, we'll see the names of all the Social Credit members supporting Kim Campbell. But I digress.
The Canada Pension Plan and UIC contribution increases are a large part of it. However, I think it's fair to say that the largest part was due to the passage in this House of the Pension Benefits Standards Act, which required vesting a dramatic improvement for people. I might say that in the dying days of the discredited administration we took over from, they did -- in desperation and in an attempt to try to make themselves look more sympathetic -- bring a pension benefits standards act into the House, which sat on the order paper. Of course, nothing happened under their administration. We actually brought forward and proclaimed the Pension Benefits Standards Act. That did increase the cost somewhat, and that's reflected in this vote.
Finally, as a consequence of pay equity changes, there is a fairly significant increase when an employee hits the $33,400 threshold. At that threshold the pension contributions go from 8 percent to 9.5 percent. So as we bottom-load, as a result of, I think, the third year in a row of 1 percent....
Interjections.
[ Page 7100 ]
Hon. G. Clark: Just for the members' sake, this was another one of those desperate attempts by the previous government to make themselves look warm and fuzzy. They actually started a 1 percent pay equity program, and we've continued it. The bottom-loading of that has resulted in more employees -- mainly women -- reaching the $33,000 annual income level, and that has resulted in a significant increase in pension contributions.
I did kind of wander in my answer, but I'll just summarize it this way. UIC and CPP increases are significant. The actual numbers are not as large, because of the way it's reported: estimates versus actual. Finally, the Pension Benefits Standards Act, which is vesting, and pay equity legislation -- not pay equity decisions -- have raised more people to the $33,000 level, which has increased contributions from pensions. I think that best explains the increase in pensions and employee benefit contributions in the estimates.
K. Jones: I really thank the minister for his elaborate answer. I would also like to draw him back to the actual question that was originally presented, which I guess he forgot. He had his prepared statement. I thought he was going to make a prepared statement originally; I gave him the opportunity, anyway.
We asked if the increase was a result of the transfer of contract employees to FTEs. We didn't get an answer.
Hon. G. Clark: I missed that part; you're absolutely correct. In my notes, not particularly prepared.... That is a further complication. There were some contract conversions. Obviously we weren't paying any contributions for those individuals in the past; we are now. You're quite correct in pointing out that this is some of the reason, but the other reasons are a combination of vesting and a variety of other factors, as I said.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us the proportion of cost increase due to the FTE increases versus the various other programs?
Hon. G. Clark: Just to clarify, are you asking how much of this increase is the result of contract conversions and how much is the result of other things I mentioned? I can hear the member nodding his head, so I'm sure that's correct. I'll try to get that information for the member. I don't have it here with me. The contract conversions, as I understand it, are about 400. You can imagine that in the scheme of things, that is not as large as some of the other factors I mentioned, particularly the implications of vesting earlier. If the member wants, I could have a more detailed breakdown prepared for him which I could exchange in writing, rather than taking time in the House; or we can just continue this way.
K. Jones: The minister referred to 400, but I wasn't quite sure whether he was talking about 400 FTEs, $400,000, or what. Could you clarify what that was?
Hon. G. Clark: There are about 400 contract conversions -- people who were on contract, working full-time for the government -- who are now employees of the government, union members, who are counted as FTEs. As you know, if you're a contract worker, you're not counted as an FTE. This is not an increase in the size of government, it is just rolling people into full-time employment, partly as a result of Revenue Canada's ruling that the government of British Columbia is breaking the law by not paying income tax for those full-time contractors. Of course, unlike the previous government, we wanted to comply with the law. We have rolled in about 400 conversions.
There are some increased FTEs that have been the subject of debate in this House, which are a part of the cost increase -- just a general increase in FTEs for social services and health care in particular. Those are really the only areas. On top of that, there are about 400 contractor conversions. The member is quite correct; that does impact on vote 38 -- pensions and employee benefits contributions.
K. Jones: Could you tell us how many contract conversions are planned in this upcoming budget year? Also, how many FTE increases do you plan through this period?
Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry, I don't know the answer to that. The FTE increases, if you will, are in the blue book. They're in the estimates. There is an increase of about 300 FTEs. That's been the subject of some discussion in this House already; that's in the book. The Korbin commission's report will be presented in this House very shortly, as per the original terms of reference. It will discuss this in more detail. I haven't done that at this time.
We've estimated the number of contractors. Right now we're going through each ministry, reviewing the contractors and seeing if they are in fact contractors or pretend full-time employees. If they are full-time employees, we'll be rolling them in. We haven't got a budget. I can't give you an absolute number for how many will be rolling in -- because that work hasn't been done yet -- or the cost implications of it. In some cases, when we roll a contractor into full-time employment, the costs go down. Often when they are private contractors, they are paid a little more than the government rate. So it's not always a cost increase.
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: Just for the member who is heckling me, very often, when it's a male professional, his wage goes down; when it's a woman, her wage goes up -- almost uniformly. So if you are a secretary on contract, you're generally being exploited and you're paid lower than the union wage. If you are a professional male, generally speaking -- that generalization is almost consistent across the piece -- you are paid more in the private sector on contract. We are reviewing all of those, and we'll be rolling them in where appropriate -- and not where they're not appropriate.
[ Page 7101 ]
I might say, as some comfort to the member, that any cost implications are not over and above what's in the estimates. No extra cost beyond what you see here in the estimates in the ministries will be allowed or budgeted as a result of contract conversions. Believe me, if a ministry comes with a request and says, "These 100 contractors should in fact be full-time-equivalent employees," and that's legitimate -- and we have a process for making sure it's legitimate -- and they are rolled into FTEs, then there are no cost implications, in the sense that the budget won't be adjusted accordingly.
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to change direction slightly. The Peat Marwick report, which the minister loves to refer to, dealt with the unfunded pension liabilities of groups for which the province didn't directly contribute to the pension, but for which there was a clear liability -- like the teachers. At that time it was noted -- and the minister took considerable glee in noting it -- that there was an unfunded liability there that was a responsibility of the province and of the previous government. The minister has now had an opportunity to serve as Minister of Finance for 18 months and clearly would have had an opportunity to rectify that situation and not only to have found the solution but to have implemented it.
It seemed to me in looking at it that there were probably three or four ways to go about addressing that unfunded pension liability: (a) you could ask the employees to contribute more; (b) you could require the employer -- indirectly, the province -- to contribute more; (c) a combination of both; or (d) you could reduce the pension benefits.
Hon. G. Clark: There's one more option.
J. Weisgerber: The minister says there's one more option, and perhaps I'll listen to that. Maybe that's the one he chose.
Hon. G. Clark: The other option is pension diversification, which was started by the previous administration and has been continued by us. Right now the actuarial assumptions, which the liabilities are based upon, are unbelievably conservative because of the policy of the Bill Bennett government, which allows investments only in bonds with a very low rate of return. If we diversify the pension funds fully, the expectation is that the rate of return goes up over a long period of time.
L. Fox: So does the risk.
Hon. G. Clark: But the actuarial assumptions, in the most prudent way -- the same as every pension plan in the country -- go up, and that has a dramatic impact on the unfunded liability. That's the other way of dealing with unfunded liabilities. It holds significant promise, although I think we'd be foolish to think we could eliminate it entirely in certain areas that have large unfunded liabilities. But it does have an impact.
[11:30]
I want to make a couple of points. First of all, I don't mind answering these questions, but technically they are under the Minister of Government Services and were canvassed in her estimates. But if Mr. Chairman will give me a little bit of leeway, I don't mind discussing it briefly. I, of course, would never take that kind of leeway, but I want to give the member some assurance on two things. In the narrow public sector -- in other words, the BCGEU plan -- the unfunded liability is coming down somewhat; there has been some reduction. For the first time, as a result of the auditor general, we're showing that unfunded liability directly on the public accounts of the province of B.C. That's being reduced as a result of increased return and of a variety of other mechanisms.
More importantly for members, I want to give you a sense that there are new, detailed governance discussions underway to allow us to deal with the unfunded liability by involving the people who work in the various sectors and in the government in a variety of ways of managing public sector pensions -- not the investment side, which we believe should be in the Ministry of Finance. Not only is there an unfunded liability, but the employees have lots of demands for improved benefits, and they might be prepared to increase their contribution. So there should be a table they can come to have that kind of dialogue. We're engaged in that. I think they're very fruitful discussions, and we are very optimistic. We'll allow diversification, reduce the unfunded liability and look at pension improvements down the road. But it's not directly my responsibility.
I understand the Minister of Education has an introduction to make, so I'll take my seat.
Hon. A. Hagen: Thank you, hon. colleague. It's a great pleasure for me this morning to welcome....
The Chair: Order, please, hon. member. I should ask if leave is granted.
Leave granted.
Hon. A. Hagen: Thank you to all hon. members. It's a great pleasure this morning to welcome students from grades 5 to 7 of John Robson Elementary School -- a very old and prestigious school in my riding of New Westminster -- with their principal, Mr. Knox, four teachers and eight parents. We've just had a spirited debate and discussion in my office about the future of these young people in education, and I know that they'll enjoy the debate and their visit to Victoria today. Would you all join me in welcoming them to our gallery and building today.
J. Weisgerber: I didn't hear from the minister whether he felt that the solution to this problem was (a) increased employee contributions or (b) increased employer contributions. What I did hear was that perhaps the way to do this was to be more daring in investing the retirement funds. The minister said that the tradition has been to invest pension funds very conservatively, which I think is clearly appropriate if
[ Page 7102 ]
you're investing someone's future. I would expect that most administrators of pension funds invest them conservatively and safely. There's also a pretty clear recognition that the greater the risk, the greater the return. If the minister is prepared to take that risk -- indeed, if he feels that he has the mandate to take that risk -- I think it's an unwise way to look at solving the problem. I think there's a baseline for the return that you can expect on pensions. I don't think we should look at a systemic problem and say that we'll just go out and invest in some riskier ventures that probably will provide a greater return on investment. I don't think anybody is going to feel very comforted, knowing that you're out there cutting your teeth in the stock market with their pension funds.
Hon. G. Clark: I think the member should be careful, and I'll try to be careful as well, because obviously that's not what we're talking about at all. The legislation was introduced in this House by the previous government, of which you were a part. In fact, I think only one MLA in the province of British Columbia supported Mr. Couvelier for leader, and that was that member who now sits as the Leader of the Third Party. Mr. Couvelier brought in legislation that allowed for diversification, which I think you can make a very good argument for being more prudent, because diversifying your investments is sound policy. Every major pension fund in Canada -- in fact, in the world -- has a diversified portfolio governed by very prudent and stringent guidelines that allow only a small percentage in real estate, a small percentage in stocks and a large percentage in money-market instruments. That's the way pension funds are managed. The actuaries and others who look at pension funds argue that the prudent pension benefits standards legislation which we passed in this House, and which is passed nationally, is being followed in B.C. in some cases. We're not talking at all about dramatic changes.
Under the Bill Bennett government it was restricted to bonds -- only money-market instruments; no real estate or stocks or financial instruments. The legislation that was passed by the last administration when Mr. Couvelier was Finance minister was to allow the same kind of diversification that exists in every pension fund in the country. Questioning by the opposition of the day, in part by myself, raised concerns that there would be abuse, and I'm hearing some of that now from members opposite. I'm very sensitive to that, because I did raise those very points in the House. The minister of the day, Mr. Couvelier, said that no matter how prudent it was, he would not engage in diversification without the support of the pension fund advisory committees for the various sectors.
Not all of those sectors have agreed to diversification. The teachers have, as have the college instructors and WCB employees. The other ones are not diversified; they're still invested in money markets. When we took office, we said that we agreed with Mr. Couvelier. I still agree with him. It is not a good idea to invest in something unless the people who are benefiting from it are fully comfortable. This is very conservative but yet diversified, so that you can maximize return. We entered into negotiations -- they were started by the previous government -- with those advisory groups to convince them, we hope, of the wisdom of prudent diversification. Those negotiations are underway, and no conclusion has been reached.
Some of the pension funds, particularly the narrow public service one, are still invested only in bonds and money-market instruments. As a result, actuarial assumptions about the pension fund give a very low rate of return, lower than any other pension fund in Canada. That's why there's an unfunded liability. If we have very stringent but prudent guidelines for diversification that the employees agree with and we begin to diversify those pension funds, again along very strict grounds and with support from the employee groups, then it will allow the actuary to assume a higher rate of return, as with every other pension fund. That has the impact of reducing the unfunded liability -- unless, of course, more benefits were derived.
I want to make one last comment in terms of how you would do this in the absence of that, because there's no free lunch. There's still an unfunded liability. We want to establish a place where we can discuss with those adviser groups that are constantly calling on government to improve benefits whether, if they want improved benefits and the government has no money, maybe they're prepared to pay more into the fund to get them. There's lots of belief that this might be case. It has never been tested. The nurses, for example, are on a campaign to lower the age of retirement, and I'm very sympathetic to that. I've told them so. They say -- they argue with me everywhere I go -- that they will pay increased contributions, but they would like a lower age of retirement. At the moment we have a very strange system, where all they can do is come to the Minister of Finance and ask. It's the only place in the country where that's the case. Of course, when they come to the Minister of Finance, the minister obviously says no, because right now we would have to pay for it.
We need a situation where there's a buy-in, where there's a table to discuss those questions, where they are thought through and there's a debate, and where we can get on with the prudent management of prudent diversification, to increase the rate of return and help deal with some of these unfunded liabilities. We've been working very hard at this over the last year. The main person to deal with the governance issue is the Minister of Government Services. There's been a series of meetings that I'm sure she would be happy to report on. We have not reached a conclusion yet, so to date there's no increase or reduction in the cost to the government, no change in our investment strategies, and we still have an unfunded liability.
J. Weisgerber: I started by asking the Minister of Finance what he had done to reduce the unfunded liability. The minister took us through 20 minutes of discussion of changes to the way the investment fund was handled and came back to saying that he was doing the same thing Mel Couvelier had done. I suppose the short answer could have been: I've done zip; I've done nothing; I've simply sat and hoped that actuarial
[ Page 7103 ]
evidence is going to solve the problem for me. Has the government done anything other than look at the Peat Marwick report and use the comments about unfunded pension liabilities for political advantage? Has the government done one thing? Has the government taken any initiative or any action to deal with the problem of unfunded pension liabilities for groups like teachers?
Hon. G. Clark: I indicated to the member that, in fact, we have a series.... We've been actively working with the employee groups to try to have a table and dialogue so we can deal with these questions. It would not be prudent, for example, for the government to diversify the pension funds without support. I agree with Mr. Couvelier in that regard. We are closer to an agreement now than ever before. We are waiting for the reporting back. In the teachers' case, in the meantime, we are working on diversification which will result in a reduction in unfunded liability.
The Chair: The member for Surrey-Cloverdale on a point of order.
K. Jones: Hon. Chair, the subject has obviously strayed into the area of the Minister of Government Services. It's about time that we got back to this ministry, so that we can carry on with issues that need to be addressed in this budget.
The Chair: I would draw all members' attention to standing order 61(2). It states that speeches in committees shall be strictly relevant.
J. Weisgerber: Had the member been listening, he would have known we were talking about the administration of a fund that is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance. I don't want to necessarily carry this on to any great length. I am surprised to learn that all the minister has done is take the very good work of Mel Couvelier and the former government....
The Chair: On a point of order, the member for Surrey-Cloverdale.
K. Jones: Hon. Chair, the administration of the funds under the pension plan is solely the responsibility of the superannuation commissioner and is not under this minister's jurisdiction. I wish to have other members recognize that this is outside this jurisdiction.
J. Weisgerber: Having the benefit of that greater knowledge now, I will certainly constrain myself as I move forward in these debates.
The reality is that the issue is a serious one. There is no commissioner who is able to come to this Legislature and answer questions about the management of pension funds. It's an issue of public interest and public importance. I would like to say that it's appropriate for the government to seriously consider this whole question of unfunded pension liabilities. The danger is that, as wage settlements continue to increase the cost of funding pension plans, there will be an inability on the part of taxpayers to continue to fund public sector pensions at the rate that they are now.
[11:45]
Hon. G. Clark: For the record -- because I think we're concluding this -- the member for Surrey-Cloverdale is correct. The administration comes under the Ministry of Government Services. However, we invest the funds, so I think it's legitimate to have some discussion on this.
I want to be clear. Frankly, it doesn't matter what's happening with wage increases when it comes to pensions. The unfunded liability in all the funds is not growing; that's the most important point. In fact, it's coming down a little, and there's a potential for it to come down further.
Secondly, if you think, as Karl Marx did, that the state is going to wither away and disappear, then you should be vitally concerned about the unfunded liability. But as long as the unfunded liability of the plan is not growing -- I agree with the member; it's a very important issue -- there is absolutely no concern for paying out funds. You can never, unless you think the size of the public service will go to zero.... I know members opposite might like to see that some day. But if you assume that the public service will continue around the same size -- plus or minus 10 percent -- over the next 20 or 30 years and as long as the unfunded liability does not grow, there is no danger in our lifetime of a situation where the fund cannot sustain itself. It's important that we not be alarmist about it. It is a problem; I agree with that. We're working hard on it. Potentially, at least, with a narrow public sector plan, we have good prospects for reducing and eliminating it over time. But I agree with the member that it is a public concern. We take it very seriously; we have been working hard on it and building on some of the work done by the previous government. There are positive prospects for new governance arrangements, improved returns and reducing the unfunded liability.
K. Jones: I want to take up one of the comments the minister just made. He said that pension investments are the responsibility of the Minister of Finance. Could the minister clarify exactly how he delineates his responsibilities for the administration of pension funds? Is this true of all the pension funds -- the government employees and the other five plans that come under the administration of the commissioner?
Hon. G. Clark: The administration of all the pension funds is done by the Ministry of Government Services. The member is correct; the administration and the governance questions are all under the Minister of Government Services. But under the Financial Administration Act, the Ministry of Finance manages all trust funds on behalf of the government. So the actual management of the funds is done by the Ministry of Finance, but it is on the direction of the administrator, Mr. Cook, who is in the Government Services ministry. We are the bankers, if you will, and the investment managers of the fund, but all questions regarding governance and administration of the fund
[ Page 7104 ]
are better dealt with by the Ministry of Government Services.
K. Jones: Has the minister contemplated the possibility of having a joint board for the administration of the funds, so that they may have an involvement in the investment of their funds, as is done in many other work situations in the public sector?
Hon. G. Clark: The answer is yes, in terms of joint trustee pension funds, but our position is that the Ministry of Finance should still be the investment arm. Those are the governance models we're looking at. Instead of having one trustee -- who is also the administrator and works for the government -- you would have a joint board of trustees dealing with governance, payments and improvements or changes to benefits, but the investment would still be in the Ministry of Finance. Those are the models we're discussing now at different tables with the various pension funds.
K. Jones: If that's the intention, does the minister have a time line for doing that?
Hon. G. Clark: Those discussions are taking place with the Ministry of Government Services. You'd be better off talking to them. Ministry of Finance officials are deeply involved -- no question about it -- but the minister responsible is the Minister of Government Services. I hoped we would have had more progress by now in the various sectors, but I'm not quite up to speed on it. You had better ask the minister, but in the next few months we should have a better understanding of whether we're going to be able to come to some governance arrangements in some of the pension plans, if not all of them.
K. Jones: Is the minister including the Korbin commission report as part of the discussion of this process? Is that part of their mandate? Are you awaiting that report?
Hon. G. Clark: That's a very good question. The answer is no. There have been two tracks: the Korbin commission and reviewing of that; and then this other governance issue led by the Ministry of Government Services in the various plans. Some of the discussions with the employee groups are farther along than others, in terms of their various pension plans. Some of them are having more difficulty than others, because complex issues are involved. But there have been separate tracks, so there has been no thought of making it a bargaining item, for example, which would be one option.
K. Jones: In the mandate of the Korbin commission, they have the responsibility to bring out reports regarding benefits and contributions. I would think that they would also be looking at this area, hon. minister. Do you have that Korbin commission report in your hands at the present time?
Hon. G. Clark: That's another good question. I received it yesterday. I haven't read it yet. The report has to be tabled in the House within two weeks. I suspect it will be the full two weeks before we table it.
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: I don't take that lightly; it's just that we want to analyze it very carefully. It's a very comprehensive piece of work -- at least it is weighty in that respect -- and contemplates legislation, so we want to make sure that we are satisfied with the ramifications of her suggestions, financial and otherwise. If we want to introduce legislation this session, then we want to make sure that we consider her recommendations very carefully. I have just received it, and I will be tabling it in the House in a couple of weeks, pursuant to the terms of reference.
K. Jones: I'd like to go further in the FTE area that we were talking about earlier, because that's also related to the Korbin commission studies. Specifically, as we asked before, what was the percentage of the cost increase in the benefits package attributable to the increase in FTEs?
Hon. G. Clark: I just want to clarify for the record that there will be two reports from Judith Korbin. One is on the public service, and one is on the broader public sector. I have received the public service report. The public sector report should be in shortly.
Maybe the member could repeat his question.
K. Jones: Regarding the earlier discussion about FTEs and the impact of the increases on the pensions and employee benefits section, could you give us the percentage of the increase in the contributions toward pensions and employee benefits attributable to the increase in FTEs?
Hon. G. Clark: The benefit numbers are not calculated on the basis of FTEs, because FTEs are a phony number, as we have discussed in this House many times. Thousands of people work for the government who don't show up on the FTE count, so it would be pretty foolish for the government to base its estimates of cost of benefits on the basis of the FTE count, when we know there are all these what we call shadow FTEs. I want to make sure that's on the record.
With respect to the question you have asked, we don't have that information here. If you would like, we can try to break it out in terms of the impact of the increase.
K. Jones: Yes, hon. minister, we would like to receive that breakout. Could you indicate how you are budgeting? When you say you don't have any idea of how many additional employees we're going to have -- those who are converting from contract situations to full-time government employees -- you must have some figure, otherwise your figures here would not be based on anything.
[ Page 7105 ]
Hon. G. Clark: Those are fair comments. The ministry looks at the STOBs for employee compensation, makes some estimate as to how many are over 34,000 -- the number I mentioned earlier -- and how many are under, and some averaging of the wage rates, etc., and then produces an estimate. Obviously this has been done over time so that they could refine that technique. But that's in fact what happens. I have no hesitation in saying that we'll do some work if you're really interested in these formulas and how they derive these numbers. We'll be happy to do it.
K. Jones: How much of the increase in the benefit contributions is a result of increases in Canada Pension Plan costs?
Hon. G. Clark: If the member would look at vote 38 in the estimates on page 132, he'll see it all nicely broken down: Canada Pension, $19.7 million in 1992-93 and $29.51 million in 1993-94. So it's something like $10 million -- a massive increase.
Again I just want to caution about these numbers. As I said earlier, the '92-93 numbers are understated somewhat, because they're the estimated numbers for '92-'93, as opposed to the actuals. So I think it's a bit understated. I'll just check that for you. But there's been a dramatic increase in Canada Pension. It's astonishing.
The UIC numbers are $28.2 million in '92-93 and $42 million in '93-94. A large part of that is the result of increased contribution rates required by the federal government.
K. Jones: Could the minister indicate to us why the MLA superannuation costs have more than doubled, from $200,000 to $500,000, in this budget?
Hon. G. Clark: The MLAs' pension fund?
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: What happens is that when an MLA reaches seven years in the House -- and I know you're probably not interested in this answer, Mr. Chair -- then he or she is eligible for an MLA's pension. Many members in this House are now coming up to being eligible, including me, the Leader of the Third Party and the member from Kelowna.
I'll just give you my example, which explains these numbers exactly. I'm not a member of the MLA pension plan, because I'm superstitious. I wouldn't want to bank on being re-elected, in spite of my constituents' support, and I did not join the MLA pension plan. When I reach seven years of service, I then have the option of joining, and I have to back-pay my contributions -- I think I know the sum; it's about $30,000 -- for the last five years to join the plan. And that requires...
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: Yes, with interest.
...a corresponding contribution from the government -- in other words, fifty-fifty. So this is just an estimate, but because a fairly large number of members in the House are reaching seven years, there's an assumption in here that those members will then join the plan. So it's not as a result of an increase; it's just a number.
Similarly, last year there was a fairly large increase in cost in the MLA pension plan because, thankfully, a large number of members retired -- involuntarily, after the election campaign. So that resulted in a pay-out. I think, of course, that that was money well spent, in the case of the last election. But anyway, that explains the increase, hon. member.
[12:00]
K. Jones: It's amusing listening to the asides as to whether it's a pay-out or a payoff, and to various other asides.
The workers' compensation costs have increased 18 percent -- an increase of $2,880,000. Is the government now a more dangerous place to work? Have there been more injuries, and just how many? What is the reason for this increase?
Hon. G. Clark: This is detailed questioning for the estimates, which I don't mind. But I don't have all the information here. There was some increase. The WCB makes rate adjustments all the time based on the frequency of accidents and the number of employees. Of course the rate is increased from time to time, as they are wont to do. Many employers have contacted me about some of their policies in that regard.
Again, I'd be happy to give you a detailed answer of the breakdown, if you'd like, as to why there is an increased cost associated with WCB contributions. I don't think there's anything revealing at this particular moment that would cause a newspaper story or anything else. The numbers have gone from $5.9 million to $7 million in the estimates this year. Of course, when you compare the dramatic increase for CPP and UIC -- from $19 million to $29 million -- my inclination is to say that the significantly smaller increase in WCB contributions is probably, again, the result of an ongoing review by the WCB, and there are probably some modest increases based on accident frequencies.
Hon. E. Cull: I'd like to ask the minister a number of questions related to exemptions from property taxes and grants in lieu of taxes. In my riding of Oak Bay-Gordon Head we have one of three unique provincial resources, and that's the University of Victoria. The other two of the three are Simon Fraser University and the University of Northern British Columbia, soon to be operational in Prince George. For those of you who are wondering why UBC isn't on the list, it's because that is a unique and different institution. I'll get to that in just a second.
The issue here is that the University of Victoria is located inside a municipality, as is Simon Fraser and the University of Northern British Columbia. In the case of UVic, it is partly in Saanich and partly in the Oak Bay municipality. These three institutions do not pay property taxes, and grants in lieu of taxes are not paid to the municipalities. UBC is different because it is on
[ Page 7106 ]
the University Endowment Lands under provincial jurisdiction. So that is not an issue of municipal taxpayers paying the costs for services provided to the university.
You might not think that this is a particularly important issue. But if you look at the University of Victoria, it is a community of 15,000 students, 620 faculty members and 1,100 full-time staff. In fact, that is almost as large as the entire normal resident population of Oak Bay. All of the services provided off campus to support that small community -- police, fire, transportation, road improvements, sewers and water -- are funded by the taxpayers of the Oak Bay and Saanich municipalities. If the university were in a smaller place and not in one of the larger urban centres, those smaller communities would not be able to afford to provide the services to support that university.
C. Tanner: On a point of order, the estimates process in this House is for the opposition to ask questions of the government; it's not for cabinet ministers to make speeches about the good things they're going to do for their constituency.
The Chair: I recognize the Minister of Health, if she wishes to continue.
Hon. E. Cull: Thank you, hon. Chair. I think all members of this House have to have the opportunity during estimates to raise the concerns of their constituents. I represent my constituents. It is important that they know I have a voice in this House, as does the opposition.
The point I'm trying to make is that smaller communities would not be able to afford to provide services to a university without the support of the provincial government. In the case of both Oak Bay and Saanich, the tax base of the University of Victoria represent 4 percent of the municipal tax base. This is a loss of $1.46 million in tax revenue to the municipality of Saanich and $381,000 to the municipality of Oak Bay.
I'm not suggesting that the residents in my riding do not appreciate having the university in the community, but it is an unfair burden on some local taxpayers. Even the name University of Victoria implies it is a university in Victoria, but only two of the 11 municipalities pay for services that are provided to that small community at the university. These parliament buildings also impose costs on local taxpayers, and grants in lieu of taxes are indeed paid to the municipality of Victoria for them.
Some people have suggested that universities are like hospitals or community colleges and schools, which are also tax-exempt, and should be treated in exactly the same way. But I support the arguments put forward by our municipalities; they are not the same. There are only three universities in this situation in the province. Unlike community colleges, schools and hospitals, which are truly community resources and are pretty well spread around the province, universities are provincial resources, and therefore the burden is spread around the province.
We recognize that the province has financial difficulties in trying to meet all the requests. Once again, on behalf of my constituents, I'd like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he is willing to consider this representation made by the municipalities, and indeed whether he's willing -- if the financial resources right now do not permit a full resolution of this problem -- to consider opportunities which might start to provide fair and equitable tax relief on a percentage basis to the people in our riding.
K. Jones: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
K. Jones: It's a real pleasure to introduce a group of students from Latimer Road school in my riding of Surrey-Cloverdale. Approximately 30 grade 5 students are here with their teacher Ms. Doris Hrytsak, as well as several parents. They are on a tour of the parliament buildings at the present time. Would the House please join me in welcoming them here today and extend to them a very warm welcome to beautiful Victoria.
M. Farnworth: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to welcome into the buildings today 27 grades 5 and 6 students, and their teacher Mr. Brian Fader, from Our Lady of Assumption School in my riding of Port Coquitlam. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.
Hon. G. Clark: It's refreshing to have a member stand in this House and articulate so well the concerns of her constituents. We don't very often get that kind of remark; it's refreshing to get a question like that.
It's no surprise to me that the Minister of Health has raised this question, because I know that she has lobbied extensively and aggressively in private on behalf of her constituency on this question -- and so has the member for Saanich.
The question is about grants in lieu of taxes. This is a vexing problem for government generally. There are communities with rail lines going through them where no grants are paid in lieu of taxes. There are hydro dams. There are a lot of grievances around this question. There are some Crown agencies that pay grants in lieu of taxes and some that do not.
However, in the case of the University of Victoria, I must say that I am very sympathetic to the minister's request, because services are provided to that university from the two communities of Saanich and Oak Bay, and yet the university pays no property tax to those municipalities for those services. As the Minister of Finance I also want to say, unfortunately, that any property taxes paid by those universities comes from the consolidated revenue fund. So it is extremely difficult for us. As you know, and as the minister was disappointed to learn, there was no provision in this budget for grants in lieu of taxes to be paid by the University of Victoria, Simon Fraser University or, of course, the next one to be coming in the door, the
[ Page 7107 ]
University of Northern B.C. Historically, universities have not paid grants in lieu of taxes in this province. The concern I have is not to single out the University of Victoria when there are grievances by other communities. That's why we didn't take any action this year, unfortunately.
What I can say to the member, though, is that I am very sympathetic to the minister's concern. I'm particularly sympathetic to the University of Victoria case and, frankly, the Simon Fraser case as well. We are reviewing this question, as we are reviewing generally the policy of grants in lieu of taxes for government with respect to Crown corporations, universities and others. There isn't really any consistency now, and obviously it would be a very challenging problem. I want to give the minister some assurance that we are actually reviewing this question as we speak. We're reviewing the broader question, and notice has been made at this time.
Obviously it would be difficult, given our fiscal concerns, to provide any tax relief, as it were, or grants in lieu of taxes, but we're certainly going to look at it as carefully as we can over the next few months as we move into the next budget cycle.
G. Wilson: There are those on this side who wonder why the minister wouldn't have raised that matter with the Minister of Finance in cabinet, but I understand that the minister has been absenting himself from cabinet recently because of potential conflicts. He probably has a university degree and therefore feels that any comment on universities might enhance his dignity and so takes himself out of cabinet every time the subject comes up.
There are many municipalities in this province that would give their eye teeth to have post-secondary educational institutions. The other side of this argument is that there are very substantial benefits to having the investment of capital investment that goes in a university. There's the population in terms of increased property values as a result of students; it's a clean industry; all of those kinds of things. So if the University of Victoria is looking for somewhere to relocate, I think Sechelt would be happy to have it. If that's in the interests of my constituents, then let me be unabashed about it.
Noting the hour, I'll move on to TRIUMF-KAON and ask the minister what the status is of negotiations with the federal government. It's my understanding that at least one of the candidates for Prime Minister, who is being elected this weekend, has said that she is not particularly supportive of the project. What is the current status of negotiations, and what is the province's involvement?
Hon. G. Clark: I might just say that it is true; I do have a couple of university degrees. I'll have to check and see whether I have to absent myself. Of course, that's a problem that didn't arise in the previous administration, but I'll refrain from that.
On the TRIUMF-KAON question, I want to deal very seriously with the statements from the member opposite. In recent weeks there was an article in Maclean's magazine that I have not yet brought to the attention of the House. I was considering a ministerial statement on this question.
[12:15]
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: I don't usually read Maclean's either, but what caught my attention is that Kim Campbell, who is running for leader, is a supporter of the TRIUMF-KAON project. I would say very clearly that she is. I know that members of the Social Credit Party are actively working on Kim Campbell's campaign, and I wish them well.
The article, which I have here, says -- and I'll read it for the record -- that when this government demanded this be brought up in recent months, "Ottawa secretly decided to withdraw from the project. The federal cabinet agreed that it would announce an investigation into the extent of international support and funding for the scheme. It would then use that lack of international support as an excuse to delay -- forever -- the commitment of funds. That agreement has never been publicized." It goes on to say that Kim Campbell was bound by that cabinet decision. That is scandalous, frankly, because they appointed Stan Hagen, a former minister of the previous government. They are paying him who knows how many thousands of dollars to travel around the world with Mr. Denhoff, on our behalf, to Washington, Tokyo, Germany, France and Italy, all the while pretending to support the KAON project. Here we find out in the Maclean's article -- whether it's true or not; I've yet to determine the veracity of it -- that they've secretly decided to withdraw. This is a charade. It's contemptible that the federal government would treat a major pan-British Columbia project in this fashion.
I've praised the previous government in this House several times today, and it's not my character to do that. I praised Mr. Couvelier a moment ago, and of course he's now doing an excellent job on the Vancouver Stock Exchange, appointed by this administration. I'm going to stand here and praise Mr. Hagen -- at least I thought I was, I should say, until I realized that if he's party to this decision that they've secretly made, then I have to withdraw these remarks. But Mr. Hagen, when he was in government, took this on as a major British Columbia project and succeeded in building a coalition of support of scientists, business leaders, the B.C. Federation of Labour and members of the opposition. This was truly a project which commanded support across party lines in British Columbia. It's not universal support, obviously, but for British Columbia this was a project that had a rare degree of unanimity.
When we took office we chose to continue -- in fact, to try to accelerate -- the process of support for this initiative. I was delighted to learn that the Premier had given that responsibility to me. It became clear that the federal government saw that the election of a new government gave them an excuse to back out of that commitment. Speaking colloquially, we literally cranked up the heat: we put up billboards; we put ads in Tory MPs' papers. We did everything we could to turn up the heat on the federal government and let them
[ Page 7108 ]
know that it didn't matter whether the government had changed hands in this regard; we were equally as committed as the previous government and wanted to see this through.
I don't know where the Liberal Party stands, frankly, because they've been critical of this. But in this case, the Social Credit caucus, I'm sure, and the government caucus have been unified, and I think members of the opposition -- although I don't assume there's a majority because there generally isn't unanimity on anything in the Liberal Party -- support the TRIUMF-KAON project. I suspect the member opposite does. We lobbied as aggressively as British Columbia ever has. We have a senior person, Mr. Denhoff, who is a former deputy minister. I think he actually worked for the member opposite at one point, but we've long since forgiven him for that indiscretion. He has been working hard on British Columbia's behalf, as I have, in lobbying the federal government.
I must tell you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the House -- I'll say this for the record -- that Kim Campbell has possibly been alone in supporting this project nationally. I've met with her privately on numerous occasions, and she has reiterated that support. She is the one who convinced the federal government to have Mr. Hagen working for them. She has been driving this. I'd be very disappointed and shocked if that was a charade to get around their backing away from....
C. Tanner: A charade?
Hon. G. Clark: A Charest, was it? A small pun.
I'd be very disappointed if that was really a smokescreen the federal government was putting up. I must say, Mr. Chairman, that I believed her; I believe her today. She has been a supporter of this project. I know there's opposition from the east. I know they don't want to give British Columbia our fair share of projects. I know that the eastern politicians don't want to see a major scientific, world-class facility in British Columbia. I guess it's no secret that as British Columbians we've come to expect that. We expect our MPs here to be advocating on our behalf -- and they have, generally speaking, and so has Ms. Campbell.
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: The member asks what the status is. We have been actively working internationally, and there have been some reiterated commitments internationally. Although it's not firm, we've been given the understanding that $100 million from the American government is still a possibility -- in fact, a likelihood. We've been given an indication that Japan is prepared to contribute -- at least in kind -- some $60 million. We're looking at $25 million commitments from Germany and Italy and at about $15 million from other countries.
Obviously those commitments are a bit of a chicken-and-egg thing. They're saying they're there if other things come into place, but we've been working on firming up that international commitment. Some of it has been solid; some of it has been less than solid. I'll be very candid: it's not a slam-dunk, but there has been some interest internationally. It wanes a bit with the economic times, but we're led to believe that there will be some international commitment. We've been working hard on that.
As I said at the outset, I was shocked to see the MacLean's magazine article; that's the first I've heard of it. I would have raised it, but I decided -- and members can criticize if they wish -- to wait until after the Tory leadership convention to pursue this further. One doesn't know who the Science minister and the Prime Minister are going to be. Regardless of who gets elected and becomes Prime Minister this weekend, I want to assure members that I will be in Ottawa, hopefully in the next matter of weeks, meeting with the minister responsible for Science in this country, to push hard on this question. We want to see the new Prime Minister's priorities, and we will be pushing hard on this project.
I'm very concerned about the secret decision that appears to have been made to back away from this project. Frankly, rather than attack them for it now, we wanted to wait until after the leadership convention and to follow up very quickly with the new cabinet. That's why we still have an item in the budget, though it's a tough year to do that. We're going to be pushing very hard on this. If it's not there, then we're going to make sure that there's a political price to pay for that, because they've been holding off on other science projects, even small science projects. The Prime Minister has been saying: "Oh well, we might have considered that, but you've got KAON." That has been their public perception, so we've actually suffered as a result of this KAON promise. If they're backing away from that, we simply won't sit still. We will be very aggressive over the next few months on this topic.
J. MacPhail: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
J. MacPhail: It gives me great pleasure that 26 grade 5 students have just arrived in the gallery to join us from a school in my riding, Our Lady of Sorrows School. They have several of their teachers and parents accompanying them. I hope they enjoy their stay here and learn a great deal. Please join me in making them welcome.
J. Weisgerber: To follow up on the minister's comments, I'm curious, first of all, to know how much money you have to raise internationally to put the deal together. How much do we need in order to seal the commitments by the province and the federal government? Flowing from that, is there any likelihood that with the good work of Stan Hagen and Eric Denhoff that can be achieved before the federal election? The minister seems to have taken a great deal of interest -- and rightfully so -- in the position of the current government and of the leadership candidates, or at least one of the leadership candidates. In case there was a change of government, does he have a sense of the
[ Page 7109 ]
other federal party's stand on the KAON issue? Do the other federal parties have a platform on KAON?
Hon. G. Clark: The NDP Members of Parliament for British Columbia have been very supportive of this, as has...
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: Yes, federally.
...John Turner. In fact, John Turner was very strongly supportive of the KAON initiative, and he's been the only Liberal MP. That's an excellent question in terms of sort of scoping out the national policies of Mr. Chr�tien and Ms. McLaughlin, and I think it will do that.
I haven't given a lot of thought to this, but I will just throw it out here. I think that I'd certainly be prepared to consider a trip to Ottawa with the leader of the Liberal Party and the Leader of the Third Party to talk to federal Members of Parliament about this issue, to prove yet again that this is not a partisan issue. There should not be political games.
I appreciate that that might be a problem for the Liberal Party, and I don't say that lightly, because I really don't know their position. They seem to be critical of KAON. But it might not work if it was just the Social Credit Party and the government, although I'd consider that as well. But if there was a genuine will among members to drive this home, then this might be an opportunity to do something like that.
He had another question there, Mr. Chair, which was: can we firm up these commitments internationally? There was a series of questions there. We need about $225 million to $235 million internationally to deal with the one-third provincial, one-third federal and one-third international. The prospects of that are hard to determine. But it's certainly not out of the cards entirely. Part of the problem internationally is that they are saying, "You put up your two-thirds, and we'll put up some more money," and the federal government has been reluctant to make those kinds of commitments. In fact, one could argue that they've been sabotaging some of these negotiations with some of the things they've been saying -- not Mr. Hagen, who has been very good, but some of the people internationally that we have to....
Remember that when we go internationally, like it or not, it's Canada that leads an international trade delegation. We're there, we're supportive, we're part of the team; but we don't have the resources. I don't mean that financially; I mean that we don't have the embassies and the people on the ground, the trade commissioners, who do that work. Frankly, I think that some of that work hasn't been as supportive. So while Mr. Hagen and Mr. Denhoff have been there presenting a position, I'm not sure that some of the staff work has been there to back that up, and I'm very concerned about that.
The other thing that is a problem, just for the record, is the operating costs. The federal government is saying, "Let's not talk about the operating costs until we get the international commitments," and the international people say, "Where is your plan to pay for the operating costs, before we talk about...?" There has been that tension. Frankly, they've been delaying for political purposes at the national level. I don't discount the support that Kim Campbell or Mr. Hagen have for this project. But frankly, the apparatus of the federal government has not been as supportive as it could be, and it needs a real push. If the Prime Minister's office were to take the initiative -- Mr. Mulroney even, or otherwise -- then we could do it, but there hasn't been the will there to do that yet.
My current thinking is that we'll wait until there's a new Prime Minister, go there as soon as possible, when the dust settles and they've got their new cabinet and new minister responsible, and drive it home as hard as we can. If we can do it on a tripartite basis, so much the better; if we can't, it doesn't matter. We'll be pushing there and trying to make a commitment. If there's no commitment soon, though, we might as well face the facts. They'll have to pay a political price for that. There are other science projects which they've been delaying because of the KAON project, which is a completely untenable situation. In either event, if I can be crass, I guess, there is an opportunity in the next few months to get some science projects for British Columbia. It will either be KAON or other science projects. It's simply not acceptable to have this $200 million commitment that the federal government has made -- the Prime Minister has been bragging about it for the last three years -- and then say: "Oh, well, the international commitments aren't there, so we're not doing anything for British Columbia." That is not acceptable, I'm sure, to any member of this House. We simply can't tolerate that or allow it to happen.
G. Wilson: Mr. Chairman, if I can clarify for the benefit of the minister and those who may be listening or reading Hansard, the Liberal Party of British Columbia position on KAON is one that has always been supportive. We are supportive of KAON in its concept and design. Where we are critical, and where our concerns lie -- and I think they are legitimate -- is that by supporting KAON, we have been putting our eggs in one basket over a number of years, and the basket has never been delivered. As a result, as the minister correctly points out, there are other very worthwhile projects that are not receiving funding because of the commitment of dollars that have never been realized. That's where we're critical.
[12:30]
We are also skeptical, quite frankly, that the trips abroad that are taken by Mr. Denhoff and Mr. Hagen -- and I understand Mr. Georgetti has gone along, maybe to serve the coffee; I'm not sure what his role is there....
Interjection.
G. Wilson: I understand that. I was being a little flippant in my remark.
When this delegation goes abroad it is good to have all parties involved: labour, management, government and so on. That is useful as sort of a united approached to getting this project. When that happens and those
[ Page 7110 ]
expenditures continue, our concern is that there doesn't seem to be any trigger to get the dollars flowing. We might run into a chicken-and-egg situation abroad where they're saying that the project looks great but that we haven't put together a blueprint for financing the operational costs -- which we clearly have not -- so they are not going to give us any money. On the other hand, the federal government is saying that until they have everything secured, they won't put the blueprint together. We run into some very serious difficulties with respect to science and technology in British Columbia being adequately and properly financed. I wouldn't want anybody to misconstrue the concerns we have as suggesting that we don't think there are some benefits to seeing the TRIUMF project proceed.
As Advanced Education critic, I have noticed that the salaries and benefits for TRIUMF have been completely eliminated from the Ministry of Finance this year; at least it would appear that they have. In terms of the operating costs, are these salary costs now being picked up by UBC, or how are we dealing with that?
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, the main reason is that Mr. Denhoff is now the chair of B.C. Transit, so his salary moved over there. All of the costs associated with TRIUMF in terms of negotiating trips to Ottawa, Washington, etc., are not paid by B.C. Transit but by this special account. There isn't any real payroll for Mr. Denhoff and a few other employees -- contractors, etc. To save money, we moved out of an office and into a separate office in the TRIUMF operation. They do the payroll, and we submit it to them, although there's not much of a payroll. That's the basic explanation.
I agree with the member's concerns about the chicken-and-egg question and putting all our eggs in one basket. Is that a mixed metaphor, or is that the same argument?
I want to give the member some comfort with two things. First, that's the reason that we've really cranked up the heat. We just can't tolerate this project going on indefinitely as a promise that the federal government has no intention of keeping. Second, I think right now is the time, if there's no resolution of this very quickly -- I think this is the big push -- when we have to say to the federal government: "Pony up the rest of the money, as you did with the space agency in Quebec and the Hibernia oil plant in Newfoundland." There are hundreds of millions of dollars of federal money pumped into major projects. This is a national science project, and they should pay for it. That would be my position. I think members would agree with that. We'll be pushing hard for that and, at the same time, other science projects.
You're quite correct: this can't go on indefinitely. It won't go on indefinitely. I think we're really at the stage where we're going to have to push as aggressively as we can in the next few months -- hopefully in a tripartite way -- for this and/or other projects as we move on with a new Prime Minister. We'll be doing that. Frankly, I think we can't -- and it would be imprudent for us -- continue to fund a lobbying effort or a negotiating effort if they're just stringing us along. We won't do that; I give you that assurance. I think we're really at the end of the rope over the next few months, and we're simply going to have to make them pay a political price if they're not going to support British Columbia, as they have other provinces, and try to generate this project or other projects in its place.
G. Wilson: Our Finance critic would not forgive me if I didn't come back. He has asked specifically -- as an accountant he wants to know -- where those dollars for the salaries come from. Notwithstanding the amounts, where do they show up? Clearly there will be some additional cost to UBC, I would assume, if you've moved in to save money on that project. Where do those dollars come from? The trips abroad are being financed, I understand, with federal dollars. What's the provincial contribution, or is there any?
Hon. G. Clark: Sorry, I'm just clarifying it. I wanted to find out exactly how it worked. We give a grant to the TRIUMF-KAON office, which is now located in TRIUMF. The university essentially administers it. If you wanted to find out how much was spent on this trip or that trip, I think you would probably have to get it through the university; that's how it's paid out. I'm just trying to get a sense of how it works. There are no staff attached to the TRIUMF-KAON office now. We only have expenses associated with Mr. Denhoff or for advertising campaigns or contracts that are let. That's done through the office and administered by the university essentially.
G. Wilson: UBC has to get the money from somewhere. Presumably in the Advanced Ed estimates we'll find something with respect to the dollars given to UBC. There are obviously some additional costs there. They may not be significant, but there has to be some additional cost. You can't travel free.
Hon. G. Clark: No, the number is here. On page 131 there is a TRIUMF-KAON vote: operating costs, $61,000; grants and contributions, $300,000. The money comes from this vote. There is no extra money associated with it. All of the costs come out of this vote. The money is contributed to the university, and they administer it just for simplicity's sake. Just so that you know, things like Mr. Georgetti are paid for by the federal government. It's not out of this vote. Not that it couldn't have been, but it was part of a request by the federal government to broaden the lobbying effort, if you will.
G. Wilson: Does the minister receive a report from Mr. Denhoff when he comes back from these trips? Can we find out what was gained in Italy?
Hon. G. Clark: Yes, absolutely. I get a full briefing on the trips. Sometimes the briefing that I receive is a little different than the one that the federal government receives on the same trip, obviously. There are some nuance questions. I don't have those reports here for members opposite, but I can give you a breakdown of
[ Page 7111 ]
the trips and a sense of the meetings, if you'd like, maybe at the next sitting. The member is nodding his head, so I assume that we could do that whenever we reconvene these estimates.
With that, 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: I want to wish everyone a restful weekend, and with that, hon. Speaker, I move this House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:40 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]