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)
TUESDAY, JUNE 29, 1993
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 11, Number 19
[ Page 8043 ]
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
Hon. D. Miller: In the members' gallery this afternoon is a good friend of mine from Prince Rupert, Lynn Salter. She is accompanied by her brother, Bob Salter, and her niece, Kristine, who are visiting here from Lejre, Denmark. I would ask the House to give them a warm welcome.
I would be severely remiss if I did not also indicate that my spouse, Gayle Ballard, is with them today.
L. Reid: As the Women's Equality critic, I am pleased that the minister took a moment to add that introduction.
I would like the House to welcome today five students of mine from the Richmond School District. Natalie Wolfe, Stephanie Schneider, Morgan Dean, Amanda Tipper and Ryan MacLeod are in the gallery, and I would ask the House to please make them welcome.
L. Hanson: In the gallery today is a young gentleman by the name of Andrew Gay, who is the legislative intern assigned to the Social Credit caucus. I know that the members will recognize, because of the superior debate that came from the Social Credit Party, the contribution that Andrew has made to the parliamentary process. Would the House please wish him well on his way to whatever his endeavours are in the future.
Hon. J. Cashore: Visiting from Toronto today we have the consul general of Belgium, Claude Rijmenans, who is making his first visit to British Columbia. Will the House join me in making him welcome.
G. Janssen: Visiting us today from Arnhem, Holland, is a relative, Claudia Van den Hoek. She is accompanied by my mother, Mrs. Janssen. Please make them welcome.
J. Pullinger: I want to make an introduction today on behalf of myself and my colleague from Nanaimo. With us today is a friend, a constituent and a woman who has worked very actively for a long time in the Canadian Diabetes Association which, incidentally, is celebrating its fortieth anniversary this year. Isabelle Williams is with us today, and I would like the House to help me make her welcome and also to recognize the work that Isabelle and other people do to make us all a little bit more aware of and educated about the issue of diabetes.
J. Dalton: Tomorrow the legislative interns end their current term. They have been helpful to all the parties. In particular, I want to thank the two interns who were assigned to the Liberal caucus, Peter Nyers and David Basi. The two of them have been very helpful to our caucus. The cabinet will be happy to know that all the embarrassing questions that have been thrown at them over the months have been provided by those two gentlemen, and I can assure you, hon. Speaker there will be more today. So the Liberal caucus thanks the two gentlemen and would wish them well in their endeavours.
S. Hammell: I'd like to introduce a good friend, an outstanding political activist and a wonderful person from the municipality of Surrey. Would the House please welcome Bill Piket.
F. Gingell: In the gallery today are two visitors: Dave Larsen, who's a well-known face around these hallowed halls, and a newcomer to our province to whom I'd like to make a special welcome, George Wayerhaeuser, Jr.
C. Evans: In 1992 I introduced in this House George Cady, the chairman of the Regional District of Central Kootenay. On Saturday that individual took his own life in Kaslo, B.C. I want to comment briefly on the man as I knew him and on the circumstances of his passing as I experience it. I'm not going to repeat my commentary of last year on George's political career. Suffice to say that this man championed Canadian nationalism before there was a National Party, the politics of land and water before there was a Green Party and the rights of workers to democratic representation before there was a New Democratic Party. Although his activities in public life span many decades, they cannot be dismissed as history. He was chosen by his neighbours as their representative and by his peers as their chairman year after passing year, right up until the time of his death. You could actually say of George Cady's life that a river ran through it. He worked under the Columbia River as a diver, he lived on the river system as a fisherman and he fought for the life of the lakes and rivers for half a century and was a spokesperson for the people of the river basin. In retrospect, it was a fine accident of history that he was able to see the beginnings of change for the river and the people at the symposium in Castlegar just a week before his death.
The circumstances of George's death raise only questions. There is the possibility that even those who called him friend knew him not. It is impossible to eulogize this man without referring -- however obliquely -- to those questions. In preparing my thoughts for this statement, I considered asking for a moment of silence so that we might all meditate on the issues of the use of justice and power for good or ill. I have, though, rejected that option, because at this moment silence is the enemy of healing. If George was innocent of the charges against him, his death robs his family of justice and closure; if George was guilty of those charges, his death has robbed his victims of a chance for justice and closure.
British Columbia works as a system precisely because people like George Cady work to make it function. British Columbia will work as a society when we no longer have to choose between silence and justice. We can take these things from George's life and his death.
[ Page 8044 ]
AMENDMENTS TO MOTOR FUEL TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. G. Clark presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: amendments to Bill 18, intituled Motor Fuel Tax Amendment Act, 1993.
Hon. G. Clark: This amendment to Bill 18 is response to the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission's request for a 1-cent-a-litre increase on the regional gas tax. The commission proposed the increase on June 9, 1993, in an effort to reduce the regional transit commission's local funding deficit. Members of the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission are: Vancouver mayor, Gordon Campbell; Vancouver councillor, Libby Davies; Port Coquitlam mayor, Len Traboulay; Richmond mayor, Greg Halsey-Brandt; Surrey mayor, Bob Bose; New Westminster mayor, Betty Toporowski; and North Vancouver mayor, Murray Dykeman. The increase takes effect July 1, 1993.
[2:15]
Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to move that the said message and the accompanying amendments to the same be referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill 18.
Leave granted.
Motion approved.
ADMINISTRATION OF EMPLOYMENT EQUITY POLICY
F. Gingell: My question is to the Minister of Finance. At his press conference this morning the minister said that employment equity is not part of the Public Service Act, but the truth will always come out. Did the minister intend to mislead the public on this issue?
The Speaker: Before I pose the question, hon. member, considering the words chosen in this instance, I hope the hon. member will confirm that he was not suggesting that another hon. member of the House had intentionally misled.
F. Gingell: No, I'm just asking.
Hon. G. Clark: I didn't notice the member at the press conference, but I did notice several other qualified members of the opposition. I will say two things. First, there is a bill before the House, and this is more properly the purpose of debate; but if the speaker wishes, I'm happy to discuss this particular question. Second, the question of merit and employment equity is contained in the bill. What I was referring to in the question period was that the policy of employment equity is a responsibility of the Minister of Women's Equality. This bill simply moves the administration of that policy to a new organization as contained in the act. The policy was not a subject of debate; it was that when this bill is passed, the policy will be housed in the new commission.
The Speaker: Before I recognize a supplemental, I would caution hon. members not to discuss in great detail topics that are subjects of bills that could be called before the House. A general reference is allowable in question period.
A supplemental, hon. member.
F. Gingell: At the same press conference -- at which, I agree, I was not present; I was busy here, questioning the Premier -- I'm led to understand that the minister stated that the new commissioner would report to him. Recognizing the importance of this person being seen to be independent, unbiased and fair, is this wise?
Hon. G. Clark: Certainly we can have that discussion during the debate on the legislation.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
F. Gingell: My second supplemental is to the Minister of Finance. I ask him if in this case he will follow accepted business practice of advertising, interviewing, testing, reviewing and appointing, rather than following NDP past practice by filling this place with a patronage hack?
Hon. G. Clark: While individual cabinet ministers are interested in the outcomes of job competitions, they do not themselves do the advertising. A more appropriate time to question executive council operations might have been this morning when the member opposite here was questioning the Premier's estimates. Clearly, we will be widely canvassing the country for people to take the deputy minister position. That's been the practice of this administration.
I want to make one further point. We have many very capable people in the government personnel services division and in other areas of government who are well qualified to do this job. We expect many internal applicants as well as external applicants for this very important position that will be created by the legislation.
PUBLIC SERVICE HIRING AND COSTS
J. Weisgerber: A question to the Premier. The Korbin commission report indicates that as of December 1992 there were slightly in excess of 39,000 Public Service Act employees working for the government. Can the Premier confirm that 11,951 of those employees were appointed in 1992 alone?
Hon. M. Harcourt: No.
J. Weisgerber: Figure 4, on page 16 of the report, indicates that only 735 of the almost 12,000 appointments were lateral transfers. The other 11,216 were brand-new employees moved into positions that
[ Page 8045 ]
may or may not have been existing positions at the time. Has the Premier determined from Ms. Korbin or any other source, the actual number of new employees added to the government's service since his government took office in 1991?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Two of the areas that we had to clean up from the previous government were the phantom deficit and the phantom employees -- both of which were very real -- that the previous government tried to hide from the people of British Columbia. The truth is coming out now.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
J. Weisgerber: Page 43 of the Korbin report reveals that the total proportion of provincial expenditures for salaries and contractors dropped from 18.5 percent in 1985 to 12.5 percent in 1993, taking into consideration the massive wage increases extended by this government. Is the Premier willing to follow the lead of other provinces and commit to reducing the total proportion of salary and contractor costs to the level that it was when he took office in 1991?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Not only did we, as a new government, have to deal with the two efforts by the previous government to hide the deficit and to hide employees behind contracts that in a lot of cases were costing more money than they would have if they were within the civil service, but we also had to deal with the fact that the previous government was acting illegally under the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Income Tax Act by excluding almost 2,000 British Columbians from being public employees, and doing that illegally. They may have been prepared to act illegally; this government isn't.
FUNDING TO SUPPORT SINGLE FATHERS
L. Reid: My question this afternoon is to the Minister of Social Services. Family breakup and dysfunctional families are part of the skyrocketing costs of social welfare in this province -- there's no doubt about that. A Social Services ministry, which is gender-biased in terms of providing services, is exacerbating the problem. The regional director for the Ministry of Social Services in Prince George has stated that the Single Dads' Alliance is not eligible for funding to support single fathers, in this situation single parents, because "persons," under this ministry, are defined only as women. Will the minister confirm that there is a gender bias in her ministry?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I will be more than happy to look into the situation and bring the information back to you.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister is going to check into this particular group, but the fathers' alliance looks at providing counselling services to single dads. If we can appreciate that they are going to have an impact on how those children are raised, is this minister prepared to say that this ministry stands in support of families or not? That's the issue for today.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I took the previous question on notice; I'll bring back a full accounting.
COMPENSATION FAIRNESS PROGRAM FINAL REPORT
D. Mitchell: Much has been made today about the release by the Minister of Finance of volume 1 of the final report of the Korbin commission. But I wonder if the Minister of Finance can tell the House why he has failed to release the final report of the compensation fairness program. Will he agree today to table that final report of Commissioner Neil Haggquist, now almost a year old? If he won't do so, why wouldn't he? Does he have something to hide?
Hon. G. Clark: I will look into that. Mr. Haggquist prepared a report for the compensation fairness program, which was tabled in the House. Some working documents were submitted to me with respect to the windup. I am sure they are available under the Freedom of Information Act, so I don't have any hesitation in saying that I would be delighted to give it to the member. It is certainly not a deliberate ploy to hide that information. Mr. Haggquist was appointed by this administration, and he did an excellent job of exposing some of the problems. A lot of those problems resulted in the Korbin commission, and we are now trying to deal with remedies of the unbelievable mess we inherited from the previous administration.
D. Mitchell: I wonder if the Minister of Finance is a little bit reluctant to release the final report of Commissioner Haggquist because he has no appetite....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please!
D. Mitchell: I wonder if it's because the government has no appetite to act on the recommendations of Commissioner Haggquist with respect to the privileged position of public servants in our province. Why has the government been sitting on the report for almost a year, with no action whatsoever on Commissioner Haggquist's recommendations? Could it be that the minister has been waiting until the government got all of its friends and insiders hired inside the public service prior to the release today of the Korbin Commission report?
Hon. G. Clark: The ludicrous premise of the member.... The appointment of Judith Korbin to review the public service and public sector was, in part, a result of both the independent financial review and Mr. Haggquist's work. In fact, Mr. Haggquist's principal recommendation was such a commission. The government acted upon it quickly. We are now seeing the fruits of that commission in a first report, and the
[ Page 8046 ]
second report should be tabled shortly in this House. We have no hesitation; he did excellent work. The information was a public service, and of course we're prepared to give it not just to members of the House but to members of the public.
The Speaker: A final brief supplemental, hon. member.
D. Mitchell: If the Minister of Finance is correct and the report is an excellent report, then why has he failed to release it to the public? Can the minister tell us what specific steps he has taken over the past year to act upon the recommendations of Commissioner Haggquist since that report was transmitted to him? In particular, what specific steps has he taken to determine whether or not the public service is in compliance with the Financial Information Act? What has this minister been doing to ensure that the public servants of this province are not breaking the law?
Hon. G. Clark: I would be delighted, but I know that brevity is required in question period. We have had a series of workshops on the Financial Information Act with the comptroller general to ensure compliance. For the first time in British Columbia's history we prepared a brochure on how to access information, which the Financial Information Act requires. Because of Mr. Haggquist, we found out that many bodies weren't providing the prescribed information.
In fact, the member for North Vancouver did an outstanding job of accessing information with respect to the school board in North Vancouver. So we are bringing in amendments in the House -- I believe we've brought in some amendments -- to ensure that the Financial Information Act is adhered to by all levels of government. We've taken significant internal and external action, including publishing information on how members of the public can access that act.
CLAYOQUOT SOUND DECISION AND ABORIGINAL INTERESTS
W. Hurd: I have a question for the Premier. Now that the government has made a so-called balanced land use decision, can the Premier advise the House exactly what it is doing to defend the interests of the Tla-o-qui-aht first nation in Clayoquot Sound? What specific action is the government taking?
Hon. M. Harcourt: When the Clayoquot decision was announced, I made it very clear that the land use decisions were without prejudice to the aboriginal people. The aboriginal people in British Columbia, our first citizens, now know this is a government that is going to move toward resolving the aboriginal issues that have been outstanding for 150 years. That's why we have the Treaty Commission Act, which was passed in this House. That's why we have agreements with the third parties. That's why this government has concluded a cost-sharing agreement with the federal government. That's why we can now enter into the treaty process, in which a number of these issues that the member has alluded to can be dealt with properly.
[2:30]
Hon. G. Clark: I have the honour to table the British Columbia Housing and Employment Development Financing Authority's financial statements and auditor's report, as of June 30, 1992. I'd just advise the members that this is the final report, because this entity is no longer in existence.
Hon. G. Clark tabled the British Columbia Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority's financial statements and auditor's report for the year ended March 31, 1993.
B.C. FOOD INDUSTRY MARKET DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Hon. B. Barlee: I rise in the House to make a ministerial statement on a matter of great interest to the B.C. food and beverage industry. The food industry market development program, one of the most exciting projects ever undertaken in the food industry, is now underway. This morning in Vancouver, together with key agrifood industry stakeholders and the minister's council on the food industry, I officially launched the program and its new logo and slogan: "The Best Things in Life are B.C." The program will include.... [Applause.] No hand over there?
The program will increase consumer awareness and build preference for B.C. food, fish and beverage products, which is B.C.'s third-largest manufacturing sector. The potential benefits are great: a 5 percent increase in use of B.C. products will generate $440 million annually and create 4,000 new jobs in British Columbia, plus spin-off jobs. This program is being done in very close partnership with industry to enhance the industry's marketing development programs and initiatives. The partnership program has three components.
The first is building awareness. We will be building awareness through identifying B.C. products with logos at stores, restaurants and farm markets. An estimated 1.8 billion impressions of this logo will be seen by British Columbians in grocery stores, restaurants and newspapers within the first year. The campaign will reach all the corners of this province to build awareness of the vast array of B.C. products and beverages available. There are more than 280 commodities and thousands of value-added products, everything from abalone to zucchini.
This is a cost-shared, industry-led program. The cost-shared component is the heart of the program. It is dramatically different from its predecessors. The government will make strategic investments in industry-led programs that meet our program criteria. Our ongoing evaluation will ensure that the taxpayers' contributions to this program are well spent and have maximum input.
The food industry market development program is an initiative to meet challenges facing the British
[ Page 8047 ]
Columbia food industry. Today there is pressure on B.C.'s food, fish and beverage industry from increased international competition, changes to international trade regulations, globalization and cross-border shopping. We can successfully deal with these challenges by producing high-quality food and beverages at competitive prices in British Columbia. We are doing that. B.C. consumers have said that when we identify these quality products, they'll show their support at the cash register.
R. Chisholm: I must start by thanking the minister for a timely ministerial statement. I appreciate that. It is year two of a five-year program; we're finally seeing something constructive from the Buy B.C. program. It's better late than never.
It is encouraging to see that the Minister of Agriculture has listened to my plea for the Buy B.C. program. The lettuce and cabbage demonstration last summer and the persistence of various sectors of our food, fish and beverage industries have hopefully produced results. Unfortunately, it should have been implemented last year. It has been a rocky road to get to this stage. I must remind the minister about advertising through the States on the Buy B.C. program. I applaud the fact, though, that this initiative is not simply a government handout. It is supposed to be funded 50-50 by industry and government. It will be very successful if this initiative increases sales of B.C. products, assures that our agriculture, food and fishing industries grow and prosper, increases cooperation among food industry sectors and becomes an industry-led, self-sustaining program over the long term.
I am pleased to hear that British Columbia food products will be identified with a B.C. logo to educate and raise consumer awareness, and a B.C. slogan will encourage a B.C. product preference by the consumer. I urge the minister to ensure that all government cafeterias throughout B.C., including those in office buildings, B.C. Ferries, B.C. Rail, schools and universities lead the way in this Buy B.C. initiative.
Unfortunately, the government had to be forced into this program. Hopefully, in this exercise this government has learned that it must invest in its resource industries in order for these industries to help pay back taxes to support this government's social agenda. This is a $13 billion industry which we must ensure survives. When this industry becomes viable and pays taxes, the government will have to raise less personal taxes off the backs of average British Columbians.
The last point I would like to make is that this minister founded a 16-person committee selected from the agricultural community to oversee this program. I have some advice for the minister: as long as this minister listens to his committee, I expect the road will be less rocky for this minister and his ministry.
H. De Jong: I'm very pleased to see the extension of the Buy B.C. program that was started back in 1991. The objective of the program has always been to familiarize the consumer with B.C. products and to improve returns for the producer and those involved in the processing of those agricultural products.
I'm really pleased that the ministry has taken this bold step. I believe it is a bold step in trying to get all the parties to work together in this process. The minister has also recognized the new techniques that are being used in the production of new products, the new commodities and the new varieties within commodities. This initiative will really help the agriculture community, the processors, the retailers and the consumers to be aware of what is growing in British Columbia and what all the new products are.
I'm very pleased with the new logo. It's bright, it's good and it's attractive. The whole intent of this program is a progressive innovation in concert with the industry and the retailer. Obviously all British Columbians will benefit from this innovation.
The Speaker: I will recognize the hon. member for Richmond Centre -- on what matter?
D. Symons tabled a document with further information relating to the Premier's answers to a question in question period.
Hon. M. Sihota: I wish to advise all members that Committee A will be convening in the Douglas Fir Room to deal firstly with the estimates of the Minister of Advanced Education, and subsequently with the Minister of Government Services. I also wish to call committee on Bill 27.
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
The House in committee on Bill 27; M. Lord in the chair.
On section 1.
A. Warnke: As it clearly states, the amendment adds commercial vehicles owned and leased out of province. It's the same as the old section with the addition: "(e) an out of Province school district." This is where the amendment adds commercial vehicles owned or leased by out-of-province school districts, which are exempt from the requirement to pay fees. First of all, I want to inquire into the nature of the addition in this section.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We're simply enabling out-of-province school buses to come into the province without having the requirement to pay a fee. British Columbia buses that travel in these provinces are not required to pay a fee. In fact, we haven't been charging a fee in any event, and we want to make sure the legislation reflects that reality.
A. Warnke: At this time which out-of-province school districts pay this tax?
[ Page 8048 ]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No out-of-province school districts pay the fee now. We have waived the fee for all touring school buses that come in with schoolchildren, and we're simply making the law reflect that reality, as I said.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
A. Warnke: How will this section be enforced? If a case is presently in front of the courts but there is not a judgment on the award, will the amendment apply?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Following enactment, it will apply to all judgments following that day.
A. Warnke: How would this affect present awards, which may require payment for the next ten years? Or does this amendment apply only to new awards?
[2:45]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not entirely sure of the member's question, but let me just see if this covers it. The changes will not affect any matters that have been decided finally and are judgments. It can and will affect matters that are presently before the courts and will be before the courts, even if those matters are arguments about events that may have occurred some years ago.
Sections 2 and 3 approved.
On section 4.
A. Warnke: I have a quick question. There is a change here that broadens the class of institutions. Is the expansion now to include credit unions or trust companies? Perhaps the Attorney General could just expand a bit on that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes.
Sections 4 and 5 approved.
On section 6.
A. Warnke: I understand the nature of the amendment here. What has been brought to my attention with regard to this particular section is a concern that this amendment is a reflection of how cabinet gets extra authority. To be quite honest with you, hon. Chair, the amendment is not problematic in itself. But what has been expressed to me is a concern about transferring more authority to cabinet -- to make regulations through order-in-council and so on -- and away from stipulating terms within the actual statute. One way to express this is in the question: why is the cabinet getting involved in establishing the deductible, and is there an amount that the government is intending to change it to?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The intent here is to take the reference to a specific dollar figure out of the statute and put it into the regulations in order to be able to adjust it more readily in response to inflationary pressures that may occur. As the member will know, the $150 amount was established in 1977 and has been unchanged since that date. The proposal is to take it to $350, and then from here on in cabinet will have the authority, by way of regulation, to amend the number. There's no intent to do anything beyond that.
C. Serwa: Since the figure has not been changed since 1977, I wonder why it would have to be changed at all by regulation in a more speedy manner. Some time has elapsed since 1977. I would express concern where it appears that the innocent victim, who happens to own a vehicle that was hit by a hit-and-run driver, is now going to be liable for a substantially increased fee. It doesn't seem to be appropriate to make the innocent victim pay a substantially higher sum set by the whim of cabinet. I don't understand the logic or rationale behind the request for this amendment.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The amendment attempts to deal with a serious problem in the escalation of costs, which are reflected in premiums that all motorists pay. The 22,000 claims in 1988 cost $11 million; in three years this had increased to 36,000 claims for a bill of $24 million. It is a significant cost for B.C. motorists, so the motivation for this comes from that significant escalation in costs.
The motorist who carries collision coverage and whose deductible is lower than this amount will not be subject to the full $350, as I understand it. If you carry the collision, and if you are an innocent victim, as I understand it -- and I think I have it right -- the regular deductible amount would apply.
C. Serwa: I have a great deal of difficulty understanding the rationale the minister is referring to in spite of the escalation in costs. Insurance is basically to spread out the averages. In this case it seems to be fundamentally wrong that an innocent victim has to make up for this increased number of hit-and-runs on an individual basis, rather than accepting that broad across-the-board responsibility. Fundamentally, that's what insurance is all about. In this case, you are hitting the innocent victim with an enhanced charge. I think there is something wrong when we have an insurance scheme and you're going to make the innocent victim pay more.
The minister also referred to owners carrying collision insurance. Because of the high cost of collision insurance, I suspect that fewer and fewer drivers are actually carrying collision insurance -- certainly a very small percentage. The minister may have access to the figures of individuals carrying collision insurance with a deductible lower than $100. So it appears to me that there is something fundamentally wrong with the request and with this amendment as it is put forward.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: To deal with the point the member raises, 70 percent of the deductibles are below
[ Page 8049 ]
$350. Secondly, $350 is actually lower in terms of purchasing power than the figure established by the government the member supported in 1977; $150 in 1977, in 1993 dollars, would be approximately $380. So we are reducing the cost and making it cheaper than the former government did in 1977.
C. Serwa: I wasn't here in 1977, although the hon. minister probably was. In spite of that -- talking about purchasing power -- I still feel that it is fundamentally wrong to be punitive to an innocent victim; to charge them in order to make this up. Fundamentally, it militates against the purpose of insurance, which is a broad spectrum of coverage, and that is only reasonable. It was probably brought in initially because of claims of damage to vehicles -- perhaps a nuisance factor -- which started this. I don't know if that's still a reality, but I conclude by saying that I believe it is fundamentally wrong to negate the type of insurance that we have and the concept of coverage absorbed by the responsibility of the broad cross-section of motorists and impact the single individual for a higher fee to make up for increasing losses in this area. I can only reinforce that, and the minister accepts my statement.
Sections 6 and 7 approved.
On section 8.
A. Warnke: Once again I think we see the amendment broadening the application and making it consistent with some other concepts introduced earlier. I'm just wondering about its application to the Land Surveyors Act.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer here is the same as it was on the early question. We're simply expanding the types of deposit-taking financial institutions so that it's more than just banks. It's credit unions and the near banks that are now being used more frequently.
Section 8 approved.
On section 9.
A. Warnke: I believe that this particular amendment changes an amendment that was introduced during the 1992 spring session and expanded the official records section. The amendment in section 9 allows the registrar to duplicate a document at the time it is filed; however, the amendment does not make it clear that the registrar must get permission from the person filing the document to create a duplicate. Would the Attorney General clarify what I see as a little bit of a problem here in that the amendment does not make it clear that the registrar must get permission? Would some sort of amendment be helpful?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The proposal is to allow individuals to have an original copy returned to them -- for example, the original copy of a power of attorney. But the registrar is required to have the document on hand as well, so if a person asks for their original back, then a copy would be made and kept in the registrar's office. That's how the permission is granted. No copies will be made if the person involved doesn't make an application. I think that should deal with the member's concerns. I hope it does.
A. Warnke: Perhaps it should require the signed permission of the person who applied to file it.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: As long as the registrar is satisfied that the individual wants the document back, whether it's by a signed letter, telephone call or visit to the office, the registrar has the discretion to determine whether it's a valid and appropriate request. If that determination is made, the document can be copied to be retained in the office and the originals returned to the owner.
Sections 9 to 12 inclusive approved.
On section 13.
A. Warnke: As the bill states, it allows or permits liquor to be "shipped direct from a manufacturer, warehouse or liquor store to a...liquor store or agency store, subject to the orders the general manager makes." I would like to pose one question: is the amendment made because of a computerized quality and quantity control at each outlet?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No. In fact, it's made as a result of a 1991 GATT decision, which in our case required British Columbia to allow, for example, American beer companies to deliver beer directly to both liquor stores and agency stores in the same way as British Columbia beer companies are able to do. So it's a trade-related issue.
A. Warnke: I suppose the answer then begs another kind of question. Will there be a lesser need for warehouses due to direct shipment?
[3:00]
I don't mind repeating the question again, due to.... I appreciate that it's difficult doing two or three things at once. The answer the Attorney General provided necessitates a question involving warehouses. Will there be a lesser need for warehouses due to the direct shipment?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't believe so. The volume of imported beer is relatively small. If you look at the LDB warehouses, you'll see that they're primarily occupied by domestic product. But let's just be clear. Domestic beer is not warehoused in LDB warehouses. The brewers handle their own directly. I may have said this; I just want to make sure that I speak clearly here, for my own sake if nobody else's. The proportion of space now occupied in LDB warehouses by imported beer is not significant, so this shouldn't change the needs there.
[ Page 8050 ]
A. Warnke: This particular section stimulated some concern as to whether, as a result of the changes here.... I appreciate the answer given by the Attorney General that the effect of direct shipments of imported beer will be minimal. In this context, is there any anticipation of staff layoffs as a result?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No.
Section 13 approved.
On section 14.
A. Warnke: This concerns the Ombudsman Act. As I look at it, I think the amendment is a positive move and is in line with Bill 62, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 1993. Nonetheless, I'm just wondering if the Attorney General could elaborate on the nature and purpose of section 14.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In the vernacular, people refer to this provision as whistle-blower protection, so that people who are providing information to the ombudsman can do so secure in the knowledge that they won't pay a price at their place of employment for having done so.
A. Warnke: Is this restricted just to the place of employment?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The provision is broad. There should be no discrimination against any person for having provided information. So it's not just at a place of work; it could apply to people who provide services to the government, such as contractors. In the tradition of whistle-blower protection, it's designed to make sure that people can feel free from threat of intimidation as a result of providing information that is appropriate to be provided, in this case to the ombudsman. It parallels the provision in the Human Rights Act and gives people the same protection as in that legislation.
C. Serwa: For my knowledge, would this initiative be undertaken by the Crown, or would it be a civil matter that an individual would have to take up, with latitude under the legislation?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The next section we'll consider in this bill is section 15. That amends section 31 of the Ombudsman Act, which would make intimidation, coercion, discharge, suspension, expulsion or eviction -- any of those words -- an offence under the Offence Act. The Crown could actually initiate and carry the case on behalf of the employee, should it choose to do so.
C. Serwa: Once again then, just for clarification and understanding, if an individual feels that he has been somewhat punished, would he take the matter to a Crown prosecutor, and then an individual would be charged and called to court by the Crown?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: That avenue is available under the Offence Act. If the Crown determined that there was evidence and that a charge could be sustained, it would handle that. The individual would also have civil remedies, which are always available to them, if they chose those.
C. Serwa: I suppose a fairly significant concern of you enabling this protection is the cost of the investigative aspect of it. This is not necessarily going to be so clearly defined and cut and dry that it will be a yes-or-no, either-or situation. If the government is convinced that this is an appropriate amendment, it seems that the government should undertake the responsibility, when an indication is made, to investigate and perhaps proceed with the appropriate charge.
A. Warnke: There's just one other point. I think we appreciate that protection can be provided for the whistle blower. By the same token, there is a question here as to whether there's some sort of protection for the person whom the whistle is being blown on -- or whatever the appropriate phrase is. Let's say someone who has an axe to grind or something like that wants to pick on and report their boss. What about that sort of thing? Could the Attorney General elaborate a little bit on what protection there is for these individuals?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, the ombudsman doesn't have to take the complaint. She can reject the complaint if she feels that it is vexatious, frivolous or not worthy of consideration. On the other hand, if it is worthy and taken up, then the assumption is that there is potentially a problem. The normal employer-employee relationships would come into account here and the protections that are built in by collective agreement, employment contract or whatever would be available, as would general common law.
Sections 14 and 15 approved.
On section 16.
A. Warnke: This particular section has stirred a little bit of interest insofar as it involves personal property. When we're talking about personal property security it is a sensitive matter to many people. In that context, I wonder once again if the Attorney General could perhaps outline the nature and purpose of this particular section.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The amendment is to clarify the act in order to make it clear that part 5 of the Personal Property Security Act actually applies to lease agreements. Do you want me to say more to help you to better understand it, or is that enough?
A. Warnke: What I'm after is very basic. When we talk about the transfer of personal property -- like an account, chattel paper or commercial assignment, essentially, I guess -- there is a concern about how a
[ Page 8051 ]
change, as proposed in this particular section, will affect basic things like chattel and that sort of thing.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's designed to ensure that the act does in fact apply to all of those things. There was a decision of the Supreme Court recently that said that this part of the act did not apply to any lease for a term of more than one year. That wasn't the intent of the original act. The court said that it wasn't clear. So in order to make sure that it is clear, this amendment is required.
Sections 16 to 20 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved on division.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 27, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1993, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 53.
LEGAL PROFESSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Legal Profession Act establishes the authority of the Law Society of B.C. to govern and regulate lawyers practising in British Columbia. The purpose of these amendments is to modernize and improve a number of sections dealing with membership in the Law Society and with the governance and administration of the Law Society.
One of the most significant amendments in this bill is the creation of a new category of membership in the Law Society for non-practising members. This new category would allow non-practising members to continue their membership in the profession at reduced fees. The current provision of the act and the rules requires that a lawyer temporarily leaving practice must either continue to pay the full annual practice fee and assessments or cease membership. This new category of membership will help those lawyers who wish to interrupt their careers and subsequently return to active practice. The amendment is made pursuant to recommendations by both the report of the Law Society's subcommittee on women in the legal profession and the gender bias committee.
[3:15]
The bill makes a number of amendments to improve the sections dealing with the protection of the public, public participation and standards of professional practice and discipline. These include amendments to allow the Law Society to regulate lawyers who act as mediators; to allow non-lawyers to be appointed to Law Society committees so that the legal profession might benefit from the experience of other members of the community; and to permit a more expeditious handling of claims made against the special compensation fund up to a certain amount to be set by the benchers.
Other amendments are intended to improve the governance and administration of the Law Society. These include an amendment to limit to four the number of terms that a bencher may serve, or a total of eight years. This will help to allow for wider participation in the governing body of the Law Society.
I move second reading of the bill.
A. Warnke: Even if one is impressed with the bill, the natural course of action is to try to get in touch with as many people as possible to get a sense of its implications. As far as I've been able to see, the purpose of the bill is in many ways quite commendable. Some of its features were touched on a moment ago in the Attorney General's opening remarks.
With the indulgence of the Attorney General, we obviously would like to get through bills as soon as possible, but I cannot resist making some comments about the legal profession. I think it's extremely important that we get a sense of how Bill 53 affects the legal profession.
It's easy to look at the legal profession and automatically assume it to be a part of our society. It's hard to imagine the legal profession not existing in our society, even though a number of people make remarks that "I wish lawyers would go away" and so on. The legal profession is a unique feature of our society. I know some members are going to be bothered when I go back in history a bit. But it is a profession that rises, as we know it, anyway, at least from the time of Cicero, when members of the legal profession were actually unpaid amateurs. Some people might say nothing has changed in the legal profession. Now they get paid.
The term for the legal profession evolved from the Latin jurisperitus, which is someone who is wise in the law. So even now, when we have to recognize that the legal profession is an indispensable part of our complex industrial society and economy, its legacy can be traced back to ancient Rome. But even though lawyers were not paid and were considered amateurs in those days, they spoke on behalf of people before the courts. It was at this time that professional schools of law emerged.
In our own age, it's instructive to note that even though the legal profession is considered an integral part of our society, it varies from society to society. Indeed, the legal profession in the United States is of enormous size; and when you compare the ratio of lawyers to the rest of the population, it is in Canada as well. In Great Britain it's a little bit lower -- I won't get into statistics and details -- and in Germany, lower yet. From a historical perspective, it's interesting to note that in the German universities in the early nineteenth century, as many as 30 percent of students were enrolled in law. About a century ago, it was 20 percent; more recently, 10 percent. Mind you, that is also relative to other professions emerging in universities. But it's instructive to note how the legal profession has changed even within one society. In Japan and the Far East, the
[ Page 8052 ]
legal profession is viewed entirely differently. As we know, Japan is a very complex industrial society and a very advanced economic society. Yet the legal profession is viewed entirely differently from how it is viewed in North America. Indeed, the legal profession is declining in size in Scandinavia.
As I'm doing a quick brush-over here, it's also interesting to note that even in these days there are areas in the world where lawyers do not have to have law degrees. Lawyers can represent clients sometimes but not necessarily for money. The point here is that the legal profession, as we know it, occurs in very few societies. It's a developing profession to be sure, but perhaps it's something that lawyers should recognize from time to time.
At any rate, as this applies to Bill 53, I therefore see establishing a certificate for non-members as a genuine positive step. I suppose an argument could be made that as the legal profession is presently constituted the system is gender biased. Women drop out of the legal profession in some obvious cases; perhaps it's only for two or three years. But to a certain extent, leaving the legal profession can invite problems. So I think that there are implications not only for women but also for men -- for anyone who may want to withdraw from the legal profession for a period of time for a variety of reasons.
As a result of these provisions, non-practising people have the opportunity to keep their linkages and be part of the legal profession. As I see it, it's extremely important for people to ensure that they maintain previous contacts, which obviously could go into the future. In this context, I see Bill 53 as quite positive. It allows people trained in law, who leave the profession for a period of two or three years, the opportunity to maintain contact with the profession. Until now, they found themselves blocked from returning to the profession.
Perhaps I was distracted at one point with the Attorney General's remarks. I don't recall him saying it, but there is the question of moneys legally obtained by lawyers. That power is now delegated to the committee. I want to take this up in committee stage; it needs to be addressed.
Overall, Bill 53 establishes the authority to govern and regulate lawyers, as the Attorney General has outlined. But it modernizes and amends the membership as well, which I agree with. We would like to support those contributions on this side.
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. G. Clark: In the gallery, behind me I think, are 15 senior enterprise officials from Shanghai on a UBC executive training program. They're in Victoria to meet with the Deputy Minister of Finance and the Deputy Minister of Forests. I ask all members to make them welcome.
C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to rise on second reading of Bill 53, the Legal Profession Amendment Act. We acknowledge that this is primarily a housekeeping bill, but it does make some very significant amendments to the Legal Profession Act. We do not have any problems with most of the contents of the bill. But we do reject one concept included in this bill in the strongest fashion, and that is the concept of term-limits on benchers. We do not accept term-limits on any elected institutions in Canada. We believe that they're fundamentally undemocratic. The determination of term-limits for elected officials -- like MLAs, for example -- is made by the individual's constituents. That is the opportunity, responsibility and fundamental basis on which democracy stands.
The term-limits deny the right of free choice to the voter, in this case the lawyers in the legal profession, and they disqualify experienced and qualified people from seeking office. The government in power at the moment doesn't support term-limits in the Legislature. I don't see the government hurrying to impose term-limits on Ken Georgetti or Mr. Shields, for example, in the unions. But in this particular case, when the Law Society asks for term-limits on elected officers it is granted. I suspect, simply because it's seen as a self-governing body, that the Attorney General didn't peruse this legislation as acutely as I think he should have prior to bringing the legislation forward into the Legislature.
Normally the Attorney General's door is always open. I consider it a privilege to have that open-door policy for briefings on bills. We've had very good support and cooperation from the Attorney General. But in this particular case, when a briefing was asked for, we were referred to the Law Society. The concern I have is that here we're bringing forward a bill which is to become an act, and the act will not deal simply in isolation with an element of society. The act is for the benefit and protection of all members of society. I think that perhaps the term "request" on this particular bill has slipped through. It should not have been accepted by the Attorney General and should not have been incorporated into this particular bill when it was presented into the Legislature.
[3:30]
The normal practice is for the Law Society to send someone to Victoria to give members the opportunity of a briefing from their perspective. This has been done in the past and will continue to be done in the future. Nevertheless, in this particular situation I feel that the Attorney General has failed to show adequate interest in this piece of legislation. It's questionable that in this particular case the government is doing a job that is responsible for the people.
The Legal Profession Act is not simply and solely an act for lawyers. It's an act, like all acts should be, about protecting the public. The Attorney General, the government and all of us are very concerned about responsible acts.
It's questionable, too, that when this was brought forward.... Seeing that the government of the day is headed by a lawyer, and the Minister of Labour is a lawyer, perhaps an overly strong show of support was
[ Page 8053 ]
made of this; rather than an acute look at this particular bill, it was allowed to slip through. I know it is to the advantage, obviously, of lawyers on the government side to have the savings deferred for the Law Society membership, but it causes one to wonder if the members excused themselves when the vote was taken in cabinet approving the legislation to go before the Legislature. That's a viable question. It's not a major issue, perhaps, but it's certainly significant. All in all, generally we look at this, as I said at the opening of the second reading, as primarily a housekeeping bill. But we do have a great deal of difficulty with the implications of fixed terms for benchers, considering that it is fundamentally undemocratic.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Given that the comments have been made about specific sections of the bill, I'll save my comments on those sections for committee stage. I move second reading of the bill.
Motion approved on division.
Bill 53, Legal Profession Amendment Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call second reading of Bill 41.
NOTARIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Notaries public have had a long and unique history in British Columbia. The earliest legislation relating to notaries in the province dates back to 1872. British Columbia's notaries are unique in Canada in the range of services they are able to provide to the public. In addition to administering oaths, drawing affidavits and preparing powers of attorney, B.C.'s notaries can prepare wills and convey documents. There are 278 notaries practising in the province; half are women.
The proposed amendments will allow notaries to provide their services through companies incorporated under the Company Act. This will provide notaries with the same advantages of incorporation available to other professionals, such as lawyers, dentists and architects. The professional responsibilities and liabilities of individual notaries to their clients will in no way be diminished by practising through a notary corporation. Amendments also ensure that these notary corporations remain under the effective control of notaries. The Society of Notaries Public will be able to make rules to ensure the maintenance of professional standards by these corporations.
Section 5 of the Notaries Act provides for a schedule to the act which limits the number of members permitted to practise within notarial districts throughout the province. Due to an oversight when the new act was being developed in 1980, only two seals were assigned to the Quesnel district when in fact three notaries were practising, and continue to practise, in the district. The schedule is to be amended to allow a third seal in the Quesnel district.
The people of this province continue to be well served by notaries public, and I am pleased to put forward this legislation enabling them to practise through corporations.
A. Warnke: I must confess to a bit of surprise here, but nonetheless, we'll deal with Bill 41. As the intent is described here, the bill essentially allows professional notaries public to practise as a corporation under the Company Act. From our position as the official opposition, the bill is not that controversial in principle, but there are sections that will require some clarification, especially as we take them up at committee stage. I understand that the Society of Notaries Public of B.C. has been working with the government to bring this legislation forward. I understand as well that it follows the lead of other professional associations.
I really don't have that much to say on the principle of the bill. When we get to committee stage there are some areas where I would like to see some qualification, and we may even move amendments.
The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Attorney General closes debate.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I would simply move second reading, hon. Speaker.
Motion approved.
Bill 53, Legal Profession Amendment Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 44.
LIQUOR CONTROL AND LICENSING AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I wish to describe to the House some of the background and important features of Bill 44. The bill introduces amendments to the Liquor Appeal Board provisions to more clearly describe and circumscribe its authority, particularly as they relate to licensing appeals.
The Liquor Appeal Board is an administrative tribunal with responsibility to hear and determine appeals of decisions of the general manager of the liquor control and licensing branch. The board therefore has a vital role to play in maintaining public faith in the liquor-licensing system. To fulfil its mandate, the board must continue to have the authority to overturn branch decisions in circumstances where the branch acted without legal authority or if the principles of procedural fairness were not employed in the decision-making process. However, where the legislation provides for discretion in licensing decisions, the appeal to the board should not have the authority to substitute its discretion for that of the general manager.
[ Page 8054 ]
Restricting the exercise of discretion on licensing matters to the general manager will help to provide the province with a more consistent licensing environment, to the benefit of both existing licences and new applicants.
Another important feature of this bill is the constraint on the minister's power to direct the general manager on licensing and enforcement decisions. While the minister will retain the authority to direct on matters of general policy, it is not appropriate to permit the minister to direct the general manager on a specific licensing or enforcement decision.
The other important feature of the bill is the implementation of a recommendation of the Task Force on Public Order, often referred to as the Snowden report. This amendment will provide the general manager with the emergency powers to close an establishment for a period not exceeding 24 hours if public safety is threatened.
A. Warnke: I'll respond by summarizing very briefly my view of the bill, although I'm not quite sure what's going on here. Once again I am taken a little bit by surprise, but let's get on with the bill.
The intent of this bill is to provide a more efficient and effective regulation of liquor licensing and control. That was stated earlier by the Attorney General when the bill was introduced. The bill clarifies the authority of the Liquor Appeal Board. It places constraints on the minister's power to direct the general manager of the liquor control and licensing branch, and provides the general manager with emergency powers. All of this has been outlined by the Attorney General.
This bill is a response, I suppose, to a number of problems that have occurred in the province at various local festivals. Given the trouble we have seen in different locales and different festivals, many people believe that this bill is long overdue. In that context, the government is bringing in legislation which will assist local communities to combat activities with those people who get out of control. They get out of control at festivals for a variety reasons, but what is considered by the authorities to be the primary factor of people getting out of control at such activities is the consumption of alcohol; let's call a spade a spade: people getting drunk and disorderly, and all the rest of it.
Last year, Penticton brought in its own initiatives for the police by stating that they would bring in whatever legislation was necessary to maintain law and order. In that context, there is certainly a public impetus for something to come out of British Columbia. The government is trying to lead by example, and this is certainly a point that has been made by the public in their attempt to deal with problems of disorderly conduct. Therefore, given what the public wants, the bill is not controversial.
I want to go through the bill very carefully, because there are sections that require clarification. As far as the official opposition sees it, they need this clarification prior to our supporting the bill in full. So with that, I take my place, and will be pursuing this at the committee stage.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I now move second reading of Bill 44.
Motion approved.
Bill 44, Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 47.
[3:45]
SPECIAL ACCOUNTS APPROPRIATION AND CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This legislation will enable the province to receive forfeited proceeds of crime from the United States, as well as other jurisdictions.
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I just said to the Minister of Finance that it goes in my budget, not his.
It will also enable the receipt of proceeds from federally prosecuted drug-related offences where provincial or municipal police forces have assisted in the investigation.
In 1989, in response to federal enabling legislation, B.C. introduced legislation allowing the Attorney General to receive and utilize money forfeited from "enterprise" crimes. These include fraud, forgery, theft, bribery and arson. The legislation also established a forfeited crime proceeds fund for the receipt of forfeitures. A joint protocol was signed by the then Attorney General and Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations providing guidelines for disposition of money in the fund. The vast majority of forfeited proceeds arise in the context of federally prosecuted drug cases, and the resultant funds currently go to the federal department of Health and Welfare.
In April of this year, the federal government introduced legislation that would provide for the sharing of forfeited crime proceeds where provincial or municipal police forces have taken part in the investigation of federal drug offences. The amounts shared will depend upon the degree of involvement by the provincial or municipal police force. A sharing formula is being negotiated with the federal government. A related issue arises in situations where a law enforcement agency in this province has assisted authorities in the United States, and a portion of forfeited proceeds are to be directed to the B.C. agency. The legislation being discussed here today will provide for the receipt of forfeited proceeds from the federal government as well as from the United States and for their deposit into the fund. The legislation provides that money in the fund is to be used at the discretion of the Attorney General to facilitate law enforcement and the administration of criminal justice.
The ability to receive a part of the forfeited proceeds from federally prosecuted drug offences will place
[ Page 8055 ]
money in the fund that can be used to help fight crime. The fund should be further enhanced by enabling it to receive forfeited proceeds from the United States. There are two such cases awaiting implementation of this legislation. British Columbia is in the forefront among provinces in obtaining and utilizing forfeited proceeds of crime. All such money will be used to strengthen law enforcement and the administration of criminal justice in the province.
A. Warnke: The purpose of the bill is to combat so-called enterprise crimes, ranging from fraud to forgery and so forth, and the bill is an initiative that I think can be looked at positively insofar as individuals certainly will not be permitted to profit from crime. Studies have illustrated that where this kind of program is in place, it has been fairly effective. But most important is the principle that moneys retrieved from criminal acts, and thus placed in the forfeited crime proceeds fund, will be put back into the community in positive ways.
In April 1993 the federal government introduced legislation agreeing to share money with jurisdictions that help in the investigation and resolution of a particular crime. However, what has yet to be determined is the sharing formula between the federal and provincial governments. I did hear from the Attorney General in his opening remarks that such a sharing formula with the federal government is being negotiated; I'm not sure whether there is a resolution.
I do have some questions that involve how jurisdiction is defined. For example, if the Vancouver city police assist with an investigation, do they receive the money, or does the money exclusively rest with the province? If there is a sharing formula between the provincial and the federal governments, I suppose there might be the suspicion at the outset that where the Vancouver city police assist with the investigation, nonetheless Vancouver city would not benefit by retrieving the proceeds from crime. That, obviously, would not negate the principle of what we're after here in this particular bill, but it is certainly a question that I'd like to pursue at the committee stage. Similarly, if the RCMP assists, one could ask who receives the money, since the RCMP is federal. How do you define who is assisting and to what degree and so forth? Those kinds of questions are certainly appropriate at the committee stage, and I guess this is what we'll be pursuing on this side.
The disposition of money from such a fund may be done on the authorization of the Attorney General. However, it's interesting that the Minister of Finance is in good conversation with the Attorney General, because the Attorney General can only do this with the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance no doubt is taking a special interest in this particular bill. I suppose one wonders whether the Minister of Finance sees something to be gained for his ministry as a result of this bill. No doubt. Once again, it invites the question of just how involved the Minister of Finance wants to be in this sharing formula that's being negotiated with the federal government and, hopefully, with some of the local police and local governments.
I suppose it's a minor point, but there has been a question raised in the community as to the types of programs that are appropriate to receive money from this particular kind of fund. In talking with a few people about this, I suppose there are cases where it is felt that funds forfeited from crime proceeds and so forth are inappropriate for certain kinds of programs and may be more appropriate to others. Somewhere in the committee stage I suspect we should pursue this question: what types of programs would be considered to receive money from this fund? During the estimate debate it was indicated to us on this side by the government that as of May 5 the protocols were still to be established with the federal government in terms of how the moneys would flow in and so forth. An obvious question that we will have is: has there been any agreement with the federal government since May 5? We will pursue the outline of that. Also, what are the guidelines to be established for the types of programs that would be funded from this particular forfeited crime-proceeds fund?
I suppose that what is of special interest to the Minister of Finance is just what amount of money is involved here. I hope that it's not one where the government expects a certain amount and becomes dependent on it as a source of their revenue. Hopefully we will proceed in a direction where this program is effective, to the point where crime declines. I guess it's too high to expect that crime will be eliminated, but obviously we want the incidents of crime and the proceeds of crime to diminish. This is a warning, I suppose, to the Minister of Finance: don't become dependent on it. Just because a particular fund increases.... We do not necessarily want to see anything that would contribute to the increase of crime just because we're dependent on a bit of extra money coming in.
I understand the nature and intent of the bill: to combat enterprise crimes and a variety of crimes and also to take the proceeds from criminal activity and somehow inject those back to the community in a positive way. Naturally a number of questions are still outstanding, but it would be more appropriate to pursue those at the committee level. In the context of the general principle, thrust and intent of the bill, I would suggest that the government certainly appears to be moving along the right path.
C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to rise and speak on the philosophy and principles of this bill. At first blush, the concept of utilizing proceeds from enterprise crimes and criminal activities to fight crime sounds very good indeed. But I wonder about the philosophy and principles of that particular situation. You have the regulatory bodies, the enforcement arm and the Ministry of Attorney General all directly benefiting from the proceeds of crime. It seems to me that there's an inherent conflict when the agencies become direct beneficiaries. It would seem more appropriate to have some distance. If we get the funds back -- as the Crown will do in any event -- there has to be some distance. It would perhaps be more realistic to have it go into a
[ Page 8056 ]
general revenue fund rather than into a special account to fight crime.
The real concern I have is that over a period of time the system will benefit from the proceeds of crime I don't know if you're going to get any implication other than that it would create mutually benefiting organizations. The concern I have is that the integrity of the regulatory and enforcement arms and the Ministry of Attorney General would be compromised if they benefited directly.
I think that at first blush the concept is good and noble, as I said. But I'm concerned that over a period of time other perspectives will come into place. Certainly there will be some suspicion -- perhaps a small amount, but it will be there. For example, you can't have firemen without fires. There's no requirement for the enforcement arm of government without criminals; they are mutually compatible organizations. If you stamp out fires, you would have no need for firemen; if you stamp out crime, I suppose you would have no need for policemen. As I say, I have some concern with this directly benefiting the regulatory and enforcement arms of government, as well as the Ministry of Attorney General. I can't elaborate any more strongly other than to say that that type of suspicion and observation will surface among the general public. The end result will be that the integrity of the entire crime prevention system we have will be perceived to have been compromised in some fashion.
[4:00]
It may be a major concern, or it may be a very minor one. I'm sincerely hopeful that it is in fact very minor. I would much rather that the Minister of Attorney General be funded, as it is at the present time, directly out of general revenue, in the votes under the estimates, and that any crime prevention programs be carried in that facet. At least the perception of some distance, and not as a direct beneficiary of this, seems to be a safer perspective.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Again, I'll deal with most of the issues in committee stage, where the debate would be more easily handled. But I'd like to say that the concern raised by the member for Okanagan West is one that occurred to me some years ago when the former government began, with the federal government, to move in this direction. I don't see it as a serious concern. The member suggests, in effect, some kind of symbiotic relationship between police and prosecutors on one hand and criminals on the other; he suggests that they may need to keep criminals in business in order to keep themselves in business. I'll make the member this promise: if we wipe out crime and all criminal activity in the next year, I'll bring in an amendment to get rid of this section and alleviate that particular concern. If we do that, I think I will be able to judge my term in this office as pretty successful. But more seriously, if the concern that the member expresses became a reality, I would very seriously want to revisit the principle that's established by this legislation, and I would make that undertaking.
With that, I move second reading of the bill.
Motion approved on division.
Bill 47, Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Amendment Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 35.
LOCAL ELECTIONS REFORM ACT, 1993
The House in committee on Bill 35; R. Kasper in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 approved.
On section 3.
A. Cowie: I have a number of questions relating to amalgamations in the next few sections. Section 3 and sections 6 through 9 deal with incorporations of new municipalities. Apart from modernizing the legislation, is section 6 wide enough to include the possibility of amalgamations? For example, let's say Surrey and South Surrey wish to separate from Surrey. Does this section provide for that, or do we have to deal with one of the other sections on that?
Hon. R. Blencoe: These sections are -- and staff can correct me -- basically unchanged, so there is no significant policy change in this area. Through my ministry there are grant programs for restructures. As the member knows, during second reading I indicated that we have significant restructures ongoing all the time. But at this time we are not anticipating a change in the voting procedures, simply because we did not get to that section in a meaningful way. We concentrated on the general elections for local government rather than the amalgamations and the restructures. That's not to say that changes aren't required, and I anticipate that we will get to that in due course.
A. Cowie: I want to refer to section 6(2)(a) for a clarification. It states: "on the request of the council of a municipality all or part of which is within the area." My understanding was that previously should a large municipality like Surrey wish to stop a portion separating, it could do it simply because it was large and it required a vote of the whole municipality. Is it now just the vote of the people within that portion?
Hon. R. Blencoe: There is no change to this section as it is in the current act. I think the questions the member is raising come under future sections. We may be able to get to them later on. There is no change here. It's unfortunate for you, perhaps, that it's the status quo.
W. Hurd: I just wanted to follow up on that line of questioning under section 3, where the minister may direct that a vote be taken of persons within a specified area. Can the minister advise us under this section
[ Page 8057 ]
exactly what would induce, require or influence the minister to direct such a vote? What steps need to be taken, either by the municipal government or by residents living in the affected areas? Perhaps he could just explain. Even though the essential purpose of these sections is unchanged from the original act, clearly we are dealing with different language here.
Interjection.
W. Hurd: "Sections 6 to 9 are repealed and the following substituted" -- which I assume means that there have been changes. I'm just wondering if the minister could explain to the committee exactly what would induce the ministry to conduct a vote or to direct that a vote be taken.
Hon. R. Blencoe: First, it's not my modus operandi to force two municipalities to incorporate. I have said to local government many times, however.... I know your interest, because of White Rock and Surrey. I imagine the member has learned some lessons from what transpired on that. Nine times out of ten, unless the two municipalities are at war or the government has come to a stop, my modus operandi is to encourage local governments to find the solutions themselves. We encourage that by grants, problem-solving and dispute resolution.
I meet with municipalities who are having these problems. Maybe a solution could be to amalgamate, but usually we first encourage the elected officials to achieve some consensus. Many hon. members across the way, particularly the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, are aware of this. You try to encourage the local officials in two or three areas that wish to amalgamate to achieve some consensus. If that is achieved, then my ministry would advise that a restructuring committee be struck, perhaps made up of the elected people and citizens of the area representing various interests, to work towards looking at amalgamation and restructuring. Usually, if we get that far, the restructuring committee would hire a consultant to do the studies and the numbers, and to see whether it works and if it is in the interests of the citizens of each area to do it, financially or otherwise. That is monitored carefully.
Some of these restructures can be done in a year; sometimes they take three or four years, depending on the local issues, the local interests and indeed the politics in the area. When the work is done and the numbers are crunched, the province -- my ministry -- will offer restructuring assistance to encourage the two areas to amalgamate. All the information is put on the table so the citizens see what is available and in their interest, and so they can make an informed decision as to whether to maintain the status quo or to amalgamate. That, very quickly, is the system.
[4:15]
The actual change of wording -- and I'm going to go through this -- is that in section 6(1) we've changed the word "poll" to "vote." In section 6(2), it's "poll" to "vote." In section 6(3) it's again to "vote" and then new language: "must determine" and a reference to "eligible voters." In section 6(4), again, rather than "poll," we now use the modern word "vote." So they are not significant changes, hon. member.
W. Hurd: I'm certainly delighted that the minister raised the concern about South Surrey and White Rock. I'm delighted indeed that he has given me the opportunity to talk about that issue in connection with this section of the bill. Clearly the instructions from the minister on that occasion were that if the two municipalities could agree to sponsor or ask for a study on restructuring the municipal boundaries, the ministry would be willing even to provide funds to pay for the study. In these days of restraint, imagine that.
Under section 6(2)(d), "on the minister's own initiative" -- in restructuring municipal boundaries -- "if the minister is of the opinion that those persons should, in the public interest...be incorporated into a new municipality...." Given that it's highly unlikely that two municipalities could ever agree on a dismemberment or at least a reduction in area -- because it's clear that municipal governments are not in the habit of approving studies that might actually reduce their area -- I wonder if the minister could share with the committee exactly what steps the citizens of an aggrieved area, or at least of an area where they might want to see the boundaries changed, can take to encourage the minister to take his "own initiative" and order either incorporation or a study or review. Or are the citizens of an area that might have grown apart from a municipality, for reasons of demographic change or anything else, captive to the wishes of their municipal government, which, I'm sure the minister could agree, may at times be entirely insular in nature and somewhat self-serving when it comes to protecting municipal boundaries? What action could the citizens under this section take to induce the province to at least fund a study?
Hon. R. Blencoe: We're getting into detail. It really doesn't pertain to site-specific cases, but let me be as brief as possible.
In the case that the member refers to -- if I recall, and it's some time ago -- the members, without consulting one of the interested parties, I believe, made a suggestion of amalgamation. I think my response to the member was objective, in terms of what my ministry has available in grants. I think the member used licence -- for which he got himself in trouble with his locally elected officials -- to say that the minister was endorsing amalgamation. The hon. member knew exactly what I was doing. Of course, I discussed it with both councils, who were quite surprised at your method of operation.
Let me suggest, though, that you encourage citizens to run for council who may have your perspective or who may wish to pursue your thought on the issue. But I did not detect, at least some months ago, that there was a consensus for the agenda that you wished to pursue. The citizens are free to lobby, to elect and to work. When we achieve some greater consensus on it, we might be able to move ahead. But at the moment, hon. member, I think you know that there isn't consensus.
[ Page 8058 ]
W. Hurd: What I hear the minister saying is that if you want to address some of the anomalies in municipalities throughout the province -- and there are many.... There's not just the situation in my riding. There's the situation in Langley. Quesnel come to mind, as does the area around Castlegar and Trail. There are a number of anomalies. What I hear the minister saying is that if you want to be part of a solution, don't write to the minister; run for council and hope that somehow you can effect a change that way. That's somewhat disturbing, because municipal councils are not in the habit of asking for studies.
I think it's important to get on the record that what was being asked for in south Surrey and White Rock was a study -- no more, no less. There was never any suggestion that amalgamation was even financially feasible. Obviously those kinds of issues cannot be determined without a proper study, and it was highly unlikely -- in fact, impossible -- that the municipalities would agree to fund or even ask for that type of input. I welcome that clarification for residents in areas that are really divorced from the municipalities by which they're governed and who may want to effect a change of municipal boundaries: don't write to the minister; don't write to the province; don't sign petitions. Run for council, because that's the only way the boundaries can be changed.
It's disturbing, but maybe down the road some meaningful changes can be effected to these sections so that people are not captive to municipal boundaries that really make no economic and social sense. There are many such instances in the province. I would certainly welcome any recognition by the minister and his ministry that this problem exists and that encouraging people to run for council to effect change may not be the ideal solution.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't often respond in a critical way to any hon. member, but I really do have to take exception to this member. Don't try to blame me, hon. member, for your political naivety in getting yourself in trouble locally. I suspect you should learn that you might wish to talk to the Surrey City Council and get them on board. I have to work with those councils, and I suggest that you do so. If they are going to amalgamate and talk about restructuring, I think it's essential that you talk directly to the elected people involved, rather than having your office here in Victoria suggest what's best for local elected officials.
Please don't blame me for your political naivety, hon. member.
L. Fox: Just by way of clarification, my experience tells me that it isn't often that a minister would direct a vote. In fact, most often other clauses would be used to accommodate a vote, or the ministry would accommodate a process. To perhaps allay the fears of some of the members, the minister might want to suggest that it would be unusual for him to duplicate the move that was made by the NDP government between 1972 and 1975, when it forced such a vote on Kamloops and Kelowna. As I understand it, there are still unresolved issues surrounding that decision. If he gives that kind of assurance, perhaps we can all rest.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't reflect on past governments or past practices, hon. member. Circumstances change. However, I want to say that during my short term of a year and a half, we have managed to restructure some major areas, one being Vernon and Okanagan Landing. It was pulled off, and I think the citizens are going to be better off. The other one was the incorporation of Langford, which had been tried many times. Because of the skill of local people and staff in this ministry, we managed to achieve that incorporation. My tactic is that there are different ways to do things, and nine times out of ten you don't need a 2-by-4; you need discussion and working it through. As I think you know, hon. member -- because that's where you come from -- in the end the solution comes from the local people themselves.
Interjection.
The Chair: We're going to deal with section 3 in its entirety -- new sections 6 to 9 -- and I'm calling that vote. But if the hon. member would like to discuss more items, please continue.
L. Fox: To expedite the process, it might be useful if in each section we took the subclauses independently, because some sections later on are extremely long. I look to the Chair for guidance.
The Chair: Okay. Perhaps members could clarify for the benefit of the Chair which subsection they are discussing and whether they want to deal with one subsection at a time or jump all over the map. Continue, member.
L. Fox: I think it would expedite the process if we passed section 3, section 6, which I believe is the section we were just discussing. Then we could go on to the next sections in section 3 and take them in systematic order. Because when we get to section 10, it's enormous.
Section 3, sections 6 and 7 approved.
On section 3, section 8.
L. Fox: It is in this section that I want to discuss restructuring and the area of the vote. When we look at a restructuring vote, we're looking at the incorporation of a municipality -- it may well be a village plus a new area outside which is incorporated into the municipality. In this particular section it calls for one vote in the prescribed new municipality borders. Yet when we look at a later section dealing with the reduction of a municipality, it provides for a vote independent of the municipality on the area that is going to be taken out.
When restructuring a new municipal body -- say from a village to a district municipality -- why would we have one vote, which is not independent, for people outside of the existing village boundaries to make their
[ Page 8059 ]
desires known? We allow it later on in section 8, section 26, for people wishing to remove themselves from a respective municipality. Why is there a variance in the two processes?
Hon. R. Blencoe: My understanding is that this section has not changed, and we're trying to explain the.... It's a good question. The overall vote is the minimum requirement, but within this section, I, as the minister, can require a double vote. For instance, in Hope, if I recall correctly, we had a vote within the area to join, and then we had a vote for the people in the surrounding area on whether they wanted that area to join. That is quite permissible. Indeed, it's been that way for a long time to maintain flexibility. We do a number of different kinds of ballots these days, such as composite ballots. My understanding is that the flexibility is there, but that doesn't mean to say that we couldn't refine it.
Does that help, hon. member?
L. Fox: Perhaps if the minister could point to the precise section which allows him to determine that structure, it might help. In reading this I can't see where there's any opportunity, unless it's under the section 6, which gave the minister the power to instruct that there be two separate votes, one for the new area and one for the old area.
[4:30]
Hon. R. Blencoe: This is technical, so please bear with me. Section 8 refers to the incorporation of a new municipality. In 8(1)(a) we reflect on section 6(3)(a), which talks about the type of vote or how you conduct the vote. It's my understanding that under section 6 the minister can then determine the kind of vote to be held, which I reflected on in terms of the Hope situation.
A. Cowie: I have a question regarding section 8 and also part of section 9. Perhaps, however, the minister can deal with it in general. It was pointed out in the minister's report on housing that one of the objectives would be the creation of housing on Crown lands. There are also situations like Whistler, a resort town, and Tumbler Ridge, which is a resource town -- that would be section 9. There are other proposed new towns, such as up-Island.
My question is that if one deals with regional districts or larger municipalities, and these areas lie within those, there may be an attitude of either stopping or promoting them. It would seem to me, with Tumbler Ridge, for example, that a whole new town was structured, and the provincial government took the initiative to set up a commission and the organization of the new town. With 60,000 people coming into B.C. every year, and with policy such as the housing study, we will supposedly get these new towns. Certainly we see them all over North America and Europe. I happen to favour that approach under certain circumstances. How would the minister set up a new corporation for those? Does this legislation allow for that?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I think the member is slightly ahead. I think we're on section 8, but....
Interjection.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, but section 9 allows for the incorporation of a new municipality and refers to that kind of natural resource development situation. I think it's there. Again, this has not changed significantly. We have done a number of these in the past and they have worked, though I'm still not sure of your drift.
A. Cowie: For the record, if you did it through the regional district, there may not be support for such a new town. There was support for Whistler, for example, to stay away from any local situations. Would an order-in-council be set up? How would the minister use section 9 to promote and assist new town development to get started?
Hon. R. Blencoe: There is flexibility in this act to allow incorporation of a municipality. With respect to Whistler, as the member is aware, a separate act was created for that municipality. There was a lack of local government there, and it was deemed at that time that it was best to create a separate act. Creating that community was primarily driven by the province. That option is still there; it hasn't been used. Tumbler Ridge was under a different program as well. In normal circumstances, section 9 allows for the incorporation of a new municipality.
I am the first to admit that these sections have not been extensively reviewed; they are to be done in the future. We have worked on the general elections, which has been big enough already -- a mammoth task for staff and for local government. But there have been successes, and it does happen.
Section 3, section 8 approved.
On section 3, section 9.
J. Tyabji: I want to canvass section 3, section 9. We talked about it a little bit in second reading. We are talking about the incorporation of a new municipality in conjunction with natural resource development. This is a substantial change from the way the bill was outlined before. From my understanding, instead of a decision being taken by the people locating in the area, it is now at the minister's discretion. Could the minister please explain why there is that change?
Hon. R. Blencoe: My understanding is that under the old act, five electors had to be petitioned. One difficulty was that in new areas, there was no form of local government and there often were no electors, so we felt that we needed to give ourselves flexibility. In Tumbler Ridge they had to hunt. So it's not a significant change; it just gives us flexibility. There was no real rhyme or reason to five electors.
J. Tyabji: Why would the minister not have allowed for both options? For example, it was a minimum of five
[ Page 8060 ]
electors, so in this model there is no option for the local community to initiate and follow through on the process. Now it's only at the minister's discretion, and you could have an instance where the people are trying to incorporate locally and the minister isn't allowing for that.
Hon. R. Blencoe: If there are people present, they are going to incorporate under section 6. This is to give us flexibility for a municipality in terms of natural resource development, and sometimes there are no electors present. If there are people there to vote, they vote under section 6.
Section 3, section 9 approved.
On section 4.
J. Tyabji: I just want a bit of a clarification from the minister on why section 4(a) has been added so that letters patent include exceptions from statutory provisions. What are the specific examples that required that addition?
Hon. R. Blencoe: It used to be in section 13(3) of the old act. It's currently a section; we just moved it.
Sections 4 to 9 inclusive approved.
The Chair: The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca on which section?
L. Fox: Hon. Chair, I thought we had an understanding that with some of these large sections, we would go through the subsections. We've got sections 21 and 22 under section 7, and so forth.
The Chair: Hon. member, what you refer to as subsections are not in fact subsections. We have sections, and we have notations of sections as they apply to the Municipal Act. Those are sections in the Municipal Act as it stands right now, with the amendments noted in the sections. We've gone through sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Do you want to go back to "Change of municipal status"? Was that the area you wanted to touch on in section 21 of section 7?
L. Fox: I really don't have any need to go back. I'm concerned that when we get to section 10, there are so many subsections, as there are in other parts.... If we go at the rate you're going, flipping through whole sections that may include up to 20 pages of this book, there's no way that is a legitimate process we can follow. I beg your indulgence and ask you to deal with this in a rational way, because it's going to be a long evening.
The Chair: Based on Orders of the Day, we have a number of amendments on section 10, so we'll be here for quite some time. I think there will be great opportunity for debate and discussion during the rest of the day.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I have some section 10 amendments here.
A. Cowie: We have some amendments too.
The Chair: We're going to call the sections -- for example, section 35 within section 10.
Section 10, section 35 approved.
On section 10, section 36.
C. Tanner: I just want to make one minor improvement. As long as everybody realizes we're talking about section 10, I don't think there's any need for the Chairman to mention section 10 every time. All he has to say is 36, 37, 38; that would make it easier.
[4:45]
Section 10, section 36 approved.
On section 10, section 37.
A. Warnke: As I mentioned in second reading, this is a change from holding general local elections every two years. Given that holding local elections every three years is a rather recent phenomenon, it is worthwhile at this stage for the minister to make an assessment as to whether a three-year term is appropriate and whether it is a development in our political system that is warranted, especially when people are actually putting more pressure on politicians at all three levels.
We'll just deal here primarily with municipal and city councillors. People want frequent accountability, especially at the local level. If we take the concept of recall, people have been suggesting that they want the ability to recall our elected officials as soon as possible. It's really another way of saying that they prefer the two-year term, but the two-year term has been extended to three years; it is a movement away from more electoral accountability to the people. Therefore I'm wondering if the minister might give some overall assessment, considering where we have come from and where we are now.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I recall the member's comments in second reading on this issue. I have to say that as a city councillor for a number of years, I always felt that the two-year election was good. I happen to believe that the citizens' opportunity to vote for elected officials more often than not is probably a healthy thing. But what transpired at the UBCM was a number of years of debate on whether British Columbia would come down. Some of my colleagues across the way will remember the discussions which I and they were a part of. We were the last jurisdiction in the country to still have a two-year term. The debate at UBCM and all across local government was widespread for a number of years. In the end UBCM finally voted and wanted, fairly significantly, to go to the three-year term.
I remember when the vote came to this House. I can't recall who was the minister at the time; I suspect it
[ Page 8061 ]
may have been Rita Johnston. I know that in our ranks as opposition there was a difference of opinion. As a matter of fact, we agreed to a free vote, and a number of members voted for the two-year retention and a number of us voted for three years. My rationalization of it at the end was to give it an opportunity. There seemed to be momentum to try it, the grounds usually being that two years isn't long enough to get something done, so you therefore need three years. I'm not convinced of that argument, hon. member. If you're going to get it done, you're going to get it done and work in that two-year time frame. I have to tell you that we thought of reviewing the three-year term this time around. The consensus from UBCM, elected people, a former president -- Gordon Campbell -- and others was that we have only had one time out, one three-year period, and we're going into a second period of three years.
I have undertaken and agreed to.... Obviously it all depends on what happens here -- whether it's this minister, or whoever is around.... What I have said is let's do the next three years. We have some assessments for the first term; there are pros and cons. Some people say they're not going to run again -- it's too much time, etc. So let's do an analysis of the next three years, and then we will undertake a review. Maybe we should take a look at whether we should go back. The consensus at the moment is that it's too early to determine, when we have only had one go at it. I always supported the two-year term, but we're in the three-year, so let's see where we go.
A. Cowie: I wasn't going to mention that particular topic. Since the minister has given his opinion, I feel that I would like to at least get my opinion on record. Since we are the Liberal Party, we have different points of view.
I have served ten years at the municipal level, and have been elected under the two-year term and the three-year term. From my experience, I can assure you that in many councils nothing gets done during the first six months to one year, because new members are always coming on board; in some cases, whole councils change. Then, in the last six to nine months, nothing gets done. So that leaves three months to do everything. I assure you that that does happen. So I favour the three-year term; it gives time. I would hope, for the minister to overcome the problem of.... Maybe some day it could be shifted back to two years, but I think we should have the opportunity for councils to get educated very quickly. I think Municipal Affairs should speed up their program for allowing councils to get educated early in the game, and allow them to make decisions.
There seems to be a trend now where council members think of council as being a permanent job. I wish to go on record as saying that I think the three-year term is better. At least the person knows it's three years. They can get something done, and then get out. I think it is better that people run for three or six years, and then leave and go on to something else. We get too many politicians wanting to stay on forever. I would have thought that the three-year term is a much more sensible way of going than two years.
Section 10, sections 37 to 40 inclusive approved.
On section 10, section 41.
L. Fox: I think this really reflects the practice presently in place. Most of the concerns that I had raised in my massive mail-out to all regional districts, municipalities and school boards were that there should be a clause which would allow for equitable cost-sharing arrangements between municipalities and school boards, and this appears to do that.
There was some concern whether there would be consistency around the province. Perhaps the minister may want to address that issue under section 41. How is the minister going to assure consistency in the respective districts?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I can understand why the member might think this is the cost-sharing for school boards. That comes up a bit later under section 50, and it is addressed in the School Act. I have made some suggestions, and when we get to it we can discuss it.
C. Tanner: Mr. Chair, I have one more minor improvement on procedure. Perhaps the minister would allow us to say aye instead of him. He keeps snapping out the ayes, and you keep moving on to the various paragraphs, and we can't keep up. We could say it, or maybe one of his other members could, but not the minister.
Section 10, sections 41 to 44 inclusive approved.
On section 10, section 45.
L. Fox: This section deals with public notice of elections and with the specific requirements to publicize them in a newspaper. Certainly there are some regional districts in the Cariboo which were concerned about the intent of this section. In some smaller municipalities they don't have a newspaper; in fact, they may be served by a neighbouring newspaper. In a regional district area, they may not be covered by a specific newspaper.
It would seem that this section should be worded so that advertising is required by newspaper or, if deemed appropriate.... Because it appears as though there may be a situation where there is no newspaper to advertise in. This clause doesn't seem to allow for that circumstance. Perhaps the minister might answer that.
Hon. R. Blencoe: That's a good question and reflects the member coming from a smaller community and being aware of those situations. I come from one of those large urban areas where we have a lot of communication possibilities.
I think section 45(2) covers that. Actually, hon. member, this was extensively covered in our consultation with UBCM and local government. The fact that we have referred to "alternative means within
[ Page 8062 ]
the same time period" means virtually that we allow radio, flyers, weeklies or monthlies. Whatever they can come up with for the information system is there. In terms of our consultation with UBCM and local government, our understanding is that this will do the job.
Section 10, sections 45 to 51 inclusive approved.
On section 10, section 52.
L. Fox: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
[SECTION 10, is hereby amended by deleting from new section 52, subsection (4), paragraph (d) of the Municipal Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 290, the phrase "for a term of at least 99 years", and by the substitution therefor of the following:
"where the lease specifies that the lease-holder is responsible for paying taxes on the property."]
The reason for this is that in many cases around British Columbia people who have historically had the right to vote will now be excluded. We look at situations, for instance, where people lived on a lease from the Crown that was not 99 years. In fact, you cannot achieve a 99-year lease, yet now under this clause, that will be excluded for voting purposes. I don't think that's what the minister intended to do, but obviously it's what he is doing.
[5:00]
I believe this is a very friendly amendment. It recognizes that those people are legitimate taxpayers and that they should have the opportunity to vote. Going back to the Boston Tea Party, we can see how irate people can get when that right to vote is removed. I would allow the minister to give me his considerations. I know there are other members who want to speak on the motion as well.
On the amendment.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Let me try to start this discussion, because it's useful. It's probably one of the more substantive changes to this legislation. In the discussion document we put out, as the member is aware, we primarily said that in our democratic society today all levels of government recognize that citizenship and residency are the determining factors in eligibility to vote. In B.C., of course, we had some significant anomalies in who could vote at the local level. As you recall, I made the suggestion in the discussion document that we should go to residency and citizenship. A case can be made that paying taxes, even if you're a non-resident, should automatically get you a vote. What we did was compromise and listen to some of the outstanding concerns shared particularly by communities like Whistler and by Gulf Islanders who own properties in other jurisdictions. We suggested that we have two categories of voter: one for residents who hold citizenship and residency; but, on the other hand, we heard over and over again that ownership and paying taxes at the local level should allow one to retain a vote.
Now, the member is quite right: there are a multitude of other opportunities for voting which we are virtually the last jurisdiction in the free world to allow. One of them is leasing. Lease a parking space or a storage locker in another jurisdiction, and you get to vote. Or, for instance, if you lease a tie-down for an aircraft or a recreation spot on somebody else's property out in Sidney, it gives you a vote. You lease a little bit of space and you get a vote in Sidney. Quite frankly, the anomalies were overwhelming and impossible to monitor. There were people in short-term leases and long-term leases; some were paying taxes, some weren't, and some were subletting. How was eligibility to be determined? So when it came down to it in our discussions, it was residency and citizenship for one category, and ownership was the other clear way to measure.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
I recognize that your point is that leasing should get you a vote. I guess we differ on that viewpoint. We've compromised in terms of ownership, and thus far the response has been that that's a reasonable compromise. We took a look at all the leasing situations. What happens now with virtually all jurisdictions is that you just come in and say you lease. They don't check; they don't look. It really is very subject to abuse. Those cottagers who are concerned with what they own get a vote. We've given the 99-year lease the vote because that's basically considered ownership. But in terms of leasing, Vancouver hasn't had leasing since 1974, despite what the mayor who's running for the Liberals now says. He's been there long enough to change it. It has not been changed, and he has not made that overture.
I guess we have a difference of opinion. We think we've found a balance. We discussed in second reading the fine balance between residency and permanency: that those who lease and often are not in a permanent situation affect those who have to live with the full-time decisions, so the property owner absentee retains one vote per property. But in terms of the leasing anomalies, you're quite correct that we have eliminated them.
L. Fox: It seems to me that this province was innovative some time ago when it recognized that renters should have the right to vote. It shouldn't be tagged only to property owners.
Hon. R. Blencoe: They are residents.
L. Fox: It may be true that they're residents, but the fact is that this particular amendment as put forward excludes people who may be five-month residents. They may have a sizable holding not just on leased Crown land but on other leased land, but they are now excluded from voting. It seems to me that if they're paying a substantial amount of taxes, then a leased parking lot giving the right to vote versus somebody who has a substantial investment and is paying taxes on it in the same way as any other non-resident individual,
[ Page 8063 ]
whether or not they own the land, is substantially different.
I'm surprised that the minister would not want to understand those concerned citizens and give them the same autonomy he is giving through this legislation to people who basically have no investment in the community. Under this legislation you can't be a street person and vote, and I don't argue against that.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Thirty days' residence.
L. Fox: Certainly, but you could have absolutely no investment anywhere in the community -- not even pay rent -- and still vote, yet a substantial tax payer would not have the same opportunity to vote as a non-resident owner has. I'm very disappointed that the minister would not see that we should in all fairness reflect the rights of those individuals in this legislation.
I can think of another issue that this clause doesn't address. I suppose I should wait until we finish the discussion on this amendment so that I don't get ruled out of order by the Chair, because it's something different. I'm concerned that you could have a situation where a piece of land leased to a developer by a municipality under other legislation may be looked at as a summer cottage or a condo that you visit or whatever. You're going to be taxed the same as any other resident or non-resident and still not have the right to vote. I ask the minister to seriously consider expanding this into something more reasonable with respect to lessors.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I suspect we're going to have an impasse here. It's a matter of philosophy to some degree. We think we've achieved a balance between the interests of residency and non-residency. The basic driving principle of voting at any level is still citizenship and residency. We've gone away from the old days where the number of votes depended on how much tax you paid. I think you have to be very careful there. We have tried to maintain that the non-resident property owner retain a vote. We've tried to balance.... On ownership, we've tried to say that a stake in the community is residency and citizenship; but on the other hand, leasing over five years or two years, or having one property here but living somewhere else.... I think you've got to balance those interests. I can understand where you're coming from, hon. member. You have your supporters to support or whatever. But we, in this legislation, have tried to balance the interests.
L. Fox: I almost take offence at the minister's suggesting that I'm trying to support my supporters. I have a concern for a rural lifestyle and for the right of rural people to be involved in decisions made by local or regional governments that will affect their lifestyle. When the minister suggests that because you pay taxes, you shouldn't be able to buy votes, I think that's straight ignorance. In fact, if you look at the situation and at the argument, all this amendment does is give the holder of a lease that's shorter than 99 years the same rights as a non-resident property owner. If he's contributing in exactly the same way as a non-resident property owner, why should he not have the opportunity to vote? That's what this amendment suggests. I'm really disappointed that the minister doesn't understand the logic of that and chooses to enter into cheap politics in order to try to dissuade me and others from speaking on the principle of this amendment.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Well, I'd ask that member a question: if an absentee Albertan company pays significant municipal taxes or provincial property taxes at the local level here, should they get a vote in the province of British Columbia, provincially or federally?
L. Fox: I'm extremely pleased that the minister should ask my advice, and I'll turn it around. If in fact that individual owned the land and would qualify under the non-residency rule, the answer would be exactly the same. All I'm suggesting here is that anybody who has a 20- or 30-year lease for a cabin or a building that they utilize on a regular basis should have the same opportunity to vote as an individual who owns that piece of land, because the taxation on that property will be the same, irrespective of whether it's owned by the individual or leased from the government or the Crown. That's all I'm asking: give exactly the same recognition to those individuals who lease property from the Crown and build substantial holdings on it.
By the way, I note that most often they cannot buy the land; they must lease it, particularly around lake frontage and if it doesn't have access from a road maintained by Highways. They can't acquire it; they have to lease it. This legislation excludes those individuals from having a vote; that's all it does. I'm not suggesting that we give them any other power than a non-resident voter would get under this legislation.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm just going to respond once more to this. Actually, I refer to the member's letter to me and to his official response to the discussion document. I notice that in his official response the member never actually mentioned this issue, was not concerned about it and did not draw my attention to it. As a matter of fact, his official response on behalf of the Social Credit Party said that non-resident property owners should not have the opportunity to vote in municipal, school district or regional district elections but should be able to vote on taxing bylaws and referendums. I've gone much further. You wanted to limit the non-resident property owner to voting only on taxing; I've given them a full vote. You want to limit property ownership, but you want to back short-term leases as opposed to residency and citizenship. Hon. member, I am really surprised at you.
The Chair: May I remind all members: through the Chair, please.
L. Fox: It's really too bad that the minister only picks a selective part of a paragraph to read out. It was not an official stance; it was reflective of many concerns
[ Page 8064 ]
out there. The member knows full well that it wasn't an official policy statement. However, let him play his cheap politics; that's beside the point. It's only going to set the mood for the rest of the night, because I am certainly prepared to sit here all night or for the rest of the week. I know that other people have questions they would like to ask the minister with respect to this amendment, so I will just relax for a moment.
[5:15]
R. Neufeld: I support my colleague in his amendment. I would ask the minister about something that I know of personally, because I happen to own a piece of property in Kelowna at a place called Holiday Park; it is a 45-year lease, which would exclude me. I pay lease fees and taxes on that property. Although I have never voted in Kelowna, would it exclude me? There are probably about 500 people who live in that park. Some of them live there year-round; a lot of them live there half the year and disappear for the other half -- they are called snowbirds. How would your legislation affect those people who really have a residence in British Columbia, but only lease for 45 years?
Hon. R. Blencoe: If they have residency there, they vote there as residents.
R. Neufeld: It's over six months.
Hon. R. Blencoe: So they have residency. Did you say you had never voted there?
The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Minister; through the Chair, please.
R. Neufeld: As I understand, I had the right to vote there before, but now I don't. Is that correct?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Unless you are resident there, that is correct.
R. Neufeld: I will say to the minister again that there are an awful lot of people who live in that particular park under something like 45- or 48-year leases, who are going to be disenfranchised from voting. That's an issue, and I'm sure the minister should seriously consider what has been brought forward to him, because that's only one area that I know of specifically, and I'm sure there are many others in British Columbia.
One other that comes to mind in the north and which may not be evident in the south so much, is the guiding outfitter. There are quite a number of them in northeast and northwest British Columbia who have their operations in the mountains and who may not live there for six months. They only live there part-time during hunting season and then they come into a community or go south. What effect would that have on these people, keeping in mind that these businesses generate millions of dollars? I am not sure of the amount of taxation, but it would be substantial revenue for British Columbia. Would this disenfranchise those people also?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, you should realize that when you talk about disenfranchise you are misleading. People can always vote where they reside, where the decisions are made. That's where their residency is, and that's their opportunity to vote. We have balanced the competing interests in this, and we have determined, through discussion back and forth, that there are two types: voter residency based on citizenship and property ownership.
When it came to leases, it was very difficult, hon. member. How many leases? How long should they be? How do you determine that for those who live there on a full-time basis? In terms of the lease, should the non-resident have an equal vote to those who are resident there and who live with the decisions? It's a tricky one. We've had to balance those interests. But disenfranchise, no. If you're there six months, you can vote there; otherwise you still vote in your home community, where you live.
Quite frankly, I think most Canadians today accept citizenship and residency as basic to the fundamental reason for voting. In this act, though, we've tried to balance some of those competing interests. Of course, Vancouver eliminated many of these things back in 1974. And some of these other things.... For instance, as far as we can determine, the corporate vote doesn't exist anywhere in the free world other than in British Columbia.
We're just trying to bring in a modern act that reflects why people get to vote, based on democracy, citizenship and giving status. With regard to status in municipal elections, some people in British Columbia today have a multitude of votes based on ownership of property in another jurisdiction. We have to balance those interests and recognize that the amount of taxes you pay today.... The argument, to some degree -- for those who will argue that taxes direct the vote -- is that the more taxes you pay or the more properties you have, the more votes you should have. We're trying to balance those interests, hon. member.
R. Neufeld: It's absolutely ridiculous to relate it that way. I can't imagine why the minister would want to bring this discussion down to that level. My goodness! I'm not talking about the more property you own or the richer you are, the more you get to vote. That's absolutely ridiculous. In fact, it's stupid, to be quite honest. I hope the minister takes that to heart, because it is.
The 99 years, of course, cuts out an awful lot of people. It's interesting that quite a few members of the NDP think it's funny that people who live in the mountains of British Columbia derive their living from those mountains and send all kinds of tax dollars to this government. It's absolutely ridiculous that they would sit there and laugh about disenfranchising those people. But it's typical of this enlightened group; they don't know when they should take something seriously. They bring in pure party politics when they shouldn't. We should be discussing what is real, and what's going on in the province. That's what the Social Credit caucus came here to do today, not to get ridiculous as the minister has done.
[ Page 8065 ]
The minister brought this out initially when he spoke about parking and storage sites. If it happened, I'd be quite interested in knowing how many times it happened. If this is fact, what steps did the minister take -- other than changing the legislation? If there are people with parking or storage sites in British Columbia who are voting, I would like to know. Would the minister please table in the House the number of such abuses taking place in British Columbia?
Hon. R. Blencoe: We obviously can't name names, because it's not registered. That's one of the problems. But we know that that is eligible; it does happen, and we have no way of monitoring it. We don't know how many actually do it. That's one reason we have tried to clean it up. We have a bill written in the nineteenth century that, for the first time, meets the nineties.
D. Mitchell: I'm confused by the approach the minister is taking on this bill. The minister knows that I've been very supportive of some of the changes and consultation that he's undertaken with respect to this legislation, particularly in my constituency. But he seems to be equating strange notions of citizenship and confusing them with ratepayers. I wonder if I could just ask the minister to reflect on this. Because I think the amendment is proposed in a constructive spirit, and I'm not sure why the minister is rejecting it out of hand.
When we talk about citizenship, I refer the minister to the legal definition of what a citizen is. The classic definition of a citizen, as stated in Black's Law Dictionary, is: "A member of a nation or a body politic of the sovereign state or political society who owes allegiance." That's what a citizen is. We usually equate that notion of citizenship with people who are part of a nation or body politic of a larger nature, but we're usually not referring to municipalities or local governments in the same sense. It's very different. Local governments exist almost exclusively as a result of provincial statute; they are the creatures of the province in that sense. They exist for the benefit of inhabitants, residents and ratepayers. That's explicit in all of the legislation jurisprudence.
To suggest that inhabitants or residents of a local jurisdiction ought to be equated with citizens of a nation-state is to give local government some powers which were never contemplated in the first place. I could refer the minister to a brief statement about background and history as long ago as 1891. The Supreme Court of Canada recognized that provincial legislatures, in dealing with municipal corporations -- and that's how they are referred to, as corporations.... This is a quote from the famous Williams v. Portland case in the Supreme Court of Canada, 1891: "They endeavored to enact legislation that is best calculated to give both residents and ratepayers a voice in the regulation of matters which affect them and their property." This is an important decision defining the terms that we're using here in this legislation today in this committee. Clearly the courts recognize that a local government ratepayer, whether resident or not, has a legitimate interest in the civic affairs of that community and that their contribution, which is the payment of taxes, ought to entitle them to a voice in the selection of their community leaders. That strikes to the heart of what the amendment from the member for Prince George-Omineca is really getting at here.
Historically, just to go a bit further into the background, according to Rogers's Law of Canadian Municipal Corporations, municipal ratepayers, while not resident in a particular municipality, were nonetheless inhabitants of that locale. They were therefore qualified as municipal electors. Over time, the franchise at the local level has been enlarged to include those persons who reside, yet do not own property, in the given jurisdiction. Mere residency has come to constitute a commitment to a community sufficient to entitle a person to vote in its affairs. That's true. The proposal of the minister, though, without the amendment that's being proposed here in this committee, continues this trend in part, but the dramatic departure comes with the stated intention to shrink the local electorate by disenfranchising non-resident property owners or tenants, individual or corporate.
What I perceive to be the vulnerable point of the minister's proposal here in this legislation is that it appears to fly squarely in the face of centuries-old and generally accepted principles that those who contribute by way of taxes to a local government treasury ought to be entitled to a voice in the expenditure of those funds and ought, therefore, to be included on the list of persons eligible to vote in the matter of the election of local representatives. That's the issue we're talking about here.
Is the minister willing to indicate that he would accept the amendment that's offered, I think in good faith, in this committee today? It's a non-controversial amendment, and I think it actually improves the legislation, because it gets away from these strange notions of citizenship that the minister has referred to, which don't apply to local governments. It's very different from the kind of statement of citizenship or election that brought the minister or other members of the committee here to this chamber. If he would agree to that, then I think we could move on in a spirit of constructive legislation. We could probably try to deal with the rest of the bill in the same spirit.
Hon. R. Blencoe: No, we do not accept the amendment. Basically I've said that residency and Canadian citizenship give the right to vote. I note that you were quoting from an 1890 piece of.... I'm not sure what it was, hon. member. I hope we've moved on from the 1890s, but perhaps where you come from you still prefer the 1890s. We're in the 1990s, and we have basically said that residency and citizenship are the major factors determining eligibility to vote, but we've made the compromise that if you own property in other jurisdictions it is a significant commitment to that community. I'm being asked to return to the days when we had a multitude of leases and corporate votes and everything else. We have tried to balance those interests, so I do not accept the amendment.
[ Page 8066 ]
C. Tanner: I'm in a different position from both of the arguments that have been put in that I think there is a compromise here if the minister accepts the fact that the person who owns the property can delegate the vote, which has been the case in the past with the corporate vote. You could designate someone to vote for you. If the minister would accept that the property owner can delegate the vote to the tenant, it solves the problem.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Let me give you an example. If you live in Sidney and own a piece of property in Victoria with two, three, four or five other people, you can collectively designate one person to do the voting. That's again where we balance the interest of one resident vote for one property vote for an absentee owner. If what you're getting at is the corporate sector, the corporate vote has indeed been removed. You could have designated an agent to do that, but that has gone under this legislation.
[5:30]
C. Tanner: To use the minister's example -- if I was foolish enough to buy property in Victoria, when there's property available in Sidney which is much more valuable -- if one of those five or six people who owned that property was also the tenant working out of that property, would that be acceptable?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Could the member put the question again?
C. Tanner: The five of us own a piece of property in Victoria and live in some other place. One of us is a tenant in that property that the five of us own. You said we could designate one of the five of us to vote. Could it be the tenant?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The tenant, who I presume is a resident for six months and 30 days in the municipality, would vote as a resident, right? The five of you deem one out of the five to vote as an absentee owner. The tenant -- and I go back to residency and citizenship, hon. member -- gets to vote as a resident of that community with the six month and one month proviso.
C. Tanner: Okay, the minister missed my subtlety there. The tenant in this case is one of the owners, and all five owners are absentee, and so is the tenant. The tenant can then exercise the vote for the five owners. Is that correct?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The group of you would still select the person who votes, whether it's a tenant or not. Right?
C. Tanner: The five of us bought the property, we all moved away, one of us went back and ran a business there, then moved away. The only difference between the circumstance that I've just mentioned.... And you said we can do that: the tenant can be an elector in that case, representing the five of us -- we have chosen that person. Having made that decision, we decide to incorporate -- for good reasons. People incorporate to protect their interests. The five of us have incorporated. We now lose the vote. Correct?
Hon. R. Blencoe: With respect, you can get the vote one way or the other, but you can't get two votes in different ways. Perhaps I should say that you can't have your cake and eat it. Either you do it as a resident or as an absentee property owner; and you get to select. But you are quite correct: the corporate vote has gone in terms of.... That was an anomaly, particularly in terms of status and ability to vote beyond just residency and citizenship.
C. Tanner: I don't think the minister sees the point I'm making. I'm trying to illustrate the anomaly you have created in your legislation. The five of us buy a piece of property. As absentee landlords we designate one of the five to be the voter. What's the difference between the five of us as property owners and the five of us who make ourselves a limited company? For whatever reason, we are still five people who own a company, and who have a vote in the first place. Why don't we have one in the second place?
Hon. R. Blencoe: One of the difficulties is that a corporate entity can have a multitude of potential owners or people on the title, and trying to trace them all back is extremely difficult. We determined that that component of the current voting pattern should go, and we've gone back to a simplified form of residency and, on the other hand, a non-property owner. But you are correct, you do have to select whoever is on the title. In Whistler, for instance, if you've got a condominium and ten people own it -- whatever agreement they've got -- those people are going to have to make a decision about who should vote for their particular property.
C. Tanner: I don't want to flog this to death, but I'd like the minister to tell me the difference between us five as individuals, who select one of our own to vote on that property vote as absentee landlords, and us five united in a company. We still are a property owner. We had the right in the first case. For reasons which are best known to ourselves we've incorporated. As long as we are a property company, why shouldn't we still have the vote?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Nobody recognizes the corporate vote anymore, and that's why we eliminated it.
D. Mitchell: I think the minister is actually referring to subsection (5) of section 52, where we're talking about restrictions on joint tenants or tenants in common holding property. Only one of them can vote. From what I'm hearing him say in response to the member for Saanich North and the Islands, there could be some other problems that I would anticipate. For instance, what would happen where a piece of property would be held under these circumstances in joint tenancy by a husband and wife? Does the minister u
[ Page 8067 ]
nderstand what kind of pressure he might be putting on some fragile marriages?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I suspect that if they're that fragile, deciding on a vote on a piece of property.... I presume that most people will intelligently find a way to agree on who should hold the vote. But I recognize that, and people have brought it to my attention. Again, the difficulty we have is where we cut off in terms of people on title. We have many properties -- and members know this -- with three or four hundred potential votes for one property, and we had to find some way to deal with that.
D. Mitchell: The minister is referring to some extraordinary circumstances. What I'm referring to is a very common situation where a husband and wife jointly own a piece of property but may not be residents. Maybe they own a small piece of recreational property or a retirement home, but it's owned jointly in the names of both the husband and the wife. I'm glad that this minister does not have marital counselling within his ministerial responsibility, because I wouldn't want to rely on his abilities in that area.
I actually would like to ask him if this section of the bill really means that the very common situation of a husband and wife in joint ownership of a recreational property will now involve a decision as to which individual -- the husband or wife -- is entitled to vote. Has that been contemplated? Has the minister really thought through the repercussions of that?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, we have thought of that, and yes, there was lots of discussion around that. The difficulty is that you may have a husband and wife in a traditional relationship, or you may have other kinds of relationships involving two people. Once you get into two, then you've got sons, daughters and grandparents. The only clear way was: one property, one vote. I recognize the comments the member is making, but there are other interpretations in modern society of what a relationship is. When you move to two, then you may open the gates to more.
The Chair: I'd like to remind members that we are dealing with an amendment to that section, which deals with 99 years, as opposed to the whole section. We're straying ever so slightly into the whole section.
J. Tyabji: I think we will have to return to subsection (5) later on, after we deal with the amendment. I'm sure the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, being an expert in House procedures, knows that.
I would like to speak in favour of the amendment that has been put forward by the Social Credit critic. I'd like to canvass a different aspect of how this amendment might be relevant. When we're looking at the idea of a 99-year lease as opposed to what we might call an arbitrary figure -- and therefore this being a much more sensible approach to things, rather than an arbitrary number for the lease -- we have somebody who is recognized as paying property taxes from that. The reason is that we currently have -- and this minister, I'm sure, will remind us -- a very sensitive area of concern of this government, and that's with regard to the aboriginal treaty negotiations and the fact that in the future there will be a different level of government developing out of that. We know that the most popular property arrangement in aboriginal land is through lease arrangements. They're not always 99 years; sometimes they're less than 99 years.
There's a very good chance that at the conclusion of the negotiations the government is conducting with the aboriginal people, those people may constitute themselves as a municipal government, very similar to the Sechelt Indian band model. In the event of those negotiations leaving us with municipal-style governments throughout the province, we will see that the majority of property holders may have leases for less than 99 years. Even if they're non-resident, it could be that it's a secondary residence or a place where they spend three or four months of the year. Normally, in a different jurisdiction, they might have a 99-year lease; but in the aboriginal jurisdiction, it's less than that. Conventionally, when we look at municipalities in terms of property ownership, the 99-year lease has been the standard format. But I think the minister can appreciate that we will see different formats evolving in the future. It's in recognition of the different formats that this amendment makes a lot of sense.
Hon. R. Blencoe: The member's questions are anticipating the future. Unfortunately, this legislation cannot and does not deal with voting on aboriginal lands. It's very hard in legislation to anticipate what might be. The member is quite correct that things may change, and we may have to deal with that. But we cannot deal at this time with what may happen in the future, and this legislation doesn't deal with voting on aboriginal lands.
J. Tyabji: Actually, the point in using the aboriginal model as a hypothetical scenario for the minister was to try to push home the recognition that a 99-year lease is not necessarily going to be the conventional property lease arrangement of the future. Once one realizes that there may not be a 99-year lease -- as the Social Credit critic moved, it may be a 45- or 60-year lease -- but that the person may still spend three to four months of the year living on the property, although their primary residence would be somewhere else, the amendment, which recommends that we move to the basis of paying property taxes, does make more sense and seems to be a fairly constructive one. Conventional thinking would automatically choose 99 years, but I think in the future we'll see a difference, and that's why the amendment makes some sense.
Hon. R. Blencoe: With due respect to the member, I can't anticipate the future; maybe the member can. Right now the 99-year lease is the conventional wisdom. It may very well be that that will change. At the moment 99-year leases are considered virtual ownership. But I give the benefit of the doubt to the member: there may be some changes to
[ Page 8068 ]
conventional wisdom in the future. Obviously, then we'll adapt and make some changes here. But it's really hard to anticipate the future in current legislation.
J. Tyabji: My last question for the minister. In what way does the proposed amendment represent a change? If we assumed that all current leases were for 99 years, and the amendment was accepted, how is there a substantial change?
The Chair: Would the member like to repeat the question?
J. Tyabji: If this were algebra we would say, let x equal 99 for the purpose of this, but since it isn't algebra, let me put it this way. We're accepting that the conventional wisdom is 99, and that's why it's here. If the amendment was accepted, other than the fact that it doesn't state 99, what substantial change to the bill does the amendment represent?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Apparently, current wisdom is that anything less than a 99-year lease is not automatically shown on the land title.
[5:45]
J. Tyabji: I didn't quite hear the minister's response.
Hon. R. Blencoe: It's my understanding that the 99-year lease is accepted as a recognition of land title, but Land Titles does not necessarily recognize anything else. The homeowner grant also recognizes the 99-year lease as next to formal ownership.
J. Tyabji: Other than the fact that the bill states 99 years, the substantial change from the minister's perspective is that the amendment would refer to properties where land title had not been given over. Is that what I'm to understand? It seemed like the minister said it was only 99-year leases that confer land title.
Hon. R. Blencoe: To simplify, current wisdom is that anything less than a 99-year lease is not deemed to be ownership. We have reflected in this bill that with ownership, in terms of residency outside of a jurisdiction where you have property, you get a vote as a non-resident property owner because you own the property, not because you lease for five, ten or 15 years. The exception is that we are recognizing 99 years because that is a conventional recognition of title and is considered virtual ownership.
J. Tyabji: So the definition is one that the minister's office has had a discretionary exercise.... Or is it the ministry that has decided this is a 99-year...? Who decided that a 50-year lease is not going to be recognized as ownership, whereas a 99-year lease will be? I understand you have to draw a line somewhere, but the point is that we could draw the line, as the amendment does, with someone who is paying property taxes.
We're not in a position to judge whether or not that is a secondary residence or not. Even if the person can only afford a 20-year lease, that might end up being a.... It seems to me that it does tend to favour those who have more money to be able to purchase a longer lease. I'm just wondering where the decision has been made to draw the line at 99 years, rather than approach it from a different angle.
Hon. R. Blencoe: The member is actually making my point on the difficulty of leases and where you draw the line. You've got subleases, you've got sub-subleases, some are on triple net, and some don't pay taxes. As a compromise again, in the interest of fairness, the conventional wisdom of 99-year leases was recognized by homeowner grant and land titles. We are entering a discussion that really brings out the point of trying to determine other categories of voting. It's extremely difficult, and we went to residency and citizenship as one form -- if you live there you have a right to vote there -- determined, of course, by six months and one month in the community. And we allowed property ownership, clearly defined on title -- one person per property could vote.
But now I think you're actually making the point why this lease issue is extremely difficult to deal with. We tried to grapple with it, and trying to monitor it and make it fair is very hard. Is it five, 20 or 50 years?
Interjection.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Well, it's 99 years because that's the conventional wisdom. Or, as the member said, is it storage lockers? Administrators have told us that storage lockers, leased parking spots and leased spaces for recreational vehicles did get votes. So we've decided that even B.C. has to face up to the reality that for voting you have to have rules that reflect the times, not a piece of legislation which basically came out of the nineteenth century.
J. Tyabji: I think the minister has made an excellent argument in favour of the amendment by saying that the difficulty with leases is the reason for moving toward a property tax payment definition.
But let me paint a scenario for the minister that comes to my mind with regard to why the amendment that's been put forward is better than the 99-year lease. Let's assume for a minute that we had a student who had to relocate to go to university and couldn't afford a 99-year lease and had, in a fit of desperation, purchased a 50-year lease so that a young family would have a home to go to, but could only be in that home base four months out of the year and a month at Christmastime. The majority of residence was as a tenant in another jurisdiction. That person would have a vote in a place where their home isn't and where their family isn't going to have a home. They would have a vote where they're going to university. They maintain this 50-year lease because it's as close as they can get to home ownership, and yet they don't have a vote in their own home. I think, as the minister has pointed out very clearly, there is a problem with a lease definition. That person might not have enough money to actually buy a house or have a 99-year lease, but has moved to
[ Page 8069 ]
whatever lease can be attained and is only temporarily living elsewhere while getting an education. The scenario can be painted in a number of different ways. It could be employment or all kinds of things not defined by this bill as a residence. One's instinct is that the person should have a right to vote. That's one of the reasons why this amendment is a good one, because it does tend to streamline the bill a little bit to not allow for that kind of scenario to occur.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Maybe we can very quickly move on to 53, because the member is making a point that applies there. She has mentioned the student and, indeed, in section 53 we actually make an exception for a person who is attending an educational institution. They can select where they vote, back home or where they're attending school. We've made that exception, so they can choose. Next section, hon. member.
J. Tyabji: Then we'll go to the other scenario, where someone has a temporary contract job out of town. They maintain the lease, but they are only able to go back.... The point is that wherever something allows for an arbitrary determination, where do you draw the line? You're better off moving away from an arbitrary number like 99. You're better off recognizing that if someone is in a legitimate lease situation, where there is a certificate of title and they are paying property taxes, that person should be entitled to a vote as a property owner, albeit maybe a temporary one.
It seems to me that the NDP, of all people, should be trying as much as possible to recognize property rights, because it is a disadvantage....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The minister says that he is. But I say that because they're drawing the line at 99 years, they're actually ruling out those people who can't afford a 99-year lease and have perhaps ended up with a shorter one. They still have title and a vested interest in that area. Their entire family may grow up during that lease. Yet they still don't have a vote in that community if, on a contract basis, they have to leave town for some months at a time.
Hon. R. Blencoe: The member makes my point again. She refers to a working person who is temporarily resident in another community and may have a temporary lease. There's no guarantee that they are going to pay the taxes on that property. When we took a look at it, there were a multitude of variations on the theme of who was paying what, so we had to simplify it and clean it up. I understand what you're trying to do, but we are trying to give a piece of legislation that is clear and defined. Speaking of property rights, I have given that right. We're saying that if you own property in another jurisdiction, you maintain your vote. We've balanced the interests of residency and non-residency.
L. Fox: It was an interesting dialogue between the member for Kelowna West...
J. Tyabji: Okanagan East.
L. Fox: ...Okanagan East -- sorry, I keep getting those ridings confused -- and the minister. The minister suggested that the native land issue was not an issue that needed to be dealt with at this time. He suggested that obviously there were some changes coming and that perhaps at some later date legislation would be amended to reflect that. At least that was the essence of it.
Without this amendment, this act excludes 24 properties located on Fraser Lake. People who presently have summer homes of some substance located there have been leasing land from the native reserve for 20 years. They have paid provincial and regional district taxes. Unless you recognize this amendment, those landowners will have lost their right to vote.
Interjection.
L. Fox: Let's just say that those homeowners were non-resident taxpayers. They have now lost their right to vote, because the minister is not prepared to entertain this particular amendment. That's here and now, and I can mention numerous situations like that around the province. Obviously there are some right down here in the islands if I wanted to go and pick them out. It's exactly the same phenomena. The minister suggests that that's something in the future. I suggest that that's narrow-sighted, because it's happening right now. Those kinds of situations should have been reflected in this legislation, and this amendment allows him to do that.
A. Cowie: Sometimes during this debate I feel somewhat like a lessee. I sit behind the chair, and I'm not noticed as much as a property owner over there. That's a clear disadvantage. I want to point out and clarify for the minister that leasing is essentially a socialist concept, yet the minister seems to be treating lessees differently than owners. For instance, the minister bent when it came to Whistler -- which I happen to agree with -- in that he allowed the owner of a property in Whistler to vote. Now when it comes to a lease, you could in fact purchase a 99-year lease when 98 years are spent, and you would still be able to vote. So there is a flaw in this.
I also wish to point out that the idea of leasing is good from a government point of view. For instance, the government has Crown land around some very nice lakes, and they should be leasing that property. Some day they may need that land for a greater purpose. I think the minister got caught when he made an exception for Whistler and recreation owners. He has not given the same advantage to people who lease. I think that's the problem we have here.
Hon. R. Blencoe: We've basically said one vote per property. If you went to a different system and had ownership plus a lease, you would have a vote for non-residents and a vote for leasing. Then you would get two votes per property. I can assure you, hon.
[ Page 8070 ]
member, that we went through these permutations many times when trying to find some answers here. But again we came down to ownership and the 99-year lease, because that's now determined by the conventional wisdom to be next to property ownership, in terms of land titles and the homeowner grant.
We determined that the best way to balance the interests of residents and non-residents was over ownership. Leasing is just fraught with problems when trying to resolve it.
[6:00]
C. Tanner: I thought I had finished my argument before with the minister regarding my interpretation of who could vote, with my five property owners -- or four now; we lost one. When we're defining property electors in section 52, the minister uses the word "person." The definition of "person" under the Interpretation Act includes a corporation. It's not excluded in your interpretations in the rewrite of the bill, and it's not excluded in the Municipal Act. So my view of what a person does was correct, in that a person who is a property elector can have a vote.
Hon. R. Blencoe: We do say in this section that the person must be an individual who is eligible to vote, etc. We also say: "If there is more than one individual who is the registered owner of real property, either as joint tenants or tenants in common, only one of those individuals may register as a property elector under this section in relation to the real property."
Although this is an interesting debate, I'm not sure how relevant it is, quite frankly, to this section. Basically, what we have said is that it is residency, and if a group of individuals owns it -- and we believe that in ownership you've made a commitment to the community -- we've given one vote per property if you're a non-resident property owner.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, hon. members.
The hon. member continues -- on the topic.
C. Tanner: Of course, Madam Chairman. I wouldn't be anywhere else.
It seems to me that if the minister wants to substantiate the point he just made, we need a definition of "person" under section 35. Because if the minister doesn't put it in, I think it's going to be read as person is read in every other statute in this province: that a person includes corporations.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Going back to subsection 50(3): "For clarification, no corporation is entitled to be registered as an elector or have a representative registered as an elector and no corporation is entitled to vote."
I would move that the committee rise....
The Chair: We can put the amendment now.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Sure, if they want to carry on.
The Chair: Would there be some interest in having the amendment put?
L. Fox: I just wanted to make a brief point. In his answer to one of the questions from another member, the minister suggested that they had looked at all kinds of ways and means of defining a lease, or the length of a lease, or whatever, in order to give those people.... I assume that it was in a proactive way, and that the minister was looking for a way to accommodate those kinds of leaseholders by allowing them to vote. But I guess it got so confusing that the minister decided to throw up his hands and say: "I know how we'll do it; we'll eliminate it entirely and put in 99 years, which nobody can comply with. That will deal with it." I would assume, though, that if the minister and the ministry were looking with very genuine effort at how we might identify and legitimize those leaseholders that we have been arguing should be considered, he would have looked very favourably at an amendment that would have accommodated those genuine concerns and therefore allowed him to not disenfranchise people. Numerous people around the province are going to be completely surprised when they go to the polls this November, expecting to be able to vote in a regional district or a municipal election, only to be told that they no longer qualify. So if the minister were genuine in his approach and in his discussions looking at definitions that would have allowed this type of leaseholder a non-resident vote, I cannot understand why he couldn't support the amendment I have put forward.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't think I can add any more to this debate. There are very good reasons for.... In land titles, trying to track paper down to see who the owners are, we have no way of showing who pays the taxes. I have simply tried to explain that.... I recognize there's a difference of opinion. But we feel that resident voters and non-resident property owners is the best way at this time to balance the interests, and I'm going to leave it at that.
On that point, I move adjournment of this debate.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply A, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
The Speaker: I have the honour to table the final report on constituency allowance review from Hon. Ted Hughes, dated June 1993.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I move that the House recess for five minutes.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 6:07 p.m.
The House resumed at 6:28 p.m.
[ Page 8071 ]
Hon. G. Clark presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 2), 1993.
Hon. G. Clark: This interim supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the continuation of government programs until the government's estimates for 1993-94 have been debated and voted on in this assembly. The first interim supply for 1993-94, granted by the Legislative Assembly, was for one-quarter of the tabled estimates. This funding will be exhausted on or before June 30, 1993, forcing the need for a second interim supply so that a variety of essential payments to GAIN recipients, hospitals, school districts, universities and social agencies, as well as the government's payroll, may continue uninterrupted. Therefore, in moving introduction and first reading of this bill, I ask that it be considered as urgent under standing order 81 and be permitted to be advanced through all stages this day.
[6:30]
Just for members in the House, I might say that it is not at all unusual for the government -- as has been the practice since I've been here, some six and a half years -- to bring in an interim supply bill to allow the orderly debate of the estimates. I think that every year I've been here we haven't quite finished them in the first quarter of the year, and therefore there's a requirement for a second interim supply bill. We are, however, very close to approving all of the estimates. Unfortunately, as I've stated, we are running out of money, and therefore it is required that we extend the interim supply order for one further month and advance through all stages this day.
C. Serwa: In response, hon. Speaker, standing order 81 clearly indicates that every bill shall receive three readings on different days prior to being passed. I've listened to the hon. Minister of Finance make his pitch on the point of urgency. The matter is clearly not urgent. Basically what we're seeing today is the end result of a great deal of indifferent and poor planning or poor discipline on the government side of the House. For example, what have we been discussing even today? Rather than estimates, which are perceived to be a matter of urgent importance, we've looked at Bill 27, miscellaneous statutes from the Attorney General. We've looked at Bill 53, the Legal Profession Amendment Act. There is no urgency required in the passage of that particular bill. We could have used the time effectively today for estimates. We continue to go through with Bill 41, the Notaries Amendment Act. There is no urgency with that, hon. Speaker. Nor is there with Bill 47 or Bill 35, the very thick Local Elections Reform Act in committee. We have used our time earlier today and on previous days with very poor planning and a lack of wisdom. We've had ministers travelling all over, filibustering their own estimates and certainly filibustering bills. There is no urgency.
The supply bill is tabled for first reading today. Second and third reading can be accomplished tomorrow. We have until midnight to pass this particular bill. I would think that there would be fairly rapid passage, but clearly the matter of urgency has not been demonstrated. Typically, hon. Speaker, when a case of urgency is brought up under standing order 35, the matter is professed to yourself. You've generally deferred a ruling until later on in that day. Then you come back to this Legislature. This is not dissimilar, in that the matter of urgency has to be clearly established. In this particular case it has not been established. The indifference on the part of the government in putting business before the House has indicated the government isn't concerned about the urgency of getting the estimates through. Otherwise, we would have gone onto estimates and not through debate on bills as we did earlier today.
So, hon. Speaker, I certainly oppose anything further than first reading today. The government can then bring in second and third reading tomorrow, when the matter clearly falls into the category of urgency.
Hon. M. Sihota: I would just like to speak on the points that the hon. member made. Of course, I won't get into any debate about whether or not ministers were filibustering their estimates. I know of no minister who would have that desire. That aside, let me just make a couple of points.
First of all, in his opening comments with regard to this legislation, the Minister of Finance indicated that funding would be required on or before June 30. Secondly, there have been plenty of rulings here in B.C. that support the proposition that a bill such as this can be completed in one sitting on the basis that the public service and government creditors should be paid and may not be paid without the bill's passage. Given the fact that the minister commented with regard to the requirement of these funds on or before June 30, it lends credence to the argument that funds are required to pay for the public service and government creditors prior to that time period.
I should also add that the hon. member did refer to the fact that it is possible -- and indeed, it is true -- that this bill could be introduced tomorrow. But there's no assurance, of course, that it would pass tomorrow. Inasmuch as I would expect all hon. members to want to avail themselves of the July 1 opportunities in their constituencies.... Government, on the basis on which the Minister of Finance has introduced the legislation, believes that it is urgent and necessary that the bill be read now.
The Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition -- on this matter?
F. Gingell: Yes. I take it that the debate we are entered into now deals purely and simply with the question of urgency. It seems to me that when you have a set of circumstances that move along as time moves along, you cannot suddenly declare at some point that it is urgent, if you did not realize early on that it had a priority.
[ Page 8072 ]
I thoroughly endorse the statements made by the Third Party House Leader that you can't suddenly say at 6:35 this evening that this has become urgent. This government recognized the circumstances we were facing. This government sets the agenda. This government determines exactly what is debated in this House day by day.
Interjection.
F. Gingell: No. I'm only dealing with the question of urgency and how you cannot suddenly in your mind wash out everything that has happened before and say: "At this moment in time, this matter has become urgent." You know that we are reaching deadlines, you know that certain things have to happen, and the Third Party House Leader has clearly shown that this government, to this moment in time, has not considered this to be an urgent matter, and it should proceed in the normal way.
The Speaker: Having heard representation from all parties in the House, I thank all hon. members for their submissions and for the very interesting points that have been raised. However, in this instance the Chair can only look at the present urgency of the bill before us, even though members have raised some interesting points otherwise. Having heard all those representations, the Chair has come to the conclusion that with the bill presently before us, standing order 81 should apply. Therefore I would invite the minister to proceed.
Hon. minister, having given first reading, I would ask members just to remain in their seats for a few moments to allow the distribution of the bill.
The House recessed at 6:41 p.m.
The House resumed at 6:45 p.m.
Hon. M. Sihota: I wish to advise all hon. members that Committee of Supply A will be meeting in the Douglas Fir Room to deal with the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services. I wish to call second reading of Bill 64.
A. Warnke: On a point of order, I believe that if we take a look at what has occurred, first reading has not been approved yet.
The Speaker: It is the Chair's recollection that the vote on first reading did take place; however, the chair will check that for the hon. member.
The hon. member for Okanagan West on a point of order.
C. Serwa: This matter has been assessed by the Speaker as being an emergency debate. We have called Committee of Supply A, showing the arrogance and indifference of an inept government. Either we have an emergency debate of urgent importance or we do not. You can't have it both ways. If it's an emergency debate, all members should be entitled to be in the Legislature and not in debate in Committee A.
The Speaker: For the information of hon. members and for clarification, the hon. member mentioned emergency debate and may be referring to standing order 35. We are now dealing with this matter under standing order 81. In terms of the House business that has been called, hon. member, I regret that the Chair does not have jurisdiction over that.
C. Serwa: Point of order again, hon. Speaker.
The Speaker: I hope it is a different point of order, hon. member, and not a debate with the Chair on this point of order.
C. Serwa: Hon. Speaker, I was referring to standing order 81. You determined that the matter was urgent under standing order 81. That's what I was referring to, not standing order 35. Clearly, if the matter was decided on the basis of urgency, then it should be an urgent matter. With the casual indifference of the government, it has been determined that it is not. A few minutes ago it was, and now it's not.
The Speaker: Thank you for your additional comment, hon. member.
Coming back to the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston, there does appear to be some confusion as to whether or not we did vote on first reading. While it is the Chair's recollection that we did, in order to clarify any misunderstanding, the Chair would suggest that we retake that vote to clarify in everyone's mind that the first reading vote has been taken.
The question, then, is first reading of Bill 64.
Motion approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 38 | ||
|
Perry |
Marzari |
Boone |
|
Priddy |
Edwards |
Cashore |
|
Barlee |
Charbonneau |
Jackson |
|
Pement |
Schreck |
Lortie |
|
Hammell |
Lali |
Giesbrecht |
|
Smallwood |
Hagen |
Harcourt |
|
Gabelmann |
Sihota |
Clark |
|
Cull |
Blencoe |
Barnes |
|
MacPhail |
B. Jones |
Lovick |
|
Pullinger |
Dosanjh |
O'Neill |
|
Doyle |
Streifel |
Lord |
|
Janssen |
Brewin |
Kasper |
|
Randall |
Krog | |
| NAYS -- 21 | ||
|
Cowie |
Reid |
Gingell |
|
Dalton |
Farrell-Collins |
Wilson |
|
Stephens |
Hanson |
Serwa |
|
Mitchell |
De Jong |
Neufeld |
|
Fox |
Symons |
Tanner |
|
Hurd |
Warnke |
Anderson |
|
Jarvis |
K. Jones |
Tyabji |
[ Page 8073 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I wish to advise all hon. members that Committee A will be convening to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services. I call second reading of Bill 64.
SUPPLY ACT (No. 2), 1993
Hon. G. Clark: This supply bill is in the general form of all previous supply bills. The bill requests one-twelfth of the tabled estimates to provide for the general programs of the government. I point out the requirement for early passage of the second interim supply bill to provide for the ongoing expenditures of the government for the 1993-94 fiscal year.
I move second reading of Bill 64.
F. Gingell: In listening to the speech of the Minister of Finance -- before he leaves -- on first reading, I was surprised, nay, shocked, to hear him say that they may need these funds before June 30. That they would even think that way indicates that this government has been overspending.
Interjections.
F. Gingell: Listen one moment, please. You passed an interim supply bill on March 30 to cover one-quarter of this year's estimated expenditures. Any person who has been in government or business recognizes that with inflation and the time for ministers to get ready to spend funds, you normally expect to spend the least amount of money in the first quarter. You expect something under 25 percent to be spent in the first quarter, perhaps just a little less than 25 percent in the second quarter and a little more than 25 percent in the third quarter, and a larger amount in the fourth quarter.
I know of no reason that the Minister of Finance would make the plea this evening that they need this interim supply bill passed before June 30. I think all members of this House, whether they be government members or opposition, should be concerned about this, because government has its processes. It approves things and funds get spent, and we all know the delay between invoices being submitted to the government and the invoices actually being paid. The fact that this government has a concern that it needs funds before June 30 is something that I think needs to be looked at.
[7:00]
I'm not exactly sure what the rules of debate are. If it were feasible, I would move an amendment to refer this bill to the Public Accounts Committee. Some group of legislators needs to sit and look at the expenditure plan and the speed at which this government is spending money. I'm under the impression, without having had time to get proper counsel on the issue, that perhaps the motion would be inappropriate. But this clearly is a time to stop for a moment and think about this, and to find out what the government's practices are and exactly what is going wrong if they have already spent one-quarter of this year's budget prior to June 30.
On that basis, hon. Speaker, I would ask you to consider an amendment. I wish to move that second reading of Bill 64 not be proceeded with at this time.
The Speaker: If the hon. member would forward the amendment to the Chair, I will allow debate while the amendment is being considered.
Hon. G. Clark: I would argue that given the Speaker's ruling, the amendment is out of order.
The Speaker: Hon. member, the Chair has not received a copy of the amendment. Until the Chair receives a copy of the amendment, it cannot be determined whether it's in order or out of order.
Hon. G. Clark: Thank you. Would you like debate on the hoist motion, then?
Hon. M. Sihota: No, no, no.
An Hon. Member: It's not a hoist motion.
Hon. G. Clark: Essentially it is.
Hon. M. Sihota: Let's have the motion read.
The Speaker: Perhaps the hon. minister will just wait until the Chair has a copy of the amendment.
Having now received a copy of the intended amendment, it appears to the Chair that such an amendment would in fact negate the earlier ruling of the Chair that this bill proceed through three readings at this time. Therefore I regret the Chair cannot accept the amendment. Having moved an amendment, I regret the member has now lost his place in debate.
Interjections.
The Speaker: I will just make a comment from the Chair, then I will recognize the hon. member's point of order. Coming back to the hon. member who moved the motion, the Chair would add a further point to the ruling on the amendment that Bill 64 not be read a second time. Since the motion before us is that the bill be read a second time, the member's proposed amendment is the same as voting against second reading. Having moved an amendment which the Chair cannot accept under the circumstances, I would invite the hon. member to continue with his debate on the main motion which is before us, which is second reading of Bill 64.
Having said that, I do now have a point of order from the hon. member for Okanagan West, which I would like to take at this time.
C. Serwa: With respect to the addendum on your ruling, I'll defer my point of order.
F. Gingell: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I appreciate your ruling.
We're here at 7:10 on the night of June 29 dealing with Supply Act (No. 2), 1993. The conduct of this House from its opening on, I think, March 17 has been somewhat without focus, in the opinion of the opposition. It seems to us that there hasn't been an agenda put forward by this government whereby, in a
[ Page 8074 ]
sensible, proper and orderly manner, this House would be able to deal with the business of the people of British Columbia. This government has brought in bills and started debate, pushed them to one side, started estimates and stopped them. We have had one person in our office assigned, almost regularly, to drawing up agendas for the day's business, which gets changed every 15 minutes by the Government House Leader. That certainly is no way for this government to be responsibly dealing with the business of the people of this province.
We are now dealing with what is one of the most important issues: money. When you look at the bill, it's interesting that it says: "Voted expenditures appropriation. 1. From and out of the consolidated revenue fund...." I'd like to suggest to you that there isn't a consolidated revenue fund anymore. There was a negative fund of a relatively small sum when this government took over from the previous government. But during the year and a half that this government has been in control and has determined the level of expenditures that will be made by the provincial government, and the expenditures that are contemplated for the remainder of this year, the consolidated fund, which was in a small negative position at the start of their mandate, is turning into a massive negative fund. I don't think there is any such thing as a revenue fund when it's in a negative position. This should have been worded better to say: "...from and out of, and in the process of increasing, the consolidated debt and deficit of this province that may be paid and applied in the manner and at the times the government may determine...." -- and so on.
There isn't a consolidated revenue fund anymore. There was one during a portion of the mandate of the previous administration. I accept and recognize that it was in a deficit position when this government came into office. But in their wisdom and in looking after their constituency -- which they see as being the people who elected them to office and not all the people of this province, whom they represent -- they have created a massive deficit. The people of British Columbia and their children will be saddled with that debt for years to come. The ability of this government to deliver the services that British Columbians want and need is always going to be subject to, reduced by and mortgaged to the deficit that this government is in the process of creating.
It is interesting to note that the $1.555 billion that the government is asking for in Supply Act (No. 2), 1993, is roughly equivalent to this year's deficit. From memory, the proposed deficit for this year is $1.545 billion, some $10 million less than this amount. This would seem to be an opportunity for all members of this House to debate the amount of the deficit, because that's the amount that this government is asking to spend at this time. If we could find some way of waving a magic wand and not spending any money for the next 31 days -- seeing as July is a month with 31 days in it -- we wouldn't have any deficit. Well, we wouldn't have any deficit the way this government keeps their books. But we appreciate that by setting up B.C. 21 or Build 21, or whatever name they wish to give it, they have found a means of converting ministerial expenditures to financing requirements, as they would call it -- just another word for borrowing money. When you and I borrow money, hon. Speaker, as I know we both have over the years, we know that we can't fool ourselves. In the end the truth will out, and we will recognize that these are purely and simply amounts that we have committed our future years' income to repaying.
I appreciate and understand that there isn't any way we can suddenly wipe out one-twelfth of our annual expenditures to balance the budget or even start toward balancing the budget. But this government needs to recognize and understand the size of the problem. For every $11 they collect in taxes, they spend $12.
Hon. Speaker, I'm not sure whether you have taught during the years before you became a member of this House, but I know many members of the Legislature have been teachers and will perhaps go back to teaching when they are through their responsibilities here. Teachers in this province usually get paid over ten months. They don't get paid for the months of July and August; they get paid for September, October, November, December, January, February, March, April, May and June. But they know that they have to live in July and August, and they act in a sensible manner. They recognize that they must save sufficient funds during ten months to be able to live during those last two months. They need to make their mortgage payments, pay their telephone and light bills and buy their groceries, so they carefully husband their money. They have an expenditure plan.
[7:15]
A government that decides that their revenues are only for 11 months, but their expenditures are for 12 months -- which is the equivalent of the budget this Minister of Finance has brought down -- has to recognize that they must save sufficiently during the 11 months of revenue to be able to pay their bills in the twelfth month.
All of us in British Columbia were hopeful that things would be different when this government was elected. The Minister of Finance, who was the opposition Finance critic, was clearly knowledgable about the kind of challenge facing him. He understood the responsibilities of the Minister of Finance. I know he was committed to his responsibilities as a member of this Legislature for the Vancouver East constituency that he represented in those days, and recognized his responsibilities as the critic to the Minister of Finance. The member was elected in 1987. Two years later, in 1989, he said: "There's no magic to balancing the budget in British Columbia. In fact, it's extremely easy, absolutely one of the easiest things I could imagine doing." But he has failed. He has failed the people of this province, and it's because of his failure that the amount of this interim supply bill is one-twelfth of our provincial budget.
The amount that they're asking for authority to spend at this time is the amount of the provincial deficit. If the deficit had been 1 percent or 2 percent, people in British Columbia could easily have recognized that we were going through difficult times and this provincial government and this minister had
[ Page 8075 ]
inherited a situation that could be described as less than easy. If this minister had come in with a budget where for every $100 that they spent, they collected revenues of $99 or $98, it could have been accepted as being reasonable. But for this minister to bring in a budget in which for every $100 they spend, they only collect in revenue something less than $92 and borrow the rest, with interest compounded, for future taxpayers and our children to pay in the future, is very disheartening.
One can appreciate that the Minister of Finance said the words that I have quoted, but one would have hoped that perhaps some higher authority than his would have prevailed, laid down the rules and clearly enunciated a policy for this government. A greater power did in fact enunciate a policy that the people of British Columbia listened to and believed -- I don't know whether they'll ever do that again -- and on that basis voted in this government. On May 9, 1991, before he was Premier -- less than five months before he won the election -- Mike Harcourt said: "We are committed to living within the means of the people of British Columbia." You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand and know that spending $100 and only having $92 in income is not living within the means of the people of British Columbia. It clearly isn't.
One of the things that this government is doing by creating Build B.C. and B.C. 21 is putting the taxpayers and people of this province in a position where they don't know what the government is going to spend. This government has brought in a budget. The gross expenditures were -- from memory -- a fraction over $18 billion. We are going through a process within this House where we are dealing with the estimates ministry by ministry and are able to determine the programs and the manner in which this government plans on spending those funds. But now they've said: "People of British Columbia, in addition to the $18-point-whatever billion, we're going to also pass a law whereby we can go out and spend an additional amount. We're not going to tell you what it is. You don't have any idea what it is. It's going to be for the kind of things that are normally included in our budgetary process, but we're going to keep it secret from you. We're going to take it out, and we're going to have the authority to go and borrow more money. We can borrow more money to make expenditures without your having the right of approval." That isn't honest. That is not dealing in an honest, forthright and straightforward manner with the people of this province.
During the course of debate on that particular bill.... And it is relevant here. It is relevant to Supply Act (No. 2) because it is funds that the government is going to be spending. They are going to be spending during July. They haven't included it in this amount -- at least I presume they haven't -- and I'm sure the minister will correct me if I'm wrong. They haven't told the people how much money they intend to spend under that program.
With interest rates at the level they are presently, and with the revenue stream projected for the transportation and highways financing authority -- I think it is called -- at an annualized rate of $55 million, plus tolls they will be able to put on facilities that they might build.... But just the $55 million to be paid back over 20 years, with interest at current rates, will allow this government to borrow an additional $600 million.
During the course of the debate, when this point was raised, the minister didn't stand up and say: "Oh no, no, no, -- stop, stop, stop. Although we've given ourselves all these rights of borrowing, we can do it through order-in-council and so on, and it's all set out. Then we can make more regulations afterwards to deal with it when the House isn't sitting." They didn't say: "No, we don't plan on doing this." They didn't say: "No, the $55 million in annual revenue is not going to be committed as a future income stream to repaying debt." They didn't say: "Stop worrying about that. All we will do is take the $100 million that we have put in through the vote process and add to it the $55 million. That is all we will spend." This House didn't get that assurance. Perhaps the debate of this interim supply bill, because we are discussing government expenditures, is an opportunity for the Minister of Finance, who is the power and the authority in this matter, to give us that kind of assurance. I certainly hope that he will take that opportunity.
As I said, it's June 29, we're dealing with a deficit and with a disorganized government that has not brought forward legislation in a reasonable, sensible manner. It brings forward a bill on Friday, expects it to be debated on Monday, and is really not giving an opportunity for the opposition to have sufficient time or opportunity for briefing from ministry officials and to be able to deal with proposed legislation full of legalese. We all have the problems of trying to understand exactly what it means. But they are just bringing these bills forward. Rumour has it, hon. Speaker, that last Monday -- not yesterday, but a week ago -- this government anticipated bringing forward another 23 bills. That was on June 21.
We discussed with the Government House Leader of last year and this year -- I guess the government doesn't have a House Leader anymore -- the issue of having a sensible agenda. We discussed having proposed legislation brought in in a timely manner so that it can be considered in a sensible manner and so that we can have a more considered debate on it rather than a hurried debate, because hurried is the way that it has to be. We were assured by the dear departed House Leaders, both of them, that things would be different this year: "Yes, we will have a sensible approach. Legislation will have to be in its final form by the last week in January or we won't bring it into the House." These aren't commitments that were made in the House, but these were the kinds of things that were said in discussion. And what has happened? That hasn't happened in any way, shape or form. This government has brought forward legislation that isn't even in proper final form. It hasn't probably even been read. They have had to stand down section after section and accept amendments because the way the legislation has been written is unclear and could well be subject to misinterpretation.
[7:30]
[ Page 8076 ]
How does this apply to the supply bill? Well, if they had done their work first, if they had determined late last year and in January of this year what their legislative program would be, and had brought forward the bills that they wished to table in the House in a sensible and forthright manner, then we would have been able to get on with the estimates. But we haven't been able to. There has just been a higgledy-piggledy, day-after-day change of program. I have been told at least three times that the Finance minister's estimates were coming up, and they have in fact come up twice. They came up on two occasions when I had given the government notice, well in advance, that I would not be here. I went to the Minister of Finance and to the Government House Leader and told them that I was going to be at the Premier's summit on skills development and training and that I wouldn't be here. I forget what the issue was the previous Friday, but lots of notice was given that I would not be present.
This government has a complete lack of organization. They have a lack of direction, a lack of a financial plan and a lack of an economic development policy. They have a lack of everything.
Interjection.
F. Gingell: That's absolutely right.
They don't even have a sensible plan about what they are going to do about government expenditures. I know the Minister of Finance says that they have reduced the rate of expenditure, that this government is increasing expenditures at a slower rate than the previous administration. Well, his famous statement of February, 1989, should have read: "There's no magic to reducing the rate of increase in expenditures in B.C. when you follow a government that increased them by 12 percent on a compounded basis in the two preceding years." That's about the only thing he has accomplished. He hasn't accomplished the first task he has: being responsible to the people of British Columbia and bringing in a balanced budget. I appreciate his problem. I accept that perhaps that isn't possible in the first year, but there should have been a better effort. Time and time again this government raised fees and raised taxes on small business. It's time for all levels of government to realize that the tax system is killing small business in this province.
The member for Delta South will not claim credit for that statement. Those words, so well put together, so well indicating the fault of this government, were spoken by the member for Alberni. He isn't here. It's reported in Hansard, May 9, 1991. I am surprised that we don't have the member for Alberni popping up on his feet every day to speak to the actions, the practices and the lack of financial discipline of this government.
May 9, 1991, must have been a very important day. I really don't know why it was so important, but on that day many things were said. It must have been a day on which the opposition of the day, the NDP, was having a dream, because the dream is turning into a nightmare. It's going to come back to haunt them. It's the day they said all these things; it's the day the member for Alberni made the statement about the Social Credit government raising fees and taxes on small business -- which he knows, and we know, is the economic engine for employment growth in this province. It's time that this government, wherever they are, learned that.
It was the same day that the now-Premier of this province was quoted in Hansard making a statement that I quoted earlier, that the NDP -- the official opposition at the time -- was "committed to living within the means of the people of British Columbia." It was that day that the present Premier, the Hon. Mike Harcourt, said for the world to hear.... I want it written down for posterity: "Taxpayers expect value for their hard-earned dollar, and we're going to provide it." We are all subject to the whims of what's on the TV set when we turn it on. A lot of sales pitches get made, and you look at some of them and wonder whether or not the person making the statement can live up to the promise they're making. But I would have expected that the Leader of the Opposition at that time would have recognized, clearly seeing the disarray that the government was in, clearly seeing the political results that were going to be coming down the pike, clearly understanding.... I believe the Premier is now fond of saying that they didn't know that the government had tabled a budget with a deficit in excess of $1.2 billion, brought down to $400 million because of a transfer from a phony budget stabilization fund. Now the Premier says that they didn't realize what was happening. But they did at the time, so one wonders about that.
But on May 9, 1991, the Leader of the Opposition, anticipating he would be the Premier in the upcoming election and knowing that the people of British Columbia would be listening to his words, gave a very clear message. It was in no way qualified by statements such as: "Well, if we can," or "Maybe we should," or "We'll do our best." He said: "Taxpayers expect value for their hard-earned dollar, and we're going to provide it." That certainly hasn't happened. The other thing that he said on May 9 was: "We are committed to living within the means of the people of British Columbia." That hasn't happened. Now we are faced with Supply Act (No. 2) in the amount of this year's deficit.
This House has been sitting since March 17, I think. The estimates of all the ministries still have not been completed. Is it any wonder that this government is coming to members of this chamber for more money, just like children who spend their allowance without any thought about the future?
One of the reasons for this request tonight is, as I've said, that this House is in disarray. Not only have all of the estimates not been passed, but this government continues to interfere with its own fiscal management by introducing bills that appear designed to be confrontational and are being tabled in the dying days of June. We're over the longest day of the year, and this government is still bringing in bills that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition deems contentious.
We in the Liberal caucus, in the official opposition, would not be doing our duty if we were to sit back and let this government ram bad legislation down the public's throat. This opposition suggested that several of these bills should be hoisted; they should be left until later in the year. Perhaps we should have a fall session,
[ Page 8077 ]
as we did last year. Why not? The sensible thing to do is allow us to consider these bills in the fullness of time, so the public of British Columbia can consider the consequences during the summer and let both government and opposition know their thoughts.
If this had been done, we would not have needed this debate for interim supply this evening. But this is clearly a cabinet of nervous Nellies. There's rumour in the corridors and whispering in the halls that there will be a cabinet shuffle this summer. Now, hon. Speaker, if you were my age you would know that a shuffle is a very happy occasion. It is the name of a nice, pleasant dance. But a shuffle in this government causes fear in their hearts. Many of them know that they haven't performed. They appreciate and realize that the people of British Columbia believe that they are doing a terrible job. I'm sure that the Premier, Mr. Harcourt, has been so told.
We were discussing the Premier's estimates today and yesterday. It's unfortunate, hon. Speaker, that you aren't allowed to sit in the House during that time. You would have discovered that there are five people in the Premier's office dealing with correspondence. If you were to peek into the correspondence that the Premier receives I think you would discover that much of it is critical of these ministers. Many of them know that their days are numbered, so it has become important to them in this session, before they are turfed out on their ear by the Premier.... The public of British Columbia will turf the government out on their ear in a couple of years' time, or at the first possible opportunity. But clearly these nervous Nellies of ministers are determined to get in their last little bit of legislation before they're required to move from the right-hand end of this chamber down to the left-hand end of that side of the House and, heaven forbid, into the back benches over here.
They are insistent, keen and determined to pass every single bit of legislation that they want to appear in their name. The legislation isn't ready. It hasn't been written properly. They're not able to bring the bills forward in proper time, and that's why this government has not committed the time to deal with the estimates in a sensible and thoughtful manner. The conclusion one can draw from these statements is that this really is a government in disarray. The people of this province know they're in disarray. Keeping us here into July isn't going to solve their problems for them. I'm sure they'll continue to bring forward legislation that hasn't been properly drafted and thought through. They'll have to continue standing down sections and considering amendments from the opposition to try to clarify many of the sections.
[7:45]
They really should allow all of the legislation that is on the table to sit there so that they can take the opportunity to go through it thoroughly to ensure that it's the program they see for the salvation of this province, and let the House get on with the business that it should have. Its most important business at the moment is to deal with the estimates. As you are aware, hon. Speaker, we question whether the plea for urgency made by the Government House Leader was valid. I accept your ruling, of course, but if this government had any sense of direction and any basic instincts for sensible planning, we wouldn't be in the position this evening of dealing with an interim supply bill at this late date.
With those few words, I will resume my seat and listen with interest to the remarks of other members.
L. Stephens: I'm pleased to take my place in this debate on Bill 64, Supply Act (No. 2), 1993, and to remind members opposite that the main purpose of members of the Legislature -- and everyone should agree -- is to scrutinize spending and pass taxing and spending laws in this House. That's why we're here. There has been very poor planning on the part of the government to manage the agenda of this House, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out.
The matter of urgency on Bill 64, as requested by the Minister of Finance, is simply not valid. Quite clearly this interim supply bill could have been introduced last week, when it was clear to members on this side of the House that it would be needed. Instead, the government wants to ram this bill through the House tonight. I would suggest that it's going to be some time before that happens. The attitude this government has shown toward public accountability and the regressive attitude they have shown in terms of their tax policies are the kinds of things this House must debate. It is very clear that this administration wants to avoid a public debate on its incompetence and it's lack of fiscal ability, and it wants to avoid a public debate on questions of taxation, because it has taxed so regressively.
The essence of parliamentary democracy is to authorize spending. When you go through Sir Erskine May and through the hundreds of years of parliamentary history, time and time again you see that the principal role of parliament is to scrutinize spending ability, to scrutinize the taxing authority of the government and their priorities for spending and to scrutinize the government's agenda for the province. It is not the role of governments -- even NDP governments -- to pass $1 billion worth of public spending without debate. That debate must take place in this chamber, and we intend to have it over the coming hours or days. We are simply not going to pass interim supply in one evening, as the government would have it.
British Columbians are under unrelenting tax assault from this government. Citizens from all regions of this province are outraged by the government recklessly spending our money in irresponsible and extravagant ways, and they have every reason to feel that way. When British Columbians are being forced to cut back and tighten their belts, we expect the government to do the same. Our hard-earned tax dollars, which the Leader of the Opposition was speaking of, are being frittered away by NDP policies and their political appointees.
The time has come to change the way we do government in this province. In this day and age the citizens of British Columbia will no longer tolerate the old excuse that wasteful discretionary spending is permissible because previous governments engaged in
[ Page 8078 ]
the same practices. The people demand and deserve responsible government. The Premier promised British Columbians value for their hard-earned dollars, but instead we get government friends and insiders taking advantage of their positions to shamelessly waste taxpayers' money. What the NDP fails to realize is that every taxpayer now knows that the government steals, spends and wastes their hard-earned money.
Where is this money going, hon. Speaker? Here are some recent examples from the Liberal waste watch of how the NDP government has been spending our tax dollars. The government spent nearly $300,000 on a propaganda campaign: a mail-out to justify their decision to allow logging in Clayoquot Sound. This was two months after the decision was made and after two months of solid criticism of the government's decision. The government also spent $250,000 on a mass mail-out propaganda campaign to justify their massive tax grabs in the '93-94 budget. The government also spent another $250,000 of public funds on a survey of rural ridings to ask people loaded questions about some decisions the government had taken.
Millions of dollars were being wasted as a result of welfare fraud, and a senior fraud investigator of the RCMP said that as many as 40 percent of all welfare claims could be fraudulent. The NDP refuses to seriously attack this problem. This year the Premier's office will spend $9,000 on office furniture. The Ministry of Finance spends thousands of dollars on full-page ads in daily newspapers to defend and justify the NDP budget. The government also spent $30,000 to charter helicopters as part of a public relations exercise to announce a decision on Clayoquot Sound.
Last year every NDP cabinet minister, with one exception, overspent their stated office budget. The total overrun was $370,000. This year the travel budget for the Ministry of Women's Equality will double, while overall travel for government bureaucrats will increase $5 million. The salaries and benefits budget for government communications has almost doubled since the NDP took power. The government used $12,000 of taxpayers' money to pay an American image consultant for two days' work to attempt to prop up the sagging image of Premier Harcourt.
The size of the civil service has increased by over 2,200 people since the NDP took power. The government reached a deal with their friends in the B.C. Government Employees' Union which will see average raises of 6 percent in one year alone, not counting benefits. This deal could cost the taxpayers over $100 million. And another sweetheart deal with the Hospital Employees' Union could cost taxpayers over $300 million. The government has spent $20,000 on a post-budget public relations exercise, through advertisements and satellite time, to put the Premier on cable TV for one hour to justify the NDP's tax increases. Finally, there is a $205,000 pamphlet to explain plans to reform health care in British Columbia.
The list goes on, and there are no signs whatever that the NDP has any intentions of changing their spending habits. This government is a crew of hypocritical socialists who feel no remorse in wasting our tax dollars on frivolous perks, rewards and self-promoting ventures for their friends and insiders.
These are a few quotes and a sampling of editorial opinion on this government's taxing and spending policies. The Times-Colonist of April 2 says: "Tax Hypocrisy, NDP-Style." The Province of March 31 says: "British Columbians ran into a tax slaughter.... Not only have the New Democrats laid waste to every B.C. taxpayer who was already taxed to the max, they've wiped away any credibility they had." Marcus Davies of Monday magazine, April 9, says: "What the budget makes obvious is that the Harcourt government is unable to live within its means." "Public fury forces NDP to back off on home tax." Finance minister admits mistake, says the Times-Colonist of April 6. And Ashley Ford, in the Province of April 4, says: "Last week's mean-spirited, punitive budget has served to cement a growing apprehension in the minds of offshore investors about the wisdom of putting more money here."
We live in very challenging times, and families all around this province are being forced to look at their budgets and make some very painful and hard decisions. Many British Columbians have no choice but to cut back or simply go without. It is time governments did the same.
It would be easy to say that it doesn't matter where the money comes from, as long as the government gets its way. However, the Liberal Opposition doesn't agree with this approach. We believe that governments must be accountable for every penny they spend. Our debts and deficits are spiralling out of control. People are demanding that their governments justify their spending. I urge all members of this House to do the same.
A. Warnke: I have quite a few comments about Bill 64, the interim Supply Act (No.2), 1993. I'm absolutely appalled by the Minister of Finance's presentation of this bill. The Minister of Finance did not even take the time to describe just where this money is supposed to go. We're talking about $1.555 billion. That's no small sum. As a matter of fact, calculated in terms of miles, that would serve for about ten round-trips to the sun, I suspect.
What was also amazing is that the Minister of Finance said that this has been the usual practice of government for the last six and a half years. In October 1991 the people of British Columbia made it very clear that they did not like the style of government between 1986 and 1991. For the life of me, I do not understand why this government would prefer to copy that model of government. What kind of approach is that? Yet the Minister of Finance says that it was the usual practice then: we have been in power for one and a half years; we will continue as it has always been and we will just go on and on; every year we will continue like this. Not only is it usual practice for the last six and a half years, apparently, it's a warning from this Minister of Finance that we can expect the same approach from here on out. Probably next year we will get the same thing, and the year after -- as long as they are government.
[ Page 8079 ]
Many years ago the late Howard Jarvis, the former representative from the state of California, put it this way: "I'm mad as hell, and I'm going to do something about it." He stimulated a revolt, essentially, among people. One thing I've heard from the government side is that they do not want to copy California; they do not want to go the road of California; they do not want to end up in the same financial mess as what we have seen in California. Guess what? If this government proceeds in that direction and assumes that the last six and a half years is normal and this is business as usual, we're headed in the direction of California.
I wonder if the Minister of Finance even understands where the word "budget" comes from. Perhaps the hon. Finance minister should know that the term "budget" comes from a leather bag that used to be carried by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in England, who carried a statement of the government's needs and resources to Parliament. Of course, in time, it referred to the papers in the bag. Now, of course, the Finance minister doesn't carry bags into the Legislature. He brings in a budget bound in volumes. As far as I'm concerned, this is a brown bag budget. It's a mess. Perhaps the minister should bring in bags instead of volumes for a change, because there are only so many papers that can be in one brown paper bag.
[8:00]
The expectations this government has that this is business as normal.... Oh, the Finance minister doesn't even refer to $1.555 billion. He says this only represents the equivalent of one-twelfth of the budget. Oh yes, that's quite right, but does he understand that the budget of British Columbia is $19 billion and therefore one-twelfth of that is $1.555 billion? A lot of British Columbians would say that is a heck of a lot of money.
Let's put it in some sort of context: it's almost half of the Education budget; it's more than half of the Social Services budget; it's about one-quarter of the Health budget, which is the largest budget of any ministry in this government; and what is being proposed in this bill is more than the entire budget of the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. That's how big it is. It's no small amount that we're dealing with. It's a pretty big number: $1.555 billion.
Yet the Minister of Finance brings in a bill and just says in a few minutes: "Well, here it is. It's one-twelfth of the normal budget. This is normal practice for the last six and a half years. Oh, we're running out of money, incidentally." Doesn't it occur to this Minister of Finance that the taxpayers of British Columbia are also running out of money? Does it not occur to the Minister of Finance that people are fed up with the mismanagement of the public purse?
The Minister of Finance comes in here for a few minutes and does not even have the courage.... They've talked about courage, yet they did not even have the courage to elaborate where the $1.555 billion is going to. Is it going to address the debt? Is it going to more social services? Because we also know of a bill that was rammed through this House a few months ago, just prior to March 31, that went to a huge overrun in the Social Services ministry. And then guess what? We found out a few months later just what kind of mess the Ministry of Social Services was in. Did the Finance minister have enough courage to tell us where this $1.555 billion is going to? Perhaps it's going to the messed-up Ministry of Social Services. Or is it going to Build B.C. -- that fancy new project -- or B.C. 21? Or is there a run on any other department?
It's bordering on the despicable to have the Minister of Finance come in here and expect everyone just to roll over and assume that this is the normal course of events. It's about time that this minister understood some basic features of what is involved in a budget. Maybe the minister should go back and explore a bit of history, going all the way back to when the budget referred to the leather bag carried by England's Chancellor of the Exchequer.
It's about time that the Minister of Finance took a history lesson; maybe it's about time that the minister took an economics lesson and understood what is involved in expenditures, revenues and so forth. That minister should begin to understand something about the nature of public finance, about just what is involved in the use of tax, about just what is involved in the nature of borrowing, about just what is involved in the expenditure of resources for public purposes. I think it's about time that got through to the Minister of Finance.
I recall talking about this on a previous occasion, one year ago, as well as earlier this year. But again, I guess it's a lesson we just have to drum into this Minister of Finance: a budget is the basis of stabilization of the economy. A budget that is out of control does not contribute to the stabilization of the economy. If I have said it once, I've said it many times in this House: if we want to get our economy going and address the problems of unemployment, then it's about time that we had economic growth and real economic development in this province. You can only have that if the economy is stable, and that is the reason why one has to pay so much attention to government fiscal policy.
Incidentally, if that Minister of Finance doesn't know it, there are three functions of any government fiscal policy. First, you have to know how to allocate resources; second, you have to know how to deal with distribution; but third, you have to concentrate on and promote stability in the economy. Furthermore, the public has to have confidence in the government's fiscal policy, and of course this primarily means that the business sector has to have confidence in government fiscal policy. Fiscal policy is the core of government. If government is sending the wrong signal, if it doesn't understand fiscal policy and, furthermore, if it is misdirected and starts taking off in different directions and doesn't know where it's going in terms of fiscal policy, then the government and our whole economy is really headed for serious trouble.
It's in this light that some lessons are obviously needed by this Minister of Finance. He seems to have a lack of understanding of some basic principles involved in a budget. Even homeowners and the ordinary average person knows that one kind of budgeting that is absolutely essential is some sort of line item budget. Now presumably the volumes that are brought before
[ Page 8080 ]
us are presented in some sort of line item budget that is used for the projection and control of expenses. While this is the heart of the process of setting up a budget so that you know what to project and what expenses are out there so you can control your expenses accordingly, it's obvious in this case that the government has not got control of the designs of how it spends its money.
Now we find out that apparently the estimates that were brought forward only a few months ago did not contain sufficient detail. If they had contained sufficient detail, then we wouldn't have this overrun of $1.555 billion. It's a huge amount. It is obvious that this government and the ministries did not know and did not present sufficient detail in their estimates to ensure that all the disbursements are made in accordance with the law. This Minister of Finance had better go back to some basic understanding of what is involved in a budget.
A budget is a financial plan for the operations and priorities of government. Accordingly, programs, policies and agency programs are developed and evaluated. Policy issues are identified, and the budget projections are made accordingly. In that context there is a proper budget execution and control that helps the government to audit and review its situation to find out where it has gone right and wrong. But this bill is nothing more than an acknowledgement that they have overrun their expenditures by $1.555 billion. It suggests that the Minister of Finance and the ministry did not even do the basic homework that householders and ordinary people know to do. Every British Columbian has to practise some form of budgeting. They have to be able to project what their expenses are going to be. They have to be able to project what income is coming into the household and develop a strategy accordingly. Of all the figures I have seen in the last little while, this $1.555 billion is absolutely staggering, yet surprisingly it is without any detailed comment as to what the problem is. It's obvious that there's a problem with budgeting in government. There's a problem with developing some sense of an expenditure structure. There's a problem with the government's basic fiscal policy.
Therefore, the message has got to be clear to the Minister of Finance that something drastic has to happen with government fiscal policy in order to get the economy back on the rail so that people have confidence in the economy. How is it possible for the Minister of Finance to come in here and present us with an overrun of $1.555 billion and assume that it's going to instil confidence in the public? It instils quite the opposite. It instils a public questioning of where this government is going. Obviously the public must question what has happened in the past year and the past few months. Why is it that after presenting a budget in March, only a few months down the road it finds itself in the ridiculous position of having to acquire more than $1.5 billion? A sum of such magnitude sends a very clear signal that something has gone wrong with government fiscal policy.
The next question is: where has it gone wrong? One area is obviously within the cabinet itself. The executive council is most important for the guidelines to its agencies and ministries. The executive is responsible for this overrun of $1.5 billion, and that goes right from the Premier's office through the entire ministry. We're not talking about a small overrun here; we're talking about over $1.5 billion, indicating that the executive council is obviously on the wrong track. The executive council is wrong in how it assesses its expenditures and wrong in how it assesses its revenues. It is generally messed up. But this time, by having an overrun of $1.555 billion, the government has really messed up big time.
[8:15]
The Minister of Finance says: "Oh, what a mess we've inherited from the past! Oh, we're in hock for over $2 billion." Add $1.555 billion to that and we're over $3 billion in debt. There's something profoundly wrong with the direction of this government, and it's not by a bit. We can expect incidental costs, just as households on occasion find themselves with incidental costs as a result of an accident or some sort of problem that has suddenly occurred. Sometimes it has to go into debt.
But this is not something that's incremental. The numbers here in this bill, as I suggested, reflect just what kind of huge amounts we having in Education, in Social Services and in Health -- the big ministries of any provincial government and especially of this one. I find it also very odd, as the official opposition Finance critic and the Leader of the Opposition have pointed out, that it illustrates just how messed up the government is in terms of even presenting legislation in this House. The member for Langley has stated the same.
What kind of mess is it when in fact it's not clear where it has its priorities? It's got a bunch of bills before the House. Both members have mentioned -- and I think the member for Okanagan West has mentioned it as well -- the number of bills that have been presented before this House, and I might add, presented at practically the last minute. One doesn't know what's coming into the House until the last half hour. What a way to run a government!
But it's an indicator of just how messed up this government is. They messed up in the House. They don't know how to present bills. They don't know what to do next, and they change their minds.
Oh yes, and then this government is courageous. Oh, it has courage. Courage in what? To discuss NAFTA? I seem to recall that this government has such a penchant for discussing the North American free trade. Oh, that's really great. Talk about long-winded.
Some of these members are talking once again about the huffery and the puffery. I tell you, those government members are pretty darned good at it too when they're talking about NAFTA, when they're talking about helicopter debates and so forth. Oh, they're great then. Then they've got a lot of zeal, they've got a lot of passion and all the rest of it as well. I really find it interesting. NAFTA was passed in Ottawa a half hour before the debate in this Legislature.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
[ Page 8081 ]
What kind of government is this? Where are their priorities? More important, where's the direction of this government? They can get passionate about federal issues, whether it's NAFTA or helicopters. They can get passionate about all kinds of weird things; they can get passionate about some innocuous bills in the Legislature. But buckle down and do something about the budget -- oh no, we can delay that. Oh no, we don't have to worry about developing an expenditure structure.
They've never even heard of an expenditure structure. They've never heard of how you develop public finance and how to present that properly in this Legislature. As a matter of fact, let it be said that there has not been one finance measure, one set of finance bills or whatever, presented in this House that's intact, that people can predict and say okay, this is where the government is going. They had the opportunity last year, but they blew it. "Oh," they said, "well, that's because of the mess we inherited from the old Social Credit government." Well, now it's this year, and it's more of a mess this year than it was last year.
Where is the Minister of Finance going? What kind of signal is he sending out? It's obviously one that is not encouraging confidence in the economy and the government of British Columbia.
I warned this Minister of Finance over a year ago now that unless.... He talked big then. He said: "Oh well, give it a year, and we will have everything under control. We're moving in the direction of having a balanced budget." I remember asking: "If we don't see any evidence of movement in that direction, will the Minister of Finance resign?" Well, we haven't seen evidence of it. As a matter of fact, this government is more messed up and misdirected than it ever has been. If there is a case for the Minister of Finance to resign, it is certainly with regard to this bill.
All this government knows about is intervention in the private sector, small business and private incomes and in the way individuals want to make money. Oh, they're good at that. And they know how to tax. This overrun of more than $1.555 billion is not a result of an inability to raise revenue. It's not a result of some huge tax cut, and as a result, maybe they miscalculated by trying to be generous. Oh no, this government is really good at taxing individuals, small businesses, corporations and whoever they can lay their hands on. It's very good at taxing any profession -- and all professions are vulnerable.
In the final analysis, who pays for this misdirection, for this messed-up government and for the executive council's budget that is way off target? Who pays for the mess-ups by the Minister of Finance?
D. Jarvis: Taxpayers.
A. Warnke: As my hon. friend from North Vancouver-Seymour put it, it's the taxpayers -- every British Columbian. I hate to say this, but that amount of $1.555 billion is going to come right out of the pockets of British Columbians. That's shameful! The Minister of Finance and the whole executive council should be in shame. As a matter of fact, the whole works over there should hang their heads in shame.
An Hon. Member: They are hanging their heads in shame.
A. Warnke: You're quite right, hon. member.
Interjection.
A. Warnke: Yes. One warning to the hon. member: there's no way that hon. member will be re-elected if he continues to support the direction and policies initiated by the Minister of Finance.
F. Jackson: Do you want to bet money on it, Allan?
A. Warnke: Another thing I find amazing about the government members is that they like taxing, and they like gambling. The hon. member suggested we should gamble on it. The problem with the government side is that all they know how to do is make big money quickly. I suppose members on the government side are also hoping for a big win in the Lotto 6/49 to bail themselves out of this $1.555 billion amount. There's not a Lotto 6/49 or a lottery in the whole world that will cover this debt of $1.555 billion. For the hon. member across to want to play a gambling game.... I'm afraid you sure picked a heck of a forum to do it in.
Interjection.
A. Warnke: That's right. On top of that, the member wants to bet on himself, which is the poorest horse in town and the slowest, hon. Speaker.
Interjections.
A. Warnke: I'm amused by some of the comments by hon. members on my own side. I think they pretty well hit the mark over and over again. It's amazing how witty and how excited we get when we see the figure of $1.555 billion.
But we must oppose this particular bill. All kidding aside, this is a despicable bill for the Minister of Finance to present not only to us in the Legislature but, more importantly, to the people of British Columbia. It's about time that this Minister of Finance and this government understood some of the basic principles of public finance: how to structure government fiscal policy so that it instils confidence in the British Columbia economy. We need that so badly; it's about time the government and the Minister of Finance understood that.
It's about time, also, for this government to get a good rude awakening, including that member who was laughing a few moments ago. The rude awakening is when the people of British Columbia have had it up to here with regard to this business of bringing on $1.555 billion to us so irresponsibly. That kind of irresponsible behaviour by this government and by this Minister of Finance should be challenged, and challenged
[ Page 8082 ]
vigorously -- by us, of course, but also by the people of British Columbia.
G. Farrell-Collins: I too want to add my indignation at the fact that here we are once again. The NDP government is dealing with yet another urgent matter, another emergency debate; this time, however, it's a financial matter.
It wasn't more than a month ago -- in fact, I think it was a month ago to the day -- that this House sat on a Sunday to deal with yet another emergency caused by this government's inaction and by the inane insensitivity of members of the executive council. That was a Sunday afternoon, one of the first times in about 20 years that this House has sat on a Sunday afternoon. Finally, after weeks and months of foot-dragging by this government, it was to get the students of British Columbia back into school so they could finish their term. At that time, we in the opposition hoped that the government would have learnt its lesson. We hoped that a Sunday afternoon and the outrage of hundreds of thousands of students and parents in this province would have finally woken this government up and brought it back to its senses. We hoped that they would realize they had to get on with it and start doing what a government is supposed to do. But providing the basic services that the citizens of the province can rely on is something this government has miserably failed to do.
Here we are a month later, and we're dealing with the Supply Act. Here we are a month later, and we have to call a special debate in this House to pass a piece of legislation that allows this government to go on spending. This House has been here for almost three and a half months now. We've been dragging through the process, as this government trickled bills in for the first six or eight weeks. Now all of a sudden when we get down to the crunch, now all of a sudden when it starts to get hot out and they're starting to feel the heat -- not just outside on weekends, but daily in the legislative chamber -- they decide that they're going to dump all their legislation on the order paper and get as much garbage through this House as they possibly can before the summer recess, so they don't have to come back and take yet another beating this fall.
[8:30]
Given the way the NDP is faring around this country, I would have thought that they would have been thrilled at the opportunity to have the House sitting in the fall. Then they would have an excuse and not have to be embarrassed going out canvassing and campaigning around this province for Audrey McLaughlin and the federal NDP. I would have thought that they would want to be here in the fall dealing with this legislation and would have structured their legislative agenda to do so. Who in the world would want to be out there this fall campaigning for the federal NDP after the type of demolition of the NDP we saw in Alberta and the type of demolition we are going to see of the NDP on a federal basis?
So here we are, one day before the end of the month, and the government decides: "Oh my goodness, we're out of money. We had better call a special debate in the Legislature to give us some more money to spend for the next little while." Bill 64 provides almost $1.6 billion to the government to pay their bills for the month of July.
If this government had had its act together and been organized, if they had been efficient in the way they brought their legislative agenda to this House, if they had been efficient in the way the estimates were running, if we didn't have incredible mismanagement, particularly in the Education and Social Services ministries and in a number of others, these estimates would have been finished by now. We would have been able to deal with the legislation the government has before it. We would have had time for these bills to sit on the order paper so that the general public could give their input. We could have debated them in a reasonable length of time, many of the questions would have been answered before we got to committee stage, and the government would have had its legislative agenda in order. We could have spent the time in estimates efficiently and effectively, and done the job that we need to do.
I wonder how that incredibly incompetent Vander Zalm administration the government talks so much about was able to get its estimates and all its legislation through in three and a half months when they only had one House to do it in. In the tradition of the NDP, we now have two Houses to deal with it. We have twice as much time to do estimates and twice as much time to do bills, and they still can't get their legislative agenda done in the time frame required.
D. Jarvis: Let's get another House.
G. Farrell-Collins: The member for North Vancouver-Seymour says we should have another House. That's probably what we're going to find next year. The government's going to come in and say: "Gee, we should reconfigure the Birch committee room so we can do three estimates at the same time, because we couldn't get through it last year."
If the government of this Premier had the strength of leadership, the organization and some structured programs they were trying to bring in, we would have been finished this by now. We wouldn't be sitting here at 8:30 in the evening, a day before the clock runs out on their budget, having to give them emergency supply to pay their bills so that the cheques can go out on Friday to all the workers in the province.
When this bill was tabled and we were voting on first reading, the member for Vancouver-Hastings, with a little snarl on her face, was hollering across at the members of the Social Credit Party, saying: "You guys did this all the time. What are you so upset about? You guys always did this." The members of the NDP in opposition berated those members for doing this. It was the members of this cabinet and the members of the back bench who sit here today who berated the Social Credit government of the day for showing just this type of mismanagement. Now they sit over there on the government side and say to the members of the third party: "You did it, so we can do it."
Does that mean that this government feels free to do every little thing that went on over the last six years of
[ Page 8083 ]
the previous administration? Or worse? That's no excuse. This government promised that things would be different. This government said that they would not abuse the rules of the House, that they would have respect for the House, that they would have respect for the elected representatives of this province and, through them, have respect for the individual people in British Columbia.
This year is one of the worst. If you look back over history at some of the things that governments have done to push legislation through, you will find that this session ranks right up there with some of the best in cramming legislation through at the last minute. I would venture to say that if you were to look at the types of legislation that have been crammed through this House before, at the type of social engineering legislation we're seeing from this government, at the dramatic changes in the way government is carried out, at the way this province is administered, at every intrusion into the private lives of British Columbians -- major pieces of legislation -- you would find that in the history of this province there have never been so many substantial pieces of legislation brought forward by a government in such a short time, with the intent of ramming them through.
We've seen pieces of legislation that are 200 pages long come in one day and be debated in second reading the next day, and that morning have five or six pages of complex amendments, and the government still tries to ram them through past midnight or at 1 o'clock in the morning. Is this government going to stand up during the next election and say: "We said we'd do better. We said we'd do things differently, but in fact we've perfected the art of legislative mismanagement. We've perfected the art of legislative arrogance. We've perfected the art of ramming legislation through, despite the objections of the general public and despite the objections of members of the opposition"?
How is it that in 18 months we've seen a government that the people of this province held so much hope for degenerate to the point where it can't even manage its legislative agenda, let alone manage the province? We have seen pieces of legislation come before this House that are full of errors. The Finance minister tabled a budget, and three days later he had to repeal part of it. We just had him bring in another amendment to his budget acts today. He had to make some changes because he didn't consult properly with the people that were affected and didn't bring in the changes they wanted to the legislation at that time. Now he's had to backtrack yet again.
We had the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services engage with members of the opposition last night in the most incredible debate on what has to be one of the most poorly drafted pieces of legislation this House has ever seen. What should have taken about an hour and a half in committee stage ended up taking us about four hours, because we virtually had to rewrite the legislation. There were amendments from the opposition -- the Liberals, a Social Credit member -- to try and clean up some of the wording in the legislation. We were asking questions of the minister about a bill that had been sitting on the order paper for a month, and he didn't have a clue what the sections did. This isn't a minister who has tabled 25 pieces of legislation, like the Attorney General, who, quite frankly, is usually on top of his legislation. No, this is a minister who, in his history as the minister responsible for his portfolio, has tabled four pieces of legislation, one of which was dealt with last year in its entirety. There are now three pieces of legislation before this House, one of which was dealt with on a Sunday afternoon, all in one day. So we have two or three pieces of legislation on the order paper that belong to that minister, and he hasn't even spent the time to understand the implications of the legislation.
It is no wonder that for the second time in this session we're having an emergency debate, an urgent debate, to grant the government something that it needs. First of all, it was to deal with the students and to get them back into classes, because of the mismanagement of the Minister of Labour, the Premier and the Minister of Education. And tonight we're dealing with emergency supply for the government so it can pay its bills in two days, because of the mismanagement and the irresponsibility of the Minister of Finance, the Government House Leader -- in the embodiment of the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services -- and, indeed, the Premier, as chairman of the executive council. They are mismanaging the way this government is doing business.
This is the government that so mismanaged its first two major land use decisions that we had the province in an uproar. The first one was the Clayoquot decision. They went in and made the decision despite the process that should have been put in place, which was to send it to CORE. He didn't send it to CORE, yet he invited the commissioner along for the helicopter ride and the news conference. It outraged British Columbians that the government was doing that type of thing -- that mismanagement of an issue. Because the pressure on them was so great on that one issue, they turned and did a flip-flop, making a political decision that dealt with a land use decision in the northwestern part of the province. They didn't even follow their own process and give it a fair chance; they didn't even let it go through the process once again that the commissioner on resources and the environment had recommended.
What we're seeing is a government totally without leadership. I don't know where the Premier is while all of this is going on. There he is, with his back to the House, oblivious to what's going on, chatting up the Minister of Agriculture. I hope that he's telling him the difference between a cabbage and a lettuce, because it takes somebody to show leadership in this government. I hope he's showing the Minister of Agriculture some right now.
I think we have had one of the most mismanaged and erratic four or five months in the history of British Columbia, second only to the dying days of the Vander Zalm administration. It reached a point halfway through this session where the opposition was beginning to think the government had ground to a complete halt. No legislation was coming out. In fact, in the first six weeks of the House, I had more legislation on the order paper as a private member than the
[ Page 8084 ]
government did. The Leader of the Third Party also had more legislation on the order paper for the first six weeks of the House than the government did. And, I might add, a lot better legislation.
We were concerned. We were beginning to worry and panic, because we thought perhaps the Premier had so completely lost control of his cabinet that there wasn't any legislative agenda. They had called the House, and we were all going to go home at the end of May. But all of a sudden, holy smokes, a torrent of legislation came pouring out of the government. Many pieces required substantial amendment. The Minister of Environment tabled a bill one day and five or six pages of amendments the next day. The Minister of Consumer Services tabled a bill, left it on the order paper for two months, and then didn't even know what was in it when it came to committee stage.
I don't know what the opposition can do to shake the government into realizing that they're going to have to be more organized. I don't know what it's going to take to shake the Premier into realizing that he's finally, once and for all, going to have to be the Premier and take responsibility for what his government is doing. I can't tell you the number of times we have asked the Premier questions in question period, and if he didn't take it on notice, he didn't answer it -- or if he tried to answer, it was a complete disaster, and he probably should have taken it on notice.
When is the weak leadership that we see at the head of the executive council finally going to take charge of government? When is the Premier finally going to sit down with the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services, the Government House Leader, and tell him to get his act in gear, to get things organized and to straighten out what's going on in this House? The day the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services was appointed Government House Leader, I stated that I thought it was going to be a disaster.
Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Cowichan-Ladysmith on a point of order.
J. Pullinger: Hon. Speaker, it seems to me that we're debating this very short piece of legislation -- not the cabinet or other legislation or other countries or provinces. Maybe the member could get close to the topic of debate.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member makes a valid point of order, and I would ask the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove to do his best to address his remarks to the bill before us. Please proceed, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: I see the Premier has woken up from his sleep. I think this is the most we've heard from the Premier in the last two months in the Legislature. The fact of the matter is, for the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith, we are debating whether or not this piece of legislation should receive second reading. In order to determine whether or not it is an urgent matter, whether or not the government all of a sudden needs this money, we have to look at what the government has been doing for the last three months that put them in this position.
[8:45]
An Hon. Member: Listening to you.
G. Farrell-Collins: I would say, contrary to the member's comment, that they haven't been listening. If they'd been listening to the opposition, if they'd been listening to the public, they would have learned their lesson a month ago -- when they had to drag this House in on a Sunday afternoon to deal with the education dispute. They would have got their legislative agenda in order, replaced the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services as the minister and as the Government House Leader and appointed somebody who understands how the Legislature works, brought in legislation and brought in the estimates to get this done in time, so that we wouldn't be doing it here, once again, in an urgent debate.
When the opposition called for the resignation of the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services as the minister and as the House Leader, that's when the government should have made the choice. Had they made that choice and put somebody in there who knows what's going on, we wouldn't be here tonight doing this. In fact, the paycheques in this province would have been paid on Thursday, without emergency money being given to this government.
Interjections.
G. Farrell-Collins: It always amazes me how much the NDP backbenchers have to say from their seats. They rarely stand to speak, and when they do they're reading from a script. I don't know if any original thought takes place on the opposite side that isn't drafted in the government communications offices in the basement of the Premier's bunker out there, because they all say exactly the same thing time after time, one after the other.
I would encourage them to participate in this debate. I would encourage them to stand up and defend the legislative record of their government over the last three months. I would encourage them to stand up to show this courage that they say they have, to stand up and defend the way the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services has run this House, which has put us into this position yet again. I'd love to be in the caucus meetings of the NDP.
An Hon. Member: I bet you would.
G. Farrell-Collins: Certainly not as a member -- merely as an observer. It sends a shiver down my spine. I would love to be there to hear what they say to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services when he turns around and tells them that they're going to have to stay here to deal with this stuff because of his
[ Page 8085 ]
ineptitude and mismanagement of the legislative agenda of the government. I'd love to be there.
I'm sure that the Government House Leader and Minister of Labour and Consumer Services went into his caucus and said: "We're going to split you up and put you into another House, into the Douglas Fir Room, so that we can get this stuff done. You're going to have to work harder, but we'll be done on time, and everything will be done on schedule. We'll do a better job, and we'll be finished in time, and you can all go home."
Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that the government has so mismanaged this process that, like the ballooning deficit, there's a ballooning bureaucracy here. We now have two Houses that are supposed to be doing the work that one House used to do, and they're still behind schedule. We spend four hours on a bill instead of an hour and a half. We go until midnight on a piece of environment legislation because we're trying to hash out the amendments that the minister brought in the day after he tabled the bill, in order to sort it out so that the people of this province get a fair shake and have an opportunity to comment.
If the government would table their legislation in a reasonable length of time, leave it sitting on the order paper, let people talk about it and let them see what's there, then we wouldn't have to spend so much time going through it with a fine-tooth comb trying to determine what's there. We could get these jobs done in a reasonable length of time. We wouldn't be sitting here, again, with this government in a crisis at the last minute trying to come up with the money to pay their bills. Why is it that they fail to see that? Why doesn't the Premier, as the head of the executive council, walk down the hallway, go down one flight of stairs and into the Government House Leader's office and read him the riot act? Why doesn't he go there...?
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Well, it's funny: you hear the guffaws from the members opposite, because they know the Premier would never do that. It's more likely that the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services, the Government House Leader, would walk up a flight of stairs and down the hallway into the Premier's office and read the Premier the riot act. We know who is really running this government: it's the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Finance, and they're both incompetent and neither of them can do the job properly.
When is the Premier finally going to take responsibility? When is he finally going to take charge of the actions of this government? When is he finally going to stand up in this House and defend some of his legislation? When is he finally going to stand up and take the knocks for the ridiculous things that have gone on? I've seen the Premier speak to one piece of legislation in this House.
An Hon. Member: That's enough!
G. Farrell-Collins: One! It was on a Sunday afternoon....
An Hon. Member: It was defeated!
Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, we're on second reading of the Supply Act (No. 2), 1993. The hon. member would do well to address his remarks to the advisability of passing this piece of legislation. While I'm at it, I would request that hon. members try to restrain themselves from interjecting so vigorously and allow the hon. member to concentrate on his dissertation. Please proceed, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Sometimes the anger and emotion build up from having seen what has gone on for the last two months, and I tend to get carried away. I will try to stick as closely as I can to the inept management of this government, and indeed of the chairman of the executive council, that has put us in this position tonight where we are debating second reading of this legislation.
I don't know what it's going to take; I don't know how bad it has to get in this House and in this province before the Premier finally acts like the Premier and we finally have some real leadership from somebody in that cabinet, aside from the Minister of Finance and an attempt by the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. Somebody has to take charge. Somebody has to wake those people up over there, and tell them that their train has gone off the track, it's careening towards the cliff, we're about to go off the edge, the engineer is sound asleep, the conductor doesn't know what's going on and the brakeman is asleep at the switch.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: The members, the rest of these people who are sitting in the caboose, are all sitting around staring at each other, repeating the same mantra to each other time after time and saying the same things to each other. But somebody has to finally take some leadership on that side. Somebody has to stop being a weak Premier and grab hold of the legislative agenda of this caucus and this government and set it back on the tracks.
I wonder why we're here doing this tonight. I would have thought that after the last emergency we found ourselves in on a Sunday afternoon, the Premier would have taken the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services aside and told him to smarten up a little and get things rolling and on track. But we haven't seen that yet. We're still off track. We still have half-drafted and redrafted pieces of legislation coming before this House. Poorly drafted pieces of legislation are coming before this House that require correction, amendments and a long protracted debate to try to sort them out. I would hope that somebody would try to take charge over there. That's all we're asking for. That's all the people of the province are asking for.
Very rarely does the media actually focus on the process of what goes on here. They report on issues; they report on programs; if we're lucky, they report on
[ Page 8086 ]
legislation; but they rarely report on what actually takes place here. There's a growing sense of outrage not just in the media but among the public about what has been taking place in this House. The editorial comments in a number of newspapers that traditionally are fairly nice to this government have noticed it; the radio people have noticed it; the print people have noticed it; the television people have noticed it. The public is starting to notice it too, because they know what this government is doing. Before the last NDP government was defeated in 1975, Mr. Williams, who was then a cabinet minister, said: "Had they given us one more term, we would have cooked an omelette that nobody could unscramble." This is the omelette sitting here on the order paper.
[M. Lord in the chair.]
We have cabinet shuffles coming in at the end of this summer, which everyone knows about, and all of a sudden these ministers are cramming their legislation onto the order paper, trying to get it done so that they can take credit for it. In the last three and a half months we have seen, if not the worst then certainly the second-worst example of legislative mismanagement, error, confusion and kerfuffle. Whatever you want to call it, we've seen it. The opposition predicted it five months ago when the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services was named as the Government House Leader, and it has come to fruition. We saw it a month ago, and we're seeing it now. It's time that the Premier took charge, got rid of the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services as House Leader and tried to find somebody within his executive council or the caucus who can do the job so that we can finish up this session in a reasonable fashion and deal with the legislation that's on the order paper and the estimates that still have to be completed. Let's do a good and thorough job for the public and not have the disarray and confusion that we've seen on a daily basis from this government.
This Supply Act need not be read today. I would hope that the members of this House would vote against it and send a signal to the Premier of this province that he has to take some action to deal with this. Vote against this emergency supply bill. Let him swallow some crow and bring it in again tomorrow. Somebody has to deal with the Premier and wake him up. The opposition has been trying, but if the back bench can accomplish anything in this government, they should go en masse to the Premier and ask him to take charge and finally straighten things out.
A. Cowie: It gives me pleasure to stand and reinforce my colleague's criticism of this Supply Act No. 2 that covers $1.555 billion of emergency budget. I was listening earlier, and one of my colleagues mentioned that figure many times during his speech. In fact, what I remember about his speech is $1.555 billion, an astronomical amount of money.
While in opposition, the NDP complained endlessly about poor management and the bringing in of this sort of act. I won't bother you with all of the quotes. We're all aware of them. But it shows that the NDP is hypocritical. They complained, and a year and a half later they're acting exactly the same way now that they're in government.
It's obvious that the Premier has lost control of his cabinet. Earlier this year when this government just started off, where was the Premier? He was off in Asia when he should have been here setting the priorities for this particular session. Instead, he was in Asia and especially in Hong Kong trying to explain why he initiated the corporation capital tax which was criticized a great deal not only in this country but in Asia by those people who invest in B.C.
Then what does the government do after a very slow period of getting started? They start bringing in bills, not the normal number of bills but many bills. They were hurriedly prepared. Our estimates were poorly spaced. In fact, we are still dealing with estimates. The Municipal Affairs estimates still have not come up. I expect it will be some time next week or the week after. As the opposition critic for Municipal Affairs, I was determined to just take a normal amount of time for the Municipal Affairs estimates. But I'm starting to get very agitated, and I believe that we may have to look at the minister's estimates in greater detail.
[9:00]
There are still a number of important bills at this late stage to come through. The Environmental Assessment Act hasn't had its third reading yet. It's a very important bill. It has only had second reading. As you know, the third reading is the critical one where we can go step by step, and I understand there are three pages of amendments put in by the government itself. The Public Service Act, which was presented just recently on June 29, redefines the whole public sector, how the public sector will operate and how people who were previously on contract will now be part of the government service. There are even rumours that some of the management will now be part of unionization trends, people who normally would not have to be part of a union.
The Local Elections Reform Act is 301 pages. As a whole it's primarily modernization. But today we started going through that bill and I was really surprised. I thought the first section would go through very easily, but I think we are only on section 10 at the present time. Although it's modernization and it's a rewrite that is badly needed, there are a lot of misinterpretations.
Deputy Speaker: The member for Cowichan-Ladysmith rises on a point of order.
J. Pullinger: This is fascinating, hon. Speaker, but it's the wrong piece of legislation that the member is discussing. I wonder if he would like to come back to Bill 64.
Deputy Speaker: I think members of the House would be well advised to try to tighten up the debate a little bit as the night grows long.
[ Page 8087 ]
A. Cowie: I am referring to Bill 64, and I am referring to why this government has to come in for this extra funding. That's why I am standing. Here we are on late-night sessions, which shouldn't be necessary. We are making up for the lack of management and control and the erratic pace that I referred to earlier. First we started off slow, then fast, then slow again, and now we're dealing with a great deal of confusion as we try and get through with these bills.
Why are these bills being put on us in this great number? Well, it's because of the anticipated reshuffle mentioned by some of my colleagues that will mean that some of these ministers are not going to be here or will at least be shuffled. There are even rumours that we may have additional ministries because we can't deal with the real problem of getting these ministers to get their work done. It's better if we were to come back in a fall session rather than try and push all this work through during the summer. We could take more time as we went through each one of these bills. Surely we'll be through the estimates at least by next week, but there are still all of these bills that have to go through.
I'm surprised that no member of the government has been up arguing, except for complaining about the speakers. I'm really surprised that they haven't been up defending this emergency budget. I think it's probably because they're ashamed that we have to have this emergency budget. Maybe it's because of the low esteem or low support they're getting at the polls, rumoured to be some 16 percent at present. They've really gone down -- 16 percent! They haven't reached the Alberta standard, but they're heading in that direction. It's no wonder this government is in a great deal of trouble. It's too bad we can't go now for an early election. I see the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who has just come down, would be really excited by that.
We've had enough. We need better management. The people of this province have had enough. We need better control of the economy. We need reduced expenditures and taxes lowered to a managed level. As I say, we've had enough. Now that the Minister of Municipal Affairs has come, has been turned on and is very excited, I will sit down and make room for others.
R. Neufeld: I find it appalling that the government would introduce a bill of this magnitude and that the Minister of Finance would not take time in second reading to defend the extraordinary request that he's made before this House. We have here another example of a dishonest approach to bookkeeping and to the books of the House.
Our system is founded on some very basic principles, the most basic of which is that the government has to justify its spending and taxing decisions to the representatives of the people before they embark on either. The government has flouted that basic parliamentary principle: not a dime without debate. They're now asking for $1.555 billion of public money to be passed posthaste, today, immediately, under some phony guise of urgency. It is not acceptable to this side of the House.
"Absolutely amazing." Those are words directly out of Hansard from the now Minister of Finance. Can you imagine when we dared to stand up and speak against interim supply? Members of the government, who were opposition when those words were spoken, chastised us for wasting the time of the House, when we were standing up here exercising what we think is our democratic right and what is expected of us by the constituents who elected us. We go back to pre-election and think about the famous quote of the now Premier: "Not a penny more than the people of British Columbia can afford." Then he dropped a nickel in a piggy bank.
An Hon. Member: It was a penny.
R. Neufeld: Pardon me. He didn't have a nickel. It was a borrowed penny.
"The easiest thing to do is balance the budget." We heard one of the previous speakers talk again about a famous quote from the Minister of Finance: "The easiest thing to do in British Columbia is balance the budget." We've had all kinds of promises from this government: 49 of them distributed to almost every person in the province of British Columbia. Every person in the province of British Columbia who's taken the time to read those promises can see that there have been 49 of them broken -- every one of them. This government has not lived up at all to the promises it made to the people of British Columbia, to the 39 percent of the people that voted for them. They have disenfranchised most of those people. On top of that, the 60 percent that didn't vote for them are very angry.
And no wonder. They promised to balance the budget, to reduce taxes on middle-income earners, and they promised a fair and balanced budget. I don't want to use unparliamentary language, but I would say it's dishonest to the utmost. I'm not saying they're lies. I wouldn't say they're lies at all, but I will say that it's dishonest. This government has not lived up to the promises it made to the people of British Columbia prior to the election and since the election.
What have they delivered to us in the 20 short months this government has been in power? A lot more than 60 percent -- I would probably say about 80 percent -- of the people in British Columbia today are very tired of this government and would just love to put them all in those paper bags that the Minister of Agriculture brought over to me, and turf them. That's how mad people are with this government.
They've increased the debt of the province. In fact, they have added to our debt, which was $20 billion when they took over, and that's $20 billion for total debt, for Crown corporations, for everything. This government has added $6.5 billion to it in 20 months. It's $6.5 billion. Thirty-five to 40 percent of what the total debt was in 125 years, they've accomplished in two.
Interjections.
R. Neufeld: The member over there nitter natters about a Socred deficit. That's absolutely ridiculous. I don't want to use the word "lie" again, and I'm not going to say that they're lying. They're being dishonest,
[ Page 8088 ]
and they're not telling you the truth about those numbers. They haven't told....
Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, hon. member. A member is rising on a point of order.
H. Lali: The hon. member across the floor, by using words in an implicit way, is implying that somebody on this side of the House is lying, and he's impugning our reputation. I would urge that he withdraw his remarks.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. I have to ask the hon. member: did you intend in any way to impugn the reputation of any member of this House?
R. Neufeld: Definitely not, hon. Speaker. I wouldn't impugn the reputation of any member of this House. No way.
Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member, and if you could confine your remarks to using parliamentary language, as I know you are attempting to do, I think it would expedite the debate tonight.
R. Neufeld: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and I will take your words of advice.
This government is dishonest. It hasn't told the truth and, hon. Speaker, those are acceptable parliamentary words. They are dishonest; they haven't told the truth. They haven't told the people of British Columbia exactly what's going on. The member over there heckled me about deficits and what the NDP experienced when they came to power. They have not been telling the truth about what they had when they came to power; they've been dishonest with the people of British Columbia. The number $2.3 billion is as dishonest as it can be; it was dishonest then and it's dishonest now. All we have to do is listen to the auditor general; he will tell us the truth. It was a long way from $2.3 billion.
This government tells all kinds of stories. They talk about a shadow bureaucracy of 1,500 people, or something of that magnitude. I think it was 1,480 people; the Korbin commission came through with 1,100. It's indicative of this government. Every time they get up and talk about money, they don't know what they're talking about; every time they get up and talk about employees, they're not really sure what they're talking about. Any time they talk about numbers, I think every one of them needs a calculator. They better not get the solar-charged ones, because most of them are in the dark all the time; they better get ones with batteries in them.
[9:15]
What have they given us? Bill 64, the interim supply bill. They come in at the last possible moment. Why didn't they introduce this bill last night or yesterday? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the time and what would happen in the debate. But no, it's typical of this government. It's typical of what they've done with all their legislation. They say: "Let's jam it through; let's use our numbers; let's be arrogant about it and push it through the House and show them what we can do." And they have the numbers to do it. There's no doubt about that.
I just want to read another little quote of the Minister of Finance when he was in opposition. On April 23, 1990, he said: "It is no way to run a government, Mr. Speaker" -- at that time they used Mr. Speaker; we use hon. Speaker now -- "It is dishonest; it is deceitful; it is avoiding public debate, which is what we are here for; and we won't accept it." As they say, those are words right from the horse's mouth, when the Minister of Finance was in opposition.
We have a number of other quotes here, too, from some hon. members in government -- who will soon be in opposition. The member for Alberni said: "We're going to debate this bill, because we don't believe in giving a blank cheque -- not with the financial mess that this province is in." When we talk about a financial mess, that hits it right on the head. I talked about a debt that has increased $2.6 billion in two years and taxes on the average family that have increased $2,000 in two years -- and they promised reduced taxes on middle-income earners.
Young people are disillusioned in British Columbia; young people who have a good education can't get jobs. And what does this government do? They cut research and development funding in science and technology. That's the enlightened group across the way -- and they wonder why they're in trouble. They try to figure out how they can get out of it.
Then they make decisions like the Tatshenshini. They just threw 2,000 well-paying jobs out the window, against the advice of their own commissioner, Stephen Owen, to have public debate about it. Behind closed doors, this government just said: "Two thousand jobs in the resource sector -- it's in the north; we don't need it." It was a complete tradeoff for a decision made on the Clayoquot. Actually, that's a decision that I've stood in the House quite a number of times on and said I agreed with. I have no problem with the decision on the Clayoquot. But this government, controlled very much by the environmentalists, caved in, hon. Speaker. They caved in to the environmentalists and said: "Yes, we will shut down mining in the north. We don't want mining in British Columbia. We're going to raise the water tax. We're going to raise the corporate tax. We're going to introduce a corporate capital tax. We're going to do everything we can to discourage corporate investment, or any kind of investment in British Columbia."
The only thing that they can encourage is creating 3,000 jobs tree planting. It used to be done by private firms. What did they do? They took it away from those private firms and decided they were just going to find 3,000 people, put them to work and make a whole bunch of press releases. And isn't this just great, what they're doing? Are we in trouble!
This government has been disorganized this season. It's absolutely amazing. The member from Langley talked earlier about how disorganized the government has been this spring. Why are we still so far away from finishing estimates? Why have we just started bringing legislation in? If you look at the record -- and I'm going to throw a flower at the Minister of Finance -- last year,
[ Page 8089 ]
when he was House Leader for the NDP, he had just a short time from the election to get legislation and budgets organized -- all the things that go along with running a good House. He was capable of doing it, and he did a good job. He did a remarkable job.
What did we do this year? We changed. We got the Minister of Labour there. We hardly see him in the House. He is hardly around to open discussions. He's not sure which House is operating when, which bills are coming up and which are not. It's total disarray, and that's why tonight at 9 o'clock we are standing here discussing interim supply. It's because of that minister's incapabilities.
There are so many things that this government has done to the province, that the province is going to be lucky, after four years of this administration, or however long they decide to stick around.... They may even stay for five years, because they know they're going to be toast. They know they're gone. They know they're a one-term government. They've figured that out already, because of what they have done already -- or should I say because of what they haven't done?
What they haven't done is live up to their promises and live up to what they said they would do for the people of B.C. They talked about economic stability, new investment and wealth creation. I guess the wealth creation was for the government itself, because they've increased taxes by $2 billion in two short years, and still increased the deficit by $6.5 billion. That's shameful. That's deceitful. That's unacceptable. It's no wonder the people of British Columbia are angry.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Tell the truth. Tell the truth.
R. Neufeld: The member across the way says: "Tell the truth." I am telling the truth. I hope it's the truth. We may find some little additions in the budget manual, because I'm going right by the budget manual that was delivered by the government. So I can only hope that they have the right numbers in there. That's the other thing: after watching the performance of this forlorn bunch for two years, the people of British Columbia are probably wondering: "Yes, maybe it's not right. Maybe they've lied to us there, too." I am sorry. They wouldn't lie, and I retract that word altogether, hon. Speaker. I will try not to use it again.
They promised improved labour relations. It's absolutely amazing: improved labour relations! The number of worker days lost due to strikes and lockouts was up 268 percent last year over the previous year. That's when we were government, when the terrible Bill 19 was in place, the one that hindered everyone from being able to work, the one that was so negative toward the workforce. We had a buoyant economy, we had people working, and we had people happy that they were working. This government came into power, and we saw an increase in lost worker days of 268 percent, and their promise was -- where is it; there are so many promises that they broke -- improved labour relations.
They promised improved labour relations and better health care and education services. What did we see in health care and education? Health care and education have had small increases, but both of them have had massive cuts, really, with the rate of growth. They don't believe in education. It's typical. Listen to the young people who are going to university and trying to get an education. They're having a tough time doing it, and what do we see this government tolerating? Increases of 10 percent and 15 percent in tuition fees. Is this how they feel we're going to get into the new era? They don't believe in resource jobs; they don't believe in jobs in high technology, but they do believe in creating 2,800 full-time workers in government.
I have said this many times before: this government has to realize that you have to have a healthy, private sector-driven economy. If we're going to be able to continue to have and enjoy the services that we do, we have to have that. That has to go along with government cuts. I fully agree with government cuts. I am not saying that you lay off a whole bunch of people, but you have to look around and instead of creating more commissions, bureaucracies and job positions.... We've never seen it like it is now. Maybe we did see it in 1972-75, but I wasn't here. I was in the north trying to make a living and just feeling the effects of that government. It was not very good, and it is the same today; it is absolutely no different.
They have increased public sector wages and salaries up to 23 percent in two years. That is absolutely ridiculous. If those people were terribly underpaid I could see it, but they weren't. When you look at all the statistics about the wage increases, salaries paid and benefits to people in the private sector, they are far outstripped by government. Still we see increases of this magnitude. This government allowed school districts to run deficits -- something never heard of before. This government just allowed it, because of a dumb promise made during the election and a dumber one carried out. I guess what is indicative of this government is that they have broken the promises that would be good for the people of British Columbia, and they have kept the dumb promises. That's not what the people of British Columbia want. They want well-paying jobs, they want to be able to raise their families, and we have to have a healthy private sector out there supplying most of those jobs.
The President of the United States, who is someone that this government can relate to quite well, obviously has skills about private sector development far beyond the scope of this government. He said during his election campaign that what you need are government cuts -- not hard government cuts, but some government cuts -- and he did that by cutting the public sector. You have to have a growing economy and a good private sector. That's the best friend government can have. Guarantee a growing of the economy and the creation of private sector jobs, and we can all come out of this glue. But this government has put us into the position where we're going to have a hard time coming out of the glue. Between 1972 and 1975 it was a little easier. Things were booming then. But this time around, they're not.
Look at the magnitude of the debt: $6.4 billion in two years, and an increase in the public service of 3,000 people. The government that comes to power next time -- and there will be a change; no doubt about it -- is
[ Page 8090 ]
going to have a big job on its hands. I don't know whether the government that comes to power will be able to do it. I say that with some force simply because I have heard some members of the opposition.... I mean the government -- I guess I'm getting a few years ahead of myself, because they are going to be opposition -- say: "Oh, I hope we get that second term, because we can really do what we want to do." That is scary. It's scary to me, and it's scary to the people of British Columbia, which is a guarantee that this government will not be re-elected.
[9:30]
This government has tried all kinds of ways to defray scrutiny. It sent out committee after committee on just about every conceivable thing that happened. Eighty percent of the people voted for recall, and what do we do? We send a committee out to say: "Did you really know how you marked the ballot?" Before the election the Premier, who was then the opposition, promised that if people voted for it he would put it in. He has broken that promise. He has no intention of instituting it other than with an awful lot of public pressure. He's afraid -- and he ought to be -- because he'd be the first one that's toast, right along with a few that just finished giggling over there. They'll be gone.
This government doesn't understand about growing the economy, about private sector jobs and what's needed in our economy to receive the same benefits that we have today. The Minister of Social Services has had a $900 million increase -- that's a 45 percent increase -- in her budget in two years. The minister has liberalized welfare policy terribly, and that's why we're up the $900 million. In fact, the rate of unemployment has come down. The government brags about the best economy in Canada, and where is welfare? Way up here. It's obviously because that minister doesn't even have the time of day to read reports that she asks for and that are on her desk. It takes six months and a leak to the opposition to catch her attention. That's why we're in trouble. I said the House Leader is incapable. We have a Minister of Social Services that is incapable. The other day when I went through Energy and Mines estimates, what really scared me was the minister's claim to be the chair of the committee struck to negotiate the downstream benefits of the Columbia River Treaty. That ought to scare just about anybody in British Columbia.
I just want to get another few quotes in here before my time expires. The member for Nanaimo talks so eloquently all the time in this House about the group over there never knowing what they're doing: "We know best. We're government, we're NDP and we know best." I have a quote from the member for Nanaimo in Hansard, April 24, 1990, in regard to interim supply: "...we would be irresponsible in the extreme if we agreed to interim supply without considerable discussion. That's why we're going through this process, and why I, for one, make no apology for what we are doing."
Interjection.
R. Neufeld: I make no apology to the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith for what I am doing tonight. I'm exercising the same right to which the member for Nanaimo so eloquently referred on April 24, 1990, in regard to interim supply.
This government needs a lesson. It needs to be woken up, to get its house in order and to get legislation forward long before now. If they're playing some silly, stupid little game, I can't see why they would, because this is the people's business. It is the people of British Columbia that we're talking about here. It's the taxpayers and all the single moms in British Columbia. We're standing here talking about interim supply at 9:35 p.m. just the day before the supply runs out. That's unacceptable for me and for our caucus. With that, I will take my seat and listen to the other speakers.
D. Mitchell: It's nice to see you in the chair this evening, but we must stop meeting like this, hon. Speaker. We're here this evening, unfortunately, to deal with an apparent emergency -- an apparent emergency, I say, because I don't believe the case that this is an emergency has been very well made by the government.
We're dealing with Bill 64, the second supply act of this session. It's interesting if you think about what this bill does. On the face of it, it's quite simple. It grants to the government the ability to spend a little bit more than $1.5 billion of taxpayers' money so that it can continue the operations of government prior to the completion of the estimates process in this legislative session. Coincidentally, that amount of $1.5 billion happens to be the forecasted deficit in the budget for this fiscal year brought in by the Minister of Finance. Isn't it interesting -- and I'm sure it's just a coincidence, nothing more than that -- that we're being asked to approve an amount that would cover the deficit projected by the Minister of Finance: $1.5 billion? Wouldn't it be interesting if we could somehow deny the government the opportunity to spend this 1.5 billion of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars in the supply bill and instead achieve a balanced budget? I know that's not realistic, but it's interesting how coincidences occur, so that the same number that is being projected by the Minister of Finance -- $1.5 billion -- is what we're being asked to approve tonight by passage of all stages of a bill in one sitting of the House.
Many British Columbians may be interested to know: how did we get into this apparent crisis? I would argue that it's a manufactured crisis; it's not a serious crisis. In fact, if we think about the recent past in B.C. -- and I'm a student of B.C.'s history -- I cannot think of more than a couple of serious crises that we've witnessed. In fact, I can think of only two: one occurred in 1972 and another in 1991. Those are the only two legitimate crises that I can actually recall in the last generation in B.C. I'm sure the Minister of Agriculture, who is also a student of B.C. history, would agree. If we think about that, in the last generation we've only had two legitimate crises. Both of them were the advent of the election, by mistake, of governments composed of members of the New Democratic Party. Both of those governments, the vintage Barrett and the vintage Harcourt, have produced crises related to the public
[ Page 8091 ]
finances of the province. The present government will not be government much longer -- another one-term government. Hopefully we won't have to endure these one-term experiments every 20 years. Surely the people of B.C. won't be fooled again in another generation's time.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
We're talking about dealing with an emergency this evening. What is the emergency? It's interesting to think why we should be providing, under standing order 81, the urgent and extraordinary ability to pass a bill through all stages -- first reading, second reading, committee stage and adoption of the bill -- in one sitting of the House. Why is that required? The second edition of George MacMinn says that this is a very important procedure "to be used sparingly." He quotes the words of Speaker Brand, a very famous speaker of almost a century ago who is well noted in all of the parliamentary authorities, who said: "That course -- three readings in one day -- is never taken except in cases of extreme urgency, and with the general assent of the House." Extreme urgency: is that what we're witnessing today in B.C.? The general assent of the House: has that been achieved? Listening to the debate this evening, I think not. I don't sense that we have the general assent of the House to pass this legislation.
The reason we don't, and the reason we don't have more government members rising on their hind legs in debate this evening, is that we are performing here the historic practice of expressing grievance before supply is granted. We're being asked to grant approval to Supply Act (No. 2), 1993, but before we do that, before the government receives that approval, they must listen to the grievances of the people's representatives. That's the practice that we're partaking in this evening. It's something that members of the government partook in when they were in opposition side of the House.
Interjection.
D. Mitchell: The member from Burnaby certainly remembers when he was on the opposition side of the House. When interim supply came along, the members of the government -- who were then in opposition -- regaled the chamber with stories about the abuse of democratic rights, the principles of the public purse and how they should be governed by a democratic government. That was then, this is now, and now we have the same government. It's not easy to live up to the great traditions.
Let me give the member for Nanaimo just one example. He might wonder who said these words when dealing with interim supply in this chamber on May 30, 1991 -- not too long ago. The member in question says, referring to the government of the day:
"One has to look no further than the government's sorry record of fiscal incompetence to see why the government needs to spend a lengthy time in opposition. This kind of arrogance is a final proof that they've simply grown too old over there, too long.
"Perhaps if the members spend a lengthy time in opposition they'll learn to appreciate parliamentary democracy, they'll learn to have less contempt for our parliamentary traditions, they will understand that democratic parliamentary procedure is an important foundation upon which our government rests, and they will not abuse it."
That was then, and it was the person who now occupies the portfolio of the treasurer of our province, the Minister of Finance. This was when he was in opposition, talking about democratic rights and about interim supply. Now the Minister of Finance, the sponsor of this bill....
Interjection.
D. Mitchell: The member from Burnaby reminds me that this government has, in 17 months, grown more arrogant than the previous administration did in 17 years. The member from Burnaby should rise in debate to prove the point. But the Minister of Finance, who sponsored this bill, has certainly shown that in a mere 17 months this government has grown more arrogant than any other government did in 17 years.
Interjections.
D. Mitchell: Two months ago. You already passed that mark. Now you're beyond it, hon. member.
Excuse me, hon. Speaker, I will address my comments through you. I was easily distracted, because it's getting late.
We have to wonder why we are here. It's going on 10 o'clock. Why are we here? Who are we? It's easy to get confused.
The members on the government side cannot explain to their constituents, nor can they explain to mine, why we are here at this late date -- we're coming to the conclusion of the month of June -- and at this late hour in the evening. We're not doing the people's business that the government has asked us to do, which is to bring in the legislation that they brought in very late in this session and to bring in the spending estimates that have yet to be approved and that are tied to the budget. They're bringing in an interim supply bill.
J. MacPhail: How long is this session?
D. Mitchell: The member for Vancouver-Hastings has asked a very important question. She has asked how long the session is. When this parliament was first elected, I had very high hopes that we would one day regard it as the parliament of reform, the parliament that would change the procedures in this institution to make them more relevant.
One of the reforms that I think really needs to be seriously considered -- and I had high hopes that we would consider it -- is the adoption of a fixed parliamentary calendar. I thought that we would be able to adopt a fixed parliamentary calendar so that the people's business could be done in an orderly fashion and so that the member for Vancouver-Hastings would be able to answer the question herself: how long will the session last? If the member for Vancouver-Hastings gave any thought to the question of how long the session needs to last, she would know that supply bills
[ Page 8092 ]
such as the one we're being asked to approve this evening would be unnecessary if we had a fixed parliamentary calendar.
One other feature that members have talked about at great length is the need for a fixed budget date.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. The Chair has been somewhat lenient thus far, but it is getting very difficult to hear the debate, and I think all members would like to extend courtesy to the member who does have the floor at this time.
[9:45]
D. Mitchell: We're talking about interim supply -- the second interim supply bill that's been introduced in this session. Who knows if we'll need to see a third one, depending on how long the session lasts? But the member for Vancouver-Hastings raised an important question, and I think it deserves to be discussed in the context of this debate. I'm sure the member will read about it -- and she shouldn't wait for the movie.
There she goes. Thank goodness, she has left the chamber. I can get on with the debate.
We've talked about the need for reforms. There is a need for serious reforms in the institutions of this House, so that we don't become confronted time and again with this unnecessary procedure of forcing through billions of dollars of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars without proper debate or scrutiny, late at night and late in the session, due to the chaos in the government's legislative program. If we had a fixed parliamentary calendar, where government and opposition members, through what we sometimes call the usual channels -- which seem to have broken down completely; we have unusual channels today -- could negotiate the government's business, the people's business, and allot specific time to dealing with legislation and estimates, we would have no need to deal with Supply Act (No. 2), 1993, in this manner. To deal with the approval of $1.5 billion of taxpayers' dollars in one fell swoop this evening makes no sense.
Another reform that we need in addition to a fixed parliamentary calendar is a fixed budget date -- the government would bring down its budget on the same day every year. If they brought it down at the right time, we would be able to approve it in an orderly fashion, and we wouldn't require interim supply. The member for Yale-Lillooet very correctly points out that two years in a row we've had manufactured crises because the government has taken us to the brink and brought in its budget at the very last date. The member for Yale-Lillooet is correct; I only wish that he would rise on his hind legs and speak in this debate.
These are simple reforms. I had high hopes at the start of the legislative session that these reforms might be adopted by this parliament, but I've now begun to lose hope.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. Again, hon. members, it's difficult to carry on a second reading debate when a number of conversations are going on in the chamber at the same time. I would ask the House to come to order and show courtesy to the member who presently has the floor.
D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, I'm not sure where the members opposite went for dinner this evening, but they should have stayed there. We're here to debate Bill 64; that's what I'm here to debate.
The reason we're here is that the House is not well managed, the House schedule is not managed at all and the government's legislative program is in disarray. It doesn't need to be this way. At the start of this parliament, I and many other members had high hopes that we would deal with the public's business in a fair and reasoned manner. Members like the member for Vancouver-Hastings have proven that these hopes can never be attained, because this government is more committed to the status quo of old-style party politics, taking the Legislature to the brink and dealing with the people's business at the last minute under the worst possible circumstances. They are so committed to the status quo that it's very clear to the people of British Columbia that we will never see any meaningful reform under this administration. That's why we're here tonight to debate this bill: for the second year in a row, they are forcing through the people's business without allowing proper grievances to be expressed before supply is granted.
This bill is simply the most recent manifestation of the tax-borrow-and-spend approach of a government that's out of touch with the people, a government that has no desire to reform the process in order to prevent this abuse from taking place. We only have to think back to the last session, when the government brought in an interim supply bill and this House actually sat around the clock. Some members will have memories of that evening that are not very fond, when the House sat for a whole evening, right through the wee hours until the sun rose the next morning, to debate an interim supply bill similar to this one. It was a manufactured crisis at the time and totally unnecessary. And here we are again, a year later, dealing with the most recent supply bill.
Interjection.
D. Mitchell: The Minister of Municipal Affairs knows this well, because he has experienced it on both sides of the House. He pontificated on the opposition side, but he rose to speak in debate then. Now he pontificates on the government side, but he does so from his seat because he dare not get up to speak against this bill -- even though he'd like to, even though he can recall speaking against interim supply measures very similar to this one as far back as 1986. But we witness the hypocrisy of the then-opposition; now that it's on the government side, it's changing its stripes. That was then; this is now. Now they can justify it, but they do so from their seats. They are afraid to rise in this chamber to speak to the substance of this bill,
[ Page 8093 ]
which really deals with the democratic rights we all cherish in British Columbia and how we manage the public's business and spend tax dollars in this province. And it's a manufactured crisis.
We should be dealing with the important spending estimates of the government this evening. We should be dealing with other important legislation that the government has brought down far too late to expect to pass it during a reasonable period of time. If we had a fixed parliamentary calendar, that calendar might suggest that at the end of June, the session would end. We would take the summer off so that members could spend time with their constituents and come back in the fall for another session. Perhaps it would be the start of a new session. We would have the Speech from the Throne for the start of a new session in the fall and deal with more government legislation at that time, then adjourn over the Christmas break, come back in the spring with a budget and more legislation, and do it an orderly fashion.
Interjection.
D. Mitchell: It's done in other jurisdictions. It's done in our neighbouring provinces in the Prairies. It's done in Ontario. It's done in the House of Commons in Ottawa. There's no reason why we couldn't have a similar pattern here if this was a civilized jurisdiction and if we had the kind of political culture that was given to planning. Instead, we have chaos. The legislative program is in disarray, and we have Bill 64, Supply Act (No. 2), 1993, which the government is asking us to pass this evening. Time and again the members opposite, when they were in opposition, spoke out against such measures. When the Minister of Finance, who sponsors this bill, was the second member for Vancouver East, he said something very important on May 30, 1991, during the last interim supply bill of the last parliament: "...it is unfortunate that it would come to this. But when the government attempts to rule by decree...it undermines the very democracy we are here to uphold. It's unacceptable and it's disgraceful."
An Hon. Member: Who said that?
D. Mitchell: Members might wonder who said that, but those were the words of the now Minister of Finance when he was in opposition. I believe he was the official opposition critic for Finance at the time. He said that on May 30, 1991. That's quoted from Hansard. Little did the people of British Columbia know at the time that that member of this House would, in a very short time, become Minister of Finance and bring in the very same measure that he spoke out against so eloquently. It's not often that I have a chance to rise in this House to say that I agree with the Minister of Finance. I agreed with his sentiments prior to his attainment of that portfolio; I can't agree with him today.
This bill is totally unnecessary. There is no crisis here. There is a manufactured crisis on the part of this government. Members of the governing party should be ashamed of themselves. They should be embarrassed to support a government that would put the people's business in the hands of an administration and a House Leader who has no sense of doing the people's business. He has put the people's business into chaos and brought in Bill 64, which I will assuredly vote against.
J. Tyabji: It's not often that the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi and I agree closely, but in this case he expressed many things that I would like to deal with as well.
One word that I'll be talking about at length is "civilized." How do we do things in a civilized legislature? How do we do things from the perspective of a civilized revolution, which is long overdue in this province? It's long overdue for us to take our current legislative process and allow it to mature into a proper legislative process where we have fixed sitting days, fixed election dates and a fixed budget day, so that we know exactly what we're dealing with. Here we are at the end of June, still not sure how long we're going to sit. We've got legislation coming down in a waterfall on a daily basis, some of it controversial, some of it not. We have the Supply Act, which is going to take us some time to deal with tonight. It's unfortunate, because we have the opportunity to do so much better.
The worst part of all of this is that in the last election this government promised the people something they desperately want; that is, they promised something better than we've been used to in this province in the last few decades. What have we been used to? We've been used to cynical politics and gross political mismanagement. There's been an ad hoc approach to the Legislature and a complete abuse of the legislative chamber. Orders-in-council have taken the place of proper legislative debate. We have that even now. Even as the Legislature is open, at the same time that we're having a debate we have a large number of order-in-councils going through as quietly as possible.
The tradition of this House has not been one to be proud of in the last couple of decades, because we haven't been going forward with a properly managed plan for legislation and budgeting. That is at the heart of why we're here today. In large part, we're here today because this Legislature has done this kind of thing so many times before. It's not acceptable, if we accept that we are in need of a civilized revolution.
I did a bit of background work to look up what people in other jurisdictions have written about politics. The sad thing is that the feelings of cynicism and that politics is perhaps not all that it should be are in many different pieces of literature. One book that I would like to share with the House tonight is Must History Repeat Itself?, by Anthony Fisher. It is a study of the lessons taught by the repeated failure and occasional success of government economic policy through the ages. In chapter 2, under "Write it Down," he says:
"It is one thing to discuss the theories behind alternative policies, but it is also necessary to explain how they can be put into effect without getting bogged down in party politics. The general public's impression is that politics are at best a tiresome necessity. Politicians are generally assumed to be insincere, while compromise is probably accepted as a vocational hazard. Two hundred years ago, Adam Smith contrasted the ideal legislator, whose deliberations
[ Page 8094 ]
ought to be governed by general principles which are always the same, with that insidious and crafty animal sometimes called a statesman or politician, whose councils are directed by momentary fluctuations."
This gets to the heart of this. What should we as legislators be doing to properly represent the interests of the people of British Columbia? What did we promise to do in the last election? It is very easy to see that in the last election, and in the years preceding it, many of us committed to a fundamental reform of the way in which we govern, legislate, budget and spend money. The fact that we haven't followed through on that points back to some of the problems that are endemic in this political system. That's one reason that politicians have such a bad rap and are not seen in the light that we would like to be seen in. Although maybe all 75 of us come forward with good intentions, we don't follow through on some of the commitments we made at the time when we were asked by the people for an outline of our platform and what mandate we would like to have from them. We are mandated for change in this House. This House has been mandated for drastic reform of the way in which government is conducted. That was very clear in the last election.
The book goes on to say in chapter 2: "If my contention is true that government policy-making is based on ignorance or at best on guesswork, a change in government is unlikely to provide lasting relief to our trials. The analogy may be that of a craft being swept towards the rapids, and an election merely brings the prospect of someone else's hand on the tiller." That is the unfortunate part about being here tonight. This is very reminiscent of the two years before the last election. We find that the boat is still going over the rapids, and we have someone else at the helm and it's not helping. We have such gross fiscal mismanagement and incompetence, really, in the legislative duties that are the fundamental basis on which we conduct ourselves as legislators.
[10:00]
If we can't get this right, and if the legislation is so badly brought forward in terms of a schedule, how can the public have any confidence that the legislation itself has any merit? A month and a half ago we were having an emergency debate on NAFTA in this House. I have a hard time believing that it was of such urgent precedence. Here we are at the end of June facing another month and a half of legislative debate, and yet for some reason we had all kinds of time a month and a half ago to debate things that are outside of our jurisdiction. The record shows it. We are here debating this supply act in large part because the government didn't organize itself well enough to have the bills on the order paper when they should have been: some time ago. It's unfortunate that although we have a different set of captains steering the ship, if you will, the ship is still far off course.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: I hear the member for Yale-Lillooet say: "Talk about Liberals." There's nothing I like better than to talk about the civilized revolution, but I know that the leader of the party will be addressing that to some extent in his speech tonight.
H. Lali: Which leader?
J. Tyabji: There is only one leader of the party; there will always be only one leader. We're looking for a renewal in a few months. Stay tuned.
With regard to the supply act, the reason I take great exception to what we're doing here is the way in which we're doing it and the need for change. I'm quite happy to outline some of the changes that we would propose, but I know that I'll be called out of order on that. Besides, I know that the Liberal leader, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, is much better at sneaking through on those out-of-order things in debate, so I'll leave that for him.
In this Must History Repeat Itself? doctrine, I find it interesting that there's a foreshadowing of what we can expect if a government continues to fall short in terms of legislative duties and reforming the way in which we're governed. In a later chapter, "What Must Be Done" -- and this is in order to avoid the repeated failures of governments to follow economic policy to prevent brinkmanship -- the author says:
"I am writing with the conviction that there exists a distinctive positive policy to escape the clutches of a syndrome that appears to be leading towards increasing economic and political chaos on an international scale. On the negative side, unless such a change is made in national economic policy, we will stumble in ever more unpleasant spasms down the steep slope of economic ruin toward misery and dictatorship.
"History, for those who care to read, is full of gloomy and frightening precedents. Standards of living have been rising because of technological progress, in spite of political ineptitude. Politicians have survived, though only just, by claiming the credit, but have increasingly been shown up as out of their depth."
That's true. We know that the way we've conducted ourselves in the past in this Legislature is not something we can be proud of in terms of the opportunities we are presented. Based on the opportunities we are presented in this House, we shouldn't be here debating this bill. In fact, long ago, as soon as the government took over, they should have moved immediately to try to reform the way in which government is done, so that, for example, the day when the Legislature will be convened is fixed; so we know when the budget is coming down; so we know we have legislation for a balanced budget; and so we know that we have a single financing authority, as has been outlined by the Liberal leader. Those are the things that the government had an opportunity to do and that weren't done. Why weren't they done? Because the tradition of the House allowed us not to meet those opportunities, and that's really unfortunate.
I want to also share that this author then goes on in a very insightful way to predict the very problems that this current government is dealing with in terms of what happens if a new government inherits a system from a previous government and doesn't change the system. The author says:
[ Page 8095 ]
"The conditions under which any new government is likely to find itself may be very grim indeed, including some or all of the following features: (1) a rapid decline in the value of the dollar" -- of course, this is a national document, and we're dealing provincially; "(2) punitive taxes that cut into savings as well as take-home pay; (3) increasing taxes on things we buy; (4) multiplying price and wage controls; (5) increasing important financial controls; (6) rationing and consequent black markets" -- witness the second-hand car trade, for example; "(7) judges and courts unable to cope with all the offenders; (8) industrial strife, strikes, rebellion" -- such as the tax revolts that we've seen; "(9) growing threat of unemployment and trade stagnation" -- and we can look at the mining industry; "(10) political and economic weakness at home, leading to more troubles abroad" -- I think that one is self-evident; "(11) an increasingly serious decline in the standard of living for more and more people."
All we have to do is look at the lineups at the food banks.
The author goes on to conclude:
"It will be in the context of this vicious circle that the public will demand change. It is, of course, possible that the situation will be so bad that conventional politicians will claim more time and even try to delay an election. There may be demands for a coalition for national emergency measures. Such a virtual dictatorship based on the discredited consensus would simply prolong the agony and delay the necessary changes."
I think this book is very insightful in terms of telling us what the problems are if the government doesn't deal with the root of the problem, the root of the problem being that the system is in drastic need of radical change. We desperately need to dismantle those parts of the political system that no longer serve the constituents. The fact that we are here tonight debating the supply act signifies that this Legislature is not properly managed to serve the public.
When we're standing up in debate here, I often wonder what is going through the minds of the people who are watching, who must be thinking to themselves.... I often get stopped by people who say: "I saw that debate on the legislative channel." My comment to them is: "Well, if I were at home watching, I would be screaming and throwing things at my television set, because I'd be saying: 'My tax dollars are paying for this'?"
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: To me, that is a sincere response to the fact that this system does not serve the public.
I hope that the member for Yale-Lillooet will get up in debate. He's been named so many times in the debate, the least he can do is join us in this effort to bring forward some kind of systemic change.
When tax money is being used to finance everything that we do here, the least we can do is try to be as responsible as possible with that money. In order to be responsible, we're going to have to look at the systemic change that is necessary, so that we don't continue to debate supply acts. When they were in opposition, government members promised that this style of financing the government wouldn't happen; it would be pass�. This government had a clear mandate from the people to take action and to change the way in which we're governed. In fact, what we've found is a proliferation of the current system rather than a dismantling and starting from scratch. That's unfortunate, and that's one reason that we're here today.
One quote that I want to share is from The Midnight Economist: Meditations on Truth and Public Policy, by William R. Allen. It's a short quote that I think goes right to the heart of the NDP. Since the election, we have repeatedly said to them: "Why are we not going in a certain direction so that we can avoid brinkmanship and the kind of debate we're having now, and so we can have proper fiscal management of the Legislature and of the government's activities?" In The Midnight Economist, under the "Mainly Macroeconomic" section, he says: "It may be too much to ask politicians to get economic analysis straight, but surely they could get a lackey to look up the historical numbers. If they can't understand the world, they could at least observe some of its behaviour."
I know that is a message that we have been trying to put forward very strongly in this session. When we started off with the budget debate and the debate on Bill 3, the Build BC Act, we repeatedly said that even if this government is not willing to take our advice, it should look at other jurisdictions. Look at what's happening in other jurisdictions where governments are not recognizing the need for systemic change and where, instead, they're proceeding with the existing system. They're expanding their expenditures and increasing taxes. In fact, what happens is that they go right over the edge. They have a total systems collapse, and they're not able to control the change that occurs. Eventually we're going to face the limits of our ability to spend and to continue to act in this manner. The only question that remains before us is: are we going to control the manner in which we change and go to the next step, or are we going to allow it to happen by external forces? If we allow it to happen, we will have no say in what kind of future we have and what kind of legislative jurisdiction we have over the changes.
The last source that I'd like to use, in an effort to try to convince the government that what we really need is a civilized revolution, which the Liberal Party has been talking about since 1987.... That's where we're coming from. For the member for Yale-Lillooet, who was asking, I can send him some documents in case he'd like to come over to the progressive way of approaching government. The last publication is called Politically Impossible? An Essay on the Supposed Electoral Obstacles Impeding the Translation of Economic Analysis into Policy; or, Why Politicians Do Not Take Economic Advice, by W.H. Hutt. To me this is an interesting discourse. What it talks about is the fact that politicians, by their very nature, are not able to take economic advice because it is often not going to make them very popular. Because politicians are in a popularity game, they're constantly having to go contrary to the economic advice and increase expenditures. That's basically the thesis of it.
In the first part, where he talks about the dilemma, he says:
[ Page 8096 ]
"If we accept a popular definition of politics, namely 'the art of the possible,' the words 'politically impossible' seem to imply a rather absurd contradiction. Nevertheless, when someone says, 'The ideas you advance are sound enough, but any attempt to give them practical content would fail hopelessly, for reasons of which all politicians are only too aware,' we know roughly what is meant. The speaker implies that candidates for election, and the party organizations through which they work, will refuse to have anything to do with suggestions they feel are first not currently acceptable among their traditional or potential supporters."
That is the reason why nothing has changed, although this government repeatedly promised in the last election to change the way in which we are governed, the institutions by which we are governed and the ways in which we conduct ourselves in the legislature. We really had an opportunity to start over after the last election. Partisan differences aside, we can certainly come to some agreement on the institutional changes that need to be developed in this Legislature so that we can have a progressive approach to fiscal management, government spending and the activities of government. As the book outlines, rather than follow through on campaign promises, it was politically expedient to put out those statements. Political expediency was followed, and once in government, the popularity game and the temptation to increase expenditures takes over. Of course, there is always a treadmill of legislation as it is, so it's very difficult to try for the kind of systemic change that is needed.
All of these things went on the back burner, as what we call the "socialist agenda" unfolded in the legislation that came forward. The partisan agenda took over. That, of course, is to the detriment of the public, because they aren't interested as much in partisan politics as they are in systemic change that will leave them with a government that is more accessible and accountable to the people, and more responsible in terms of fiscal management.
So we sit here at 10:15 on a Tuesday night, debating second reading of this supply act. It is unfortunate that there doesn't seem to be a lot of government participation in the debate. We know that this supply bill is going to pass. We know that we're going to end up with the money that's laid out in this bill. We know that yet again we have an interim measure as the financing authority for this House. What I would like to know from the government is why the opportunity to have a fundamental change in the way in which government institutions operate was not taken when it was presented to this government after the election?
I'm happy to see the Minister of Finance joining the debate, because he is the person who can answer this question. Why did the government choose to continue the traditions of the Legislature as they existed under the Social Credit government? Why did the government continue with interim supply acts, a mismanaged Legislature, a Legislature without a fixed convening day, without a fixed adjournment date and basically an ad hoc approach not just to legislation but to the management of the Legislature? That is a question that I think deserves an answer. Notwithstanding the debate that we have before us, we would like to hear from the government what the reasons are. Did the government get so caught up in the legislation? Did they get caught up last year in the referendum campaign, in the labour bill and now in the agenda that's come forward in the last couple of weeks through these bills? Was the government so preoccupied with the short-term problems they were facing in meeting their partisan obligations that they forgot about the public? Is that what happened? The government is being silent on this, but that's one thing that the public deserves an answer on.
[10:15]
When it gets down to it, this supply act doesn't represent a major change from the way things were done; that's the problem. The problem isn't that we have a supply act in front of us and that this is a big departure, or that this is an emergency. The problem is that this is d�j� vu. That's the problem; we've seen it before. We've seen bad government before and legislative incompetence before. In fact, the voters voted it out.
If this government has some excellent reasons why the partisan agenda took precedence over the people's mandate, I'd love to hear it. I really encourage somebody -- whether it be the Minister of Labour, the Premier or the Minister of Finance -- to step forward and lay out why we are here again debating another supply act at 10:15 on a Tuesday with probably a month and a half of the session left to go, based on the legislation that has come forward, yet still we see no attempt by the government to make the kind of non-partisan, fundamental institutional changes this Legislature has been badly in need of for many years.
W. Hurd: It's a pleasure to rise in what surely has to be the nadir of the session, debate on Bill 64. It's surely the nadir of the session for the current government: it's the second time this session that we have debated interim supply because the government does not have the legislative authority to spend.
I think it's significant to reflect on it being not just the members of this assembly who, in the past few weeks and months, have expressed concern about how this government is operating. Indeed, it has been the editorialists, the people of the province and those people concerned about due process. I would like to read a selection of some of the things that have been said about the way this government has been operating recently. I refer to the daily newspapers.
"The provincial New Democrats have forsaken democracy in a headlong rush to have their own way with government. They have manipulated the Legislature and hidden their initiatives from public scrutiny. And with the dangerous conviction that they know what is right for the people, they have declared that British Columbians don't care about process, only about results. It would be, at this stage, unduly suspicious to accuse the NDP of malicious intent, but a government that disregards due process is a government to be feared."
I believe that those words reflect the feelings the people of British Columbia have for the current government in Victoria. They're fearful of a government that, when it's
[ Page 8097 ]
in opposition, says it does not believe in ramming through supply bills and then turns around in government and makes no apology for doing it. They're concerned about a government which introduces fundamental change to the Human Rights Act and resists the entreaties of people in the province -- concerned groups -- who would like and expect to see some reasonable amendments to human rights, which are the very basics of a democratic society. They're fearful when they see a government that is as adroit as the previous administration at misrepresenting the financial interests and reality of the province -- worse, in fact.
There simply is no defence for the fact that we are here at 10:20 in the evening debating yet another interim supply bill in this session. Why are we here? It is a question we've invited the government to respond to, and not one member has been willing to take up the challenge. With the Canada Day holiday looming, why have we been unable to pass the estimates in this assembly? Why have we not been able to do what many other parliaments have been able to do in the history of this assembly?
The reason we are being asked to pass Supply Act (No. 2), Bill 64, is that the government decided it was going to put its pet bills on the order paper before the passage of interim supply. We find ourselves in the situation where the government is determined to ram through this bill under the guise of an emergency debate -- to move from first reading through committee, and then on to final reading and proclamation -- because they have totally and utterly mismanaged the legislative agenda of this province.
I have no idea whether the fact that there's a new House Leader on the government side has anything to do with the fiasco we find ourselves in. It is absolutely astonishing that the members opposite could listen stonefaced while a litany of quotes is read out to them on what they had to say when past governments passed this kind of bill authorizing $1.5 billion of expenditures. I'm struck by the ways in which the government might have been able to avoid the need to introduce this bill to the assembly. I reflect on the $500 million in the B.C. Endowment Fund and the $100 million or $200 million that was wasted on administrative error and fraud in the Social Services ministry. That's $700 million that could have been applied to the deficit and the expenditures of this province, and we would have had enough to get us through the next two weeks. It's total and utter mismanagement, and it's the kind of thing that British Columbians are fearful of. They're fearful of a government that cannot manage its legislative agenda, that ignores due process and that decides that it wants to put specific pieces of open-ended legislation ahead of what this Legislature was meant to do, which is pass supply to enable the government to continue to spend money in an orderly fashion. Surely that kind of consideration outweighs any other when it comes to addressing the affairs of this assembly.
The editorial writers and the people of the province are on to the government. It isn't just the debate in this assembly. It's a growing concern in the province. A government that does not recognize due process is indeed a government to be feared. I think most thoughtful British Columbians fear the kind of power that the government is exercising in these late days of the session. They are fearful of a government that overwhelms a legislative agenda without proper recourse to and respect for due process, and they understand that they're staring hypocrisy in the face. That's exactly what we're dealing with when we contemplate events in this assembly over the past two weeks, and it's what is likely to occur over the next two weeks: utter hypocrisy. The government does exactly what it said it would never do when it was in opposition, and makes little or no apology for its decision to do so.
There is no doubt that the people of B.C. are deeply fearful of this government. They are deeply fearful of its motives; they are deeply fearful of the way it conducts its business. They have reason to fear a government that finds itself in the situation of having to pass two interim supply bills in a single session, and they are fearful of a government that puts its pet legislative agenda -- open-ended, blank-cheque bills -- ahead of the orderly conduct of the affairs of this assembly, which is the supply of the various ministries. It's baffling that even as stand here and speak in this debate, another Committee of Supply is meeting in the legislative precincts. It's almost unbelievable that even as we continue to debate the need for this bill, the government has scheduled a late-night sitting on another ministry of government to try to get through an approval of that committee's work. We are obviously dealing with a collapse of the government's agenda -- a complete collapse of the orderly conduct of this assembly. Furthermore, the public, the editorial writers, the media and the people of the province are aware that in this assembly, as we approach Canada Day, the wheels have indeed come off the wagon. The government is in a state of disarray and collapse. It has drafted bills that need widespread amendments even before they hit the order paper.
It's absolutely shameful that not one government member would stand to speak to an issue that they had so much to say about when they were in opposition. Even as the quotes are read back to them, not one stands and even acknowledges that what they said in opposition has any bearing on what they are saying now in government. This is just unacceptable to the people of the province. It's an unacceptable way of doing business, and it simply will not be tolerated. This session of the B.C. Legislature will long be remembered. As people go to the polls in two years' time, they will remember the things that have occurred -- the bills that have passed, the deficits and the tax increases. There is a legacy, a chapter and verse, being laid down in this assembly which the government will have to take to the people of this province in the future, and they will have to explain. Perhaps they will do a better job of explaining to the people or will even have a willingness to explain to them, compared to what they are doing in this assembly, which is offering silence on a shameful chapter in the history of this assembly. The Minister of Finance, when he was the opposition Finance critic, led the charge when the government of
[ Page 8098 ]
the day tried to introduce the same type of management of our legislative agenda.
I was interested to listen to the remarks from the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, who I can say has thought long and hard about the ways and means by which this assembly can be meaningfully reformed. I was struck by the fact that government members who have declined to speak to this particular bill were the first ones to heckle that member on his genuine belief that this place could work better. That speaks volumes about the commitment that this government really had to reforming this assembly, and the fact that as far as they're concerned, it's business as usual. I really believe that the government came up through what I would call a cold war adversarial system in this chamber. There is no quarter given and none asked, and when you have your opponent in the opposite position and your foot is on the throat, as they do in this assembly by virtue of the numbers, that's when you use it to your advantage, and it is the end that justifies the means.
That is the approach they have taken, an approach they said they wouldn't take when they were in opposition but have now decided to take. I can tell you that the editorial writers and the people of the province are aware of what is happening in here, despite the assurances of the Minister of Finance that nobody's listening and nobody cares. They are aware, and they have reason to fear this government. They do fear it. I have no hesitation in saying that I will be voting against this interim supply bill. I would urge the government in future to find a new House Leader, or somehow find a way to manage this agenda in a manner that allows free and open debate and does not create the illusion of democracy, and the illusion that the affairs of this assembly are being managed in anything other than a time-honoured and sad tradition, in terms of allowing proper scrutiny and debate in this assembly.
[10:30]
I will be voting against Bill 64. I would hope, as this debate winds down, that other government members will take up the challenge and address the need for interim supply and the need to pass, on a second occasion in this assembly, an interim supply bill which really is nothing more than an exclamation mark to the incompetence of the government's legislative agenda and the collapse that we see in the House.
Hon. M. Sihota: I think it appropriate to take the occasion to enter into debate. I've listened with interest to what the opposition has had to say. I've listened to their complaints about the way legislation is introduced in this House. I've listened to their comments with regard to the way we deal with financing matters in this House. I've listened to their complaints about scheduling arrangements in this House. Inasmuch as the opposition may want to whine and complain about a number of things, to put it in a more straightforward fashion all of the whining, the complaining, the hyperbole and the kind of argument that we've heard today can't disguise one basic fact. That basic fact is that we have in this House one of the most inept, ineffective oppositions that has ever taken the place of opposition in this Legislature.
The opposition is in the midst of debate over a supply bill. Over the last three and a half months the opposition has participated in estimates debate. They know from the orders of the day that only two estimates remain to be done: the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of Finance. Everything else is done and complete.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: Government Services is completed.
D. Symons: On a point of order, hon. Speaker. I believe we are discussing the interim supply bill. I have not yet heard one word from this member about that.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member, for your point of order. The Chair has been fairly lenient this evening because second reading debate is characteristically broad, and with this bill appears even broader. But I would ask all members to try to relate their comments directly to second reading of Bill 64 that is before us.
Hon. M. Sihota: It's amazing. The opposition can sit here for the better part of three and a half hours and articulate its complaints, but when the government rises to state its case, the opposition can't stand to hear the arguments put forward. Let me put those arguments forward in the context of the supply bill that is before this House this evening.
We have two estimates left to complete: Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Municipal Affairs. This side of the House went to members of the opposition today and laid out to them a method by which we could conclude the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the estimates of the Ministry of Finance before June 30. That would have allowed all of the estimates of the House to have been concluded. I want first of all to thank the House Leader for the Social Credit Party and the House Leader of the Liberal Party for having agreed to a system that allows us to deal with estimates in Committee A. It is only because of that process that we have been able to ensure that estimates proceed in a timely and expeditious fashion.
The opposition, particularly the Liberal opposition -- I'm not accusing the Social Credit opposition of this -- decided sometime in the last few days that it wanted supply to come in; it wanted this bill. If it wanted to make sure that all of the estimates were done, we could have done Municipal Affairs in this chamber or in Committee A; we could have done Finance in this chamber or in Committee A. This bill, this debate, this evening's sitting, would not have been required. The only reason we are in this debate today is because the opposition, particularly the Liberals, thought it would be to their tactical advantage not to complete the estimates of Finance and Municipal Affairs and instead get into this debate about the necessity for supply. That is the truth of the matter. And during the course -- to pick the words of the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, who is now objecting -- they chose to
[ Page 8099 ]
whine about how tough life is here because we are beginning to move into a situation where we have to sit in July to deal with important legislation.
Let me suggest to the hon. members opposite that the business of this province -- the people's business -- is far more important than the holiday plans of the members of the Liberal Party. The previous speaker -- I believe Surrey-White Rock is his constituency -- stood up and said the government is going to have to explain the legislation that it has rammed through the House, as he put it, over the past few weeks. As a government, we look forward to going out and meeting with British Columbians when we complete the business in this House, whenever that may be, to explain all the good, progressive legislation that has been introduced by this government over the past few months and that will be introduced in the weeks ahead. We want to go out there and explain why this government brought in legislation against hate propaganda to protect victims of hate propaganda, and why the opposition voted against it. We want to be able to go across this province and stand up with pride and explain to British Columbians....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. Order, hon members. The hon. member for Okanagan West on a point of order.
C. Serwa: I'm very interested in hearing the Minister of Labour, but I would be even more pleased if he would address the philosophy and principles behind the bill under discussion, Bill 64.
Interjections.
The Speaker: On the point of order.... Order, please. Just before the hon. member rose on the point of order, the Chair was again going to remind hon. members that courtesy to the hon. member who has the floor is essential to good parliamentary debate. I would ask hon. members to respect that. I'm sure that the hon. minister is just on the threshold of directly relating his comments to the bill.
Hon. M. Sihota: I am as close to the threshold as the members who spoke before me were during the course of their comments.
Let me quickly make the point that legislation isn't being rammed through. If you take a look at the complaints articulated by the opposition, I can understand why they don't want this government to pass legislation that provides Workers' Compensation coverage to every worker in this province. We have introduced good, progressive legislation. We brought in legislation to abolish cabinet appeals.... We brought in legislation to create the B.C. 21 Crown corporation. We brought in legislation for the first time in a decade to revamp consumer protection legislation.
D. Symons: Hon. Speaker, I am still waiting patiently, as I'm sure you are, to hear something about the supply bill.
The Speaker: The Chair has noted that several members have engaged in fairly wide-ranging debate, as is proper in second reading. The Chair can only remind all hon. members to be cognizant of the range of debate in second reading, and to try to relate their comments to the bill before us. If all hon. members will cooperate in that way, we can proceed in an orderly fashion.
Hon. M. Sihota: This bill before the House will allow this government to do all the good things that it is doing for the people of British Columbia. It will allow the government to proceed with its plans to provide Workers' Compensation coverage to every worker in British Columbia. This legislation will allow us to proceed with our initiatives as they relate to freedom of information, to make sure that all British Columbians have access to the information that they are entitled to. It will allow this government to proceed with some of the most dramatic changes to consumer protection legislation ever seen in this province. This supply bill will allow us to proceed with a new, progressive form of local elections in municipalities from one end of the province to another.
F. Gingell: Point of order. I don't believe that it is appropriate for the minister, in speaking to this issue, to talk about a bill that is presently in front of the House and is not legislation.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member, for your point of order. While speaking in detail about matters that may be coming before the House is not allowed, passing reference has often been allowed in terms of debate.
Hon. M. Sihota: I can understand why it is that opposition members get so upset. Their negative mind-set would not allow them to believe all the good and positive things this government is doing. This supply bill will allow this administration, through the Minister of Finance, to continue with a remarkable record of dealing with deficits in this province, and is evidence of the kind of financial leadership in British Columbia that is not seen anywhere else in this country.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. The Chair is reluctant to continually interrupt the debate, but I again ask the cooperation of hon. members to respect the member who has the floor, and to rise in debate when their turn comes. We cannot proceed in any orderly fashion otherwise, and I again ask members to cooperate and extend courtesy to the member who has the floor. I remind the hon. minister to address his comments to the Chair and the second reading debate before us.
Hon. M. Sihota: Everybody in this chamber knows about the financial mess that was inherited by this government, which found itself in a situation where the inadequacies of the previous administration would have left us with a deficit of $3.4 billion. The
[ Page 8100 ]
Minister of Finance brought that deficit down to $2.3 billion and, as a consequence of the supply bill that is before this House and with the kind of leadership this government is bringing, that deficit will now be down to $1.5 billion -- halved during the time of the leadership exhibited by this government.
The kind of financial and fiscal plan established through this supply bill has resulted in this province of ours leading the nation in retail sales, housing starts and investment. People from all parts of this country and elsewhere in the world are coming to British Columbia to see the progressive economic miracle created by the leadership of the Minister of Finance, and evidenced by the supply bill we now have before this House.
But the success, leadership and positive values of this administration do not stop just in the area of financial leadership. This government has demonstrated leadership in all areas of endeavour through this supply bill and the initiatives it is bringing forward. This supply act will allow us to demonstrate our leadership and progressive reforms in the area....
Interjections.
Hon. M. Sihota: If the opposition would like to listen for a moment....
Interjections.
Hon. M. Sihota: I think all hon. members know I've been suffering with a bit of a cold lately.
This act will allow us to demonstrate the kind of leadership we are demonstrating as a government in the area of environmental stewardship, through a new environmental assessment system which the opposition doesn't want to debate anymore, and through the new waste management system we're bringing forward -- leadership that is evidenced in every newspaper today, where we see ads on the kind of progressive, international environmental leadership the Premier has taken with the announcement on the Tatshenshini area that he made earlier this week.
[10:45]
Interjections.
Hon. M. Sihota: The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove wants me to talk about the kind of leadership we're showing in the area of labour reform, that is being allowed by this supply bill before this House. Since this government came to office, the minimum wage in British Columbia has increased by 20 percent. That's leadership. This supply act will allow us....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. Order! The minister will take his seat.
[The Speaker rose.]
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. members. If the minister would continue addressing second reading of Bill 64....
[The Speaker resumed her seat.]
Hon. M. Sihota: This supply act demonstrates the kind of commitment that we are making to working people in British Columbia -- as I said, a 20 percent increase in the minimum wage -- in standing up as we have for the working poor in B.C. It allows us to proceed with the progressive changes we are making in terms of pension benefits. Women, part-time workers and students can receive pension benefits under a new regulatory framework that this supply bill will allow us to implement.
I have travelled over the past few weeks from one end of this province to another. I know that members of the opposition have found themselves bunkered here in the Legislature. Let me take this opportunity to share with all hon. members the remarkable growth and economic development that is happening from one end of British Columbia to another because of the kind of fiscal policies we have brought in under this supply act. We have built ferries in Victoria and Vancouver. We have a significant economic boom in the community of Kamloops, that occurred in October 1991 with the election of the Minister of Transportation and Highways, and it continues in that area. The other day I was in Nelson talking to people from Castlegar and Nelson. That part of the province now has the lowest unemployment rates in the last two decades because of the kind of leadership that's demonstrated by the Minister of Economic Development.
Let me end on this note. The people of B.C. have seen the kind of government that we offer. They see the kind of hope that we offer to British Columbians. They see that this province can achieve remarkable economic prosperity. My only regret is that to date, the negative nabobs over there in the opposition have not come to the realization that good things are happening in British Columbia because of the leadership of this administration.
L. Hanson: For the benefit of the House, I would like to know what the Minister of Labour had for dinner. It must have been an interesting dinner. It might have been chicken, because I did see a few eggs come out.
In any case, I have a slightly different opinion of why we're sitting here at seven or eight minutes before 11 o'clock debating a supply bill. I have no difficulty acknowledging that the bill is needed. What I have difficulty with is why we're sitting here at ten minutes to 11 o'clock on the day before the last day of the month when we could have been debating bills or estimates. We spent all afternoon debating the many pages of the municipal election act. If that was an emergency type of debate and there was some deadline to have it in place, I wish somebody would tell us the reason for it. We have been advised a couple of times that a supply bill would be coming in on a different schedule. The minister responsible for the supply bill would have
[ Page 8101 ]
great difficulty convincing anyone in B.C. that the drafting of the bill was delayed. I would think that a reasonably competent grade 10 student could have drafted it in about 20 minutes. I don't think it's a case of mismanagement at all. I think it's a deliberate strategy on the part of this government, and it displays the arrogance of this government toward the legislative process that we're going through.
Since June 1, 33 bills have been introduced in this House. If there is any accuracy to the rumour mill, there are ten or 12 more to come. That will be 45 pieces of legislation introduced since the first of June, which -- tomorrow being the last day of June -- is 30 days. Can you convince the people in this House, even the members in the government, that the need to develop 45 bills in 30 days was because they couldn't get them drafted? It's obviously a strategy of trying to legislate by exhaustion. The other day the minister introduced a bill for some changes to the Workers Compensation Act. The member for Cariboo North suggested this is something that should have happened 20 years ago. All of a sudden, on a Friday, it became an emergency that had to be debated on the Monday. We have other bills here. The consumer protection act was introduced on May 10. We could wait until June 15, until we had second reading -- but not for the bill that came in Friday; it had to be introduced and read a second time on Monday.
It's obvious that the New Democratic Party, which forms the government of British Columbia, has developed an attitude of arrogance that will be remembered by the people of British Columbia when the next test of who is going to govern this province comes around. I don't dispute the need for the legislation that we are debating here right now. Obviously, the government has to be empowered to spend money legitimately in front of this Legislature, with its approval. The complaint that I have is the arrogance that this government has displayed in waiting until the absolute last moment to depend on their 50 out of 75 members to pass this bill before tomorrow night. If this had been done with reasonable respect for this House, it would have been introduced two days ago. You can't tell me that this takes a lot of legislative time to put in place. It demonstrates a planned strategy; it demonstrates that this government is arrogant about the legislative process and really has no respect for it.
G. Wilson: As we stand here at 10:55 p.m. trying to make some reasonable sense of a debate about a supply act that clearly is in need, there are three things that the people of British Columbia might want to weigh and consider. The first proposition before the people now -- and perhaps the most scary -- is that at least this supply act has given us an opportunity to see what kind of spending this government's going to do over the next 30 days. Over the next 30 days, 1.555 billion tax dollars will be spent. That's what this government is telling us they need to do. They are talking about a supply act in terms of the provision of increased spending from the consolidated revenue fund.
I concur with the comments made by so many members of the opposition. Because we are here once again late at night doing the people's business on a matter that clearly is needed if the government is to be able to continue, it seems that we need to go back to see what this government would have said in opposition. I went back through a number of issues of Hansard dating back to 1972, 1975, 1977 and 1978. As you go back through all of this, the lines are the same. They come over and over again. Because I don't wish to read all of them into the record, I have chosen only one. It is from the most senior member of this Legislature today, a person I have a considerable amount of respect for: the member for Vancouver-Burrard, who now serves as the Deputy Speaker. Let's hear what the member for Vancouver-Burrard said. I quote from March 26, 1986, in this House. He said: "When an opposition starts to complain that their democratic rights are being denied, that they're not getting an opportunity to do their job, any responsible government would respect that...." He went on to say: "Interim supply has become a modus operandi. It has become an accepted fact, and it's wrong. It was wrong when I heard about it the very first time I was elected; I couldn't believe it. The budget was introduced and I was all settled down and getting ready to debate the estimates of the different ministries and someone said: 'Oh, don't worry, because if we don't get through, we'll probably end up having to have interim supply.' I said: 'What's that?' 'Well, that means that if we don't get finished debating things, you'll get the money anyway and you'll just carry on'." He goes on to say that over the years, it has become a way of doing business, and he says: "There's no excuse."
I can't find better words to describe exactly what this government is up to right now. It is up to the situation of bringing down an interim supply act in the last hours of business, knowing that it cannot continue business over the next 48 hours or so if we don't pass this.
If we take a look at what we have been spending our time doing, and I do this courtesy of Mr. Twigg, who has put together a good synopsis of where the bills are, we see that 64 bills have come forward -- 64 of them. Thirty-four of the 64 have been tabled since June 1 -- 34 out of 64. As we start to look at that, 23 of those 34 are not yet through second reading, and we are told that we have more to come. More -- and more contentious -- bills to come.
[11:00]
What has this government been doing? What have the members of that government been doing in opposition?
The Speaker: On a point of order, the hon. member for Okanagan-Penticton.
J. Beattie: The Leader of the Opposition is speaking about something which has nothing to do with the supply bill. He is talking about something which is not within the argument at all. He should stick to the issue of the supply bill and get on with it.
Interjections.
The Speaker: The Chair has acknowledged several points of order of a similar nature this evening
[ Page 8102 ]
and can only again urge hon. members to relate their comments to second reading of Bill 64.
G. Wilson: I suppose the member for Okanagan-Penticton does not understand the relevance of why we are now debating a supply act, at a little after 11 o'clock at night, to the tune of $1.5 billion for the next 30 days of spending in this province. The reason we are doing this at this late date is because of the legislative agenda that this government has brought forward. It's interesting that when we look at that legislative agenda and see the weight of the legislation that has been brought forward, of the 23 bills which have been occupying the time of members of this Legislative Assembly, every one of the contentious bills -- those that we wanted to spend time with and deal with -- has been introduced since May 30. What we recognize in the supply act is the reason that this government has had such difficulty. They simply haven't had their legislative agenda together, they are totally and absolutely unorganized, and they have absolutely no concept of how to administer and manage the legislative agenda before this House.
We heard from this government, in the Speech from the Throne, that they were going to bring in all kinds of new and varied changes, and that they were going to be fiscally accountable. We heard that they were not going to spend more than the people could afford. We heard that in that fiscal accountability they were going to make sure that the expenditures on behalf of the people of B.C. were conducted in an orderly and sensible manner. This is neither orderly nor sensible. An interim supply to carry you into budget debate is understandable and even acceptable, but an interim supply at the end of a legislative session, when over half the bills before us have been introduced in the last three weeks, is inexcusable. I think the people of B.C. have a right to be concerned, angry and somewhat annoyed at the level of arrogance displayed by this government with respect to this interim supply bill.
I think my first point as I rose in debate is also worth noting. The people of B.C. are witnessing us now at 11:05 negotiating on a supply act....
An Hon. Member: No, they're not.
G. Wilson: Interestingly enough, the member for Alberni says that the people aren't listening. That member had better not count on that, because the people clearly are watching this legislative session. We hear about it all the time. It demonstrates once again the level of arrogance of members in the government, because they feel that if nobody's watching then it somehow doesn't matter what they do with $1.5 billion of taxpayers' money. That's exactly their attitude. As long as nobody is watching, this interim supply bill is going to go through without anybody getting too agitated about the fact that in the next 30 days $1.5 billion of taxpayers' money is going to be spent in this province.
Because of a total lack of management skills on the side opposite, we are now facing a situation where interim supply is going to give us roughly 30 days' worth of spending. Nothing in this act actually says that it's 30 days. We're simply told that it's 30 days by virtue of the fact that it's roughly one-twelfth of the total amount allocated. As a result, we're concluding that one-twelfth means it's about 30 days, which I think is a reasonable assumption to make. What is not a reasonable assumption is that the weight of the legislation before us....
Let's talk about some of the bills that are before us right now. This is relevant to the debate because we have a 30-day interim supply. We've got the Local Elections Reform Act, 1993, which is a major overhaul of the municipal elections act. We've got the introduction of the Beaver Lodge Trust Lands Renewal Act, which is going to take considerable debate. We're looking at the Adult Guardianship Act, something we'll want to spend some time on. We've got the Constitution Amendment Act, 1993, a horrendous act on the restructuring of government that will take a considerable amount of time. We've got the Employment Standards Amendment Act, 1993, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 1993, and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 1993. This is not lightweight legislation that we're talking about. We're talking about the social agenda of this government. We're talking about the social engineering of the province. This is what we're now being asked to debate. With the new Public Service Act that came down today, it's quite clear that we're moving into a new hiring process with a new commissioner and a new deputy minister with all kinds of authority that allows us to move toward affirmative action in hiring and quotas.
This is contentious legislation because it restructures the social fabric of the province. I don't stand with any confidence at all tonight that the weight of legislation before us in these outstanding bills is going to be completed within 30 days. I don't believe it will be. What we'll hear from members opposite is that we'll have the estimates completed, and because the estimates are completed we'll be able to get on with the expenditures as per the normal course of business in this Legislative Assembly. Once the estimates are complete, the formalization of an act to provide for this bill can come before this House, can be given the proper kind of debate and scrutiny required and then can be an act which will empower this government to spend through general revenue on behalf of the people of British Columbia.
The question that remains unanswered is: why were the estimates not advanced? Why did we not have those estimates in place, on-stream and before us? The reason we didn't have that is because -- contrary to those who would say that it was totally poor management -- in fact it was strategized to minimize the damage this government was likely to have through estimates debate, when they introduced some of the controversial bills midway through and late in this session. They delayed the estimates until after some of the most contentious bills came down, because in the estimates debate they didn't want the delay of these bills. They didn't want these bills to be down, out and ready for us to go after the ministers. Social Services is a classic example.
[ Page 8103 ]
We can see that also if we look at the way they've structured estimates debate, splitting this House in two. We recognize that they have attempted to split the ranks of the opposition, so wherever possible they can force bills through. They did it this very day. Bill 44, the Liquor Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 1993, and Bill 47, the Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Amendment Act, 1993, were brought without notice to this House and rushed through second reading without debate, because those who wished to debate it were locked up in estimates in the other House committee.
These are not accidents at all. What's particularly galling is that this government, when they were in opposition, would have deplored, screamed and yelled to the highest rafters of this facility that what was taking place was totally undemocratic, unacceptable and, in the words of the most respected member for Vancouver-Burrard: "There's no excuse." No excuse at all.
That's why tonight, as we now stand at 11:10, we are recognizing that the supply act -- albeit that it will have to pass, and we understand that -- is the most flagrant display of arrogance and contempt for the people of British Columbia and the democratic process that this Legislature is supposed to represent, with respect to administering their will.
Clearly, interim supply acts are not unusual. We often have a government, when introducing legislation or a budget, needing an opportunity to move to interim supply. But we have to move away from it. I would like to offer some suggestions to the members opposite, and I'm delighted that the Premier is with us in debate so he can hear firsthand what those suggestions are.
Let us reform this institution so we establish a fixed budget day, a fixed term for office and a fixed election day. Let us, through the process of establishing a fixed budget day, establish a supply process that opens for debate the budget that the people of British Columbia will live with and be governed and administered by, which allows government an opportunity to put forward their spending program in an orderly fashion, so government can have the benefit of opposition as well as public analysis prior to passage of that bill. Let us reform this institution to make sure that, when we do so, we put in place a single spending authority with a recognition that we have balanced-budget legislation, so we don't find ourselves sitting at 13 minutes past 11 and arguing the passage of a supply act for 30 days' expenditure of taxpayers' money, to the tune of $1.555 billion.
Quite clearly this is a disgraceful display from this government. There is absolutely no excuse, as has been said by the member for Vancouver-Burrard, a member of that government and the most senior member of this Legislature. We're in for a long summer in this Legislature. And if the government opposite thinks they're going to have 30 days of spending and that they're going to be able to get through with 30 days of spending, they have another think coming. So they'd better get those estimates wrapped up, they'd better get this put together in a proper bill and they'd better get a proper supply bill before this House and get it passed.
Let me tell you, hon. Speaker, that we in the Liberal opposition believe in the old adage coined by W.A.C. Bennett -- and by his son, Bill Bennett -- that there should not be a dime without debate. We believe that in fact that is true. Secondly, we believe that our role -- notwithstanding the ambitions this government may have -- is to be here on behalf of the people of British Columbia to scrutinize every word, every line and every paragraph of every bill that comes before us. And we will be. We will be here holding that government accountable. Let there be no mistake about it. If the government thinks that somehow, through legislation by exhaustion on matters as important as a $1.5 billion bill or on matters with respect to the freedom of speech or to the proposition of an election and the right of individuals to have free elections in this province.... If they think any one of these bills will deter the opposition from doing their job and will move us out of this House at any time of day or night, they are sorely and sadly mistaken. We are here to do the people's business, and we will do the people's business.
[11:15]
This bill will pass because the government has a majority, but let them be under no illusion. The opposition is here for the duration. We are here to make sure that this government is held accountable, because never has there been a government more in need of accounting than this most arrogant government, which every week is taking away more freedoms and more liberties and putting in place a much greater degree of centralized authority and control. By so doing, they are diminishing individual rights and freedoms of the citizens of this province. We are witnessing a disgraceful display of legislative acumen in this province. We in the opposition will not tolerate it because we don't believe for one minute that the people of this province would. If we had an opportunity to go to an election tomorrow, this government wouldn't win a seat, in my reckoning. No one in this province is going to forget the midnight sessions that this arrogant government is forcing us through because of their own administrative and legislative agenda and because of the fiscal incompetence and mismanagement they have displayed.
K. Jones: Thank you, hon. Chairman.... I'm sorry, hon. Speaker. I've been in the other House for so long that I think I'm talking to a committee. I've been responding to the Chair continually for the last five hours.
This is really a totally unnecessary process that the government has placed before us. It's an indication of their incompetence and an indication that we have an incompetent House Leader who cannot put the agenda of government together, so that bringing in a supply act at the last minute is necessary. With a little effort and the elimination of a couple of bills, as my colleague said previously.... We only have two ministries whose estimates haven't been completed. If they had been completed, this supply bill wouldn't have been necessary. If there had been an appropriate administration of the process here, the Ministries of Municipal Affairs and of Finance -- totalling in the
[ Page 8104 ]
range of 15 hours of estimates debate -- could have been completed, and this whole process would not have been necessary. The incompetency of this government has been shown over and over again. In every aspect of operation and every commitment made to the public, it has shown its inability to provide the services to meet the promises committed or to supply the organization needed to run this government.
This government is hopelessly mired in its own waste. It wastes and wastes and wastes. It taxes the public to make up for its incompetence. It has a propensity to waste, so it has to go back to the taxpayer for additional money. This is not the sign of a good administration. But this administration is probably explainable by the fact that this government doesn't really know who's running the show. They have a Finance minister who thinks he's the Premier and sometimes thinks he's the government leader. We have a government leader who doesn't know what he's doing, because he never seems to have anything put together. He came in here and ranted and raved for almost an hour this evening, taking up more of the taxpayers' time and holding the staff here into the night. The House Leader could have forgone his opportunity to grandstand and cut the length of this process.
We have a responsibility to see that this $1.555 billion is properly assessed here. When you multiply that by 12, you get an idea of the size of the taxpayers' contribution to this government's operation. This $1.5 billion constitutes the amount of the deficit of this government. It can't organize itself. It's pretty evident why it's into deficit financing: it's afraid to make the necessary cuts in the operation. The evident waste has been brought up by each of my colleagues in the estimates process, and that is entirely possible to correct. That deficit could be eliminated. The $1.5 billion amount that we are talking about today -- one-twelfth the government's budget for this year -- could be removed by way of the recommendations my colleagues have made throughout the estimate debates. Yet this government is incompetent in bringing together their budgets and estimates sufficiently in order to eliminate that debt and deficit.
They are only building the debt. They've added approximately $10 billion to the debt over the past year, and that is something we just can't accept. We can no longer have that continuance of debt and deficit. The NDP knows nothing else but to carry on and spend and tax, spend and tax, until the taxpayers of British Columbia have said: "We've had enough."
The taxpayers have said it and will continue to say it, right up to election day when they make sure that this government, which is presently representing them very poorly, is turfed out on its petard, on its head or on whatever else -- maybe on its backside where it appropriately should land -- so that the taxpayers can truly have their response to the incompetency of this government over the past year and a half and over the future year and a half that they may have. But the people would like to have it end today.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Hon. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to speak here, and I will stand down now. I think it's time that we carried on with getting this supply act completed. We certainly aren't taking the length of time that the Government House Leader took in incoherent and incompetent statements that had nothing relevant to say.
C. Tanner: I stand here tonight to address the House on Bill 64, the Supply Act (No. 2), 1993. We are here tonight, as many members have said, quite simply for two reasons. One is that the Minister of Finance is incompetent, and two is that the Minister of Consumer Services, who happens to be the Government House Leader, is equally incompetent. We've got a number of bills -- bills of this size, would you believe -- introduced for second reading today; we did about three sections. That's got to be done before we get out of here -- not tonight, fortunately, but some time in the next few days. Many other bills have to be taken care of, and could have been, with a little more experience, more discretion and more cooperation between our two sides. With a game plan designed in such a way that all the difficult and controversial legislation wouldn't come at the end, we could have avoided this problem we find ourselves in tonight.
When I was a business person, if I had run my business in this fashion, I'd have gone bankrupt. If I had said to my banker, "I'm running short of liquid cash, and I need some more money to run the business. Incidentally, Mr. Banker, I require $1.5 billion. Could I have it? Oh, by the way, Mr. Banker, I'll see you around 12 o'clock tonight. If you wouldn't mind having the money handy around your bank in the middle of the night, it would be very convenient, and I'll be there then," the banker would have told me to get lost. He would have asked: "Are you out of your mind, Mr. Businessman? Do you think I expect my staff to be there in the middle of the night to serve you when you need it, without any notice? Do you want me to come down to my bank at 12 midnight, open the doors, get the staff out and give you some money because you need it?" No business runs that way, and the government has no reason to be run that way.
We are fortunate in this Legislature in one particular aspect. We have a servant of this Legislature who works with the Legislature and helps the members to look at what the government is doing with the money they raise from the taxpayers. He's called the auditor general. The auditor general, as you well know, Mr. Speaker -- and as most members of this House know, but the public doesn't -- is employed by us to audit the books of the government. Every year he puts a report in. He put in a report in April, the early part of this session, for the previous year. He made some comments on the way this government has spent money.
I'm concerned that this government is continuing to do the same things the auditor general brought to their attention. They're doing it in this budget; they did it in the past budget. The auditor general has told them that there are better ways to do these things. The auditor general mentioned a previous report, and he said: "In our January report, we agreed with the government
[ Page 8105 ]
that a large structural deficit is not sustainable and must be capped and gradually eliminated." We can't continue to sustain a deficit in any province or in the country as a whole. You've got to do something about it; you've got to try to eliminate it. That's the same thing that members in this House have been saying for two years and that opposition members across the country have been saying for a number of years. Fortunately some governments in this country are trying to do something about it.
The auditor general goes on: "What are the solutions to this dilemma? What revenues should be increased? What programs should be cut or changed? The answers to these questions have never been easy to find. No one wants to pay higher taxes. Every program has had enough support to be initiated, and continues to have its advocates." The auditor general points out a problem that the government has and that the opposition would have if they were in government. But the fact of the matter is that the auditor general is saying to this government and this Minister of Finance: "You're not doing your job as well as you could be with the money that's coming in, and you're not spending it as well as you could, for the best purposes, for the taxpayers who are paying it to you." I don't want to read the whole report. But there are some pertinent points in it, and in a moment I will get to the point of why I'm bringing this up tonight.
[11:30]
The auditor general went on to say: "We believe that government managers should have to demonstrate that their programs are effective, and justify why taxpayers should continue to pay for them. In other words, they should be held accountable." Now, if the government is accountable, it seems to me that it's not unreasonable to ask them to bring their estimates into the House in such a way that we can discuss them openly. It's not unreasonable to ask them to do it at a reasonable hour, instead of at midnight. It's not unreasonable for the auditor general to say that they should stand up and say: "This is where the money came from, and this is how we're going to spend it. You in the opposition can criticize" -- and that is what we're going to do -- "and then they can get on with it."
But the auditor general is not satisfied that anything is being done any differently. He goes on to say:
"There are examples of the need for making better choices, based on improved and objective accountability information. In British Columbia the recent Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs found that British Columbians could have saved approximately 21 percent of hospital in-patient days in the fiscal year 1989-90. More recently, rapidly escalating welfare costs have led the Minister of Social Services to call for an overhaul of the system. Clearly there is a need and an opportunity to improve the effectiveness of the public sector."
It doesn't take a genius to know that it's obvious to the public, who are paying the taxes, and to the members on this side of the House, who are criticizing the government for the way they operate.... It's obvious to everybody, apparently, except the government that they are not spending the money wisely. So the auditor general's remarks are very pertinent to this debate we're having in the middle of the night.
The report states: "There is a need for a consistent model to measure performance -- one that demands complete and objective accountability information from each government organization." Further: "In recent years this office has advocated the introduction of an accountability framework known as the twelve attributes of effectiveness, which was developed by the Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation."
The auditor general is telling the opposition that these are yardsticks you could use to measure how well you are doing. Have they done it? No. Are they trying to do it? Apparently not. If they are, they are doing it in the middle of the night.
What are they scared of? Why don't they do it at a reasonable hour, when we can have our staff here and they can have their staff here? They can tell us, and we can have a good discussion. The auditor general doesn't agree with them. He thinks they're doing a lousy job. We think they're doing a lousy job, and people out there are complaining about the taxes they are raising. Apart from those 51 members over there, who thinks they are doing a good job? We don't. They are the only ones who are convinced they are doing a good job, but if they are doing a good job, why are we here at this time of night?
The auditor general goes on to say: "It is designed for managers to use in assessing their own performance, while allowing them to develop meaningful accountability reports to outsiders." The auditor general is not even suggesting that he should account to the opposition; he is saying that he should account to the people who are paying the taxes. He is saying it to the public that this government and this Finance minister have squeezed for the last year. He is saying: "Look, government, if you are taking the public's money, at least they have a right to know how it's being spent. At least give the opposition the chance to criticize you, even if you don't pay any attention to what I tell you." Do they listen? No, they don't.
Finally, the auditor general says: "We believe the government of British Columbia, in its search for solutions to its financial dilemma" -- they are not just in trouble; they've got a financial dilemma -- "should look closely at this framework and its potential value. It offers an important opportunity to mobilize resources across government to improve both management" -- that's the Minister of Finance -- "and accountability" -- that's that whole side of the House -- "and from there to improve the value received from taxpayers' dollars." The auditor general of this province is one of the very few servants of the government who is a servant of this House.
I would like to bring to the House's attention one of the sections in the auditor general's report -- the legislation that puts the auditor general into position, that places the auditor general in the House, that places him within our structure. In section 11, it says: "The Auditor General may at any time make a special report to the Legislative Assembly on a matter of primary importance or urgency that, in his opinion, should not be deferred until he makes his annual report." He has made his annual report for last year. He will make his
[ Page 8106 ]
annual report next year, and I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, as a member of this House, to ask the auditor general to give us his opinion on the necessity for this piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I'm asking you, as a member of this House, to ask the auditor general, before we make a decision, what he thinks of this piece of legislation.
Deputy Speaker: I would advise the member that, having yielded his place in debate, he is not eligible to stand up again. I must treat his question as rhetorical, because the motion is in order and the Chair has no right to intervene and offer an opinion on the substance of the motion.
C. Tanner: I wouldn't have sat down if I didn't think I was going to get an answer from the Chair. My question was placed in all seriousness. I am asking the Speaker to exercise my privilege to ask the opinion of the auditor general as to this piece of legislation.
Deputy Speaker: I'm sorry, hon. member, I have dealt with your question. I have already answered it in full, and I have advised you that pursuant to our standing orders in this chamber, you have forgone your place. I cannot acknowledge you again unless you are rising on a point of order. I therefore recognize the member for Prince George-Omineca.
L. Fox: It's a pleasure to rise on such an exciting evening and debate Bill 64. When I reflect back over the course of this sitting, and I look at what's prompted the need for this evening and indeed for this debate, it's with some concern that I see us here at this hour, 11:37 p.m., discussing a supply act that in my view shouldn't have been necessary. When I listened to the response of the Minister of Labour in this House earlier this evening, not only did I wonder what must have been stuck in his porridge but I also had to wonder whether that very energetic expos� wasn't done for the benefit of the Premier, who has made time this evening in his busy schedule to join us on this very important occasion.
I tried to sum up in my mind whether or not that was done for the benefit of the Premier or to save some face, because the main reason this bill is here this evening is the lack of credibility that minister carries in cabinet in the position of House Leader. I believe that was primarily the reason he felt so motivated to give us that very exuberant dissertation. As well, given the rumours around the buildings over the course of the last couple of months that there is going to be a cabinet shuffle, perhaps that little bit of rhetorical presentation was to show the Premier that in fact....
Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, hon. member. I am sure we are all much entertained by your speculations, but I would remind you that your comments are to be restricted to the measure before us, i.e., the supply bill.
L. Fox: Thank you, hon. Speaker, for your remarks and guidance. Obviously I am speaking about why the discussion of this bill is necessary this evening, and I am responding to the very exciting speech of the Minister of Labour. I was just getting to the point of suggesting that perhaps one of the reasons for that was the rumour of the upcoming cabinet shuffle, and that in fact the minister wanted to show that there really should be a place in that new cabinet for him.
Interjection.
L. Fox: The member for Mission-Kent is welcome to join in the debate. I look forward to his taking his place and perhaps providing some arguments other than mine and substantiating them. As another member suggested, the thoughts he so freely gives while sitting, he could give while standing on his two hind feet.
I think the member for Okanagan-Vernon summed it up very clearly earlier this evening when he talked about the arrogance of this government and of this cabinet. In fact, I believe that's very evident when we look at what we did in the first two and a half months of this sitting. There wasn't a lot of urgency then. This cabinet should be aware of how much legislation is coming forward, and if there had been any kind of coordinated plan in place, we could have had some night sittings in those months. I know that would have interfered with the social calendar of some of the cabinet ministers, but certainly in the interest of doing government business in the most efficient way, we could have had some sittings, which I am sure would have taken away the necessity to discuss this bill this evening.
When we look around, we see the arrogance of this government; when the Minister of Labour stood up earlier, I think that arrogance was pretty evident. I hear comments by some cabinet ministers.... For instance, the Minister of Education talking about the fact that children didn't need an education in order to do well in exams was a form of arrogance, in my view, and once again reflected the attitude of this government towards this Legislature and this parliament.
This arrogance will come back to haunt this government. It'll come back in spades, because the people around the province are extremely concerned that it has no respect for parliament; that it has no respect for the electorate, either in budgetary considerations or socially. Because what we see is a government whose emphasis is clearly on paying off those people who have historically supported it. We see the arrogance of a Labour minister who has put forward a fair wage policy that has absolutely flunked.
Interjection.
L. Fox: That flunked program has cost this government $200 million this year; that's what it has to do with the supply bill, hon. member. That program, put forward in such arrogance that it wasn't even brought into this House, has actually cost this government $200 million. It didn't even do what it was designed to do, or what the minister thought it was designed to do -- reward those unions that supported this government during the last election. That's the kind of arrogance that we see consistently with this government.
[ Page 8107 ]
I'll just list a few of the promises that this government made prior to the last election. They were going to balance the budget, reduce taxes on middle-income earners, implement recall and initiative, establish economic stability, and create new investment and wealth -- that's a laugh. Every move this government has made has been totally the opposite of that promise.
The promise of improved labour relations reminds me of more arrogance. When we look back to the debate on Bill 84, the arrogance of the government was that they knew what was right; they knew what was going to balance the labour problems in this province. What we've seen come out of that initiative is more labour turmoil, more lost days and a cabinet that couldn't even sit collectively and make a decision to put teachers back to work; that's what that labour legislation did to us.
When we look at some other promises -- better health care and education services, which have a direct bearing on this bill -- what have we got? We've got a huge mess in health care. Nobody knows what the costs of those proposed programs are going to be. That was evident all the way through the Health estimates, and I think we'll see more evidence as time goes on.
[11:45]
But what does all this say? It reminds me of a quote by the Premier after he was elected. When asked what had happened to the promises, the Premier suggested in reply: "In order to get elected, you've got to tell the people what they want to hear." That was the reply from the Premier.
I see no reason why we should be discussing a supply bill here this evening. If this cabinet had any kind of organization to it at all, if the House Leader had any kind of authority to call the ministers to task and bring them before the respective chambers, this would not have been necessary. If we had not agreed that the estimates could be carried on in Committee A as well as Committee B, there would be some excuse. However, the opposition parties welcomed the opportunity to streamline the estimates process. The problem is that the government didn't respect that. What we have seen is a total misuse of that process. Earlier tonight, in this state of emergency, the House Leader instructed Committee A to sit and denied some members from both opposition parties the opportunity to be in this chamber to hear the debates that are so pertinent to this supply bill.
In summing up, if it had not been for the arrogance of this government, the inability of the House Leader and the lack of commitment by the cabinet, we would not be in the position of sitting here at 11:49 discussing a supply bill. They failed to respect and honour the parliamentary process and to give British Columbia's elected government the respect that it deserves.
L. Reid: I would like to say that it's a pleasure to rise in debate at almost midnight on a Tuesday evening in Victoria; it would be a pleasure if indeed this were an emergency and there was an apparent need for this bill to come forward at this particular time. That has not been evident in debate this afternoon.
We have yet to see this government come forward with a reasonable plan. I concur with my hon. colleagues who have suggested that we are in this dilemma this evening because this government has not come forward with a reasonable plan. They have not had a firm handle on a legislative agenda. I support that suggestion. I suggest that the hon. minister who has just exited the chamber was part and parcel of the dilemma we share this evening. Every single member of this House on the government bench contributed to the lack of planning and expertise in creating a reasonable legislative agenda. We have not seen one.
We're looking at Bill 64, the second supply bill in a single session of parliament. My hon. colleague looked at whether or not the drafting of this bill was indeed a time-consuming exercise and needed to wait until the eleventh hour to come forward. As he stated earlier, the contents of the bill are limited in the extreme. There was not a need for Bill 64 to have been drafted over an extensive period of time. It looks like it was a last-ditch effort; it looks like brinkmanship. I suggest that it has not been well-planned.
Why are we surrounded by poor planning in this legislative chamber? We are facing a government who spent some 17 years in opposition. Surely they had ample opportunity to learn the ropes and how to plan a legislative agenda. Why did that not happen? They're good questions. I trust we will have the answers very soon.
Over time the official opposition has looked at the inability of this government to plan and establish priorities. Again we're seeing the evidence of that. We do not have priorities. Where's the wisdom? Where's the insight? Where's the planning? Why is it that we find ourselves here at midnight when there are members of that cabinet who are planners? Why is it that we're surrounded again by a planner's folly? There is no accountability in legislation that comes forward without some base, plan and process.
I have spoken many times in this chamber on the need for process and a well-thought-out, well-planned, well-formulated attack on the issues. We're not seeing it. We're seeing a cascade of poorly written, poorly drafted legislation at the eleventh hour. That is a significant issue. We've been here since March 17. We are now nearing the end of June. Many weeks have elapsed, and we still have not seen a reasonable decision-making process in place. Frankly, Bill 64 is just one more example of this government's inability to make and follow a reasonable plan. We've had the philosophical discussions; we are looking for some implementation process. Again, that is not demonstrated for any members of this House.
This opposition, many hours ago in debate, asked for a reasonable plan. Would it be possible for this government to actually present a reasonable legislative package? We can only hope that the next session will be better thought out than this one, because this one has not given anyone cause for reassurance that this government can handle the problems of our citizens, when they cannot handle something as straightforward as a simple legislative agenda. Certainly the House Leader and every single member of the executive council share in that responsibility. To come forward with well-crafted legislation, to weight the bills and to
[ Page 8108 ]
decide the hours of debate is their responsibility. They're being paid handsomely by the taxpayer to perform in government as part of the executive committee. For that, the taxpayer has every right to expect some reasonable enterprise. They have not been privy to that tonight or in this government's last 18 months in office.
We have seen legislation come forward that is ill-conceived and not always based on factual information. In fact, I would suggest that this entire government is based on ill-conceived, not well-thought-out planning.
Interjection.
L. Reid: So the hon. member for Mission-Kent says: "What does that have to do with the bill?" It has everything to do with the bill. It has everything to do with this government's inability to follow a reasonable plan. I have serious concerns that after 18 months he can still ask: "What is the necessity to plan?" If you're not making a reasonable contribution in government, perhaps we need to send you back to see if you can learn some skills in order to bring a reasonable plan to the table. If indeed we see a cabinet shuffle and we see that individual in cabinet, he too will have to be accountable for delivering a plan for the province of British Columbia.
At the end of the day, the taxpayers are paying for this service; frankly, at the eleventh hour they are not being well served by this government. Over the last 18 months, the taxpayers looked for reasonable legislation that was well laid out and that had some built-in accountability. It simply has not happened. We asked for accountability. We asked to have two committees running for estimates debate. But even to have two committees so ill-planned does not add to how this government is perceived by the public. With two committees, you could not be any more organized than previous administrations, who have managed to do it in one. They also managed to do it in a lot less time, because they had some sense of priority.
Interjection.
L. Reid: Well, the jury is still out, hon. member. However, the point remains: the taxpayers must have confidence that they are indeed receiving something for the dollars they have invested. That hasn't happened. This government did not place any priority on the estimates debate, otherwise we would have been through this many weeks ago. We have been here since March 17. If fiscal accountability to the taxpayer had been a priority, we would have been through this debate many weeks ago. It's been put on the back burner, and ill-conceived, poorly drafted legislation has been allowed to come forward and take precedence. That suggests a total lack of planning by this government and a total lack of regard for accountability to the taxpayer.
My hon. colleague in the Social Credit caucus spoke of this government's arrogance. He spoke of their inability to truly respond to the issues of the day. I would concur with his comments, because this government, by bringing in this kind of legislation for the second time during the legislative session, has not moved us anywhere along the road we might like to proceed on during this session. Some priorities were espoused in the 48-point platform when the members of this executive council sought office and were put in place by the taxpaying voters in this province. Admittedly, there was a plan at that point. It was a planner's folly, because again, something that was promised has not been delivered. These are tremendous issues.
We are approaching the hour of midnight, and I understand that something dramatic happens to the Clerks at this hour. I am going to continue for a couple more minutes to see if that transpires.
Looking to this government for wisdom and insight, and looking for some sense that over the next number of weeks this government will.... If this government continues to bring in poorly conceived and poorly drafted legislation, we will be here for the next number of weeks. Over that time, I think at the very least this government owes the taxpayers some sense of a plan of how they are going to proceed. Otherwise, 30 days from now we will be back in this debate, and we will not have made significant gains in planning or process. That's an issue. This government said they would do it differently; this government said they would have open government. When? And why are we still waiting?
C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to rise and speak on the Bill 64. It's been rather a long evening, and I'm afraid it's going to be a little longer yet. We are listening to the trials and tribulations of an unloved, unwanted and unaffordable government. We are listening to the litany of a trail of broken promises and a legacy of fiscal mismanagement. We are also being made aware that any means to justify an end is basically the tactic that this government will utilize to achieve those ends. That was illustrated in debate in this Legislature on October 22, 1992, when the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs said: "If we don't compromise principles, we will compromise the country."
It is really interesting, because the recurring theme in the course of this debate is the growing awareness of statements such as the Premier's: "If you want to get elected, tell the people what they want to hear." We have heard that time and time again in this debate on the supply act. The people are well informed and intelligent, and they care a great deal about the future of this province. What is happening tonight shouldn't have happened at all. There has been an absolute abuse of process.
The Minister of Finance was prepared to table this bill yesterday. He could have, and he should have. But he didn't, because he saw that if we prevented the completion of this bill on the basis that it was a matter of urgency, it would be considered a loss of face on the part of the government. So they chose to bring it in tonight, feeling that they have not lost face by bringing it in and getting a ruling that allowed them to move through three readings in one evening.
[ Page 8109 ]
I regret having to say this, but we are seeing an inept, inexperienced and incompetent government. The only thing that highlights it are spurts of arrogance and contempt for those in this Legislature and for those who are not quite politically correct.
I'm going to say a few things, though, because I listened to what the Government House Leader was saying about the organization, operation and management of the affairs of the House. I also listened with interest when the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi got up and expressed his particular concerns about reform of the Legislature.
[12:00]
I will say that it has been a real pleasure for me to work with the Government House Leader in striving to organize the flow of business through the House. The Government House Leader has paid serious attention to getting an agreement to expedite matters through the House. A number of ideas that we have discussed and proposed warrant further scrutiny. Certainly the scheduling of business through the House on a formal agenda would facilitate the operation of the House. The Government House Leader is well aware of that and is looking at that. But what the Government House Leader cannot do is control an inept, incompetent government. Even the Government House Leader can't make this government look good by structuring an organized flow of material through this House.
Like the Premier, most of the ministers have made trips all over the world. I don't know if it assists anything in the province of British Columbia, but there is probably not one minister of the Crown who hasn't embarked on some form of international travel to one country or another. I question the validity of that. I think this is the most travelled cabinet in the history of the Legislature, and I am mindful of the fact that in the last six months of the former administration, prior to the election, there was substantial use of government jets, as a matter of fact, to move ministers back and forth. I was very surprised to find out that in the first six months of this government's mandate, it had by far exceeded that number of hours in government jets. They obviously like to spend a great deal of money on their particular concerns.
The difficulty I have is that I believe government has to go forward with credibility and integrity. I sincerely believe that most members of the public believe that credibility and integrity are very important, especially when it comes to government. The word of government has to be true. However, we have a government that says a number of things with great ease and commits themselves to actions that are substantially different from the words they choose.
When we recognize that the Government House Leader can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, we recognize the magnitude of his challenge when the ministers are travelling here and there. Fundamentally, that is one of the major reasons that we haven't gotten through the estimates at this late date. Time and time again estimates have been scheduled but ministers have been unavailable. At other times ministers have filibustered their own estimates by trying to create plausible reasons for certain actions, when they were in fact ignorant of why those actions were undertaken. At other times ministers were busy consulting with staff. After two years of being ministers, they are so unaware of their role and responsibility that they spend all their time trying to get answers out of staff; again, that takes a substantial amount of time.
Similarly with legislation. There has been, as has been pointed out by colleagues on this side of the House, a substantial delay in the introduction of legislation, which has hampered the smooth flow of work through the House. But I suppose what gets me particularly upset is the scenario that occurred tonight, where due process was not utilized by the government. There is no question in my mind that the interim supply bill would have flowed through this House quite smoothly had due process been followed. It could have been introduced yesterday, and second reading would have been held today. That would have been far more prudent than getting people's backs up through arrogance, and that's what we're looking at. The backs are up because nobody likes being the recipient of arrogance and contempt, and that's what we are seeing here tonight. I really believe that due process would have been followed by goodwill. Naturally we all understand that bills and the operation of government and the services that government needs to provide have to be concluded and completed. We're patently aware of that.
When I talk about fiscal mismanagement -- and there has been a great and gross fiscal mismanagement -- part of that is because British Columbia has become the destination resort of any unemployed socialist political hack in Canada. We have attracted a great number of them to British Columbia, at a cost to the provincial taxpayer, all in preparation for the forthcoming federal campaign, during which the British Columbia taxpayer will continue to pay for these political hacks while they spread across the country and take part in various constituency campaigns. Those are taxpayers' dollars, and that's what we're talking about in this supply act. In my estimation, it is a blatant abuse of the role of government to hire political hacks simply to hold them in good stead so they can fight the next federal election.
British Columbia has also become a destination resort for welfare recipients from across Canada. We have only to point to the increase of some $900 million in two years in the Ministry of Social Services estimates. Again, that is added to the fact that the government is not creating any climate of opportunity for strengthening a growing economy or for creating jobs. I'd just like to read into the record portions from a speech made at the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce:
"The British Columbia Chamber of Commerce is the voice of business in this province, representing over 13,000 businesses, most of them of the medium and small variety -- the backbone of this province. It is the people we represent who create jobs and stimulate economic activity in British Columbia. But these are trying times for business in B.C. Our government does not understand or trust us. As a result they have created, and continue to create, an atmosphere in our economy which is not conducive to growth, which is
[ Page 8110 ]
not conducive to job creation and which is not conducive to the creation of wealth."
Interjections.
C. Serwa: Hon. Speaker, some of the members occasionally have to be reminded that they're voiceless and nameless unless they're sitting in their own seat. I know that the hon. member is well aware of that. He just got carried away.
So we're talking about the government not being conducive to job creation:
"Boardrooms around British Columbia, in fact around the world, are making decisions about British Columbia. They are deciding to divert investment, to move head offices, to close branch offices and to reduce commitments to this province. Still our government boasts of its achievements. Soon this government will boast us right out of business, unless we do something about it. We must not leave it to someone else. The job is ours."
That's the situation. So when we look at the supply act, and we recognize the economics and the pressure that is being put on the taxpayers in the province, and we hear government talk, and we listen to the Minister of Labour expound and boast of their achievements, I wonder if they are really achievements. I think that the public of B.C. is well aware of the fact that they are not achievements based on anything to do with public interest, public benefit or public welfare.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Virtually every single step this government has undertaken, whether through taxation or mismanagement of expenditures or legislative packages that they have brought in over the past two years, has done nothing but hamper the opportunity for job creation and strong economic development in the province. That's an absolute fact. You can look at it right from the very start, when Bill 82 was repealed. That was the Compensation Fairness Act, which put a cap of 4.5 percent on public sector wages. Bill 82 was repealed right off the bat in the first term of this government, and that has cost us over $300 million.
Interjection.
C. Serwa: An economist applauds! Small potatoes to a magnanimous government catering to friends and insiders, and to trade unions -- $300 million right there.
They repealed the Taxpayer Protection Act, which balanced the budget in a five-year cycle and tied expenses to inflation. This government introduced the fair wage policy -- the fixed-wage policy, I call it -- which has cost the the taxpayers of the province an average of $200 million a year.
They've increased the bureaucracy dramatically, in spite of the suggested wage freeze. The bureaucracy has increased by more than 2,000 individuals in the two years this government has been in power, costing us well over a billion dollars a year. The government has not expressed any concern about productivity or about the delivery of goods and services to the people in the province. But it has maintained a staunch loyalty to public sector trade unions: not one individual will be dismissed; there will be no wage reductions; there will be no staff reductions; and we will continue to expand the bureaucracy, because after all, they will all become members of the BCGEU. Naturally the NDP will benefit greatly from the contributions of that particular union and will be re-elected, they believe.
Social Services -- or welfare, as I stated earlier -- has increased by $900 million in two years. It's welfare instead of workfare, but people in the province want work, because the pride and self-esteem of individuals is tied to the fact that they know and understand that they're justifying their existence and earning their daily bread.
Interjections.
C. Serwa: Hon. Speaker, when the members get through shouting across to each other, I'll continue with my debate.
An Hon. Member: Sit down.
C. Serwa: No, I won't sit down. That was played on one member tonight, and the lesson is too fresh in one's mind to forget it.
In any event, rather than building a strong economy and creating opportunities for employment in the workforce, we simply attract more people to the Social Services system. This is lamentable, because there is no infinite pot of gold back there -- the taxpayers' pockets only go so deep. What we're doing is pulling several billion dollars out of the economy simply because individuals are attracted to the welfare system.
[12:15]
The wage increases to the public sector unions have been at about three times the rate of inflation, and they are substantially higher than private sector settlements. I have no difficulty with individuals requiring more in the way of remuneration. Inflation is here, and costs are going up. I have a great deal of difficulty, though, when wages in the private sector lag 20, 30 and sometimes 40 percent behind public sector wages. When the government creates tax bills that reach into the private sector to reward the public sector, I often wonder how much consideration is actually given to employees doing equal work throughout the province. I don't see any evidence of that. It seems that employment equity is only directed to members of public sector unions, and those who work in the private sector don't warrant that type of consideration.
We continue to see a trail of broken promises, and that cannot be overstated. There is a willingness by the government of the day to say virtually anything in order to achieve certain ends, but they actually do not fulfil the obligations they presume to assume. With the limited experience of members on the government side as employers, I often wonder about job creation. I don't suggest for one moment that we want to see only employers represented on the government side, but I would suggest that we should see one or two employers; in fact, we see none. By and large, we see
[ Page 8111 ]
people who have university degrees but who have generally always worked in the public sector or the union sector. Fundamentally, they have never created any jobs whatsoever -- not 20 jobs, ten jobs or five jobs. They really don't understand the process, because they've never stood in the shoes of someone who has to produce goods in order to make a living, who has to meet a payroll or who has to bid on jobs and collect on them. That's what really makes the economy work.
The government is quite happy and content to continue with high taxation rates, carrying on their policies of anger, envy and greed, and thinking that they can satisfy the wants of the trade unionists, their supporters, by continuing to rob from the taxpayers of the province. But that's terminal. They have to know it, and the people who they think they're supporting are going to learn that lesson very quickly. Regardless of union agreements or the fixed-wage policies this government has brought in, if they kill the economy, there will not be any jobs. There will be a dramatic reduction in employment opportunities, and the people who have supported this government will go down the tubes. They will go on unemployment insurance and then on the GAIN program. But who's going to fund that program? The trouble with this government is that their vision is very terminal. It's meant as short-term appeasement for those who support them. In the end, the economy of the province will suffer, and suffering along with the economy will be all those individuals who have been bilked into believing that this government is their friend. In fact, this government is not their friend.
When I listen to the Minister of Labour harp strongly on the minimum wage increases, thumping his chest with pride, I look around and see the ranks of the unemployed growing. There are many jobs for which employers are simply unable to pay more than the minimum wage. The individuals in those jobs are working part-time and making extra money for the family income. They have the pride and self-esteem to want to work and earn their way in society. This government is acceding to union demands. We want to get....
Interjection.
C. Serwa: Oh yes, we are speaking to Bill 64, the supply act. I'm talking about the revenue side and the requirements. But I'm mindful and appreciative of being reminded.
If we don't have jobs for people, and if we're not competitive in those jobs, then we will not have an economy. That stands to reason. The government seems to want to rush in, so we have this supply act brought in at this particular time. But the government had lots of time to debate such things as NAFTA. That is another area where the government feels that they are on the side of the trade unions and that we don't have to be competitive -- that we can be isolated and have a viable economy within ourselves. The economists know differently; members of the public in British Columbia know differently. We live in a trading nation; we're a trading province in a trading nation. We have to trade to survive. In order to produce goods, we have to be competitive, and there are a number of elements in that competitiveness. Wages are obviously one element. Our woodworkers are the highest-paid woodworkers in any jurisdiction in the world. That makes it very difficult to be competitive.
What do the major manufacturers do? What do the logging operations in the bush do? They avail themselves of technology -- with larger equipment, computers and microswitches in the sawmills -- and they reduce the number of employees. That places a heavier load on government and social services, and diminishes the cash flow the government can get to maintain a viable operating budget. It's fraught with difficulties, and it will be fraught with tragedy if this thing continues.
Government taxes have a direct effect on the cost of widgets that are produced for export -- and, yes, profits do as well. We all recognize that government, labour and business have to get together and make certain that our economy is viable. Without it, we are not going to get the revenue that government requires.
The deficit is out of control in the province. Going to the auditor general's figures, this government ballooned the deficit to $2.4 billion in its first year -- a record deficit of foolish fiscal management that squandered hard-earned taxpayers' money. In the second year, there was a great decrease -- a $2.3 billion deficit. This year, if you look at the deficit on the estimates plus the Bilk B.C. Crown corporation, we'll be over $3 billion.
The Minister of Finance continues to say we were left with this horrible financial mess. There was no horrible financial mess; we had the lowest per capita debt of any jurisdiction in Canada. We had the lowest debt-servicing costs at about 3.8 cents for every revenue dollar. This government and this minister have more than doubled our debt repayment schedule. So when you talk about fiscal mismanagement, this Minister of Finance has been one of the greatest fiscal mismanagers that this province has ever seen. The trail of broken promises and legacy of fiscal mismanagement that this government is leaving will be long remembered in British Columbia.
It's really interesting that despite the tough times, British Columbia's civil service keeps on growing. A substantial number, if not the majority, of the dollars requested in this Supply Act are to fund this civil service that is growing out of control with appointed political hacks. They do not have the expertise or the experience; they do not warrant the pay that they're getting; they are simply political hacks to do the government's bidding.
Time and again, the Minister of Finance says that we have no money. There is no more money for Education or Economic Development; there is no more money for Advanced Education or the Ministry of Environment -- seeing those ministers here at the moment. On the other hand, the minister willingly relaxes any type of control Treasury Board has had on a number of spending opportunities. Capital expenditure cost overruns greater than 5 percent once needed Treasury Board approval. This has now been bumped up to 10 percent
[ Page 8112 ]
or $1 million. Treasury Board used to approve discretionary grants exceeding $100,000, now the limit has been bumped to $250,000. Materials, machinery and building costs in excess of $100,000 once required Treasury Board approval, now the Board only approves those costs above $1 million. This is just a short display, but it goes on and on. So while the Minister of Finance is saying one thing, he's doing quite the other.
I think these are embarrassing times for the Minister of Finance and the government because they're trying to sell a bill of goods to the public who is not buying that bill of goods. I guess it's obvious when you look at their growing loss of popularity and recognize the wasteful expenditure of moneys. The comrades-in-arts scheme that the Minister of Tourism has put together, apparently with labour unions, is nothing more than a waste of taxpayers' money. Art is art. We should recognize and contribute to the artistic circle in the province of B.C., but not on the basis of trade unionism and comrades-in-arts. There are a number of really dumb moves that this government has made with the wasteful of expenditure of money.
At a time such as this, when we're debating something as important as an interim supply act, it's always interesting that government ministers and private members refrain from becoming involved in the debate. There is no substance, and I suppose that I'm mindful of the member for Nelson-Creston. The lack of concern is because they know they have the numbers to win the vote, and we'll see that later on this evening. That's only evidence of arrogance and contempt on the part of this government. If the government cannot achieve its needs on the basis of substance, competence and sound debate in this Legislature, then sheer numbers and mere blobs of protoplasm waving their arms at the House Leader's request do not convince anyone in the province of B.C. of the competence of the government of the day. That bothers me, and it's apparently bothering a great many members of the public throughout the province. I'd like to go on and on, hon. Speaker, but I see that my time is over, and your patience has run short.
H. De Jong: When we were dealing with the estimates of the Minister of Advanced Education we talked about the aspirations and hopes of the young people attending colleges and universities. In my younger days, I never thought that I would ever be standing speaking in this Legislature. Certainly I never thought that I would be here speaking after 12 o'clock midnight. I've attended many meetings: community meetings, church meetings, school board meetings and council meetings. Generally, we always thought that in order to make important public decisions, they should be made at least before 11 o'clock in the evening because after that the best decisions are usually not made. However, we're here now, and I would love to have been the designated speaker for tonight and to have rambled on for two hours. I must say that I agree with most of the comments made by both opposition parties tonight about the bill that is before us and also the timing of the bill.
[12:30]
By the timing of the bill, the government has really shown its incompetence in running a proper legislative process. It begs the question whether this government can run the province. That is really the crux of the matter. This government is not competent to run the affairs of the province.
G. Janssen: Tell us about the job Bill Vander Zalm did.
H. De Jong: I have a lot of respect for Bill Vander Zalm. He's a great man.
At the same time, we're here discussing this interim supply bill, hon. Speaker, and I don't think I need to add any more to what has been said tonight. But I wish to put it on the record that I don't support the timing or the intent of the bill. It should have been put to us earlier. Secondly, had the legislative process worked smoother, there would have been no need for it at all.
If the people of British Columbia only knew what this sitting costs the public in terms overtime and other costs that go along with it, I don't think they would have one bit of appreciation for the government's handling of the legislative process, as we witness it here tonight.
The Speaker: The minister, upon rising, closes debate.
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I've heard a lot of drivel from the opposition, and I'm tempted to respond. But at this late hour I won't, except to say that I find the performance by all opposition members quite bizarre.
I want to say for the record what an interim supply bill is. This interim supply bill is largely for the opposition. We could have, as government, finished the estimates debate by going until 12:30 at night and completing all the estimates within the allotted approval of interim supply. Rather than do that, in order to allow the opposition the opportunity to debate the remaining estimates in a civilized way -- Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Municipal Affairs -- we chose to bring a further interim approval to this House for one more month.
So it is quite bizarre for the opposition to criticize an interim supply bill for four weeks' further interim approval while we allow the opposition to debate two ministries that have not yet had full debate in the House. It's puzzling. I certainly understand that politics intrude once in a while in this chamber, and members of the opposition want to have the opportunity to debate for their supporters or otherwise make some points for the record. I certainly understand that, but I can't understand why they would take so much time.
I also find it strange that there are criticisms of sitting late -- 12:30 at night -- when anybody watching the debate tonight would know that it is the opposition members who have debated this at great length. They're the reason that we're sitting here late at night.
With that, hon. Speaker, I'm delighted to close the debate on second reading of this bill.
Motion approved on the following division:
[ Page 8113 ]
| YEAS -- 29 | ||
|
Perry |
Marzari |
Boone |
|
Priddy |
Edwards |
Cashore |
|
Charbonneau |
Pement |
Schreck |
|
Lortie |
Lali |
Smallwood |
|
Hagen |
Harcourt |
Gabelmann |
|
Clark |
Blencoe |
MacPhail |
|
Lovick |
Pullinger |
Evans |
|
O'Neill |
Streifel |
Lord |
|
Krog |
Randall |
Kasper |
|
Brewin |
Janssen | |
| NAYS -- 15 | ||
|
Cowie |
Reid |
Gingell |
|
Dalton |
Farrell-Collins |
Wilson |
|
Serwa |
De Jong |
Neufeld |
|
Symons |
Tanner |
Warnke |
|
Anderson |
K. Jones |
Tyabji |
Bill 64, Supply Act (No. 2), 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.
The House in committee on Bill 64; D. Streifel in the chair.
On section 1.
F. Gingell: As I understand it, the amount of money included in this interim supply bill is roughly one-twelfth, or one month's expenditures for the government. Would the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs please advise us how he intends to spend this money during the month of July?
Hon. G. Clark: The question was directed to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, but I assume the member meant the Minister of Finance.
An Hon. Member: No, Aboriginal Affairs.
Hon. G. Clark: Aboriginal Affairs? Oh, well, that's completely out of order.
F. Gingell: But we are in committee, and this bill deals with the expenditure of money by a series of ministries. It seems to me quite appropriate that we should, during committee stage, have the opportunity to question ministers about the manner in which they will spend their funds. I would like, if I may, to question the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.
[12:45]
The Chair: Hon. member, the Chair informs you that it would be out of order. This bill is brought forward under the Minister of Finance.
F. Gingell: The Minister of Finance advised me that it was out of order. I didn't hear the Chairman rule on it.
The Chair: I just ruled on it, hon. member.
F. Gingell: Then perhaps the Minister of Finance will advise the House of the manner in which the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs will spend his share of these funds during the month of July.
Hon. G. Clark: I guess the misunderstanding of members opposite comes from the fact that the government side has been extremely lenient and generous to members of the opposition. This is a Minister of Finance bill, and there is absolutely no reason why all members of the executive council should be questioned with respect to any supply bill. In the past, however, out of courtesy -- and only out of courtesy -- the government has from time to time allowed all members of the executive council to discuss these questions. I realize that this may be why the member opposite has that understanding. It is, of course, a very routine matter to extend supply for one month. The Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, like all ministries, will be using their apportionment of these funds for the regular operating of their budgets, a budget which, I might say, has already been approved by this House in the estimates.
The Chair: For clarification, this supply act does not have the special warrant attached to it that would target it to a specific ministry. The bill is in order under the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations.
F. Gingell: We are here this evening to discuss in committee the specifics of the manner in which $1.555 billion is going to be spent. I'm sure that the charity -- was "charity" the word that the Minister of Finance used?
Some Hon. Members: Courtesy.
F. Gingell: Courtesy? I don't understand the word "courtesy."
This government should keep in mind the concept of courtesy in dealing with the question that we, as the representatives of the people of B.C., have with respect to these issues. It seems to me that the Minister of Finance, in the absence of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs -- and since he claims ownership of this act -- will respond to our question with respect to the manner in which the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs will...
The Chair: Order, hon. member.
F. Gingell: ...spend his share of these funds.
The Chair: Hon. member, there seems to be some confusion as to the specific type of bill or supply act that this is. It's not an act that has a specific warrant attached to it for a specific ministry or schedule.
F. Gingell: Would the Minister of Finance in whose name this bill is presented please advise us of the amounts of money and to which ministries these funds will be allocated?
[ Page 8114 ]
Hon. G. Clark: They will be allocated exactly the way they appear in the estimates book. The members have debated all of the estimates save for two in this House -- as I understand it, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of Finance. All of the estimates which have been fully canvassed and debated in this House will be spent exactly the way in which they're treated in the estimates for that one-month spending authority. The purpose of this bill is to enable the opposition to question the estimates of the two that are remaining, and that would be the appropriate place for that discussion. So this allows for one month. I might just advise the members of the House that there is an alternative to what we have done here, which is to pass a supply act for all of the estimates which have been passed. That was done once by the previous administration....
F. Gingell: Closure!
Hon. G. Clark: No, a supply act for all of the estimates which have been passed, and only interim supply...
The Chair: Order, hon members.
Hon. G. Clark: ...for the two ministries which have not been passed. That was a parliamentary trick, a technique that was practised by the previous government; we chose not to do that. This is a routine matter to allow extension of one month's spending authority for all ministries of government. That is the more routine matter which allows the full canvassing of the two remaining ministries before we pass the final supply act.
F. Gingell: What I understand the Minister of Finance to be saying is that the alternative was for the government to bring forward a supply act that would include all of the ministries other than the two that have not yet been passed. The key question in the issue that is before the House at this moment is the manner in which $1.555 billion is going to be spent. I take it from....
The Chair: Order, hon. member. The item before the House is section 1 of Bill 64. If we could restrict our questioning to that section, please.
An Hon. Member: What do you think he's doing?
The Chair: Hon. member for....
An Hon. Member: Give it a break.
The Chair: Hon. member, you'll come to order, please.
An Hon. Member: Which hon. member?
The Chair: The Opposition House Leader will continue.
An Hon. Member: Leader of the Opposition.
F. Gingell: I have to be recognized by the Chair, don't I?
The Chair: The Chair recognizes the member on his feet. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor on Bill 64, section 1.
F. Gingell: I have asked a question on the issue of section 1 of this bill, a bill which requires the expenditure of $1.555 billion. The Chair has questioned my question, and I ask the Chair to explain exactly what his question is about my question.
The Chair: Does section 1 pass?
F. Gingell: Mr. Chairman, you have made a statement about my question and deemed it to be out of order. I do not understand what your position is, and I suggest that you explain it.
Interjections.
F. Gingell: This bill deals with the expenditure of $1.55 billion. From what the minister has said, I understand that this amount will be divided exactly between all of the ministries in their ratio of the budget. Would the Minister of Finance please make the commitment that he will report to the House later on that that is in fact the manner in which these funds have been spent?
Hon. G. Clark: I have no problem making that commitment to the member. I just want to remind members that this is interim approval. In a sense, the $1.55 billion is interim approval, and all details of each estimate are fully canvassed in the House, so the members opposite will get a chance. It's not like we're rushing through $1.5 billion here tonight for which you don't have a chance to scrutinize the line items in the estimates; you do. I will be delighted to give the member opposite a post-de facto audit of the few days in which we will require this interim approval while we approve the other estimates. If the member wants to know how much is spent this month by each ministry, I can give him at least an estimation of how it's broken down. I'm sure he'll agree it's broken down on a pro rata basis by every ministry.
A. Warnke: I would like to put a question to the Minister of Finance with regard to this section. I was interested in an answer given by the Minister of Finance a few moments ago responding to the Leader of the Official Opposition. The answer given by the Minister of Finance is that of the $1.555 billion, the funds would be allocated as they appear in the estimates books, but I would also like to have a clarification. If the answer is that the amount of moneys here are allocated as to what appears in the estimates books, then we also see in this section of the proposed bill that $1.555 billion is allocated towards "deferring the charges and expenses of the public service of the province." I would suggest
[ Page 8115 ]
that the funds allocated as they appear in the estimates books go way beyond what is being allocated in the public service, and therefore the $1.555 billion is exclusively for expenditures in the public service and excludes programs. Could the minister provide clarification here?
Hon. G. Clark: We are getting into semantics. Cash flow requirements differ for each ministry. For example, if we have a forest fire tomorrow, we would likely have to draw this down faster to the Ministry of Forests than other ministries. I don't want to mislead the House; every ministry has cash-flow requirements which vary as a result of the season. The Ministry of Highways, for example, may well expend more money this month during construction season than they would in the middle of December. So it's not a mechanical operation. This is an interim approval of one-twelfth of the full amount in order to provide members of the opposition with the opportunity to debate each line item of each ministry of the House.
With respect to the question of public service, this is required to pay GAIN recipients, to pay contractors and to pay Social Service contractors and the like. So it's the public service broadly defined, not just in terms of public servants or government employees; this is a broad definition of the public service of British Columbia.
A. Warnke: The answer provided by the Minister of Finance just partially answers the question. As I put forward the question, I recognized that defraying the charges and expenses of the public service would include contractors, etc. -- in other words, individuals. But when it came to the other part of my question in terms of pursuing expenditures to defray the cost of programs -- which of course do not involve contractors -- the Minister of Finance was terribly evasive, supplying the answer that it is a matter of semantics. Hon. Chair, what is the definition of "semantics"? Semantics means a play on the definitions of words. If it's the case that it's just a question of semantics, then I would suggest that what is proposed here is pretty darned vague. I would suggest that the original point I put forward -- that the moneys that are allocated, "$1.555 billion towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service" -- is dead on in that it does exclude programs. Would the Minister of Finance make it crystal clear and unequivocal whether the $1.555 billion is allocated towards programs -- yes or no?
[1:00]
Hon. G. Clark: Yes.
F. Gingell: The words of this section of the act start with: "From and out of the consolidated revenue fund...." Does that indicate to the minister that the funds should be in a positive balance in order to make any payments?
Hon. G. Clark: That's not really the issue. All of the revenue generated from various taxes flows into the fund, and this is approval to spend from that fund. Of course, there's a cash-flow question here, which is essentially a technical question and bears no resemblance to the ability to spend.
If the members opposite don't want to approve the ability to spend this amount of money, they should clearly vote against it, vote against the budgets of the ministries and move amendments to reduce the amount that government spends. This does not deal with the question of how much is in the fund and how much tax revenue is generated. This is authority for the government to spend one month's share of the budgeted appropriations.
F. Gingell: Thank you for that answer. But this particular section does in fact deal with the ability of the government to pay moneys from and out of the consolidated revenue fund. All members of this House are well aware that this government has not lived up to the commitments they have made to the people of British Columbia on innumerable occasions not to spend a penny that they don't have. This is the precise moment of that test. Here we are dealing with an issue about spending $1.555 billion from a consolidated revenue fund when: (1) you do not have sufficient revenue to pay it; and (2) the revenue fund is in deficit. So it isn't a fund; it's a negative fund. I would be most interested in the response of the Minister of Finance to the question of how he believes he can spend money from a fund that does not exist, that is already overspent, that is in debt and that is owed to international lenders all over the world. Is the minister planning on writing rubber cheques?
A. Warnke: Another clarification that I'd pursue.... But I'm most interested in what the member for Delta South, Leader of the Official Opposition, put forward. Just exactly how does the Minister of Finance define "consolidated revenue fund"? I do have another question, but I'd like to follow up from the Leader of the Official Opposition.
The Chair: The Chair had recognized the member for Richmond-Steveston. Was the Chair...?
A. Warnke: I believe the member for Delta South was also on his feet, and I yielded to the member from Delta South.
F. Gingell: Seeing that we've reached this particular point, and it's very late at night -- we all have to get to bed and get our beauty sleep -- I move that this committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Motion negatived on the following division:
| YEAS -- 14 | ||
|
Cowie |
Reid |
Gingell |
|
Dalton |
Farrell-Collins |
Wilson |
|
Serwa |
Neufeld |
Symons |
|
Tanner |
Warnke |
Anderson |
|
K. Jones |
|
Tyabji |
|
[ Page 8116 ] NAYS -- 29 | ||
|
Perry |
Marzari |
Boone |
|
Priddy |
Edwards |
Cashore |
|
Charbonneau |
Pement |
Schreck |
|
Lortie |
Lali |
Smallwood |
|
Hagen |
Harcourt |
Gabelmann |
|
Clark |
Blencoe |
McPhail |
|
B. Jones |
Lovick |
Pullinger |
|
Evans |
O'Neill |
Lord |
|
Krog |
Randall |
Kasper |
|
Brewin |
|
Janssen |
D. Symons: It was section 1 that did give me the most trouble in this bill. I'll let the rest of the bill go.
I do have a question. I was bothered by the figure $1.555 billion. I was struck by the fact that $1.555 billion -- it's in the Supply Act -- is very, very close to the figure that this government is running up the deficit this year. I was concerned by the question asked by one of our members earlier about money in this consolidated revenue fund, because it seemed that the figure you're asking for is very close. If you add in the Bilk B.C. fund, your debt will be even more than this. I'm just wondering where this money is coming from. It seems that it's all going to be borrowed money. The minister explained that it is sort of the ins and outs going along, but I would like some assurance, with some sort of amendment maybe -- with the minister's agreement that this would be a friendly amendment -- that this money will only be used for money that the government has, not money that the government is going to go out and borrow for this particular section. I wonder if you might respond to that.
Hon. G. Clark: I wonder which hospitals the members opposite would like us not to fund, or which schools the members opposite would like to close. That is what this money is for: it is for public services. If members opposite do not want to approve this, I would be interested to know which schools they would like to close, which hospitals they would like to close and which doctors or welfare payments they would like not to pay.
Interjections.
The Chair: Would the committee come to order, please.
D. Symons: I take that answer to mean that this is going to be borrowed money. Obviously, from the answer he gave, that is the only meaning you can take out of it.
I notice, too, that over the past short while this government has spent somewhere close to $1 million on government advertising: a quarter of a million on newspapers to justify the budget; a quarter of a million to justify property tax increases; close to a quarter of a million to explain their decision on Clayoquot Sound; and somewhat near that figure on health care. If you add in some other things, and the fact that a good number of the ministers have done a fair amount travelling around the world, that adds up to in excess of $1 million -- or more than 10 percent of this figure.
[1:15]
I wonder if the minister wouldn't have been willing.... If they had expended their money more wisely during the first quarter of this year, then we wouldn't need to be bringing in such a large figure at this time. The one-twelfth is there because you have been spending recklessly in the first quarter of this year.
Hon. G. Clark: To correct the record, the advertising budget was cut this year. The members opposite fully canvassed these discussions in estimates, and voted in favour of the voted appropriations across the piece. So any concerns the member has would be more appropriately raised in the individual ministries. Oddly enough, members opposite supported the Government Services vote across the piece.
D. Symons: It seems that the minister is agreeing to the questions I am asking, because he did not deny how this money I referred to in these figures has been used. Basically, I guess he is admitting that these amounts of the public's money have been squandered on advertising to try to build up their image. What would make a good government? If the government was bringing forth good legislation, spending the taxpayers' money wisely and making wise decisions in legislation, it would not be necessary to send a leaflet to every home in the province, trying to convince the taxpayers that it is doing a good job. A good job speaks for itself; it doesn't have to be publicized and pushed on the people. The Government House Leader was making statements earlier about wanting to get out into the province; to go around and sell what this government has been doing. What sells is good, honest government. You don't have to go out and tell the people that you have done it. If you do it the right way first, the people in the province will know that you are doing it, and you won't have to go out and try and tell them otherwise.
C. Serwa: I see that even the Chair is getting tired, because we have heard a little bit of second reading debate in the last few minutes, and the Chair would not normally allow that.
Nevertheless, I just have one quick question for the minister. He may have explained it, but it isn't quite clear: will the $1.555 billion look after the expenses of all of the ministries, or only those ministries whose estimates have passed?
Hon. G. Clark: All of the ministries.
K. Jones: I would just like to clarify an aspect of this expenditure which relates directly to the public sector. I believe the minister has included in the budget sections relating to the public sector, and I wish to ask for a definition of those. Does that include the auditor general's $6.9 million? Does that include the Commission on Resources and Environment's $4.18 million? Does that include the conflict-of-interest commissioner's $206,000? Does that include the information and privacy commissioner's $1.204
[ Page 8117 ]
million? Does that include the ombudsman's $4.448 million? Does that include the B.C. Trade Development Corporation's $17.975 million? Does that include the First Citizens' Fund of $2.9 million? Does that include the B.C. Marketing Board's $469,000? Does that include the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission's $2.064 million? Does that include the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority's $1.82 million? Does that include the farm income assurance fund of $26.84 million? Does that include the agricultural land development fund of $1.186 million? Does that include the forfeited crime proceeds fund of $1.104 million? Does that include the office of the public trustee's $9.766 million? Does that include the health special account of $112.5 million? Does that include the special statutory accounts under...? Does that include the South Moresby implementation forest replacement of $2.1 million? Does that include the small business forest enterprise program's $108,999,556? Could the minister explain to us whether all those are included? I have others once he has finished with those.
Interjections.
Hon. G. Clark: I think I missed the fourteenth question. I'd maybe ask the member to repeat that one.
Interjections.
The Chair: Would the House come to order, so we could hear the repeated question.
K. Jones: I will repeat them: the auditor general, $6.933 million; the Commission on Resources and Environment, $4.18 million; the conflict-of-interest commissioner, $206,000; the information and privacy commissioner, $1.204 million; the ombudsman, $4.448 million. Are there any more that you didn't hear?
Hon. Mr. Harcourt: That's it. You got the one he missed.
K. Jones: He's got it! Wonderful!
Would the minister like to tell us whether those items we've listed so far are included under the public sector or the public service?
The Chair: Does section 1 pass? Continue, hon. member.
K. Jones: If I can't get an answer to that one, I'll just carry on to the next ones. Could the minister tell me whether the following are included: the B.C. Utilities Commission for $10; the B.C. Energy Council for $10; the Fort Nelson Indian band mineral revenue-sharing agreement for $300,000; the Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline assistance fund for $4.380 million? Are they included in the public sector or in this bill, which is describing the public service?
The Chair: Does section 1 pass?
K. Jones: The minister doesn't know the answer to that one. Maybe he'll know the answer to one of these, and then he can tell us the difference. Are you including the public service or the public sector in your bill? Otherwise, maybe you wish to withdraw the bill and have it rewritten so it properly reflects the entire budget. The budget cannot be for the public service as well as for the public sector. They are two separate entities, as the minister is fully aware. That was detailed in the report he tabled in the House yesterday morning. I would certainly like to have an opportunity to hear from the minister in that regard.
Section 1 approved.
Preamble approved.
Title approved.
Hon. G. Clark: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
K. Jones: On a point of order, hon. Chair. Votes are taken by asking who is in favour and who is against. So far you ran through a series of votes, and you didn't give the opportunity for those people to vote against. Would you please take those counts again, because they're invalid?
The Chair: For clarification of the hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale, we will take the vote on section 1 again.
F. Gingell: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it wasn't only the member for Surrey-Cloverdale who was concerned about the way the vote was taken. Perhaps in calling for a recount of the vote, you could include all members of this House.
Section 1 approved.
Preamble approved.
Title approved.
Hon. G. Clark: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 64, Interim Supply Act (No. 2), 1993, reported complete without amendment.
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?
Hon. G. Clark: With leave of the House now, hon. Speaker.
F. Gingell: Hon. Speaker, it's half past one at night. People in British Columbia are asleep. People in Tokyo
[ Page 8118 ]
are in the early evening. They're thinking about perhaps watching TV, going to a dance or a movie. People in Britain are waking up. But we are dealing with Bill 64. I knew you wanted me to get to that. It has been a long and difficult evening, but the world carries on. We recognize that this government is going to use its legislative strength and power to in effect push through closure and, as is said in some circumstances, have their way with us. Bill 64 is a really important matter for the people of B.C. It is an interesting coincidence that the amount of this special Supply Act (No. 2), 1993, is almost exactly the same as the amount of this year's deficit. The bill is based on the premise that there are funds in the consolidated revenue fund. This opposition believes sincerely and has tried to tell you that there are no funds in the consolidated revenue fund. The consolidated fund is gone. All the money has been spent. We have been put into the position of being a borrower, of having to borrow funds. This government has spent it all.
I appreciate that all we can deal with at this moment is third reading. The world may not care, but I want to assure you, hon. Speaker, that the members of this opposition care, and they will continue to press as hard as they can for the government to start living up to the promises that the Premier and the Minister of Finance made on innumerable occasions when they were in opposition, particularly, as we have stated this evening, on May 9, 1991. I suggest that both the Premier and the Minister of Finance pick up Hansard and read what they said on May 9, 1991, and then think about whether they have lived up to the commitments and promises that they made to the people of British Columbia at that time.
With that, I will take my place. I understand that you will call the question, hon. Speaker, and we in the opposition will vote against Bill 64, not because we believe that the government doesn't need the funds to keep their programs going but because we believe that the funds aren't there. This government has not lived up to their commitment, made on innumerable occasions to the people of B.C., to never spend a penny that we didn't have.
[1:30]
Motion approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 29 | ||
|
Perry |
Marzari |
Boone |
|
Priddy |
Edwards |
Cashore |
|
Charbonneau |
Pement |
Schreck |
|
Lortie |
Lali |
Smallwood |
|
Hagen |
Harcourt |
Gabelmann |
|
Clark |
Blencoe |
MacPhail |
|
B. Jones |
Lovick |
Pullinger |
|
Evans |
O'Neill |
Streifel |
|
Lord |
Krog |
Randall |
|
Brewin |
Janssen | |
| NAYS -- 14 | ||
|
Cowie |
Reid |
Gingell |
|
Dalton |
Farrell-Collins |
Wilson |
|
Serwa |
Tyabji |
K. Jones |
|
Anderson |
Warnke |
Tanner |
|
Symons |
Neufeld | |
Bill 64, Supply Act (No. 2), 1993, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Committee of Supply A, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Clark: I'm not sure whether the Government House Leader advised the House that it will sit today at 10:00 a.m., by agreement of all parties.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
The House adjourned at 1:38 a.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The Committee met at 2:48 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ADVANCED EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNOLOGY
(continued)
On vote 11: minister's office, $340,200 (continued).
Hon. T. Perry: Some members have suggested that we might be able to deal with some of the technical issues in writing, so if you could simply let us know the question now, or else.... Ministry staff are always available to answer specific technical questions.
With deference to the member for Vancouver-Langara, who isn't here at the moment, we did recheck our facts. In response to his question this morning as to whether students were represented on the transition committee of Vancouver Community College, I erroneously stated that they might not be; in fact, there are three students on that committee appointed by the board.
H. De Jong: This morning we talked a little about colleges and universities, particularly those on the lower mainland. I was wondering about the extreme pressure that's on BCIT for well-qualified people -- people who have been well schooled in their trade, you might say -- and have had a good education to teach the trades to the people who now require them. Is the minister intending to expand BCIT further into the Fraser Valley, or to lighten the load and the waiting lists at BCIT?
[ Page 8119 ]
Hon. T. Perry: Not immediately, but if the member wants to ask a more general question, I'd be delighted to discuss some of the thinking we have under way for the Fraser Valley as a whole.
H. De Jong: I usually don't go by statistics that much. It should be noted, though, that the participation of FTEs in the higher learning category in the Fraser Valley is only half of what it is in the rest of Canada. Given that there is still a lot of rural area and quite a number of people are involved in agriculture -- which may not demand that much education, although it has become more complex as well.... But by having that percentage available in the lower mainland, particularly in the Fraser Valley.... Many people in the Fraser Valley do not necessarily want academic training, because there is a lot of construction and all kinds of trades in the lower mainland -- and there is certainly a need for it. When somebody wants a good bricklayer, for instance, they often look for one that has been trained back in Europe. That's very unfortunate. It's not a trade that's going to take a long time. I mean, if it's a trade that is basically bricklaying, metalwork or any specific trade, a person wonders sometimes whether a lot of education is provided that is not necessarily geared and aimed at that specific trade, particularly in the academic areas. At the same time, even at BCIT perhaps, there could be more effective job training. I was just wondering whether the minister has considered all those things. Even though the minister says that they're not anticipating expanding BCIT, surely the minister must have given some thought to the current situation in the lower mainland.
Hon. T. Perry: That's the opening that I wanted. First of all, we're very impressed with what they're doing at BCIT. We did expand significantly this year, and it is never as much as I would have liked because of the financial circumstances. But within the room that we had, we shifted significantly to the vocational and technical side. Forty-four percent of the new resources that we had this year went to that side. At BCIT it was 120 full-time-equivalent students. We are giving very active consideration to BCIT's innovative request that it be allowed to offer degrees. It is aimed at not driving up costs, but improving the transferability for students from other institutions. Under BCIT's proposal, even university students might leave the university and come to BCIT to complete an applied technology degree.
The member is right that the Fraser Valley has historically been underserved. That is partly because of a complex history in the province and partly because of an accident of explosive population growth in the last 15 or 20 years.
Within the resources available, we have tried to steer resources out into the Fraser Valley, both at Kwantlen College -- where we are opening the new Langley campus in a couple of months -- and at University College of the Fraser Valley, which received an 8.6 percent increase in total students. That is substantially more than we afforded to the system as a whole, which was closer to 2.5 percent. That was 221.4 full-time equivalents, all of which were on the academic side this year. That reflects the former government's decision to establish the university college there, and the fact that students were migrating up through the years from first into second, third and fourth, and there were commitments that had to be honoured. So it does not reflect any contempt for the vocational or technical side. We simply had to fulfil a commitment there.
The broader question is very important. The member may be aware that about six or eight months ago I asked a group of prominent individuals representing a cross-section of academia, business and the trades -- for example, Dave Robertson, president of the B.C. Construction Association -- to think through how the capacity needs for post-secondary education and training in the Fraser Valley might best be met. The goal for that task force, chaired by Margaret Neylan.... It calls itself the Fraser Valley Committee on Post-Secondary Education. Fraser Valley COPSE -- as opposed to Fraser Valley CORPSE -- is the easy way to remember it. The Fraser Valley COPSE was asked to think through how we could meet the needs of a rapidly expanding population for academic education, skills training, vocational education and enhanced access to apprenticeship -- training of the kind the member referred to. They are very close to giving me the report. They were supposed to meet with me yesterday or today, and it was interrupted by business of the House. I expect that their initial report will soon be public. It is important for members to understand that the report is not intended to be the prescription of what should be built in the Fraser Valley. It was, deliberately, an exercise in thinking through possible models to achieve goals that are financially affordable and flexible, meet changing needs into the twenty-first century that are hard to predict, and cover both the academic and the non-academic needs of our society.
They have done some pioneering work. The preliminary criteria I have seen for an institution suggest that the graduates ought to be employable when they graduate, that the curriculum should be very rapidly changeable in response to changing circumstances, that there should be enhanced responsiveness to the needs of the community and the world of employment -- as we discussed just before lunch -- and that the institution be very environmentally sensitive as well. Once that report is out, I think that members will be impressed by the quality of thinking that's gone into it. The next step will be to figure out, over the next year or two, how we begin to translate that into reality in the broad Fraser Valley from Surrey east on the south bank of the Fraser and from Maple Ridge or Mission east on the north bank of the Fraser.
H. De Jong: I will get into a slightly different line of discussion, although it has to do with the colleges. Last year we had considerable discussion on the accountability and the lack of accountability regarding the courses that people would pretend to register for and then not proceed with. At the time, we were told that Jennifer Orum was doing a report on it. That report, I understand, came out sometime last fall. Certain recommendations were made in that report,
[ Page 8120 ]
although I was a little disappointed that that particular issue was not as well addressed as I thought it should have been. So I would like to have the minister's comment on that aspect of the report, and on what the ministry has been doing to make the accountability more effective.
[3:00]
Hon. T. Perry: I'm not sure I understand the question correctly. I don't think we have any significant evidence that students pretend to register in courses and then don't take them. Almost no administrative system that I'm aware of can protect itself absolutely against fraud. One hears anecdotes from time to time. For example, we discussed this last year: someone who does not appear to require student financial assistance but somehow fools the system and acquires a loan. Or the famous case in the Peat Marwick report of two teachers who accumulated an enormous loan, defaulted on it, were employed with a combined family income of $100,000 and appeared to get away with it. To the best of my knowledge, those remain rare anecdotal episodes.
I can tell the hon. member, for example, that no evidence of fraud that I can recall has reached me in the last year, since we last discussed this. If abundant cases were out there, one would expect that evidence would trickle in. We're always eager to hear about it, if there's evidence. We have a fairly conservative student loans branch who would like to clamp down on it, because they have difficulty meeting the legitimate needs of many students within our existing budget.
In terms of the overall accountability of the institutions, to do what they say they're doing, it is complex to ensure auditing is as precise as we would like it to be. But sometimes it is beyond the ability of the institution to fulfil all of our demands. For example, when we fund full-time-equivalent positions or a college program, we would like to see all of the seats filled. Sometimes students withdraw from a program at the last minute because they find employment or move. For whatever reason, one ends up with a class that's less than full and impossible to fill at the last minute. Then we have an undercapacity, which is not preferred; it's like a hospital which can't always run at 100 percent occupancy.
In general, the pressures on the institutions are driving them to be more efficient. As I said last night, we are funding many of the institutions at less than 100 percent for new students. The University of British Columbia has historically taken in more students than it was nominally paid for. We asked it to continue doing so, and informed the other universities that we will expect similar high performance from them. Overall, we're doing quite well. If the member can be more precise, I will try to answer the question.
H. De Jong: I suppose there is a difference between a fraudulent approach and an abuse of a privilege. Last year there were a number of them; we went over a couple of them in estimates. It would be considered fraud when capital purchases were made on student loans, or students registered for a number of courses, took off to the ski hills, spent all the money and didn't have it for the courses. Those could be considered fraud, and there were a few instances.
There was considerable concern about the abuse of the privilege of registering for courses. The money was given upfront. They may have attended one class of a specific course and for one reason or another were never seen again. That is an abuse of a privilege which many other students would love to participate in, even if they had to pay for the entire education. That was the key. The Orum report did not address how to solve that. It's not that hard to solve. I'm not sure whether we need an Orum report. If only half or a quarter of the money was given at the outset, then as the student progresses through the particular course he could be given the additional moneys to pay for the courses. That doesn't appear to be practical in the colleges. For the life of me, I can't see why some changes for greater accountability cannot be implemented in that respect, so that we won't have empty places in the colleges and universities, but particularly in the colleges.
Hon. T. Perry: My staff pointed out, while I was listening to this question, that this year we've increased our audit staff in the student loans branch from three full-time employees to eight. They point out that, as a matter of course, if they catch someone trying to fool us it's unlikely that person will get aid from us again. I hadn't spelled that out. It goes without saying that when they're wrestling constantly with trying to find enough money to meet legitimate need, when they work in a field like that, they tend to become fairly skeptical and conservative.
As far as student aid goes, we do not dole it all out up front. The Canada student loan portion to a student typically gets disbursed in September. The second instalment of the B.C. student loan will be disbursed in January. The more typical problem tends to be that I get complaints from students whose disbursements are late, if anything, and who are struggling to hang on in the meantime. I see a fair number of letters of complaint of that kind.
If a student registers for a course and the people of B.C. have paid the 80 to 85 percent subsidy for that course and the student doesn't continue it, yes, of course that's frustrating. It frustrates me as much as it does the hon. member. I think we have to accept that one cannot be perfect. In general, we've allowed the institutions to set their own policy. It would be an unusual board that would look favourably on someone who drops out for casual reasons and then wants to come back, when they have other students knocking at the gates. The odds are that such students are going to find it difficult to get readmitted, and increasingly so in the future. So there's a natural pressure against frivolous waste of the resource that way.
There are other areas, though, where our system is deliberately aimed at trying to retrain people whom the public education system has failed in the past for whatever reasons, such as literacy upgrading and adult basic education. We do accept that it is sometimes worth taking somewhat higher risks that a student may not complete; but the risk is even greater to society that
[ Page 8121 ]
if we don't try to educate people and upgrade their skills, they will remain on the social welfare rolls indefinitely. In that sense, it is vaguely akin, say, to the treatment of any other complex problem, like alcoholism. Our treatment system is not tremendously successful there, and we undertake treatment in the knowledge that if a significant fraction of the people we treat are benefited, then that's good, but we would not expect to be able to benefit everybody.
In the vocational, technical and academic programs, the success rate is typically extremely high, and it is getting better. If the member is wondering about student retention, as they put it, within the universities and colleges, it is getting better because the competition is so stiff to get in there. More students are being turned out at the end of four years with a degree now than ever before. I can reassure the member that we are constantly encouraging the institutions to show that kind of accountability, but there are also natural financial pressures that are working in the same direction, so there is a positive feedback loop.
H. De Jong: It should be noted that there are people who do not participate in the student loan program, and I'm not saying that they have necessarily more rights -- I think it's equal opportunity; I believe in that -- but along with equal opportunity comes equal responsibility. It's not a single situation that I hear about from time to time; it happens quite a number of times, I'm sorry to say. People who are on these loan programs, through social assistance in particular, haven't got the same sense of accountability as those students who are paying the full shot. Then we see empty spaces within the various courses that they would have loved to have paid for, and yet these spaces are empty because of some students' lack of accountability. If we can place more accountability in the system -- that the student actually performs and attends the classes in courses that he or she has signed up for -- then we will not have that difference between students. I know because I've had a daughter in college myself. She was in a vocational college in Maple Ridge and mentioned to me on a number of occasions how those people are treated differently -- they are provided with the materials to gain credits for the same subjects that the others have to pay for. I have no problem with equal opportunity, but equal accountability should also be practised.
Hon. T. Perry: I agree, and we're increasingly aggressive all the time in trying to pursue that. Points 3 and 10 on attachment A of the student loan application form make it clear to the students that they will be watched if they try to pull any tricks on us. The loan administration branch and the Ministry of Finance are prepared to go after them, and have in fact launched a number of prosecutions in the last year.
L. Fox: It's a pleasure to enter into the debates of the Advanced Education ministry. All my questions will be around CNC and UNBC, and I am sure that's no surprise to the minister. Over the course of the last year the minister fired -- and there's really no other word for it, hon. Chair -- some members of the CNC board. The firing of one particular individual was of great concern to the municipality within my riding, because that individual's name had been put forward by the municipality. He did not have any connections with any political party. He was recommended by the council of the day, and that recommendation was based on the fact that he had been a school principal for 30 years in the community and a mayor for four years. He had been placed by the Ministry of Education on different accreditation teams around the province, and in fact he had been a very solid member of the board for some three years. What made this firing particularly distasteful was the way it was done as well as the fact that this man was eminently qualified to provide leadership on the CNC board, and a solid citizen who had total community backing in his decision-making. He was phoned by one of the minister's executives, pulled out of a board meeting and told over the phone that he was fired -- a method which showed a complete lack of class and a lack of acknowledgement of his contribution to CNC.
[3:15]
It was so distasteful that many CNC board members made their concerns known through various means to the ministry. Before we talk about the appointment process that he used, I would like the minister to put on the record why this distasteful process happened in the way that it did. Perhaps he might want to apologize on the record to Mr. Bill McLeod, who was such a valuable member of the CNC board.
Hon. T. Perry: This is the first time I've heard of the complaint. But if it gave offence to Mr. McLeod, then, of course, I apologize. It certainly was not intended to offend Mr. McLeod, and had I been aware of that earlier, I would have been pleased to deal with the issue. I'm not aware of any complaints from the other members of the CNC board, and I met with them in Vanderhoof as recently as a month ago, in the presence of the chair and executive director of the Advanced Education Council of B.C. in Vanderhoof. It must have been in late May, and I don't recall anyone raising that issue then.
As for the process of making appointments to boards, this year we attempted to learn from the experience of the previous year. We consulted very widely with anyone who wished to give us input. We asked for input from the boards themselves, from the CEOs of the colleges, from faculty and support unions and from virtually anyone I met in my travels around B.C. -- prominent business people, trade unionists, community activists, native Indian bands and MLAs. We tried to look seriously at any nominations we had. I take exception to the idea that anyone -- particularly this board member -- was fired. As I recall, the member had been appointed for a three-year term by order-in-council, and it is common for board members to be reappointed at the end of a three-year term or not to be reappointed at the end of a three-year term. To suggest that when an appointment is not renewed they're fired is not only unfair to government, it's unfair to the individual involved. I will attempt to track down
[ Page 8122 ]
any further information about that, and I'll be glad to deal with it personally with the member. Certainly, if any offence was given to the individual involved, then I apologize.
L. Fox: I don't know any other word for it. When you're called out of a meeting and told that you're no longer wanted on that particular board, how else can you describe it but fired? The minister may have other terminology.
I guess one of the largest concerns I have is that Vanderhoof is a unique community and a very close-knit community. In previous appointments to CNC, the community leaders and the local school board had been involved in the process. To my knowledge, with the appointment that was made, there was no involvement of the community leaders or the school board in the selection of the individual who replaced Mr. McLeod. I know the individual very well, and I'm quite sure she will become a good board member. I have no qualms about that, but it just seems to be another political process where in fact you reach into communities, find politically friendly people and appoint them to respective boards. Obviously that's what happened in this case, because the individual who was appointed was not recommended by the local elected municipal council or the school board. Nor were they....
Interjection.
The Chair: Through the Chair, please, hon. members.
L. Fox: Mr. McLeod was from Vanderhoof, for the record. As I stated, part of the reason for his appointment to the board by the municipal council was the fact that he was a longtime Vanderhoof resident. In fact, he had a school in our community named after him -- the W.L. McLeod Elementary School -- which shows the feeling for this individual and how well he was respected within the community.
When I look at the appointment process that was used, it's really disappointing. I know that neither the minister nor any of his staff got in contact with me. When he suggested earlier in his comments that MLAs were involved, they may have been in his party's ridings, but I certainly wasn't involved in any of the appointments in my riding, nor was advice sought from me on who might be a good candidate.
Given that this is an education structure that we're talking about.... We in the north have been very proud of the accomplishments of CNC. Some of us who were trustees and worked with the boards in the late seventies and early eighties were involved in the process, understand the process and certainly support the goals and objectives of CNC. But just to get back on track, hon. Chair, I would like the minister to give me some indication.... He suggests that there was a wide range of consultation in making the appointments. It is my understanding that there was none within the community of Vanderhoof. He can correct that if he can.
The other concern I have is that as of the board meeting last week, the individual appointed to the board from Burns Lake had not yet shown up at a board meeting. That goes to show that whatever the selection process is, it certainly isn't picking the right individuals and the committed type of individual we had, like Mr. McLeod.
Hon. T. Perry: There are over 200 college board members in the province, so it is very difficult to remember all of these issues by memory. I am referring to a brief press release here to refresh my memory, but it is difficult to do it just from a press release. Ms. Glenda Olson, the manager of the Vanderhoof Chamber of Commerce, is one of the new appointees to the board of CNC. I think it would be unfair to her not to point out that the manager of a chamber in commerce in a town occupies a position of some prominence in connection with the local business community.
The overall philosophy in our appointments to boards this year was to balance a number of factors and, where possible, to achieve equal representation for women on each board and system-wide, which we have done. We also wanted to achieve proportional representation, particularly for aboriginal people in areas where there are large numbers of aboriginal students. It is sometimes disproportionate, but there are more aboriginal people on the boards to ensure that the interests of those students are very well represented. Other ethnic minorities have not traditionally been well represented on boards.
We also sought representation of people with disabilities, specifically because they frequently approach issues in a different way. For example, at a meeting two weeks ago of the Advanced Education Council of British Columbia -- representing board members, CEOs and administrators of the colleges and institutes -- there were four Seeing Eye dogs in the room with four visually impaired people. One was on the board of University College of the Fraser Valley, one was from Douglas, another was from CNC, and there was one other I am blanking out on right now. These people have brought a very different perspective to the boards, and I have heard nothing but compliments on the contributions they have made. It was a very deliberate government policy to ensure that the boards are much more broadly reflective of the diversity of our society. I am very proud that we have been able to do that.
It takes a hell of a lot of work to find those people. In maintaining the expense of the minister's office in the range of $340,000, we don't have the resources to hire lots of new people to run extensive consultations. We rely on MLAs not to have to be corralled into sending in nominations, but to respond to the invitation given publicly to all MLAs last year. Their nominations are always welcome and will be considered seriously.
One of the member's colleagues, from Okanagan West, submitted the name of a superb candidate who was appointed to the board of Okanagan University College this year, for example. A number of MLAs are very good nominators and send in a constant stream of names. A number of others have yet to submit any suggestions to me for any of the positions I have to fill.
[ Page 8123 ]
We were attempting to be polite to board members and respond to a suggestion we had last year from the Advanced Education Council. Rather than send a couriered letter, which sometimes arrives after the fact despite our best efforts.... Given that an order-in-council is typically passed by cabinet on a Wednesday, signed by the Lieutenant-Governor on a Thursday or Friday morning, and must be released to the press at noon Friday, that gives us a maximum of 36 hours -- usually less -- within which to get courier notice to people, in conformance with the law and protocol. We were advised it would be better to attempt to telephone people. If the telephone call by Barbara Clague, the one person available to do that work, happened to come at a very inopportune and embarrassing moment for an individual, I certainly apologize. But it was not deliberate.
L. Fox: I find myself a bit perplexed. At one moment the minister suggests that a wide range of consultation took place in the selection of candidates for appointments, such as to the CNC board, and the next time he stands up he suggests they didn't have the finances with which to do this wide-ranging consultation process. So I'm not sure what really took place. All I know is that the community of Vanderhoof -- who almost unanimously supported the previous appointee and I'm sure will support this one -- was not consulted at all in the selection process.
I could only suggest as well that, given how you're wanting to balance the boards, the difficult choices you have to make could be a lot easier if you did in fact contact the communities from which you're attempting to make an appointment. Who better to know those people that fit the criteria you're trying to fill than the community leaders, school boards and so on? I'm quite disappointed the minister wouldn't have seen that as a good avenue of approach. Notwithstanding, I'll leave that. I think I've addressed that sufficiently.
[3:30]
I am aware that this October the interim governing council of UNBC is going to be replaced. I guess I approached the CNC issue because I have a whole lot of concern about the process to be used to replace the interim governing council of UNBC. If we see a selection process similar to what we had with the CNC board, then I think the community is going to be extremely disappointed. Perhaps the minister might identify for me what he sees the new board as in terms of numbers, and how he sees the process unfolding that will appoint the new UNBC board.
Hon. T. Perry: Let me just clarify -- hopefully once and for all, for the record -- that we do have limited resources in our office. There are only 24 hours in the day and a limited number of staff to process incoming mail. However, we attempt to look fairly at any nominations we receive -- particularly when they're accompanied by a brief r�sum� or curriculum vitae, a brief description of why this individual would be a good member of a community college board, and how that individual would be likely to address issues of accountability, as referred to by the member for Abbotsford. I keep my ears open all the time. When I meet the boards I'm constantly looking to see who are energetic members and whether or not they share my political philosophy or agree with me on a particular point. The factors which have impressed me the most are whether a board member is active, knows the institution well and represents the diversity of interests in their community.
I think the record should show that, although we don't pretend to be perfect, this is the first complaint I've had from anyone about the quality or nature of appointments to the college boards in B.C. I would be very surprised if such complaints are widespread. My impression is that the appointments have been well received -- including by members appointed by the former government, many of whom remain in place and have been actively reappointed by this government.
As to how we will approach the future of the interim governing council at UNBC and its transition to a board under the traditions of the University Act.... It is correct that the interim governing council has recommended that a transition take place on October 3, 1993. It is premature to speculate on whether the government will accept that recommendation. Clearly there will have to be a transition. It was envisaged in the original UNBC act that the transition would occur in a timely fashion, but that would be a cabinet decision made at the discretion of the government. There are arguments for an early transition, and those have been made by a majority of the current IGC, and there are some arguments not to disband the group of individuals who have been working so far. I believe they've all been working very hard and very conscientiously. I don't always agree with them on all matters, and they don't always agree with their surrounding communities, particularly the community college boards, as the member will be aware. It would be premature for me to speculate, because, coincidentally, I have received notification only this morning that the board had decided on June 12 or 13 to recommend its own dissolution on October 3, and over the next month or two I will have to decide whether to accept that timetable or not.
What we will be looking for is a transition which reinforces the integrity of the institution and its ability to recruit very good people, to retain them and to function in the best tradition of an independent university. But we will also be looking for people who respect the vision that was enunciated by the northern interior university society and by the thousands of people all across the north who signed up and bought the memberships back in the 1980s for a somewhat different institution more closely rooted and related to its communities than the traditional university. I've made no bones about that. I said that recently in a meeting with the IGC in Dawson Creek. In that respect, my views as minister perhaps more closely parallel those of the community colleges than the traditional universities, and I think they reflect the findings of the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine, who led a task force in early 1992 throughout the north to try to find out how the communities viewed the emerging institution.
[ Page 8124 ]
There is some natural tension there between different visions. I think the tension is healthy. It's sometimes difficult both for UNBC and for me and for many other people in the north. But it's healthy and creative, and we are going to see an institution emerge from that which is not only different from but potentially a better model for the next century than our existing institutions.
L. Fox: The minister made reference to a recent visit to Dawson Creek. That's partly why I'm asking the question. On that visit, he also indicated that because of the difficulties between CNC and UNBC, perhaps one way of overcoming them would be to have some college board director sit on the UNBC board. That was a concern not only to me, but to academics in both facilities, because the apparent conflicts there are quite obvious. The last thing we need is to promote those. I was thinking of raising that particular issue around the laddering program. I believe it is in the process of being resolved through meetings today and onward into tomorrow. I think both groups are very optimistic that, in the best interests of both education facilities, they're going to overcome the issues that were on the table a month ago. Prior to seeing a new governance formed for UNBC which would include participation from the CNC board of directors, I hope the minister will have some dialogue with the community and the proponents of both facilities and understand the perceived conflicts they have identified. Rather than going into them at any length, I think it would be best for him to hear firsthand from those two facilities.
If I know that names that I, as the member for Prince George-Omineca, have put forward will be given fair consideration, I look forward to doing that. Earlier the minister gave the assurance that the number one priority for selection will not be that they are in tune politically with this government, and that he will look at what's in the best interest of UNBC, in light of the goals and directions set by the UNBC society, of which I was very fortunate to be one of those $50 members back in the late eighties.
The other issue that I wanted to get into.... In speaking to UNBC and one other university I found some concern that the minister has been talking to the respective university presidents and chairmen about their academic degrees. There is some concern that perhaps this government is looking at having more influence on what degrees these universities offer and what should be acceptable. I am wondering if the minister would like to do away with that concern by stating that that is not the intent of government, and it should be left up to the universities. Degrees should be monitored to see whether or not they are meeting the needs of society in British Columbia. The best people to make those decisions are the respective universities, not the government.
Hon. T. Perry: Those are very complex questions. The present University Act provides the minister with the authority to approve new degrees. The principle of the university's complete autonomy to decide exactly what degrees it will offer and how it will serve its students arose in the Middle Ages in institutions run by religious orders. As recently as the nineteenth century, to teach in a university in Europe one had to be a member of a religious order and even lecture in a religious habit. That tradition does not arise in a society in which the public pays for the institution. At the moment we have institutions with traditions that arose out of a system in which the institution was privately funded or paid for entirely by the student, and the state had neither a legitimate interest nor a concern about what was done. Back in the same times, occasionally the government was worried about universities alleging that the world was round instead of flat or that the earth revolved around the sun rather than the other way around. I realize that some members in this Legislature still haven't accepted that Galileo or Copernicus were on the right track.
The dilemma we face now is the one of accountability alluded to earlier by the member for Abbotsford. If we're to transfer large, large amounts of public funds, surely the government has some responsibility in coordinating the post-secondary system in British Columbia and ensuring that resources are being used efficiently. For example, we are not certain that we wish to simply turn over funds for redundant programs in one field at many institutions, when the students of the province might be well served at only one or a few. If the University of B.C. decides to establish a new law school on its own funds without any provincial input, that is its own business. If it wants us to fund it, I will say no, because we already have two good ones -- and possibly overcapacity. UBC has just begun to downsize its own. Similarly, we would not fund a new medical school, but if the university wished to fund it entirely on its own, perhaps we would allow it to do so.
One of the issues that arises continuously is whether the university is living up sufficiently faithfully to the vision of northerners across the entire northern tier of British Columbia in delivering programs that will meet the needs of the communities, such as the proposed applied technology degree in Kitimat and the proposed aircraft maintenance degree at Northern Lights College. Ultimately, the solution of those issues must be collegial between the university and the government. If you are asking if I will simply fork over the money without any ability to exercise responsibility that the resources are well utilized, the answer is no, I'm going to fulfil my responsibility to all the people of B.C.
L. Fox: I guess I see it somewhat differently than the minister. While I believe that the provincial government, and obviously this minister, have a responsibility to encourage universities and colleges to review their programs, and even to look at.... Given the limited number of students in law degrees, given the decrease in demand for those particular degrees, then the ministry might encourage those bodies to look at how they might approach that particular decrease. That is something that is certainly valid. But if the minister is suggesting, in examining the universities, that he and his ministry are going to get directly into the decision-making process that will determine the direction of a particular university or college, then I
[ Page 8125 ]
have a great degree of difficulty with that. He would then obviously be stepping into a role which is the responsibility of the individuals that he, with the government, appoints to examine and govern those particular determinations. Actually, the minister in his statements has confirmed what some of the universities are suggesting, and that is that there is going to be greater influence in the decision-making process by the provincial government. That is somewhat concerning to me.
[3:45]
I want to ask one more question before I have to leave, because I'm due in the other chamber. Where are we going with the University of Northern British Columbia with respect to the regional campuses, given the financial constraints that are on this particular phase of development? There is even uncertainty about being able to fund the dorm part of the UNBC complex. Many of the regions out there are asking where we are going. The minister mentioned it earlier himself. The original direction of the UNBC society was to have a non-centralized type of university structure, one which had a regional campus network. Has there been any further discussion as to how that is going to unfold? Is there going to be a kind of combined thrust between the college and UNBC in developing those regions? Who might get the funding, then? Is it going to be a college structure? Is it going to be a UNBC structure? I'm interested in hearing some of the dialogue that has been happening on these issues.
Hon. T. Perry: It's an ongoing, evolving situation. It's hard to answer very precisely. UNBC's total construction budget for the Prince George campus was something in the order of $137.8 million -- a very generous budget by anybody's standards.
We have worked closely with the board and the administration in attempting to ensure that they did not break our unblemished record in this ministry of projects coming in on budget on time. It has been difficult. The board had assured me repeatedly throughout my first year in office that there were no problems whatsoever, despite concerns I expressed on whether there might be problems. Two of the local MLAs, for Prince George North and Prince George-Mount Robson, had raised those concerns with me repeatedly.
Several months ago the board came back to me and said: "Oops, we goofed. We had not been fully informed by the project manager, and we have major problems, and we're going to be over budget." I took a very strict line with them: "You will not be over budget. Our ministry has an unblemished record, and we're not going to let you ruin it. You have enough money there to do the job, and we will help you do that." We sent in the expert consultants -- John Davies, vice-president of BCBC, and Norrie Paget, a very prominent civil engineer based in Richmond -- whom we had recommended to them earlier and whose services they had declined to utilize. At the end of the exercise they were impressed. We were able to help them out, and we are confident that they will now be able to bring the project in reasonably.
One of the consequences of their early overruns is that it's highly likely that they will have to fund the dormitories on the same self-financing basis as every other institution. We discussed this briefly with the leader of the Liberal Party last night. I pointed out that the previous minister, Bruce Strachan, had made an exception for UNBC that was particularly generous to UNBC, to fully fund the residences. Had they been able to live within their original budget, they would have been able to do that. But regrettably, it looks like they will now have to self-fund, but I'm sure they will do that well, just as every other institution has done.
To turn to the evolution of the campuses in the rest of northern B.C., given the financial state of the province, I think it is highly likely that expansion of UNBC into other communities will be in campuses or buildings shared with the community colleges and the schools, potentially in municipal libraries and in any capital facility that is available, many of which are underutilized now. Schools typically are open during the day for 186 days per year and not much of the rest of the year. Some schools in some communities are intensively utilized at other times; others are not. Libraries are often intensively utilized part of the day or part of the year, but not at other times. Colleges, depending on the institution, are often very highly utilized; in other cases, less so.
We will be striving to make the maximum use of all public capital for all purposes, and the ownership problem turns out to be a very minor factor when you have the will to collaborate. For example, at Maple Ridge, Douglas College and the Maple Ridge school board have recently opened a Thomas Haney Centre where each pays their own share. They've got a combined building which is somewhat separate and also shares facilities. It's working out well, and it has been a model for some other institutions.
The Chair has aspirations and dreams for a similar institution in his riding, and I think we will see many such developments. We may even see -- I certainly hope we will -- some UNBC courses being taught at the worksite in private industry. That's, after all, the model being proposed for Kitimat, where a proposed degree in applied technology might be taught in part by engineers or chemists at Alcan, Methanex or Eurocan, who in the future might be adjunct professors of the university and do some of their teaching right at the worksite. All these are exciting possibilities. In my view, the key is to develop a new culture of collaboration between the colleges and UNBC, where neither fears the other, each sees the other as a congruent resource, and the public benefits much more than it would if we tried to pursue the traditional, entirely separate paths.
G. Wilson: Now for something completely different. You know, Mr. Chair, given the afternoon, I think maybe a short period of calisthenics or something to get the blood moving would be in order. I see people finding it -- as stimulating as this discussion and debate is -- a little difficult to continue the concentration. I understand that in some Eastern cultures they actually do take time during the day, on a regular basis,
[ Page 8126 ]
to get up and get the blood moving through the body. There's this theory that if you get the blood to the brain you can think better. I don't know if we do that in Western society, but....
D. Jarvis: Mexicans siesta.
G. Wilson: My colleague for North Vancouver-Seymour tells me that the Mexicans take a siesta -- and that probably accounts for his tan.
Anyway, the point I'd like to make is that now we're coming back to the question of college institutions, I would like to break out of the description.... I'm going to see if we can't move this debate along a bit. If we could look at the amount of money put together in terms of advanced education under ministerial operations, and if the minister could break out for us that which is dedicated to capital construction, specifically with respect to the various community colleges.... I know there are a number of community colleges where capital construction programs are underway. I recognize there are some where capital construction, it would seem, is now into cost overruns. I wonder if the minister might list what they are and what kind of capital is involved -- excluding UNBC, because I think we've canvassed that pretty carefully.
Hon. T. Perry: The total capital budget allocation this fiscal year is $269.3 million. That is broken into major capital and minor capital, with $188.86 million for major and $80.37 million for minor capital.
[H. Geisbrecht in the chair.]
I have a list here of some of the project highlights. There are so many things going on that it's easier to answer specific questions. The major projects right now are the University of Victoria engineering laboratory building; the Okanagan University College expansion at Kelowna, which is still ongoing, and at Penticton; the Malaspina College expansion in Nanaimo; the Simon Fraser University student services building; Douglas College's new Coquitlam campus, for which we anticipate planning funds will be approved this year; the Capilano College student services and classroom buildings; BCIT campus upgrading -- one of those was just opened a couple of weeks ago, and the IBM building was the site of the Premier's summit last week; at North Island College, the new Campbell River campus, which has been slightly delayed pending the resolution of the Beaver Lodge lands dispute; and day care institutions at various facilities. There is a longer list than that, but if the member could be more precise in any particular, we would be happy to let him know.
G. Wilson: To be more precise, it is my understanding that there were some problems associated with North Island College at Campbell River, not only with the matter that was referred to by the minister but also in terms of siting and design, and that we are looking at some particular problems with cost overruns there. Could the minister either confirm or correct that?
Secondly, I understand that there are possible and fairly significant cost overruns with respect to the University of Victoria project. I don't know the extent to which that is supported by information the minister may have, but it would be useful for us to know whether or not he has a concern for any one of those projects coming in over budget.
Hon. T. Perry: No, I don't.
G. Wilson: Of the proportional amount of money that has been put into capital construction, what proportion of dollars that are committed has been allocated with respect to the government's fair wage policy?
Hon. T. Perry: The fair wage policy applies to projects exceeding $1.5 million. We're still relatively early in the fiscal year, so the total capital budget allocation I mentioned is the government's plan. Each project in excess of $1.5 million, which is defined as major capital, must be individually approved by the Treasury Board. So until that approval is given, this is the maximum spending amount which could or could not be realized. The normal intention is that it will, but that's up to the Treasury Board.
[4:00]
I don't know if we've got the breakdown right here of how much is in excess of $1.5 million. Those are the eight for which commitments have already been made. I can say that of the $188.86 million of major capital projects, each would be over $1.5 million, but none of the minor capital projects would be. As a simplification, the fair wage policy would apply to roughly $189 million of money within our budget, assuming the Treasury Board agrees that we should commit all of that this year. They've given their agreement in principle in the budget process, but they decide on each major project individually.
G. Wilson: In light of the fact that much of the design work and the tendering were done prior to the introduction of the fair wage policy, certainly at some of the institutions where there has been ongoing construction -- Capilano College being one for certain and the Simon Fraser student services facility is another -- has there been any adjustment made, then, with respect to the budgets to incorporate the fair wage policy? Or are budgets simply going to be tailored on construction projects to be able to meet that packet, given that the tenders were let prior to the policy being in place?
Hon. T. Perry: The fair wage policy was announced in the spring of 1992. Any tender let after that had to be for a project exceeding $1.5 million and in accordance with the fair wage policy. Tenders which had been let prior to that time were not affected. The formula that generates the estimate is based on the educational need. We do not address the estimate for the fair wage policy. We provide that amount of money from the total envelope of funds we are allotted by the Treasury Board, based on our estimate and negotiated
[ Page 8127 ]
with each institution on the basis of their educational needs and their priorities. They are then expected to tender under the constraints of the fair wage policy and to bring the project in on time and on or under budget.
Our record has been remarkably successful in this ministry, which is a tribute both to the institutions and to good management by Jim Parker's group in the facilities branch of the ministry -- we have not had cost overruns. Minor modifications have to be made occasionally, but institutions have managed to bring in projects under cost just as frequently. So we are not having any problems with that policy of which I am aware.
G. Wilson: The minister is saying that all of the roughly $189 million in major capital projects has been tendered with the fair wage as a proportional amount of that overall tender. Does the minister know, then, what proportion of the $189 million has been dedicated as a result of the fair wage policy? Is there any budgetary way for us to take out the increased cost incurred as a result of that policy?
Hon. T. Perry: Most of that $189 million has yet to be tendered, because -- I reiterate -- it is still very early in the fiscal year. That is the amount that could be spent or committed in this year.
We can try to get the list of projects that have been approved so far, and come back to it in the debate this afternoon. In general, for large projects in institutional construction, historically the market has been primarily trade unions. In general, the impact of the fair wage policy has been negligible, because the same company is doing the work. The underlying expectation was that costs would not be significantly affected, because the bidding would still be highly competitive, and we would get a higher quality of work and deal with some of the problems which have occasionally arisen from construction by less highly qualified firms.
D. Jarvis: To the minister: contrary to my associate's statement, I haven't been on holiday. This is the natural colouring of normal people in North Vancouver-Seymour, equivalent to those on the Sunshine Coast or perhaps even better. Is the Squamish extension of Capilano College included in those projects approved?
Hon. T. Perry: We had originally prepared for these estimates a couple of months ago, and I probably knew some of this stuff from memory at the time, but we're going to try to call down Jim Parker, our director of facilities. If it's possible, we might take some of the questions on notice and answer them later on in the debate. In that case, there have been some favourable discussions between the ministry and the college, but neither I nor Shell Harvey know the answer off the top of our head, so we'll try to get it for you. We may be able to get Mr. Parker or one of his colleagues down here within 15 minutes to half an hour.
D. Jarvis: I had a couple of quick questions about Capilano College. Actually, they are quite happy over there; they seem to be getting along very well.
One of my associates over here made a statement earlier pertaining to the fact that by the year 2000, 40 percent of the jobs will require four years or so of advanced education, and that will be made up mostly of new jobs, I assume. Capilano College is requesting an opportunity to give out new degrees. From your previous statement, you said you wouldn't want to see that for individual colleges. So is the overall curriculum of the province going to be changed to the point where we can give out new degrees, so that this country will be economically fit to cope with the changes coming? These are not the standard degrees, which you are probably aware of -- not the BAs and that. Could you comment on that?
Hon. T. Perry: I recently exchanged correspondence with Mr. Crockart, the chair of the Capilano College board, on that matter. It's an interesting question. There are two contradictory values that we must consider when deciding that. One is that those institutions -- for example, Capilano -- are offering very high-quality education and training. They almost certainly could offer a high-quality degree in a cost-effective way. There are many good people within the system advocating that. For example, one of the senior people at Malaspina College recently encouraged me: "Why don't you just let Capilano loose to do it? You'd get a very cost-effective degree out of them, and an innovative approach to education." I find the argument very appealing. I know the high quality of the educational offerings and the very high esteem in which the college is held not only on the North Shore and in the Sunshine Coast-Squamish area, but by people throughout the lower mainland who go to Capilano College.
At the same time, there is some pressure from all fields for what I would call "credentialism" -- an inexorable pressure to upgrade qualifications almost for the sake of doing so. With limited resources to fund post-secondary education, we have to intelligently ask if it is essential to extend a program. Is it always in the public interest, or could a two-year certificate be just as good a training? And what price will we pay if we agree to convert more and more programs from two-year certificates to four-year degrees? Does that mean that somebody else may not be able to receive any post-secondary training or education? Somewhere there is a balance, and I believe that part of the balance is in cost control. Another part is in tailoring any new degrees very precisely to the needs of the economy.
In that respect I don't apologize for the answer I gave to the member for Prince George-Omineca that it's appropriate for the government to ask hard questions and not simply acquiesce to the desires of each institution, and also that we should ensure the maximum lateral movement from one institution to another, from alternative forms of training, such as apprenticeship, into a degree. An institution like Capilano might in theory come to the ministry and say: "We will take students from apprenticeship training,
[ Page 8128 ]
round them out with a year or two and offer them a degree that will be well recognized and offer an extremely valuable combination of both theoretical education and practical training." That may be the first one out of the original club of four university colleges. So I think it's an open question and a very exciting possibility.
I can certainly commit to approaching it with a totally open mind. To the extent that members of the Legislature raise these issues with their own constituents and help to encourage the public to think that in the future a Capilano degree may be as valuable -- or more valuable -- as an SFU or UBC degree and perhaps a better alternative for students in this member's riding than making the trek across the Lions Gate Bridge to UBC, that will help. There is so much pressure right now for students to get into the universities that some counterpressure toward expanding the diversity of the system and alternative offerings is very helpful.
D. Jarvis: Two comments. First, last year I think Capilano College turned away 2,000; they'll be turning away another 2,000 this year. Probably within five years there won't be a Lions Gate Bridge there, so they won't be able to go over it.
Should money really actually enter into it? I know money enters into everything, but should that be the criterion for this new information and technological world that's appearing before us?
Hon. T. Perry: Money enters into it insofar as if we face a large number of students being turned away, we could serve more of them if we allowed them into a two-year course of training than if we allowed the existing students to carry on from two years up to four for a degree. Somewhere there is a balance between improving access for more people and reaching at least 40 percent of the people who will likely require post-secondary education or training, or both, and offering longer credentials. Money is an inescapable factor, because we haven't got enough of it. In contrast perhaps to members of the Liberal Party, the government is very concerned about the taxation burden on the public and does not wish to govern irresponsibly by simply foisting the debts onto future generations.
G. Wilson: In the interest of moving these estimates along, I'm not going to respond to that obvious challenge. I understand you have somebody coming from the facilities branch, so we'll move off facilities for now and talk about some other issues.
Specifically on the funding of FTEs at various colleges, it would appear that Kwantlen College are way behind on a per capita basis, compared with the other colleges, and I don't know if the minister would concur with that. They seem reasonably happy now, because they have received funding for 850 of the 1,094 FTEs they asked for, and they got an additional 250 at the Richmond campus. But they are being told now that, of the 7,500 total FTEs, they can expect only 150 additional in the following year. I don't want to get back into the frailties of the FTE and the whole formula funding system. But can the minister tell us why Kwantlen College seems on a per capita basis to be so far behind the rest of the system? And what, if anything, is being done to try to rectify that problem?
[4:15]
Hon. T. Perry: Two things. First, this year the largest single growth by far in the post-secondary system will go to Kwantlen College. It will receive something in the order of 40 percent of all of the new growth this year, partly because we're opening the new campus at Langley and partly because we're expanding to fill underutilized capacity at Richmond campus, which just opened nine months ago. I'm not sure what figure the member was referring to. I heard 7,500, but I have no idea where that figure comes from for next year.
The second general thrust of our response is long-term planning for Kwantlen College. We're looking at expansion of its campuses and further use of the underutilized capacity that will remain at Langley. The Fraser Valley COPSE -- Committee on Post-Secondary Education -- is devising a plan for integrated training in post-secondary education up to the university level in the Fraser Valley. We see a need for a major expansion of capacity in the middle-term future, starting, say, five years or so from now -- before the turn of the century. A lot of planning thought is going into how to do that in the most cost-effective way and how to serve people as close as possible to home, to maximize the use of new electronic technology and to minimize the environmental impact on the Fraser Valley. Specifically, we are seeking to avoid the problem we created at UBC and SFU of a central institution to which everyone streams in the morning from all over the lower mainland, leaving again in the evening, all of which exacerbates environmental problems. So we have in mind both short-term and longer-term solutions.
G. Wilson: Mr. Chairman, just to correct the official record, the number for '94-95 was 7,650, and that was given to me by the institution itself. I guess that's a projection they're making of the total number of FTEs allocated, and it includes an additional 150 FTEs over and above what exists today.
I recognize that every college would like to be prioritized in a manner that would give them the advantage, although it is an interesting trend that some colleges are saying: "Look, don't give us the additional FTE dollars if you have expectations or demands that we're going to have to fulfil. What we're trying to do now is go into program specialization, and we'd like to specialize and do some programs very well, and start to remove duplication from others."
Given that transportation and communication between a number of centres is reasonably easy now in the lower mainland, what thought, if any, is the minister giving to providing funding priority for certain kinds of programs at various institutions so that we minimize duplication? For example, Capilano College is well known for excellence in a number of programs. I use that as an example only because it is the one that I am the most familiar with, but I know that the academic
[ Page 8129 ]
transfer is generally considered extremely high in quality. I also understand that they have an excellent music program, which is generally considered one of the best in Canada -- certainly in British Columbia. What thought is being given now to building on the strengths where they are, and essentially, to minimizing duplication of service so that we have the students going to the various colleges in an effective way? I say that not necessarily as an advocate of that model, but because it seems to be a trend shifting that way.
Hon. T. Perry: We have been actively promoting that. I note that it requires slightly more intervention -- although not in the least in a nefarious way -- challenging each institution about where they fit within a provincial system, rather than as an island unto themselves. I agree with the hon. member that it is healthy to have some specialization -- not so much in basic areas like arts or science or adult basic education or ESL, but in highly specialized programs like music. Some of that will tend to fall out anyway, given constrained resources, but we are actively encouraging the system to rationalize. The ministry recently put out a discussion document on the possibility that a committee external to the ministry might vet proposals for new degree programs, for example, and advise the minister, rather than us simply relying on our in-house intelligence-gathering system. The hon. member is aware of the symposium I sponsored at Dunsmuir Lodge last June -- which I believe the member for West Vancouver-Capilano attended -- attempting to begin some cross-sectoral dialogue on enhancing diversity within the system and on enhancing the concept of the post-secondary education system as such.
G. Wilson: We are starting to see an emphasis now on the Open Learning Agency and greater flexibility in the delivery of service to people through increased communication and technology. The idea that we want to try and minimize duplication has been an issue that has been debated at length within CIEA and among the presidents of the colleges. This is not new; we have been monitoring and guiding it for some time. But the process of collective bargaining and the way that contracts are built within the system.... As you know, CIEA is a provincewide organization, but it does not have anywhere close to provincewide bargaining provisions. Each contract is individual in its nature, and there are extremely different approaches toward the whole collective bargaining process from institution to institution.
As a result of that, I would imagine that the minister is going to find some resistance to any removal of duplication or specialization in colleges unless there is some recognition given to portability of instruction. If that is true, there is, of course, the seniority problem, and if there is a seniority problem, you get into the specialization problem. We can get into some lengthy discussions on that if you are interested. But specifically my question is: in looking at the direction that we are headed, and recognizing the likely constraints with respect to the collective bargaining process -- recognizing the difficulty that we had last year coming to successful conclusions -- is the minister providing some kind of guidelines? Or is some discussion underway now? Is some communication happening on this with respect to faculty organizations? If the answer to that is yes, then maybe the minister could tell us what they are.
If the answer is no -- and I suspect that is probably closer to the mark, but I shouldn't prejudge what the minister is going to say -- what would be the minister's thoughts on looking at a provincewide forum, or mini-convention, on post-secondary education? That would look at those two issues specifically: the issues of portability or transferability within the system among the collective bargaining agents; and the development of a program strategy for the province that would not only incorporate the idea of removable duplication, but also -- and much more importantly -- start to look at the Open Learning Agency as a mechanism whereby we can start to get a lot of that material out to the outlying areas that currently are not being served. Is there any thought toward that?
Hon. T. Perry: There's a lot of thought, yes. We've had a lot of discussion with CIEA and the Advanced Education Council of B.C. I think the initial resistance of the kind the member described is beginning to break down, as people realize there's less inherent security for anybody in a rapidly changing economy and it becomes increasingly hard to take anything for granted in the future. At the moment we're really waiting for the Korbin commission report on the broad public sector, and for the government to decide what actions it will take in response to Ms. Korbin's report.
There have been some hopeful signs recently. I've had some preliminary approaches, for example, from CIEA -- the College-Institute Educators' Association -- who were impressed by the tentative social contract negotiated in the health sector. We have made some gestures, which have been widely appreciated as well intentioned but difficult to implement within the existing collective agreements. I think we're going to find our way through. It's a pretty difficult challenge in such a complex system.
G. Wilson: I'm interested that the minister would link the Korbin commission report to my comments. Given that the community colleges, universities and technical institutes are funded almost exclusively by government, would the minister say that he would consider them agencies of government, as a part of the definition?
Hon. T. Perry: That's the problem. They're not directly agencies of government, but we're on the hook for virtually all of their funds. That's exactly the problem that led to the appointment of Judi Korbin as commissioner: there is no philosophical -- let alone economic -- coherence among the institutions in the broad public sector, be they hospitals, schools, colleges, universities or Crown corporations.
The dilemma is to find a way to bring some coherence, but respect the advantages of local autonomy and collective bargaining. The government is
[ Page 8130 ]
still wrestling with that as we speak, and it's one of the most complex challenges we face. I feel much more sanguine about the outcome now than I did a year ago. More people are waking up to the fact that the economy imposes limits on what we can afford; that the federal government is ditching its responsibilities for post-secondary education, off-loading costs onto the provinces; that we are likely to face a rather tightly constrained fiscal situation in the foreseeable future; and that everybody is going to have pitch in to find solutions. There was less awareness of that last fall than there is now, so I am cautiously optimistic -- or at least more so than I was last year -- that sanity will prevail and the public interest will be well served.
G. Wilson: I would like to try and get the minister's clarification on this. The colleges aren't agencies, then, although they are funded. Given that we are awaiting some definitive commentary from the Korbin commission, surely the college boards, given that they are appointed by government, would be and should be subject to whatever recommendations come down and to the same kind of hiring principles as are being espoused in the report that we received today, for example. Would the minister agree with that?
[4:30]
Hon. T. Perry: Yes.
G. Wilson: If the college boards are going to be subject to the same kind of hiring recommendations, can we expect to see some significant shift in the appointments on the boards to meet the standards that are being recommended in the Korbin report?
Hon. T. Perry: No. I think we have very good boards. Their problem is that they operate in a fiscal policy vacuum that we have inherited from the past, each board trying to resolve problems completely independently of the other or of the other broad public sector organizations -- hospitals, schools and Crown corporations. The challenge is to define a sane fiscal policy framework that is seen to be fair and brings the system into better equilibrium than it has been for the last 30 years.
G. Wilson: I'm not sure quite what the minister means. Maybe you could explain. How is this likely to bring it into a better equilibrium? I'm not certain that I understand what the minister is getting at here.
Hon. T. Perry: Patience. The universe is unfolding as it should, I believe, and in due course, the government will make its decisions on how to respond to the Korbin commission report -- once we have formally received it.
G. Wilson: I see. Let's move on to a second set of questions that come from that, concerning the student populations that are coming out of these community colleges and transferring into universities. There seems to be -- and I alluded to this yesterday -- considerable resistance within the universities to the entry of community college transfer students into third year. I understand that part of the problem is that the resistance is there because each university is trying to protect its first- and second-year programs, and obviously needs to have the number of seats available that will allow students who are currently enrolled in first and second year to move up to third and fourth year. What kind of protection does the minister envisage there is likely to be for students who are involved in university transfer, coming out of the colleges? As we have witnessed, there certainly has been some resistance demonstrated by the University of British Columbia, for one, and I understand by SFU too.
Hon. T. Perry: There is ongoing tension over this issue, but I believe the universities have tried to respond fairly. We have maintained a clear expectation that the prospective third-year student, be she or he from a community college or a university, ought to be treated equally. Ideally, they would all get to go on if they wanted to, but capacity problems make it difficult for everyone to do that. Both our Council on Admissions and Transfer, and a recent enrolment management committee of the universities and colleges have been working on that problem. I think it's a lot better than it was. It's probably not perfect. The universities have a natural empathy for the students enrolled since first year. Yet we continue to remind them that it would be unfair to discriminate against college transfer students. So I think we've got a better system than any other province; but I agree, it's not that perfect.
G. Wilson: By what criteria does the minister feel that enrolment should be measured? Should it be on a straight merit basis by looking at the grades, taking the top percentage of students and saying that those students will enter? Or should there be some kind of secondary set of criteria that might be provided for students who are attempting to enter? They may, for want of one particular example, have been accessing post-secondary education through various specialized programs within colleges in an aboriginal community in the interior and are now coming down to the coast. They may be transferring from programs developed on a specialized basis at the community colleges into mainline programs for which ordinary transfer is more difficult because they're not in the stream, if you know what I mean. What's the minister's feeling on that? Should it be done on a straight GPA, by looking at the GPA and saying, "You're in," and the first number of applicants get in this number of seats, and the balance get tossed out? Or should there be some other system and, if so, what should that be?
Hon. T. Perry: It takes me back to the nightmarish experience of being a medical student representative on a medical admissions committee at McGill University, thinking, as previous members of that committee had thought, that we could make rational choices from a large number of applicants. By the end of three years, most of us were reduced to the feeling that you might as well do a lottery among highly qualified applicants.
[ Page 8131 ]
I think it's a legitimate question. We have traditionally delegated that authority totally to the institutions themselves, and the boards oversee admission policies. If I thought there was a better way to do it, I might be inclined to do so. But I don't know of any better way. In some cases, the individual institutions have moved to reserve some spaces -- given increased demand -- for people with high grade point averages. In general, as all members know, the colleges remain much more accessible than the universities, and that's probably reasonable. Universities are tightening up; that's not all bad. It's bad if you don't get in, but from the taxpayer's point of view it may mean that the people who get in have a higher probability of success. As far as I'm concerned as minister, the key is to offer a reasonable opportunity in post-secondary training or education to the widest and the largest possible number of British Columbians. That involves expanding into other areas such as apprenticeship, non-formal learning, cooperative programs, non-traditional apprenticeship training in the workplace, recognizing credentials of people who have learned informally or at work and competency-based assessment of the kind posed by the Open Learning Agency or the human resource development project report. This is so that we can implement some of the ideas expressed at the Premier's summit last week, and serve more people than we can possibly ever serve within the existing public system.
G. Wilson: So then I guess the answer is that the GPA is the best system we have. It's not necessarily one that accommodates all of our concerns, but that's the way we should go. I think that's what I was hearing from the minister just now. Is that fair?
Hon. T. Perry: No, that's an oversimplification. I can sympathize with institutions or boards who choose that when having to select a limited number from a large number of applicants. For certain programs it may be a rational one; for other programs it may not. It may not select people who would be equally good or better.
I don't think the provincial government is in a position to dictate a better alternative to the institutions. I'm not sure this is the best time, but throughout the year I welcome any suggestions on what we might offer. I welcome the question because while it is very easy for institutions to apply that solution, it may not be fair to people.
Among other things, it will not serve many aboriginal students well. One of the upshots of that, however, is that more will go to the aboriginal post-secondary institutions. Some of them are being served extremely well there, be it NVIT, Toti:lthet Centre or Chemainus Native College. They may break into the college or university system through that alternative route, which is much more culturally sensitive and where their probability of success may be a lot higher. This is probably not ideal; perhaps it is the best solution for the time being.
G. Wilson: That takes me to two other areas that I want to explore briefly. Can we then come back and get some capital construction cost figures? In any event, perhaps that can be... The minister has been very generous in saying that some of that information can be provided if requested in writing; maybe I can follow that up. There's a fairly substantial section of questions with which I'd like to deal; if that can be provided, that would be good.
I want to come back to this question of cultural sensitivity. There are two schools of thought with respect to how we should be proceeding in post-secondary education. The minister talks about aboriginal post-secondary institutions. Canada is very much a multicultural mosaic of peoples. There are many people entering university whose first language is not English -- or English is their second language. As a result, there is a myriad of difficulties that face people from various ethnic backgrounds who have immigrated into this country.
The minister suggests that the straight GPA doesn't favour one particular group over another. I have some difficulty with that, because if one believes that we should be seeking equality within a system, we want to make sure that we don't entrench and institutionalize a system that builds in inherent inequalities.
I'm choosing my words very carefully as I advance this particular issue. Last year an aboriginal chief indicated that he was a little concerned because there was a program being set up exclusively for aboriginal people that was educating young women and men in the fundamentals of electricity and plumbing. He asked a very simple question. He said: "What is different in an electrical training program for an aboriginal person as opposed to one for a non-aboriginal person? If a person is to become a journeyperson plumber, what difference does it make if they are aboriginal or non-aboriginal?" Yet these programs were being set up in correlation and cooperation with the various aboriginal groups. It's an important question because it begs a bigger issue which is much more fundamental and philosophical but really important if we are to look at a future society and the mosaic that that future society is going to represent. I'm very curious to know what the minister's idea is with respect to how this institution should be dealing with those kinds of issues.
Hon. T. Perry: My philosophical position is much closer to that of the hon. member's than he has portrayed it. I'm not sure that we disagree. I was trying to say that it would be very cumbersome for the ministry to attempt to tell the institutions what criteria they shall apply to admissions. I don't think there's an appetite for that -- certainly not in the institutions. I'm not sure that there is in the public. If so, I've never heard anyone request it. But I agree with the member that basing all admissions strictly on grade point average alone tends to select a relatively homogeneous population of students who obviously are not fully representative of society at large. I don't think anybody in B.C. wants either the universities or the colleges to be homogeneous. They want the student population to be as diverse as the whole province.
[4:45]
As far as tailoring programs to a particular cultural group like aboriginal people is concerned, there are as
[ Page 8132 ]
many different schools of thought on this issue as there are aboriginal bands or nations in B.C. Some of the first nations have concluded that their students will be better off in the main public sector system. Others -- such as those who are promoting Secwepemc in Kamloops affiliated with SFU, NVIT in Merritt affiliated with Cariboo College or Chemainus Native College up the road here, which is affiliated with Malaspina -- have come to the conclusion that for many aboriginal people, the cultural environment of the existing public sector institutions is fundamentally so hostile that it almost guarantees failure for the students. It's not deliberately so; it's just built into the culture. For example, a law student who made her way through the University of Victoria subsequently, while articling in Toronto, committed suicide. She did so not out of personal inadequacy, but because the prevailing culture was profoundly hostile to the values she brought as an aboriginal woman.
The conclusion of some of those groups has been to establish separate institutions that can serve our students better. I've come to learn in the last year a tremendous respect for those institutions. When one goes into them, one generally sees very efficient use of capital resources -- often much more so than we see in the public sector institutions -- highly committed instructors and very serious students, many of whom have been beaten down in the system in the past and were literally victims of abuse or of a very poor standard of public school education. One even sees a grandmother coming to improve her reading so that she can be a stimulus to her grandchildren and encourage them to aspire to something more than her children were able to achieve.
I believe we need the maximum diversity. Therefore I've tried to bend over backwards to support some of those institutions, typically in collaboration with a public sector institution where we can assure accountability and channel funding within the legal framework of the College and Institute Act.
J. Tyabji: I'm going to be basically filling in and pinch-hitting -- perhaps the Social Credit critic can get in -- because of the activities in the other House. We're in an extremely unfortunate situation, in that there is debate on a very important bill in the other House which the Liberal critic has to participate in. But there are some questions I would like to canvass in the ministry in terms of structure. If it turns out that these have been canvassed already, the minister can let me know, and I'll move on to something else.
As the Environment critic, I see a lot of overlap right now between Science and Technology and the Ministry of Environment. We know, for example, that the Ministry of Environment has been working with groups like Ballard Power Systems. We know that we've got a lot of new technology for closing the loop in terms of waste management. There's a lot of research and development in British Columbia in underwater reclamation and exploration. There are all kinds of initiatives like that, where you have overlapping jurisdictions between Environment, Lands and Parks and the science and technology aspect of this ministry. Is this ministry in any kind of active program to share jurisdictions with the other ministry?
Hon. T. Perry: Yes. Thank you for the question. If you will just excuse me, I will attempt to very quickly answer the question raised by your colleague the member for North Vancouver-Seymour. We managed to get the answer. Squamish is a go for 1993-94, through minor capital, and the college apparently hopes to turn sod in the fall. Also, just for the record -- it's regrettable that the Liberal leader had to leave -- so far this year, two major projects have been approved, and this is an answer to an earlier question: the SFU student services building at $23.5 million and the UVic engineering laboratory building at $25 million.
In respect to the question on scientific collaboration between ministries, Environment is not the only one that is doing interesting things in science and technology, and cosponsoring or cofunding some projects. Forests, Economic Development, Health, plus Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources at least, and some Crown corporations, have some investments. We have been asked by Treasury Board, acting in part on recommendations from the Richardson review recommendations we have received in preliminary form during conversations with Dr. Richardson, to undertake a pan-government review of science and technology spending in preparation for next year's budget estimates. We have also been asked to try to rationalize the administration of some of those programs, so as to ensure that we get maximum value for the taxpayer out of our expenditures and maximum coordination of expenditures. I agree with the intent of the question -- it's useful to have as much coordination as possible.
J. Tyabji: Am I to understand that the objective of the government review is to streamline costs? That's one thing, and the minister is saying no. Perhaps you could share what the objective of the review is. The question is not so much on the point of streamlining, which is important, but on coordination and assistance. To what extent is the ministry directing some of the research in science and technology into environmental fields in conjunction with, for example, some of the needs that might be expressed through the other ministry?
Hon. T. Perry: Again, it is a very welcome question. I asked the same question when I took over as minister. Given not only the global importance of environmental issues but also the opportunities for British Columbia in environmental cleanup and assessment-related science and technology as export industries, I was concerned that we ensure we were giving a fair shake to that sector. In appointments to both the Premier's Advisory Council on Science and Technology and the Science Council, I took pains to appoint some scientists who represent the environmental sector and some who are staunch environmentalists. One such is Dr. Gail Bellward of UBC, who is a Canadian authority on the toxicity of dioxins and is now on the Science Council. Dr. Judy
[ Page 8133 ]
Myers, associate dean of science with the responsibility of promoting women in science at UBC, is a very prominent insect ecologist who is also on the Science Council; she was appointed last year. There are a number of others, but those two spring to mind. In the external independent review led by Dr. Richardson, I also asked for a review of whether we were giving appropriate attention to environmental science issues, and one of the panellists was specifically selected to cover that sector, Dr. Bill Fyfe, the former dean of science at the University of Western Ontario, is a geologist who in the latter stage of his career has become very involved in global climate change issues.
I am satisfied from that review that we are doing reasonably well. The Science Council, through its Technology B.C. grants, tends to support a substantial amount of environmental research. A number of our other programs, be it support for the Ballard fuel cell bus or the generating station, support for B.C. research through the technology assistance program or support for the Advanced Systems Institute, which is sponsoring an engineer at UVic who develops desalination equipment.... There are a lot of programs across our science and technology fund that are consistent with those goals.
J. Tyabji: The minister said that we are doing fairly well in that field. What is the objective of the environmental research? Is it, for example, to assist government in waste management priorities? Is it to assist industry in environmental practices, which, of course, are becoming quite important? Or is it primarily pure research that might have a spinoff? What is being given out as the ministry's mandate, and to what extent is the ministry funding environmental research? Are there dollar figures involved?
Hon. T. Perry: We don't support a lot of pure research through our science and technology fund. That was not the original purpose of the fund. We tend to support research which is expected to have industrial spinoff benefits for the economy. When I became minister I made it very clear that the only area where I would not be keen on such industrial benefits was support for offensive military research. I am satisfied that, to the best of my knowledge, there is no such spending in B.C. by government.
The Ministry of Environment contracts for research for very practical applications, like advances in waste management. Through the Science Council, or similar programs through Technology B.C., we often support technologies which may improve waste management. An example which comes to mind is a Science Council grant to London Drugs for an improved photofinishing system in which the chemicals are recycled. It is environmentally sound on its own, it may be helpful to the economy of B.C. in leading to employment, and it is interesting technology. I think that the answer in general is: all of the above. But that is not quite our focus.
J. Tyabji: The minister mentioned that contracts for research are sometimes taken out by Environment, Lands and Parks with the ministry. Could he...?
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: Okay. So Environment, Lands and Parks drives that and there isn't any objective in this ministry to do environmental research that can then be fed back into Environment, Lands and Parks -- is that correct? I am trying to get at whether this ministry sets an objective of environmental research for the purpose of then either giving it to government or to industry, or anything like that. Or is the research and development part of this ministry simply an assistance mechanism for other people or other ministries to develop their own mandates?
Hon. T. Perry: All of the above, hon. Chair.
G. Wilson: Since we are into science and technology and I wanted to move us there anyway, I do have one other question. It has to do with the number of dollars that are actually being put into funded research in the institutions. We have some serious difficulty on the opposition benches when we look at what we believe is the most unfortunate reduction in funding that has happened to science and technology. Before the minister leaps up to say that the Liberals want to spend more of the taxpayers' money, let me qualify what I am saying. When you look at vote 13 -- and I would like the minister to comment on this -- and see the total expenditure for '92-93 versus the voted expenditure for '93-94, you are looking at a fairly significant reduction. If we look at the program management side of it, we see that that has remained reasonably constant, whereas the amount of money that has gone into science and technology programs has been substantially diminished. I don't know if it is this government's lack of attention to or lack of support for -- or whatever.... I don't quite know how things work on that side with respect to setting priorities around the importance of science and technology, and the funding of people who are involved in scientific research in the province. It seems that if it isn't at the bottom of the list, it's close to there when it comes to priorities. I wonder if the minister might want to comment on that, because it's something that we want to go at with some vigour.
[5:00]
Hon. T. Perry: The support for science and technology and their future role not only in our economy but in the improvement of our society and our ability to survive on a planet of limited resources is something which I and the Premier personally believe in, and the whole government believes in it very strongly. We were faced this year with some very painful expenditure reductions because of the very tight financial situation of the province. When asked to take a fair share of restraint on expenditure growth, we offered a zero percent inflationary increase in spending in the post-secondary sector, but we offered a 3 percent growth in the number of spaces for students. In order to
[ Page 8134 ]
do our share in bringing the budget deficit to a limit of $1.55 billion, set by the Finance minister, we had to make some painful cuts. But we are doing our best to ensure that the end product in output for the people of B.C. in research and technology transfer and in development will be at least as high as we reached last year -- or at any rate, the best output we can possibly get. I will remain firmly committed to that, and I know that our partners in science and technology feel very strongly the same way.
G. Wilson: The difficulty is that while we remain committed and in principle we think it's a great idea, and so on and so forth, we know that funding of sciences and the ongoing research that's necessary if we are to stay at the leading edge of scientific research is an expensive proposition. We also know that we do not always get an immediate return for the dollar invested; in fact, it's often a difficult thing to explain to the taxpayer why we're doing certain kinds of experimental work if there's no obvious and tangible result that we can then take out and say: "See, here we have a product now that you can buy and put on your shelf to collect dust, or whatever it is you do with it." As a result, much of the work that goes on is academic in its approach, because it's looking at a much broader and more comprehensive vision of where we're going in the scientific community than a lot of laypeople might understand. It isn't enough to simply pay lip service to it and to say: "Look, we've got some tough decisions to make." So, guess what? The Science Council of B.C. is going to be cut by $4 million, which it was this year, and doing that creates, in effect, some very significant problems for people who have been dependent on the Science Council in the province.
It would seem to me that we have to build into an economic blueprint for the province an economic strategy that looks at the advancement of post-secondary educational institutions and an advocacy position for the sciences. We have to start to say: "Look, we're going to move toward prioritizing this funding, because we believe it to be in the best interests of dealing with some of the issues around the large social questions that we're going to have to deal with." If I could come back to the minister on this, and if I take a little while in getting to my question, please forgive me, but it's something I feel very strongly about.
The minister was talking yesterday evening about the need to teach sustainability in our communities, and that it needs to be in every segment of our courses and so forth. Surely we should be doing something rather than dealing with this rather nebulous concept of sustainability. To me, that was born out of the Brundtland commission report, which really created nothing more than this kind of placebo upon which people could feed, thinking that somehow this report had given us the way to some salvation -- which it didn't and clearly hasn't. I think it will be proven that at the end of the decade we will be worse off as a result of thinking we've discovered the way, when in fact we were as lost in the fog as we've always been.
Instead of doing that, we ought to be looking at some very tangible kinds of solutions to some of the social questions we face, one of which is waste management. I think the member for Okanagan East was just talking about it. Some very real alternatives to the way we're dealing with that question are at our fingertips.
Another one is with respect to provision of research grants for leachate. In the next three or four weeks there will be an announcement in the province that will demonstrate that leachate question. The Windy Craggy mine could have -- and in fact has -- been researched and developed with a technology that is relatively sound and safe, and that could have eliminated the leachate problem in that particular mine and allowed that mine to proceed. This is made-in-British-Columbia technology we could be selling and marketing all over the world. But instead, we've taken a decision that not only are we going to cut down on the research grants to these agencies, but we're not even going to give them the benefit of the doubt about making the economic decisions that are necessary in terms of fuelling the economy that allows us the opportunity to have those go into force and actually be actively working in B.C.
My question isn't so much why you didn't put an extra few million into this, although that's what sparked my question. My question is: what is the government doing to shift its priorities, to start to once again put British Columbia -- and those involved in the sciences and technologies and development of new technologies in the province -- on the leading edge? I and many people on my side of the Legislature would think, and a lot of British Columbians would support the notion, that we cannot build an economy that will survive as a primary and extractive one.
We have to shift gears. I come back to Nuala Beck's book. As I raised it last night and I don't think the minister had read it, probably the first thing he did this morning was buy it and take a look at it. It's an interesting book. It talks about a need for us to move away from a primary and extractive economy into a new technology-based economy. And that has to be done with a proposition to build a society that isn't based on technological or scientific fixes, but rather upon science and technology that has a new morality -- a new sense of purpose and direction -- that starts to address some of the larger environmental and social questions we face on a day-to-day basis. To me, that's where we ought to be focused.
I don't see anything in this funding profile that tells us we've got anywhere close to the kind of priority put into that line of expenditure and direction that we should have. I wonder if the minister might want to comment on that.
Hon. T. Perry: I'm very proud of the government's decision on the Tatshenshini Valley issue. I think it's an important recognition of the importance of environmental conservation to the global health of the planet. I will stop there and not get into debate with the hon. member on that issue. I guess we will agree to differ on that.
The overall strategic approach we have taken has been a review of the existing science and technology policy of the province, which was published by the Vander Zalm government in 1989. It had some very
[ Page 8135 ]
positive elements in it but was developed in a climate of high spending, apparently a rebounding economy divorced from the current national preoccupation with large government deficits. It also had not focused as closely as I would have liked on environmental sustainability, and I think the member and I don't disagree as much as might first meet the eye that we need a growth of wisdom more than we need a growth in the consumption of energy resources. Science and technology properly applied are keys to sustaining human life on the planet.
I was also concerned initially that there had been some egregious waste of taxpayers' money through some ill-advised science and technology schemes under the former government. It was important to ensure, in our analysis of such projects, that there was not a systemic flaw within the government.
I was also concerned that we not fund -- and I know the member and I would share this concern -- offensive military research and development and fall into the trap that not only the Americans but also our friends in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, in postwar Canadian history, have fallen into, such as the massive investment in Oerlikon, which I believe is still spending billions of dollars to produce tanks to defend western Europe from the Soviets, so to speak.
The strategy I took was to appoint an external review committee with the best people we could find in Canada. Incidentally, they worked on a voluntary basis. Through the Premier's Advisory Council on Science and Technology, and through the Science Council, we have reviewed a science and technology policy that largely confirmed the former policy, with some modifications addressed particularly to increasing the role of women, aboriginals and other minorities, and people with disabilities, and their access into these fields. We will be presenting that over the next few months for formal approval by government. We now have a mandate from Treasury Board to develop a strategic plan for expenditures, which I began to describe in response to a question from the member's colleague a moment ago. I expect that in time for next year's budget process, we will be in a position to coordinate and maximize the public benefit from expenditures in science and technology throughout government.
Within the universities, we maintain our commitment to science and technology. I've been a strong supporter of programs like the new science 1 at UBC, and of the Richardson review's conclusion that no student ought to graduate from a university without some meaningful exposure to science and technology -- some acculturation and bridging of the gap described by C.P. Snow in the 1950s in his book The Two Cultures. We continue to provide infrastructure support for programs like the national network of centres for excellence, which enable British Columbia to be so successful in the national competitions. So the commitment is there.
In order to capitalize optimally on the opportunities we have, British Columbians will have to make some hard choices -- very much as the member described -- as to whether we want to take it now or invest and reap the rewards in the longer-term future. For example, do our institutions want to take higher salaries now and oblige government to conserve in other areas in order to limit our exposure to the deficit? Or are they willing to recognize that in order to survive as an economically viable society with the real standard of living we now enjoy, we're going to have to make more investments now and take a little less in the near future. We are going to have to educate and train more people; we are going to need to invest more in science and technology. Like some other cultures in the world, we may have to restrain our greed right now in order to be sustainable in the long term.
Those are not questions that a government can dictate all by itself. I think it's important for all members of the Legislature to help the science and technology community, and me as minister to convince British Columbians that it's important for us to make those investments in the future.
G. Wilson: I think it is important, but we also have to recognize that in looking at investment.... I wonder if the minister could give us some idea of what we're actually contributing our dollars to, given that the Science Council....
[5:15]
I notice that the Vancouver Sun on May 12 talks about the Science Council receiving its annual budget and seeing a reduction in program funding to $2.56 million from $6.75 million. It suggests that about half of the $9.9 million spent on Technology B.C.... In 1992-93 the ministry contributed $6.75 million and the council contributed $3.15 million to research projects by universities and small high-tech companies around the province. What are the direct benefits from that kind of funding? What projects do we have underway now? In light of what the minister is saying about trying to get the public aware, I wonder how much of what we're funding is what we classify as pure science -- more academic and less applied -- and how much in the applied sciences, which might be more directed to specific applied issues. Do you have that kind of breakdown?
Hon. T. Perry: The vast majority of the science and technology fund is on what would traditionally be called the applied side. Science Council grants under Technology B.C. have traditionally been split into so-called core and industry grants. Core grants typically go to the universities. The industry grants are typically on a 50-50 contribution basis; the industrial partner invests a dollar for every dollar the province puts in as grant.
The Richardson review encouraged the Science Council to shift towards the applied side. We've agreed and encouraged the Science Council to re-examine its priorities in future, not because we don't like the basic science they are funding in universities, but simply because we need as much technology transfer from the universities into our industry as we can get. We see that as a slightly higher priority.
In the past the Science Council tended to put its core grants, through its peer review committees, where
[ Page 8136 ]
there is a potential identified market. On the more basic side, we do fund research. That's why the formula pays the universities more than the colleges. We are paying in part for the salary of a professor who is employed not only to teach but to do research. In order to have laboratories we fund their facilities and operating expenses relatively generously, compared to the colleges.
The universities' financial statements for the last fiscal year available, '91-92, show that B.C. government contributions to research at UBC were $16,026,000; at SFU, $2,638,000; and at UVic, $1,000,856. I'm not sure how the universities arrived at that calculation, but I presume that does not include the cost of salaries for the faculty involved in research.
G. Wilson: If we can talk, then, about the special account for the science and technology fund, and the role that the Science Council plays in that fund, and the kind of prioritization that's given to the projects that are funded.... What I was getting at, and what I'm particularly interested in looking at in terms of this, is to know whether there is, through the Premier's Advisory Council on Science and Technology or the Science Council or some other kind of agency, an ongoing dialogue that is starting to determine which applied project work is going to provide a direct benefit to the taxpayer for the amount of dollars that are being spent. One of the ways that you're going to get taxpayers to be more encouraged by what they're having to give up to the government is if they see some benefit or real return coming back from the government for the moneys that they're spending. That's what I'm driving at.
I notice that the special account has been cut by some $9 million. Presumably the Science Council is also going to be in a position where it's going to have to limit its funding for projects this year. What involvement does the ministry have with respect to the selection of projects that are funded? Is there a long-term vision of what priorities we should be spending our money on? If so, how is that determined, and to what extent does the Science Council have a free hand in it?
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
Hon. T. Perry: Basically the Science Council has a free hand on the funds that it controls.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: It's quite obvious, Mr. Chairman, that a breath of fresh air brings new vigour to one's spirit or soul, or maybe there was a passage of some portion of the bill in the other House that got by the opposition and you're exhilarated by that, or something -- I'm not sure which.
The Chair: I think it's more to do with the physical condition of the current Chair huffing up a couple of flights of stairs.
G. Wilson: On the special account for the science and technology fund, how much of that does the government actually have control over? Or is that all handled by the Science Council in terms of the distribution of those dollars?
Hon. T. Perry: They have just under $9 million which they directly control. Roughly half of it is for Technology B.C. and just under half is for other activities, like the GREAT scholarships and fellowship programs that they deliver on our behalf, but over which they have control.
G. Wilson: So is there any direction? Is there a general vision of the kind of projects that we are developing? Let me be specific. We have an enormous waste management problem in the province. It is a huge issue. We have a big bill that is going to keep us debating here until the middle of September, because the government has to deal with it. The government has some kind of social, political or fiduciary responsibility -- whatever argument you want to hook onto. We have to deal with this issue. Digging a hole and sticking it into the ground is one way. Burning it and sending all kinds of emissions into the atmosphere is another way. Actually working on a method for active disintegration of waste products through the application of various other kinds of agents is another way to get rid of it.
Some years ago I was lecturing in Australia in my own field and I ended up at a university in which there was considerable research being done on the reduction of waste through bacterial consumption. The net effect was the generation of methane gas, which they then used in a heat project. As experimental as the anaerobic digestive process may be, and as crazy as it might sound, that research was heavily funded at that time by the Australian government. They recognized that they had a serious problem, and if they could address that, then that problem could become a marketable export commodity for the government. That is just one example.
In the past we have spent a lot of time on the generation of hydroelectric power and the potential for that. In terms of science, technology and investment, we need to look at the movement to photovoltaic conversion systems. I don't know that any of that kind of work is being given any priority in British Columbia. What I hear from the minister is that he more or less sets aside some money and feeds it to the Science Council. It is less than they had last year, it doesn't give them adequate funds to even carry on ongoing programs, and despite the Premier's advisory council, there is no real commitment to the financing and distribution of dollars to enhance science and technology in the province. That is what I am reading in the figures and what I am hearing from the minister: a lot of lip service, a lot of would-like-to-see-it-better, but for the time being we're going to put it on the back burner. As a result, we're going to fall further and further behind the world trends in terms of science and research.
Hon. T. Perry: I'm prompted to observe, hon. Chair, with respect to the first part of the question:
[ Page 8137 ]
would that there were a fungus among us -- but I won't.
The province is doing very well in science and technology. The University of British Columbia is now the leading university in Canada in Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council grants -- NSERC grants. UVic and SFU are beginning to get into the big leagues in that field. By Canadian standards they're doing extremely well, and they're now beginning to crash the international club of science universities.
Yesterday one of the major pharmaceutical companies, Ciba-Geigy, announced it was contributing more than half a million dollars to St. Paul's Hospital for asthma research because of the excellence of the pulmonary research laboratory there, which is a world-famous medical research lab.
G. Wilson: That's all federal money.
Hon. T. Perry: That's money coming from Ciba-Geigy in Canada, a company whose headquarters are in Toronto, I think.
So the state of research and development is very positive in British Columbia now, and it's rapidly growing. It needs to grow more. We need to do a lot more than we're doing now, but it's doing very well compared to our past, and we're on a very positive path with respect to the rest of the country.
We have an arm's-length agency specifically so we won't have to tell them how to spend their money. The general philosophical guidelines have been very clear: keep it out of the offensive military industries; where possible, support research and development that would be useful for people with disabilities; look to the export industry to improve B.C.'s markets abroad; and definitely support environmentally sensitive technology. That's one of the reasons I appointed a number of prominent environmentalist scientists to the Science Council and PACST. I'll continue to do so as long as I am minister, and I'm sure the government will.
One of the lessons we learned through the recent past in British Columbia, reinforced by the Richardson review, is that it is dangerous for the government to try to pick winners in science and technology. That was certainly the experience with Moli Energy and with the Terry Fox Medical Research Foundation -- which, let me emphasize, is not to be confused with Terry Fox, the Canadian hero, or with his family, but was a research foundation set up by the former minister, Pat McGeer, which in many respects ran amok. It produced one excellent outfit, the Biomedical Research Centre at UBC, but it also spent a lot of money on wild ideas.
We have reconfirmed our policy, which is consistent with the advice Dr. Richardson gave us, that we should leave to peer review committees the decision as to what is good science and good technology, confine ourselves to general priorities and concentrate on promoting outreach from the universities and colleges into the economy. We will be encouraging the university-industry liaison offices not just to wait for people to come to them and ask whether the university has someone who can help them, but to be much more outward-looking. We will continue to support those bodies, but will demand much more of them in the future, consistent with what Dr. Richardson and his colleagues have told us.
H. De Jong: I have been asked how long I would be, and I said about ten minutes. Of course, that will depend a lot on the responses from the minister, too. I have only about three or four questions. Before I give these questions, I want to say that, unlike the Liberal leader, who admitted that they have a lot of problems in their opposition benches, we don't have any problems in our opposition benches.
Having said that, I would like to go back to a couple of comments that the minister made earlier this morning. We were talking about facilities needed for advanced education purposes. The minister mentioned an environmentally correct facility.
Hon. T. Perry: Sensitive.
H. De Jong: An environmentally sensitive facility. I would like to ask the minister what he specifically means by an environmentally sensitive facility.
[5:30]
Hon. T. Perry: We are trying to come up with formal criteria. We have a group working with the universities to define some concrete criteria so that people will be able to have a written answer to that question. One of the criteria is likely to be optimum energy efficiency, at least as far as the Power Smart standards and, in some cases, farther. Another will be whether the facility maximizes the use of electronic technology so that it minimizes expensive commuting of students to the institution where it could be avoided. For example, do students drive all the way home in the afternoon and then drive all the way back in the evening to use the library when they could have accessed the same information from home with a computer and a modem and a reasonable service charge, and does the institution encourage that? Does it encourage car pooling? Does it favour parking spaces for people who travel in car pools, and put the single occupants further out on the rim of the parking area? Does it try to protect trees rather than chop them all down and level the terrain before building a campus? Is the building south-facing so it takes advantage of natural light in the appropriate climate and has to use less electricity in lighting? There are many such examples. Similarly we want our facilities to be accessible to people with disabilities, not only accessible to people in wheelchairs, but accessible in all of the physical layout and the programming, because we're going to see more and more people with significant disabilities studying in the institutions as the age of students continues to rise.
H. De Jong: I'm interested in those answers because I also feel that in advanced education facilities as well as normal day schools, a lot of money could be saved by having certain guidelines and criteria laid down for architects who tend to dream on and on of all the nice frills that they can put into buildings. But they
[ Page 8138 ]
all add to the cost. I think if you look at practical, environmentally correct or sensitive things, yes, we're on the right track; but when they become just frills, then it doesn't amount to anything in terms of better education and better facilities.
The other point I would like to ask the minister about was in this afternoon's discussion about the grade point average. The minister mentioned that for the native community it would be really difficult if that was used as the only means of acceptance or rejection into college. I have difficulty with that, whether it's a native or any other cultural background. Shouldn't a person have a certain grade point average in order to be accepted for those types of college courses? If a person isn't up to date on the education received during the elementary and high school years and has failed in many respects, how would he or she ever be successful in college training?
Hon. T. Perry: Good environmental design is like the style on anything. It's efficient; it's not a frill.
If one looks at some of the recent recipients of honorary degrees from universities, one will find people who have flunked out of university or never went at all. Perhaps they didn't have a grade point average which would be sufficient for entry now. Yet they've been chosen to be honoured with honorary degrees because of their distinguished accomplishments. I don't think there's any fixed answer to that question. I've expressed my views clearly on it.
H. De Jong: There is another issue. The minister also mentioned that severe cuts have to be made because of budget problems. He called it painful decisions. That is probably so. Alternatives and changes bring along difficult moments from time to time. At the same time, I believe strongly that a person or parents can buy nothing better in terms of future investment than the education of their children -- whether that's a child going to an independent school, independent college or colleges and universities here in British Columbia. But surely the cost of attending a university or college in British Columbia is peanuts compared to the cost to the taxpayer for that particular student. If there ever was an investment for the parents of British Columbia, in my opinion they cannot buy a better investment than sending their children to the best educational facilities in the province. When we can buy a car, house or boat, all of those things depreciate. But education is one of the few things that appreciates in life. I believe that message has to be brought out more by the Ministers of Education and Advanced Education, and all of us as politicians. I believe very sincerely that the people of British Columbia expect to get everything for nothing or very little, and there is no such thing anymore. I would certainly appreciate it if we would put a little more emphasis on the fact that education for our youngsters is a sound -- and indeed the lowest-cost -- investment, yet with the highest returns.
Hon. T. Perry: I agree with the hon. member, as I'm sure most of us do, that the people are generally getting good value for their taxes in the post-secondary education system. That's why every opportunity I've had to participate at the opening of a new building or campus, when the president or board chair tends to thank the government for the building, I remind the audience that they can thank themselves. It's they who have paid for it. It's worth remembering that when they undergo the brief pain of filing their cheque with Revenue Canada every April 30.
G. Wilson: I'd like to come to the last little segment of this estimate debate. It has to do with the training portion of the ministry, and especially apprenticeship. I couldn't let the ministry go by without wanting to ask some questions.... I appreciate the information that was given on the B.C. 21 or Build B.C. moneys that have been sent out. We will look at that. I wonder if the minister might tell us how his ministry is working functionally with this new Crown creation we have for employment opportunities, training and apprenticeship. To what extent does this ministry involve themselves with that bill, now passed, which requires -- or may require -- apprenticeship programs to be in place for people bidding on government contracts? Is there any kind of connection between the legislation that has been passed and the ongoing apprenticeship and training programs here?
Hon. T. Perry: I am not sure which bill the Liberal Party leader was referring to. I can tell him that our relationship with the B.C. 21 process and the committee is nascent; it has only just gotten underway. It has worked out well with our summer student employment programs, and it is certainly an objective of the government at large and of our ministry to encourage apprenticeship training anywhere we can. Assistant Deputy Minister Fern Jeffries sits on the advisory committee for B.C. 21, and we have some great plans. Many of the B.C. 21 senior people and Doug McArthur, deputy minister for the planning board, and Cassie Doyle, assistant deputy minister for B.C. 21, attended the recent Premier's Summit on Education and Training. I think we will enjoy a very productive relationship.
G. Wilson: Can we talk about the apprenticeship program, and particularly female apprenticeship and the Women in Trades program? I understand that the Minister of Women's Equality is involved in that to some degree. To what extent is this ministry involved in the introduction and preparation of those programs?
Hon. T. Perry: We are very actively involved.
As the Pirate King said in his soliloquy in The Pirates of Penzance: "What, we ask, is life without a touch of poetry in it?" This gives me a chance to inject the poetry I had hoped to inject last night. I found the book. It is a poem that was read at the conclusion of the Premier's Summit on Education and Training, written by Kate Braid, professor of labour studies at Simon Fraser University and an apprenticed journeywoman carpenter, "Recipe for a Sidewalk":
[ Page 8139 ]
Pouring concrete is just like baking a cake.
The main difference is
that first you build the pans. Call them forms.
Think grand.
Mix the batter with a few simple ingredients:
one shovel of sand
one shovel of gravel
a pinch of cement.Add water until it looks right.
Depends how you like it.
Can be mixed by hand or with a beater called
a Readi-Mix truck.
Pour into forms and smooth off.
Adjust the heat so it's not too cold,
not too hot. Protect from rain.
Let cook until tomorrow.
Remove the forms and walk on it.There is one big difference from cakes.
This one will never disappear.
For the rest of your life your kids
will run on the same sidewalk, singing
My mom baked this!
That poem was read out at the end of the Premier's summit last Friday and received resounding applause. It symbolizes for me some of what we're trying to achieve in reform of apprenticeship.
We have revitalized the Apprenticeship Board with a new chair, Stu Mathieson, of human resources development at Cominco; a new vice-chair, Mary Rowles, coordinator of women's programs for the B.C. Federation of Labour; and some very prominent women members from both the employer and the employee side of the apprenticeship system. We hope to expand beyond the miserable record we had in the past of participation by women, ethnic minorities and aboriginals in apprenticeship. We've got the director of the Tahltan construction company from Telegraph Creek on that board now; he has a successful record in developing apprenticeship for aboriginal people. We see great horizons ahead in the collaboration with our partners in the employer community and the trade union movement, and with people in apprenticeship who are not in the trade union movement.
G. Wilson: So does the minister advocate affirmative action in apprenticeship training programs?
Hon. T. Perry: Definitely.
G. Wilson: And would the minister then advocate that affirmative action should be an integral part of an employment strategy with respect to apprenticeship training and job placement in the province of British Columbia?
[5:45]
Hon. T. Perry: Definitely, and particularly in areas where it has historically been very difficult for women to gain access -- be it in construction trades characterized by a heavy element of machismo, or in science and technology, where we have a willing employer community and willing post-secondary institutions, but some difficulty with the culture in high school, where young girls tend to be discouraged from getting into those fields. Only 6 percent of our apprentices right now are females, and half of those are in hairdressing. It's a completely unacceptable situation, and a major priority of the government is to change this.
G. Wilson: I deliberately asked the question earlier on about whether or not the GPA was going to be a satisfactory way of allowing entry because it was basically gender-neutral -- or should be if it's evenly and properly applied, unless there is some kind of discrimination in the marking process, which is, of course, subjective. In fact, we witnessed in the political science department at the University of Victoria some problems which I'm surprised, actually, that this government's Ministry of Women's Equality didn't do much to try and resolve. But how can you reconcile saying that we're going to have a fair and equal entry process with saying that in the workplace we're now going to get into quotas?
Hon. T. Perry: The GPA tends to be relatively gender-neutral and relatively fair. For example, yesterday I signed letters congratulating students from each college region in the province on receiving the Premier's excellence award: a $5,000 scholarship, one for each college district. It is striking to see that about 80 percent of those students are female. There were 16 alternates -- about 80 percent of them were also female. So it's not an abnormality in the sample; it represents a trend that our best students now coming out of the high schools into the colleges, judged solely by their academic excellence, are female. They can compete fine on their own merits if they are not discriminated against. Encouragingly, we're seeing that emerging in science, and students want to proceed into science and technology as well. But there are still major barriers. It is still very uncomfortable for many female students to study engineering in their universities.
In apprenticeships for trades, there has been much less progressive change over the last 20 or 30 years. The situation is intolerable. That's one of the reasons why we have a woman as our assistant deputy minister very actively and aggressively out in the field meeting with the officers there, and with the Provincial Apprenticeship Board. So we're trying to do what we can from government's perspective to change that culture. We have special preparatory courses for women who want to go into the trades. We heard at the summit last week of an excellent one on electronics at Vancouver Community College, all of whose graduates are now employed. We have mentoring programs. We have encouraged networking of women in those fields, both with employers and in the trade union movement, and among pre-apprenticeship students in the colleges.
G. Wilson: I would hope that the reason you have this particular deputy minister is that she is skilled and able, and is by merit the very best individual to be there. I would certainly hope that one of the reasons she's there is not her gender. That would be most unfortunate.
[ Page 8140 ]
From what the minister is saying in his example -- given that you have the best students coming out, 80 percent of whom are female, and given that you have removed the barriers and you have equal access and equal opportunity -- it would seem that when able to compete on a fair and even playing field, the women do better than the men. We know that, in a democratic sense, women are the majority in our society today.
Strikingly, it would appear that the trade union movement seems to be the main barrier to the entry of women into the workplace. Ironically enough, these are the principal organizing groups that have previously funded, directed and bolstered this particular government. Doesn't the minister find that somewhat ironic?
Hon. T. Perry: There are barriers everywhere. The employers do the hiring of apprentices, and I point to the participation as vice-chair on the Provincial Apprenticeship Board of Mary Rowles, a very prominent member of the staff of the B.C. Federation of Labour. We have had strong support from the federation for the reform of the Provincial Apprenticeship Board, and I expect that their support will grow, particularly as people see how successful women are in the non-traditional trades.
G. Wilson: My last question in this set of estimates has to do with the question of the training and technology side of the ministry. Given that we are going to see quotas, and a quota system in affirmative action put in place by this government, can the minister tell us how that is going to be reflected in entry programs in such institutions as BCIT, the Vancouver Vocational Institute and some of the other trades training programs? The trades section is what I'm referring to. How are you going to accommodate a revision to the entry program, given that even today most of the union-driven trades training programs are for male applicants and male entrants, not females?
Hon. T. Perry: That's pretty clear. Affirmative action and quotas are two different things. We are not contemplating quotas; we are looking for every possible avenue to break down barriers of systemic discrimination against women, visible minorities, aboriginal people or people with disabilities. That's a firm mandate of our government, and it will continue to be.
G. Wilson: The minister's response prompts one more question. The problem is that if you have an effective affirmative action program, you're going to end up with a situation where, unless the barriers are removed at the access level -- the employment side of it, which we're witnessing in the bill that was tabled today.... The Korbin commission and the whole direction of this government effectively says we're going to try to duplicate or mirror the demographic makeup of the community. This government is not going to be able to accomplish its goals unless it moves to quotas.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions of this minister. Failing to hear any, I suggest perhaps we can terminate this set of estimates.
Vote 11 approved.
Vote 12: ministry operations, $1,314,310,200 -- approved.
Vote 13: science and technology, $27,242,600 -- approved.
Hon. T. Perry: I thank members for their courtesy and interesting questions, and I move that the committee rise, report resolutions, and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The Committee rose at 5:54 p.m.
The Committee met at 7:03 p.m.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES
(continued)
On vote 43: minister's office, $350,717 (continued).
K. Jones: Could we start off by asking the minister: what is the status of the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities?
Hon. L. Boone: It's functioning fine; it's stable. We have a good chair, and it's doing what it's supposed to do.
K. Jones: Could the minister describe what it is supposed to do? What is its role?
Hon. L. Boone: Well, its mandate is to encourage and promote greater participation of persons with disabilities in all aspects of the social, economic and cultural life in British Columbia.
K. Jones: Is it doing that?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes.
K. Jones: Could the minister describe how it's doing that, and how she evaluates that?
Hon. L. Boone: The council meets three times a year. It has developed a report that is being reviewed by the deputy ministers. They work hard with various ministries to present some of the issues around disability. The chair of that group, through his own position, is working hard to develop other areas and change some of the mandates around getting people back to work, etc. They have struck working committees that are working to develop a number of different issues. I'm certainly not there at all of their meetings, but we have staff that go there, and members of PCO -- policy coordination unit -- also take part in the meetings and carry their messages back to the
[ Page 8141 ]
various ministries so they can work with them on some of their issues.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what method she's using to evaluate the successful activity of that part of her structure?
Hon. L. Boone: This is not a government branch. It's an independent advisory committee to government. I judge our successes by how well the council is able to communicate with government.
It's true that there have been problems and difficulties in communications. We are working hard with the Chair, and the Chair is working to develop closer communications with government. So I think they are working on that behalf. I see the structures there, and they are doing all they can on behalf of their roles.
K. Jones: Would it be more economical to have this organization just operating on its own independently, with a grant being given to it to give it full independence, rather than having it structured under the ministry?
Hon. L. Boone: An act guides its operation, so it would mean changing the act. It's clearly an option, but I don't see that it would be more economical. The council does not receive a huge amount of money from government as it is. They've accepted cuts as everybody else has.
K. Jones: I'm just trying to follow through. The council is $442,000; that's just short of half a million dollars, an awful lot. For how many people on that committee? What are they doing with all that money? Are there staff people taking up most of that money?
Hon. L. Boone: There are 12 council members and four staff people. The base salaries come up to $157,328. Their meetings cost $117,086 because there were transportation and accommodation costs and all those things associated with bringing people down. We have made sure that there is regional representation on these boards, therefore there are costs there. Administrative costs.... All the rest of the things have to do with the lower mainland, travel for their administration, telecommunications, postage, newsletter, occupancy charges and a design for a brochure they put out. So that's how the costs are broken down.
K. Jones: So the end result is that we put out a brochure for just short of half a million dollars, and we've really accomplished nothing that couldn't have been done by a group of volunteers willing to liaise with the government.
Hon. L. Boone: No, there's not.... You know, I really find it disturbing that the member keeps taking shots at groups that are trying to do a good job. The people who serve on this group are in fact volunteers. They get paid an honorarium for the days they come down. They travel down here, they get paid their cost of travel, and that's it. They spend a lot of time working on behalf of the disabled community. For the member to suggest that this group is not doing its job is really unfortunate and does a disservice to those people who are spending their time and effort there.
They are in fact receiving access to government. They have the ability to get their points across to government. As I said, they have a report that is currently being reviewed and costed out by government, because a lot of the things they have brought to government's attention obviously have costs. We have to cost out those things because we don't have the dollars there. They're trying to get the issues of the disabled to the various ministries that are involved and making sure that ministers are aware of disability issues. So I would really caution the member not to malign a group of people who are working hard on behalf of the disabled groups in this area.
An Hon. Member: Hear, hear.
K. Jones: It's a pleasure to hear "hear, hear" from the members of the NDP present in support of the statement of the minister, which is intended to imply that I'm maligning a group by asking questions of her budget. I'm not questioning the group's purpose or the work done by those people, but the fact that the results coming from it -- a brochure, as indicated by the minister -- don't seem to measure up to the nearly $500,000 expenditure. I asked, in all honesty, why this couldn't be done by a volunteer advisory group from the disabled community. There are lots of people out there quite willing to provide that type of a service. Why is the government expending this kind of money? It's the cost we're talking about, not what those people are doing or the persons themselves. I have the greatest respect for each one of them.
Hon. L. Boone: I am answering this question only once more because I'm not going to get into an argument as to whether this should or shouldn't be. There is legislation requiring that there be the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities. There is legislation that sets out the honorarium that they are paid. They are volunteers; they are not being paid a salary per se. They are doing a lot above and beyond the days that they come down for their meetings.
I suggest that the member think very strongly about what he's suggesting. The disabled community, which is really underrepresented throughout government, has an extremely difficult time obtaining jobs, doing a lot of different things and gaining a fair salary. The member here suggests that the disabled should be able to volunteer their time to government. I think that's a real disservice to these individuals, who have costs involved in getting to and from meetings and who do a good job representing areas to the government. You can't measure how well somebody is doing something by the amount of paper that comes out or whether a brochure is presented. They are there, getting their message to government. They have access to ministers, government members and the Premier's office. That in itself is
[ Page 8142 ]
something that is good value; that is something that you can't put a dollar value on.
K. Jones: Perhaps I could suggest to the minister that she take the $442,000 and give it to the disabled community so that they can actually use it. I'm sure that they could use it much more effectively than having this committee sit and create a brochure. I want to see the people in the disabled community have more say in their own lives and activities. I don't think this kind of expenditure is helping that. That kind of expenditure should be given to the community, if the government sees that as a justifiable part of the budget. I think they deserve that kind of funding, but let's make it direct to them and let them administer the programs and have a government that's willing to listen to the recommendations that come out of the coordinating organizations. We don't need to have a government ministry department or whatever the minister wants to call it to spend that kind of money. It's not providing direct services to the people who need it.
[7:15]
The Chair: Does vote 43 pass?
K. Jones: Of course not.
I'd like to ask the minister for a breakdown of the Government Services program budget into the allocation areas. I'm sorry; we have that in the estimates. Skip that. I'll just go on to the other area.
I'm reluctant to start into purchasing, in that we have several items in that area and I'm waiting for the archives question to come forward. I'll just go into vehicle disposal for the moment. Perhaps I'll take a bit of the time without interrupting the general flow of questions.
Could the minister describe for the committee the method of vehicle disposal the minister uses to dispose of used government vehicles?
Hon. L. Boone: There are a number of different ways. Some of it is done through auctioneers, and some of it is done through cash sales.
K. Jones: That's through options given to people who presently have the vehicles or....
Hon. L. Boone: Auctions.
K. Jones: Oh, auctions.
The Chair: Through the Chair, hon. member.
K. Jones: Sorry, hon. Chair.
That's auctioning. Are vehicles optioned? Are options taken out on leased vehicles and things like that?
Hon. L. Boone: I don't know what your question is. What do you mean by options taken out on leased vehicles? We have lease vehicles, and we have contracts with lease vehicles. I'm not sure what you mean by options taken out on lease vehicles.
K. Jones: When a lease vehicle goes for a certain number of years, there is often an option offered to the persons to purchase it by paying the difference of the lease.
Hon. L. Boone: That option is given to members on executive vehicles. As a government, we don't buy out the leases. As an example, when the previous government lost, the ministers of the day had the option of purchasing the vehicles they had.
K. Jones: Where was that allocated in the budget?
Hon. L. Boone: Buy-outs are not located within the budget; they are from the individual's personal pocket. We don't budget individual's personal dollars.
K. Jones: But the vehicles did have to be repurchased. Was that just the general ordering of new vehicles?
Hon. L. Boone: For old leases, we just let the leases expire. We would enter into some new leases, and that would have been in last year's budget -- as we have leases in this year's budget.
K. Jones: Is there any defined outline of the useful life of a government vehicle?
Hon. L. Boone: It would be nice if we could turn our vehicles over every five years; that would certainly be a goal. Often they are used for up to nine years.
K. Jones: On what basis is the decision made on whether it should be replaced? Is it just somebody's evaluation of wear and tear? Does some person make a judgment on this, or is there some program that determines what it should be -- five or nine or someplace in between?
Hon. L. Boone: There is a governmentwide committee. It is largely based on mileage and condition, but I can tell the hon. member that a good portion of it is decided by how much money we can get from Treasury Board to replace vehicles. We request to replace X number of vehicles. Treasury Board may or may not approve it, or they may approve a smaller amount. Then our decision about which vehicles are replaced is based on the number that we can replace.
K. Jones: Obviously at some point it becomes less efficient and economical to continue to repair government vehicles than to replace them. However, it seems that in a time of fiscal restraint it might be appropriate for government to delay or postpone purchase of new vehicles, as many households have had to do. I noted earlier that the ministry had delayed several hundreds of thousands of dollars of purchases. I am curious as to whether vehicles are one of the areas in which the ministry has postponed purchases.
Hon. L. Boone: In 1991 we did cancel a buy. Speaking from experience, I can tell you that there are a
[ Page 8143 ]
lot of extremely old vehicles out there that cost us a lot of money, because when we delay purchasing vehicles, even for one year, the cost comes out of the operating budget rather than capital budget. Sometimes a government tends to look at that and say, "The cost coming out of there is a little easier for us to bear," but the reality is that it is all taxpayers' dollars, and it is not cost-effective to delay purchasing vehicles for any length of time.
K. Jones: Is choosing whether it will be operating budget or capital budget a common practice within the ministry?
Hon. L. Boone: No. I didn't say we choose where it comes from. I said the cost: if we don't replace a vehicle, our cost comes out of operating budget because we are repairing it more. When we are purchasing something it always comes out of our capital budget.
K. Jones: Is it difficult to liquidate the specialty fleet vehicles held by the government?
Hon. L. Boone: No, we have no difficulty getting top dollars for those vehicles.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us an indication of what percentage of the purchase price the top dollar would amount to when it's sold?
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
Hon. L. Boone: I've been advised that we typically get the high end of the black book value.
K. Jones: Is there a method or any type of movement to coordinate all Crown corporations' major purchases, such as vehicles, in order to maximize the ability of government to purchase in bulk?
Hon. L. Boone: The Crown corporations secretariat, which the member seems to think has no use at all, has in fact been pulling together a committee to review Crown corporations purchasing policies, and to try to do just what you're talking about -- to coordinate those things. Until the Crown corporations secretariat came along, there was no coordination between any of the Crowns. It's a very useful process, and one that the Crown corporations secretariat is doing very well.
K. Jones: I'd like to ask the minister about a recommendation of the Peat Marwick report, which was submitted in February 1992. It recommends that a central government agency should be developed to enforce an information system strategy for government, and to provide direction to ministries and to BCSC to better manage government's expenditure of over $250 million on information systems and related services. Has there been any action to implement that recommendation?
Hon. L. Boone: The chair of the B.C. Systems Corporation has met with the Crown corporations secretariat, myself and the Minister of Finance to discuss these various issues -- not just the systems throughout government, but also systems as they relate to corporations.
K. Jones: Could the minister elaborate on that last part about the systems as they relate to corporations?
Hon. L. Boone: The systems that corporations have.
K. Jones: Is that Crown corporations or outside corporations that you are referring to?
Hon. L. Boone: Crowns. When I talk of corporations in this House I am only talking about Crowns. I have no interest in doing anything with outside corporations.
K. Jones: The reason I ask is because earlier the minister was saying that the policy of the B.C. Systems Corporation board was to provide services to the competitive marketplace with other corporations around the world. Therefore the minister is appearing to be contradictory in her statement on that. Here she is saying right now that there isn't, and she has no interest in that. Yet the board of B.C. Systems is saying that's part of their mandate.
Hon. L. Boone: I thought I clarified that last time. The Crown corporation's mandate is to try to market some of their expertise. They have never talked about going into competition in the outside marketplace. We went through this at length previously, and I don't see any reason to get into this whole issue again.
K. Jones: Going back to the question of the Peat Marwick recommendation, the minister has indicated that in a year and a half of opportunity to take action in this regard, there has been a meeting between the chair of the board of B.C. Systems Corporation and the Crown corporations secretariat. What concrete recommendations have come out of that? What concrete action has been taken to implement the recommendations so that there will be a cost cut on all of these information systems and related services? At that time, they were related as being over $250 million. What is being done to maximize the value to the government and to the taxpayers of that expenditure of $250 million?
[7:30]
Hon. L. Boone: As I stated, the chair of the B.C. Systems Corporation, for which I am responsible, has brought this to the attention of the Minister of Finance and is looking at it. I am also aware that the deputies' committee chaired by Gary Mullins has also been reviewing this issue. I can't speak on behalf of Gary Mullins or the group that's looking at this issue, but it's a cross-ministry issue and one that is being taken seriously by this government.
[ Page 8144 ]
K. Jones: Has the ministry and possibly Treasury Board given clear responsibility for developing and enforcing a policy on overall space usage by the government throughout the province?
Hon. L. Boone: I can't speak on behalf of Treasury Board. Treasury Board policy is not my responsibility.
K. Jones: I thought the minister would try and use the fact that I mentioned Treasury Board in the statement as a way out of getting out of a responsibility. But the fact is the question was whether she has done anything within her ministry to develop a policy and a method of enforcing overall space usage by the government throughout the province. I would think that that would appropriately come under B.C. Buildings Corporation, but maybe she has other plans for it.
Hon. L. Boone: Space policy is not the jurisdiction of this ministry. As I have said, BCBC provides a service to government, and they will enact whatever policy the government puts in place. If Treasury Board specifies that they want a certain amount, then they will do that. I know that the chair of the Buildings Corporation has asked that ministries review some of their policies regarding their spaces, taking into consideration the tight economic times, to make sure that the space they are requesting is in fact needed. I know that Treasury Board is the ultimate body that makes a decision as to whether BCBC or a ministry proceeds with any kind of space allocation.
K. Jones: I think the minister has just missed the important words "overall space usage by government." I believe that space usage falls directly under your ministry.
Hon. L. Boone: No, it does not. BCBC provides a space. We do not decide how the space is used. It is up to the ministries to decide how the space is used. If they get Treasury Board approval to either move into a new facility or expand, then it is BCBC's responsibility to service their requirements. But it is not BCBC's responsibility to act as a controlling agent.
K. Jones: The Peat Marwick report has also made the following recommendation: "The policy and standard-setting activities for the purchase of government goods and services should be separated from the supply function currently carried out by the Purchasing Commission." Has that been implemented?
Hon. L. Boone: That is currently under review with Treasury Board.
K. Jones: Does the minister have any indication as to when that would be implemented? It's been a year and a half with that recommendation.
Hon. L. Boone: No.
K. Jones: Does that indicate the interest of the minister in the issue? Or does it indicate she's having some difficulty with Treasury Board being able to review some of the important recommendations of the Peat Marwick report?
Hon. L. Boone: Neither. It's just a very complex report and requires a lot of work, and I can't tell when Treasury Board or our staff will be finished.
K. Jones: It also states: "In addition, the operating structures for the commission should be examined to ensure that it provides best value for money." What changes have been implemented to improve this structure and its purchasing processes?
Hon. L. Boone: We've just completed and have received an operational review on the postal branch. That indicated that we have good value, and that the postal branch in fact saves considerable dollars for the government by the way they operate.
K. Jones: After a year and a half, is that the only review that's been done?
Hon. L. Boone: As I said, we are currently having an operational review with Treasury Board. Reviews of magnitude.... When you're looking at something like the postal branch.... We're only a small part of government, hon. member. There are a lot of other areas that require looking at, so we get in line. We request a review, and we request that Treasury Board participate in a review, and we wait for that review to take place. We are very pleased with the quality of the review that came out on the postal branch, and we're looking forward to the operational review on the rest of the Purchasing Commission. I think it will tell us that we're getting good value or tell us where we can get better value and how we can improve things. We're looking forward to that and to implementing those areas.
K. Jones: Did that review of the postal branch result in the removal of the private contractor courier services?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes.
K. Jones: Could the minister indicate what cost savings were recommended to justify that change?
Hon. L. Boone: In excess of $150,000 a year.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us if there have been any other studies, reports, audits or reviews of the purchasing process over the last year?
Hon. L. Boone: We do a monthly review of all the commission's operations within the ministry. We share those reviews with our customers, and we have an ongoing discussion with our customers to make sure that they are getting value for the services they are requesting.
[ Page 8145 ]
K. Jones: Has there been an audit of any of the purchasing processes through the Purchasing Commission or other parts of your ministry?
Hon. L. Boone: There is the auditor general's review of the archives and records and a cross-government review -- which the member has already mentioned and we discussed at length a couple of days ago -- of photocopiers. We were just a part of that cross-government review.
K. Jones: With regard to that cross-government review, could the minister provide a copy of the recommendations of that report?
Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Chair, we went through this at length before. I told the hon. member that this is not my report to release. It is the Minister of Finance's report. If the Minister of Finance chooses to release that report, then he may do so. We were a part of that report; it is not my report to release to the member. He was told that before.
K. Jones: I'm awfully sorry, hon. Chair. I must have misplaced that bit of information. Sorry to have bothered you.
Could the minister tell us what actions have been taken within her ministerial area as a result of that report?
Hon. L. Boone: We received it only two weeks ago, and we're reviewing it.
K. Jones: With regard to the cabinet planning secretariat, could the minister give us an explanation of the great increase in the salaries and benefits of that operation from $780,000 to $2,169,000?
Hon. L. Boone: The cabinet planning secretariat was beginning to bring staff on in '92-93. By the end of the fiscal year, 15 staff were employed. As staffing competitions continue to close, an additional 13 employees have been hired for a total of 28 as of June. By the end of the next fiscal year, CPS will have its full complement of 33 full-time staff.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us an indication of why the operating costs have gone up from $267,000 to $988,000?
Hon. L. Boone: You could just take what I said before and transfer it over onto this one. It wasn't in full operation before. It is now in full operation. They've got full staff. They're increasing their staffing numbers and as a result, obviously operational costs increase.
K. Jones: Could the minister indicate why asset acquisitions were $210,000 last year and are only $100,000 this year? Could she indicate what those asset acquisitions last year and this year are for?
Hon. L. Boone: Computers and furniture. Obviously they purchased most of these last year, and so they only had to add a bit this year for the new staff who are coming on.
K. Jones: What assets are they purchasing? As a planning secretariat, why would they need assets?
Hon. L. Boone: Furniture -- I just told you.
K. Jones: Could the minister explain exactly what that organization is intended to accomplish?
[7:45]
Hon. L. Boone: The cabinet planning secretariat provides planning and policy advice to cabinet and its committees, and operational support to the Planning Board. Many groups, including labour, business and aboriginal organizations, had identified the need for comprehensive long-term planning. The approach taken in setting up the secretariat was consistent with the recommendations of the independent financial review by Peat Marwick, hon. member. Here we are. We've acted on Peat Marwick -- you ought to be very pleased about that -- which recommended a strengthened link between fiscal planning and policy development, and centralized staff support for policy and planning functions of government.
K. Jones: It's good to see the minister get enthusiastic about one of her projects. She really likes something that's a winner.
With regard to the Medivac travel assistance program, could the minister explain the process of determining how people are provided for? How are the costs determined, and what do people have to pay?
Hon. L. Boone: Only one aspect of that program comes under my jurisdiction, and that's the part under Government Air. If you are receiving assistance from the Medical Services Plan, then you are eligible to fly on Government Air at no cost, provided you have a prescription from a doctor indicating that you require that service outside your home area.
K. Jones: Was there any program involving Government Services related to arrangements with B.C. Air, and any other airlines, to get them to be part of the program?
Hon. L. Boone: That is under the Minister of Health's jurisdiction, but I can tell you that yes, most of the major carriers have joined in.
K. Jones: I get the impression that the Ministry of Health did all the arrangements. Were there some members of your staff who were involved in making the arrangements with the other airline companies?
Hon. L. Boone: The policy was driven by Health. There was a cross-ministry committee that reviewed a number of these issues -- Government Air's involvement, in particular -- but the policy was driven by Health.
[ Page 8146 ]
K. Jones: Seeing that the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi is here and wishes to ask some questions in the archival area, I will turn over the floor to him so that the archival people can go home.
D. Mitchell: I want to put a question to the minister about the British Columbia archives and records service -- BCARS, as it has now become known. I'm used to it back in the days when it was known as the Provincial Archives of British Columbia; in fact, I was an employee of the archives at one point. I noticed in the most recent B.C. auditor general's report that some comments have been made. There are some indications of a ministerial response to some of the comments, but the ministerial response has not yet been complete to all the comments that the auditor general has raised in his annual report, in particular on the issue of whether or not the British Columbia archives and records service has a clearly defined mandate. I'm wondering if the minister can address that, and whether or not that issue is going to be addressed during the period which we are being asked to provide funding for to the minister.
Hon. L. Boone: The auditor general expresses concern because there isn't a mandate expressed in legislation. That mandate has not been expressed in legislation for the past six or seven decades, which was when you were there, but we have been expressing our mandates through estimates and in this House.
D. Mitchell: I am not asking the minister to provide to the committee any details of future legislation, but the auditor general has raised what I think is a very important point in his annual report, which is that there is no legislative mandate for the archives. He has pointed out, in some very specific terms, that the lack of a legislated mandate has caused some administrative issues and problems that should be satisfactorily addressed by the government and this ministry. My question to the minister is not with respect to future legislation or policy; it is simply whether or not there has been any concrete action taken to address the concerns of the auditor general in terms of the legislative authority to manage and operate the archives as they are presently constituted.
Hon. L. Boone: There is a mandate for the organization, but the only way to solve the auditor general's concerns is through legislation, because his concern is the lack of legislation.
D. Mitchell: I am having a bit of difficulty with the minister's response. I understand what she is saying, and the auditor general has very clearly stated that there is a need for a legislative mandate. But to get into some specifics -- and I think these are management issues within the archives as well -- the auditor general points out that the provincial archives are now primarily a repository for government records; that is its prime mandate. Particularly with the passage of freedom-of-information legislation by the province, that aspect of the archives' mandate has certainly become focused on records retention and disposal for the government of British Columbia.
In the past, the archives also collected private papers and private collections. That aspect of the archives' collection policy now seems to be atrophying and decreasing in importance because its prime mandate is apparently focusing on government records.
The auditor general raises some very specific concerns. For instance, he refers to the fact that: "Staff are currently unable to deal with the volume of records taken into their care, and consequently, archival processing is substantially backlogged. These delays in handling archival material are placing these records at risk of unintentional loss through natural deterioration." We are dealing with the retention of government records and other records that historically have been collected by the institution of our provincial archives. Some of this relates to the legislative mandate, but there are some specific management issues that need to be addressed. Can the minister inform this committee this evening whether those management issues are being addressed, in the absence of a legislative mandate?
Hon. L. Boone: We did go through some of this previously. For the member's information, the main mandate of the archives is still and always has been to provide centralized records management and archive services to government. But it does provide a service to the private sector in collecting and preserving records of historical value to the province.
We are addressing some of the management issues with regard to an archives and records information system that we have instituted since the auditor general's report. That has allowed us to identify 90 percent of the records that are backlogged. We anticipate that we will be addressing that backlog in three to five years.
D. Mitchell: Can the minister indicate whether the freedom-of-information legislation that is now being implemented by the government has dramatically affected the mandate of this institution? If so, are the provincial archives now simply going to become a mandated vehicle for that legislation within government? Are we really getting away from the traditional or historical role of the archives within the heritage community of British Columbia?
Hon. L. Boone: I think it is fair to say that it will obviously have an impact on the archives, but the major onus on government will be within the ministries that have to maintain their own records management systems. We will have to get those information systems to them. The only records that the archives will have to deal with are those that are sent over to the archives -- as they have been sent over in the past. There will be no greater amount of records being sent over to the archives than in the past, and after going through the Public Accounts Committee. Then they are referred to the archives. They would still have the same historical value. We will still be maintaining our records and working on behalf of the people of British Columbia.
[ Page 8147 ]
D. Mitchell: I'm pleased to hear from the minister that the archives are going to maintain that dual mandate. Maybe it's more than dual; maybe it's a multi-mandate. I'm a great supporter of the archives, obviously, and in fact a frequent user of the archives.
I wonder if the minister could comment briefly on one of the other management issues that was addressed in the auditor general's report. This relates to its review of the 1989-90 annual report of the Ministry of Government Services. This goes back some time, but this what the auditor general was reviewing when he commented that the report provided information only about the activity level of the archives; it did not indicate how well the goals or objectives were being met, nor did it mention the backlog that had accumulated in terms of the work we discussed previously. Have any steps been taken since that time to address these management issues in terms of any subsequent reports of the ministry? Have any management decisions been taken to address those specific issues?
Hon. L. Boone: We agree with the auditor general. We are taking concrete steps to make sure there are ways and means of measuring what takes place in the archives. We certainly agree, and we are working on those issues.
D. Mitchell: Those are my questions for this aspect of the minister's responsibilities. I'd like to thank her for those responses.
I have a question to the minister on an entirely different area of her ministry. I believe that some issues with respect to BCBC have been canvassed already. I have a question relating to one specific project that I understand BCBC is involved in here in Victoria. It deals with the revamped project in Victoria -- St. Ann's Academy, which, is being upgraded to serve as an office centre for public servants. I understand that the Provincial Capital Commission is working on this project in conjunction with BCBC. I noticed with interest when the announcement was made -- it was a joint announcement made by BCBC and the Provincial Capital Commission -- the comment about the fact that after its remodelling and the expenses provided to upgrade the facility, the building was going to be self-sustaining. I must admit that I don't profess to understand what that really means in terms of the ability to be self-sustaining. Does that mean it's going to pay for itself through costs that are recaptured or recovered over the course of time through an amortization process? How is the funding for revamping St. Ann's Academy actually going to take place?
[8:00]
Hon. L. Boone: We don't have BCBC people with us here today. We had them here for four hours previously, and we have released them -- that's a pretty good term -- from their bondage here. Normally, BCBC does amortize things if there are costs involved with a building. That amortization is taken into consideration with the rents that are charged for that building. If it's any different for St. Ann's, I will get that information back to you. Other than that, that is how BCBC generally functions.
D. Mitchell: I'm interested in this question because of the claims that were made when the announcement was made. I think the announcement is a good one; I certainly support the preservation of such an important heritage building in the city of Victoria. I found it curious that the term "self-financing" was being used. The minister has indicated to the committee that this is a formula used by the Crown corporation for which she has responsibility. Can she provide, for the benefit of the committee, any examples of parallels where such a self-financing concept has been used to restore a heritage building in the province?
Hon. L. Boone: We have had others. There is the Nelson courthouse and other buildings. I am sure there must be some buildings in Victoria. I can't give the member, as I don't have the staff here.... The Nelson courthouse is something that has been done. I suppose the parliament buildings could be one. There are a number of buildings for which BCBC tries to recognize the heritage values and to take those things into consideration when they are restoring. The cost for that would be amortized; the charges would go out to the various ministries, charged as rent and paid back.
D. Mitchell: It sounds like a great business to be in. I guess the only concern is that of the projects being in the hands of government when we start dealing with self-financing concepts. I guess I would be concerned. I know that BCBC manages many properties throughout the province; I would be interested in learning more about that. The minister has indicated that she will get some materials to me on that; I am willing to leave that at this point.
I have one further question on the renovation of St. Ann's Academy. I noticed with interest an update that was provided in April, l993 -- at the time the announcement dealing with the Victoria accord was made. It referred to BCBC's participation in this particular project. I was intrigued by the section in this update with the subheading: "Who's Involved? Who Decides?" The project manager for the upgrade of St. Ann's Academy is listed as an employee of the Crown corporations secretariat, Mr. Sam Bawlf. I thought that was interesting because a little later on in the brochure it refers to the fact that BCBC and the Provincial Capital Commission have hired an architectural firm by the name of Bawlf Cooper to design the project. Does the minister know offhand whether or not there is any relationship between Mr. Sam Bawlf and the architectural firm of Bawlf Cooper?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, there is a relationship there. You will have to ask the minister responsible for the Crown corporations secretariat about that contract; that's the Minister of Finance.
D. Mitchell: I'm puzzled by the minister's response to that question because the pamphlet that's put out by the government clearly states that Bawlf
[ Page 8148 ]
Cooper has been retained by BCBC to prepare plans for offices of approximately 430,000 square feet. It goes on to explain what those offices would be used for. Clearly, the architectural firm has been retained by the Crown corporation for which the minister has responsibility. Mr. Sam Bawlf, who is the province's project manager for the project, is an employee of the Crown corporations secretariat. There might be something here that bears further scrutiny. I wonder if the minister can indicate to the committee whether or not she's asked similar questions or shared such concerns about the potential relationship between the project manager and the architectural firm hired?
Hon. L. Boone: Sam Bawlf is working for the Crown corporations secretariat. There is a relationship; I believe it is his brother who has been hired to work on St. Ann's Academy. Yes, I did ask some questions. I was advised that this was done through an open tendering process and that this person won this competition fairly and openly.
D. Mitchell: I hope the minister doesn't mind me pursuing this a bit further. I'm sure she would agree, having been an opposition member in the assembly once herself, that when brother hires brother at taxpayers' expense it bears further scrutiny. That certainly appears to be what's happened here. Mr. Sam Bawlf has been appointed the province's project manager for the upgrade of St. Ann's Academy -- a very important project -- and has hired an architectural consortium made up of a firm in which his brother is a leading partner. The minister has indicated that this was done through an open tendering process. So that we could move on to other business, would she be willing to commit this evening that she will provide details of that tendering process -- who the other bidders were on the work, and the details of the tender itself -- to verify that there was an open, fair process and there isn't some aspect of nepotism involved here?
Hon. L. Boone: This person was hired by B.C. Buildings Corporation, not by Mr. Sam Bawlf. But I would commit to the member.... If the member contacts Dennis Truss, the CEO for BCBC, I will request that he sit down with you and give you all the information you require on this whole issue, within the parameters of freedom of information. I'm not sure what has to be protected, in the way of company privacy and all those sorts of things. But we will give you whatever information we can to allay your fears on how this process worked.
D. Mitchell: I appreciate those comments from the minister and will follow up as she suggested. This issue does raise a larger concern, however, which we canvassed earlier during the minister's estimates. It's perhaps somewhat unfortunate that we weren't able to proceed with her estimates from start to finish in one uninterrupted period. I don't want to go back to revisit some of the questions raised earlier.
But the minister has brought forward a point of concern that I would like to share and see if the minister has a response. It deals with the relationship between the Crown corporations secretariat and this Crown corporation, BCBC. It's a larger concern that relates to this entity, headed by Bob Williams, and all Crown corporations in the province: the relationship between the secretariat and the Crown corporations. The minister seems to be indicating that the individual hired as a project manager for the secretariat is perhaps involved in some way with this project, and may in fact be responsible for hiring an architectural firm in which his brother is a principal. Whether that's possible or not, I guess the question is: who's in charge? The minister is responsible for a very important Crown corporation -- BCBC manages significant public assets on behalf of the people of British Columbia -- and yet the Crown corporations secretariat seems to be offering more than just a little direction to that Crown corporation in terms of its activities -- specific activities in this case with respect to the remodelling and upgrading of St. Ann's Academy. But how far does it go? That's the question I'd like to ask the minister. To what extent is the Crown corporations secretariat running what the minister should be running?
Hon. L. Boone: I never said that the Crown corporations secretariat hired this company, nor did I say that Mr. Bawlf hired this company. I said that BCBC made the decision to hire the company. I'm not sure of the name of the company -- Bawlf Cooper? It was done without interference from Mr. Bawlf or the Crown corporations secretariat, and I can assure the member that there was no interference whatsoever from anybody in that relationship. The entire decision was made by BCBC.
As I've stated to you before, the Crown corporations secretariat is working to coordinate efforts, to pull together this issue here, and that's their role. It's a very difficult project, trying to.... I like the analogy my colleague from Prince George used: trying to get all these various entities together is a little like herding cats, and you need somebody to do this. You can see Bob Williams as the chief cat herder in this effort, trying to pull all these entities together and getting them sitting down and making a decision with regard to the accord. It's not an easy thing to do, but it has to be done if one is going to pull together the accord which has to take into consideration the concerns of the residents, the city, the Capital Regional District, B.C. Transit and any number of Crowns and ministries, recognizing those things and bringing them all together to try to come to some decisions with regard to this project. So that is his role. He is not the driver in this role, he is merely the coordinator.
D. Mitchell: The minister raises further concerns about the chief cat herder for this government. This project, the St. Ann's Academy upgrade, is ostensibly being driven by the British Columbia Buildings Corporation and the Provincial Capital Commission, and yet Bob Williams has been apparently -- according to the minister -- hired to coordinate the project. It sounds like he's quite hands-on through his secretariat with this project -- and indeed many others within this
[ Page 8149 ]
government and throughout the public sector of British Columbia today. Can the minister inform the committee how much the British Columbia Buildings Corporation pays to the Crown corporations secretariat in the year that we're being asked to provide funding approval for this evening?
Hon. L. Boone: I've already answered that. You can find that in the previous Hansard.
D. Mitchell: I indicated earlier that I didn't want to rehash earlier information. I know that we have asked for some general information about the Crown corporations that the minister is responsible for, and she's responsible for many important Crown corporations in the province. But I honestly don't recall -- and I have checked the Blues as well -- the specific figure for the British Columbia Buildings Corporation in terms of the retainer, if I might call it that, that is paid to the Crown corporations secretariat. If the minister had the figure, I'd be interested in knowing what it is; but in addition, I'd appreciate her comments, if she has any, on the value that is received for that money that is paid to the secretariat.
Hon. L. Boone: Last year the fee paid to the Crown corporations secretariat by B.C. Buildings Corporation was $163,890. B.C. Systems paid $94,000, and B.C. Lottery Corporation paid $37,378. That's based on the amount of work that the Crown corporations secretariat does on behalf of those groups. Obviously the BCBC one is high because of the involvement on the Victoria accord, which is taking up considerable time. We are getting good value. They are providing a service that would be.... We would probably have to go out and hire somebody to do this in order to coordinate.... Quite frankly, I don't know who would have the mandate to work with all the various government bodies that are involved other than somebody in a Crown corporations secretariat position or some other secretariat position, I guess; but we are getting good value.
[8:15]
Last year, audits were done on all of the Crown corporations. He has cut considerably, through the information that he has brought to the various Crowns -- not to my Crowns; I am proud to say that the three Crowns I represent came out of his audit process looking pretty good, and were actually found to be in very good, stable financial situation. I can tell you that the value to this government has been considerable, and we've saved a tremendous amount of money through the work of Bob Williams and many of the different Crowns.
D. Mitchell: Would the minister be able to release the audits that were done by the Crown corporations secretariat of the three Crown corporations she is responsible for?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, I would be happy to.
D. Mitchell: The minister has indicated that value is obtained for the moneys paid to the secretariat. Would it be safe to say that the project manager, for instance, for this upgrading of St. Ann's Academy, Mr. Sam Bawlf, would be having his salary paid through a BCBC stipend that is paid to the Crown corporations secretariat? Is that how the relationship would work?
Hon. L. Boone: Mr. Bawlf is paid through the Crown corporations secretariat, and the Minister of Finance will respond to any of those issues.
D. Mitchell: I will follow up with the Minister of Finance during his estimates on this issue in more detail, looking at it from the perspective of the secretariat that he bears responsibility for.
One final question on this. The minister is responsible for three important Crown corporations. They, in turn, have some kind of reporting relationship -- I don't know if it is a straight line or a dotted line, or what kind of a line it is -- to the Crown corporations secretariat. Would it be correct for me to interpret that relationship as one between a subsidiary corporation and a parent company?
Hon. L. Boone: No.
D. Mitchell: I wonder if the minister would describe it for me, if I'm not interpreting it correctly. There is a relationship there. It seems to be a quasi-reporting relationship. While the minister has public accountability because she, as an elected representative, sits in the Legislature and is responsible and accountable -- as she is in this exercise this evening -- for the activities of those Crown corporations, Bob Williams doesn't appear to be accountable to anyone. He is not elected, or is so no longer, and yet he has some kind of mastery over those Crown corporations as well. What is the relationship between the secretariat and the Crown corporations that the minister is responsible for?
Hon. L. Boone: The Crown corporations secretariat reports to the Minister of Finance, and he is responsible to the Minister of Finance. The Crown corporations secretariat also works through the Crown Corporations Committee. I sit on that committee, as do ministers responsible for the Crowns, and through that committee, we are able to direct the Crown corporations secretariat into different areas. We might ask that he investigate or, as we did just recently with regard to purchasing, do a review -- in this case in conjunction with the Purchasing Commission on the Crowns' purchasing policies to figure out how we can better coordinate purchasing throughout the Crowns. But he is not responsible for the Crowns. The boards of directors are responsible for the Crowns. I am the minister responsible for the Crowns, and the boards report through me; they do not report to Bob Williams.
D. Mitchell: I am going to go back and read that one in Hansard to see if it makes any sense. It seems complex, but I am sure there is a reason and a master plan, and I am sure that it all makes sense.
[ Page 8150 ]
One thing puzzles me, and perhaps the minister could comment on this last concern: within the Crown corporations that this minister bears responsibility for, surely there is a great deal of expertise in planning, strategy and administration. Within BCBC and the other Crown corporations that she is responsible for, there is a high degree of professional expertise. Why is it necessary to add a further level of administrative expertise -- some of which is hired on a contract basis, I understand, and some of which is hired on a project basis -- on behalf of the Crown corporations through the secretariat? Wouldn't this have a very negative impact on the morale of those working in the Crown corporations? Are they unable to do their jobs themselves? Do they have to have some political superbody over them, imposing its will through activities that probably could otherwise be provided very cost-effectively through the corporations themselves?
Hon. L. Boone: No. As I said earlier, the Crown corporations secretariat is a coordinating body. It does not control the Crowns. It coordinates efforts in a way the Crowns have not done in the past. There has been no coordination, no overall ability to influence Crown corporations policies or any of those things with regard to government; Crown corporations were basically on their own, doing whatever they wanted without any coordination whatsoever. Through this we will hopefully be able to achieve some sort of coordination in purchasing policy, on systems and on a number of different things. It is a very worthwhile process, and Mr. Williams is doing very well.
D. Mitchell: I appreciate the minister's comments on this. The reason I asked the question about the relationship, and whether or not it was akin to a parent company.... I am familiar with the Saskatchewan model for Crown corporations management, where the Crown Investments Corporation -- a body somewhat similar to the Crown corporations secretariat here, although it is organized in the corporate form -- served as an effective parent corporation for all of the Saskatchewan Crowns. Here we have a secretariat to a cabinet committee performing the same coordinating function. It is not organized in the corporate form, but for all intents and purposes, it would seem that Mr. Williams is the CEO of the parent company here.
The previous administration launched an initiative -- that I believe was aborted -- sometimes referred to through the news media as B.C. Inc., which was going to attempt to coordinate the activities of various agencies in the public sector -- particularly Crown corporations. From the minister's perspective of responsibility for three Crown corporations, does she see this as analogous to what the previous administration attempted?
Hon. L. Boone: No, nor is it similar to the Saskatchewan model. This administration actually looked at and rejected the Saskatchewan model.
D. Symons: I have a few questions for the minister regarding air services, so I am not sure if you want to rearrange the seating order there.
The first question deals with the air ambulance and emergency response use of these planes. I notice in some information I have here that in the last fiscal year the jets logged 2,100 hours in air ambulance service, and there was a projection for the '92-93 fiscal year of 2,700 hours. I wonder if you could tell me what the figure was for the '92-93 year?
Hon. L. Boone: We came pretty close. You said 2,700 was projected; we actually logged 2,674.8.
D. Symons: That's very, very close to the figure. It's marvellous that you can predict how many emergency services will be needed during the year. And what is the projection for the '93-94 year? I assume you're projecting for your expenses this year?
Hon. L. Boone: It's between 3,000 and 3,400 hours.
D. Symons: I'll be watching with intent interest next year to see if you can stay within that two percent range of accuracy, which I think is pretty good. I notice that there's a gradual increase, and particularly there was an increase from the '91-92 year. Was that because there was a third aircraft added? What might have accounted for the larger increase then and more subtle increases now?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, the third aircraft came on in December and that accounts for the increase.
D. Symons: So the emergency response part of government air services is using government planes; whereas in the past, before you had this extra plane, they would have been using public, rented planes or other services.
Hon. L. Boone: The government has three dedicated aircraft. That represents 40 percent of the requirements of government air ambulance, and we still contract out 60 percent. Yes, we were probably contracting out more before the third aircraft came on.
D. Symons: When you're using the government aircraft in that way, are the services reimbursed from MSP, or in any other way? Does this come as part of the medical services?
Hon. L. Boone: Funding for 2,800 air ambulance hours is within the Government Services base. That money comes from the Ministry of Health. I'm not sure where it comes from within their budget, but it comes from the Ministry of Health.
D. Symons: No, that's precisely the question I was asking, as to whether this was an expense in your ministry or in the Health ministry. You've answered that; it's from the Health ministry -- the majority of it anyway. Correction?
[ Page 8151 ]
Hon. L. Boone: I want to correct this because I got it wrong. That 2,800 comes from within our ministry budget, and the rest comes from Health.
D. Symons: Well, that's the reverse of the other, then. That 2,800 is air hours you're speaking of, not dollars, of course. I'm wondering what proportion of the air services you have are used for emergency response and what proportion are used for transferring MLAs and government officials back and forth. Is there a breakdown on the percentage used for air emergency compared to transport purposes?
Hon. L. Boone: We don't have it broken down on a percentage basis. But I'd just like to correct something. The member indicated that it's for MLAs and cabinet ministers, etc. It is not strictly for MLAs. The coordinated flights are for all government officials. Any government worker can travel on Government Air and is saving the government money by doing so.
D. Symons: I did understand that. I guess I didn't word the question in a way that indicated that. That's leading up to my next question. You mentioned that it's saving the government money. I wonder if you can give me a ballpark figure as to how much using government planes rather than commercial planes and having this air service.... If we count the maintenance, the insurance and all the rest that isn't included when you are paying for flights, the overall expense of operating this government service in that way.... Leaving out air emergencies, can you give us a ballpark figure of what percentage we might be saving compared to paying the commercial airlines?
Hon. L. Boone: We save about $300,000 by using Government Air instead of commercial flights.
[8:30]
D. Symons: From the way I asked the question, that figure would represent the net savings by the time you take out all the expenses of operating that particular portion of the planes.
I'm wondering if you can give me an idea of the usage of these flights, because you run a scheduled service. Can you give me a passenger rate for using the planes? Are these flights half full or three-quarters full?
Hon. L. Boone: Last year we carried 1,730 government passengers. There's not an average number that go on the flights. I've been on some flights that have been full, and I've been on some where there has been only a few members. I've been on some where I may have been the only person coming down from Prince George, but there were four people delivered to Prince George before I got there. We try to maximize the usage and make sure that as many people as possible are travelling on those flights and making maximum use of the government jets.
D. Symons: I have not flown on the government jet yet; that's a pleasure to which I am still looking forward. Part of the problem is that my main travel is between Victoria and Vancouver International. You don't run that service, and I assume that's simply because it's serviced rather well by commercial airlines. I'm just wondering if that is true. Are you thinking of expanding into other areas that might indeed make it possible? I suspect that a good number of government officials have to go back and forth between Victoria and Vancouver and are paying for the helijet or some other flight service, and it's quite an expense.
Hon. L. Boone: We are using the helijet to come back to Victoria to meet with our jet.
In answer to your question, it is not our intent to service areas that are serviced very well or to go into competition with the airlines. Our intent was to provide a service to get people around the province in an efficient way. Some of the costs that we are saving government you don't see here because they haven't been tallied yet. For example, people can go down and back -- in one day sometimes -- to a meeting and therefore save the costs of accommodation and hotels and all of those different things. If you take into consideration that people's time is money, we're saving dollars in those areas, too. Our whole intent is to provide a service to get government workers around the province in the most efficient way possible, but not to go into competition for areas that are very well served.
D. Symons: I have two further questions. I'll lump them together if I can. I did ask earlier for the ratio of use between emergency services and what I'll call transport services. You didn't have those figures, but I'm wondering if you could supply them at some future date. You also mentioned that there were 1,730 government passengers in the past year. Can you give me the number of flights so I can work out a passenger-to-flight ratio?
Hon. L. Boone: You want to know the number of all Government Air flights that were done, including special flights, CRT flights, fire suppression flights -- all of those different things?
D. Symons: No, just the ones that were carrying passengers, not the emergency air ambulance or fire suppression flights -- if you have the figure; otherwise I'll wait for it at some other time.
Hon. L. Boone: There were 450 coordinated regional travel flights.
K. Jones: A follow-up question on the government air services usage: did the minister use Government Air to go to her meetings yesterday and today in Seattle?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, Mr. Zirnhelt and I travelled down on Sunday to our meetings in Seattle.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us how much that trip cost? What was the equivalent cost by public air transit?
[ Page 8152 ]
Hon. L. Boone: I'll take that question on notice. We will have to get back to you. I don't know the exact costs. I can tell the member that the Economic Development minister had to be in Seattle for an executive meeting, and there were no flights out of Williams Lake that would have enabled him to reach that executive meeting, given his schedule.
K. Jones: Does that mean that the aircraft went from Victoria to Prince George to pick you up, then on to Williams Lake, and then down to Seattle, and then back to Victoria?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes.
K. Jones: Were there scheduled airlines operating between Prince George and Seattle or via Vancouver that could have been scheduled for yourself perhaps?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, but, as I said, it was impossible for Mr. Zirnhelt to have made his executive meeting, which he had at 3 p.m., so it was scheduled for Mr. Zirnhelt. To make the most efficient use of the government jet, it was decided that I would also go on the same flight.
K. Jones: When you say that there was no flight on a scheduled air line out of Williams Lake in time for him to make that meeting in Seattle at 3 o'clock, does that mean that there was no flight out of Williams Lake at all during the morning and up till whatever time it takes to get connecting flights to Seattle?
Hon. L. Boone: I don't know. I know that this was the only time available for him. I make no apologies, hon. member, because Mr. Zirnhelt has a gruelling schedule and he has a very difficult time getting home. It's not like catching a ferry across to the lower mainland. We hardly see our families at all -- I had a day and a half at home with my family, and I think Mr. Zirnhelt had one evening home with his family. So I make no apologies about making accommodations so that Mr. Zirnhelt could both get home to meet with his family, which most people tend to like to do once in awhile, and then get down to attend to his executive duties in Seattle for Sunday afternoon.
K. Jones: I realize that there is a justifiable desire to be with your family, but there are times when the cost of the government air service becomes quite onerous to do that. I'm sure that that cost was probably close to $1,500, or maybe even more. In fact, I think the flight from Victoria to Vancouver to Comox and back to Victoria that the Minister of Labour utilized when he was going skiing was around $1,500. It's certainly a whole lot shorter and less costly than the flight to Prince George, Williams Lake, and down to Seattle and back to Victoria.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
Based on the cost of this trip and the cost savings of an overnight hotel room, which would probably be, say -- on the generous side for a really fancy hotel -- about $150 a night, can you still say that you couldn't have flown down on Saturday in order to be there for the Sunday meeting? You could have flown down on Sunday evening, while Mr. Zirnhelt flew down on Saturday evening, for a single flight ticket.
The Chair: It's never appropriate to refer to a member by their name. Could the committee keep this in mind and refer to the members by their constituency that they represent.
K. Jones: I stand corrected. I just got carried away in the conversation there. The Minister of Economic Development was coming from Williams Lake -- I correct that.
Would the minister tell us how she can justify those cost differences? The minister did not have to be in Seattle until the evening or even the next day for her part of the trip, so she could have used a public airline service, which is probably in the range of $600. Since the minister must have known about this event for several weeks or maybe even months, she may have even been able to get a discounted fare. Could the minister explain the cost?
Hon. L. Boone: As I told the member already, Minister Zirnhelt's schedule....
The Chair: Hon. minister....
Hon. L. Boone: The Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade's schedule was such that he was unable to get down. If a plane is coming up to Williams Lake, then I might as well get on it and save the taxpayers' dollars by utilizing the same plane for myself as for the Minister of Economic Development.
The member seems to think that when you go home to your riding, you don't do anything. Hon. member, I was working all Saturday, including Saturday night, and I'm sure that you do the same sorts of things, and you must understand that it's necessary not just to get home to see your family but to get home to do all the other work that we have to do on the weekends. As I said, I make no apologies for using the government jets to get home to our constituencies to work on behalf of our constituents and to get down to do our executive functions for our ministries.
K. Jones: Perhaps just for the minister's benefit.... I'm sure that in her desire to keep the costs of government down, she would have checked this out before she made the arrangements to bring Government Air up to the north. At 5 o'clock Sunday evening, the minister could have caught a scheduled aircraft into Vancouver, thereby giving herself more of a day with her family and with her constituents, as she has indicated she needed. She must have known that. I'm sure she would have looked at the schedules to see what was available before she made her flight.
[ Page 8153 ]
Hon. L. Boone: Perhaps the member should look at the schedule for the meetings there. My meetings started in Seattle at 6 o'clock at night, and I would not have got there had I taken the 5 o'clock flight.
Would you please get on to another question?
H. De Jong: I don't think it serves any purpose to go on a specific journey of flights that were taken. I think that we have to look at the broader picture. I was just wondering whether there's been any costing done on the average flight cost per MLA -- since there's now been pretty well a year of scheduled flights -- against the cost by MLAs for commercial flights taken.
[8:45]
Hon. L. Boone: It would be very difficult to figure that cost out. We actually charge back on an MLA, to vote 1, a cost 10 percent less than a commercial flight. To determine how each MLA's flight is affected is very difficult, because it all depends on the number of people on a particular flight. There may be a particular MLA on a flight that may be half full, or at that particular time there may be only two or three on it, so the cost per MLA would be considerably more.
We have reduced the number of executive flights. In the previous government there was only executive travel. MLAs were not allowed on those planes, as you know. We used to leave Prince George with Bruce on one plane -- I can use his name now -- and myself on a commercial flight. I used to say: "This doesn't make any sense at all." We have reduced those some 41 percent. Our goal is to try to make sure that the government jets are utilized by as many individuals as possible, to make sure that the planes are there.... The priority for these planes is still emergency services, such as fire suppression or any emergencies that Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources have. We have those planes there to have on hand for those areas. We reduced those costs by utilizing them for all government employees.
But an amount per MLA would be very difficult to add up. We'd have to consider it on amount per passenger, perhaps. We might be able to figure out something on that, if you took the cost of the plane and averaged them out on that. But just an amount per MLA would be very difficult to do.
H. De Jong: I understand that. Perhaps the coming year may be a better way to measure that, because of the fact that now MLAs are allowed to travel with this plane. Before it was basically ministers -- which I had difficulty accepting too, and I'll admit to that. It was a crazy rule and should never have been there in the first place. On the other hand, concerning the trips now available for MLAs, do the MLAs who need to use an airplane for those distances use the government flight as a first option or as a second option to a commercial flight? What is the policy generally?
Hon. L. Boone: I'm not sure how they use them. They use them according to how it fits into their schedules; I think that's best. I know, for example, that the member for Prince George-Omineca refuses to use them. Why he does that is his own business, and I can't second-guess him, but I know that he doesn't use them. He was on one once, on an emergency basis when we were fogbound in Prince George, and he had no choice but to come on a jet with us.
I think that members decide how it best fits into their schedules. Many times the schedules don't necessarily fit into the timetables they have or where they are going. Sometimes they are going over to Vancouver first, or they are going to some other area, or they are landing, or they have to do some business that carries them beyond the time, or they need a late flight or an earlier flight or something like that. They base their flights on their needs. Those flights are subtracted from the number of trips they have through vote 1. That's how we manage to get this through the comptroller, hon. member -- by not seeing this as a perk to a member, because the comptroller didn't want to see this. We had to subtract the number of trips from the number of trips members have to and from their constituencies, so it's no additional cost to the taxpayers.
H. De Jong: I can appreciate the privilege for MLAs to go on those planes. My next question would be: since this was initially for elected personnel and immediate staff -- executive assistants and so on -- are these scheduled trips also available for personnel per se -- not necessarily going along with an elected person on that plane? Is it now also available for staff people?
Hon. L. Boone: All government employees can go on these government jets now. In fact, we're encouraging them to check with Government Air first to see if there is a flight available. I'm the first to admit that there has been some reluctance from some people who still see a stigma attached to Government Air and think they may get in trouble for using it, when the opposite is true. If they use it, they are reducing the cost to government, because we are saving them money by doing so. All government employees -- whether they are an OA2, somebody who works in the liquor distribution branch or whatever -- can travel on Government Air as long as they are doing government business. It is not to do personal business; they cannot come down for shopping trips or anything like that. As long as they are coming down to do government business, they are able to fly on Government Air.
H. De Jong: I guess that's the area I have some problems with. I can fully understand the necessity of elected people flying on these planes, considering the distance. If there is a scheduled flight, why not? To come back to the first bit of the previous discussion in relation to trips that may involve one or more persons going to different places -- perhaps even outside our province -- I clearly recall an incident when I was to be in Dawson Creek in the morning. In the same afternoon we flew over to Edmonton for a conference of ministers of agriculture from across Canada to meet with Mr. Mazankowski. It was a Friday morning when we left, and we stayed overnight in Edmonton because it was a day-and-a-half meeting, and it was certainly nice to be able to have that plane handy there on Saturday
[ Page 8154 ]
evening when we left Edmonton to get home in decent time. The life of ministers, in particular, is a rigorous life, to say the least. You are not really your own person anymore. You are controlled by staff, to a degree, in terms of where to go and how to get there. When these privileges are available, yes, the public may say from time to time that these fellows have all kinds of perks, but in a lot of cases the public does not understand that the time commitment asked of politicians, particularly ministers of the Crown, is far beyond what anyone would ever have thought that they would put in. I really don't care which party is in government -- whenever they are in government, they do the best to serve the people, and to serve the needs and the commitments they have made on behalf of the people. I therefore see nothing wrong with having a minister go over to Seattle in an airplane to do business for the people of British Columbia.
At the same time, I have difficulty, as I said earlier. This is a service mainly to assist those who have those busy and irregular schedules -- even though there may be little saving to the public, and a person wonders whether there is. I suppose the more you use a machine, such as an airplane, the better utilization you get out of it, and there may be a little saving in the long run. At the same time, we are also using taxpayers' money, and that money is being gathered from people and companies that make a profit. That's all that private enterprise is about -- to provide a service, but also to make a profit and be allowed to make a profit. I do not agree, therefore, with the availability of government airplanes now for staff per se. I do not agree with it. It goes against what British Columbians expect from government. I have said that I feel sympathetic toward those who are elected, and even the executive assistants or deputy ministers who have similarly irregular schedules, but at the same time I believe that normal airplane travel should be provided by those who are in the airplane business. It is not for government to interfere with that.
Hon. L. Boone: We obviously have a slight philosophical difference here, but I do agree with you. That is why we have not gone into competing on routes. We do not run a scheduled flight between Vancouver and Victoria. What we are trying to do is provide services in areas that are not well served by airlines, to the regions; there's obviously not an airline service that comes from anywhere to Victoria. It's a service out to those regions, getting people down to Victoria and hopefully back in one day, so that we can save taxpayers' dollars. I recognize your concern, and it's a concern that we have been very aware of. When we originally started to work on our coordinated regional flights, we consulted and worked with the major airlines to arrange it so that we weren't in competition with them. But they recognize that we've got very expensive planes sitting there, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense not to utilize them as best we can. Our goal is to try and coordinate flights. I can tell you, quite frankly, hon. member, that when we originally came to office, we saw that without the coordination, we'd have ministers going all over the place -- as happened in the previous administration. We saw we could save a lot of money just by coordinating those flights, so we've had to find a way to coordinate those flights. We put in a coordinator of regional travel, and ministers try to travel on those flights if they are available. If they are not available, they put on special flights. Right now you've got ministers who are utilizing those flights as best they can; there are times that you may have two or three on one plane. We are trying to save the taxpayers as many dollars as we can -- recognizing the concerns of the airline industry and certainly not going into competition with them.
[9:00]
H. De Jong: Just as a final comment, hon. Chair, I want to state that similar planes, whether bought by government or by private enterprise, cost the same. I also want to say that even when I was a minister I took Airspeed from Abbotsford more often that I did a government plane for the simple reason that that small airline was struggling to get off the ground and keep going. They are doing pretty well now, because they got to be better known. At the same time, I also believe that as elected people, we should always look at the cost. I knew the cost of dipping down in Abbotsford just to pick me up, and it was still a whole lot cheaper to go by Airspeed for $119.
K. Jones: I thank the previous member for his insightful questions. They did canvass some of the areas that we planned to cover, and that's good -- we won't have to go over them.
With regard to air services, what new purchases are being contemplated?
Hon. L. Boone: None.
K. Jones: When is the next aircraft going to be required?
Hon. L. Boone: At the earliest, we will be looking at replacements in two years. We can deal with that next year, hon. Chair.
K. Jones: Is the minister putting away the reserve funds for the purchase of that, or is it going to be a capital purchase in the year when there may not be funds available?
Hon. L. Boone: We have no reserve funds.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us the total number of air miles travelled by government ministers on non-government aircraft?
Hon. L. Boone: It's not within my jurisdiction. I can't tell you what they travel commercially.
K. Jones: Does air services not measure the amount of service required by the government and therefore know whether they are providing adequate service? Or do they just put up some aircraft and see how much usage it gets and then add a few more aircraft when that
[ Page 8155 ]
usage gets filled? Is there no master plan? Does the minister have no planning process that measures the utilization of government aircraft versus airline aircraft usage, helicopter usage or charter aircraft usage?
The Chair: The minister is only responsible for those areas that come under the direct administrative capacity of her office. She is not responsible for logging and checking commercial flights to see who has flown and who hasn't flown. Would you restrict your questions to those areas that are strictly under the administrative capacity of the Minister of Government Services.
K. Jones: The minister is definitely responsible for the area of her ministry. That takes in air services and evaluating the quality of the service. I beg to differ with the Chairman's ability to make...
The Chair: Order!
K. Jones: ...judgment on the minister's....
The Chair: Order! Hon. member, would you take your seat.
Cautions from the Chair are not debatable. Please restrict your questioning to those areas that are under the administrative capacity of this minister.
K. Jones: I was doing exactly that. The minister knows exactly what her responsibilities are within the ministry.
The Chair: Hon. member, a new question, please.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us the number of helicopter contracts that have been entered into by Government Services?
Hon. L. Boone: We've entered into no helicopter contracts. They are negotiated ministry by ministry.
K. Jones: Is the air ambulance service helicopter contract directly administered through the Ministry of Health, or does the minister have responsibility through government air services for that contract?
Hon. L. Boone: Through the Purchasing Commission the province spends up to $33,000,000 each year contracting helicopter services for program delivery. The biggest user is the Ministry of Forests' fire protection branch. Other users are Health, Transportation and Highways, Environment, and Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. I do not know how much is in each of these areas.
K. Jones: Does that include the chartering of the three helicopters that are based in Vancouver, Victoria and Prince Rupert for air ambulance services?
Hon. L. Boone: Those are within the $33,000,000.
K. Jones: That is a lot of money to spend. Could the minister give us a breakdown of the various allocations of those moneys so that we could better evaluate the usage?
Hon. L. Boone: I just told the member how it was broken down. I also told you that I didn't know the exact number; we will have to get those numbers to you at a later date.
K. Jones: I hope that the later date will be within the next few weeks. Is that an indication of what you mean by a later date?
Hon. L. Boone: It will be as soon as possible.
K. Jones: The minister is not going to be committed to anything. Thank you.
With regard to air ambulance services in the interior, could the minister indicate how many companies are contracted out, the size of the contracts and where they are contracted for?
Hon. L. Boone: There are contracts in Prince George, Kamloops, and Kelowna. They are standing offers; there is no specific amount. It's no guarantee that any specific amount of business will be done with any particular carrier.
K. Jones: Could the minister explain what the standing offer constitutes?
Hon. L. Boone: The standing offer is a contract with a supplier to supply a certain type of aircraft. There is no guarantee for the number of hours that company would get.
K. Jones: Is there just one contract, and is that with one contractor for all of the bases in the interior?
Hon. L. Boone: Carson Air holds the three regional ones, and we have a variety of contractors in the lower mainland.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us the breakdown of the amount of money that is allocated to Carson Air, and to the lower mainland contracts?
Hon. L. Boone: As I stated earlier, there is no money allocated; it's as used. And the money comes from the Ministry of Health, but there is no specific amount of money allocated.
K. Jones: So the money comes directly from the Ministry of Health on a per-flight basis. That comes to Government Services, which goes to the air services to pay a bill that these people provide. Is that the process that's used?
Hon. L. Boone: We provide an administrative process for the Ministry of Health. The actual cost of using those services comes from the Minsitry of Health.
[ Page 8156 ]
K. Jones: Could I just repeat what I said before with regard to the process? Could you explain the process by which the money goes from the Ministry of Health to Carson Air?
Hon. L. Boone: They initiate the call through the government air services provincial dispatch. We pay the invoice, and then charge the Ministry of Health.
K. Jones: So does government air services pay the bill on a per-flight basis, or does it have a monthly or some other sort of financial arrangement for making payments to Carson Air? Do they have any guarantee of a minimum amount to operate on?
Hon. L. Boone: They pay once a month.
K. Jones: The rest of my questions are with regard to Carson Air. Do they get paid a minimum amount, or are they just taking the job on risk, based on some past performances? Could you give us the average amount that would be paid out?
Hon. L. Boone: This is the fourth time I've answered this. There are no guarantees for any amounts. Carson Air is paid according to the business that it gets, and that's it.
K. Jones: Could the minsiter give us the average monthly amount that is paid to Carson Air?
Hon. L. Boone: Approximately $35,000 per location per month.
K. Jones: Does Carson Air have all the required aircraft in place at all the sites, as was required by the original contract?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes.
K. Jones: When did the contractor, Carson Air, get the Kamloops aircraft up to standard?
[9:15]
Hon. L. Boone: The contract allowed for 30 days, and they had those aircraft in place 30 days after the contract was let.
K. Jones: I will leave that one for the moment, because that's an interesting response.
With regard to charter flights, how many non-government air charter flights were booked by government air services, and what is the total budget allocated in the past year for that?
Hon. L. Boone: We need some clarification. Are you talking about air ambulance or charters for CRT?
K. Jones: For the regular non-ambulance air services.
Hon. L. Boone: There were 41 charter flights.
K. Jones: Is the minister estimating in this year's budget for the cost of a similar number of charter flights?
Hon. L. Boone: If we are chartering on behalf of ministries, it's all cost-recoverable, and it's charged back to the various ministries.
K. Jones: Since the administration is done by government air services, could the minister tell us what the cost is?
Hon. L. Boone: As it's immediately charged back to ministries, we don't have that information here, so we'll have to get back to you with that.
K. Jones: Could the minister also include the names of the ministries and the breakdown as it is allocated?
I'd like to go to the Peat Marwick report with regard to government air services. They recommended in February 1992 that government air services develop an implementation system for enhancing revenues from the transport of government employees. Has that been done, and how much revenue has been created?
Hon. L. Boone: That's what coordinated regional travel is all about, and that's why we are encouraging government employees to travel on Government Air -- we've already gone through this at great length, hon. member.
K. Jones: I'm afraid we haven't gone through this. In fact, we haven't even brought up the subject in this year's estimates until now. How much revenue was made?
Hon. L. Boone: About $300,000.
K. Jones: As this has been implemented, what method is there to ensure that additional revenues do in fact exceed the direct or incremental costs of operation -- and do they?
Hon. L. Boone: We are encouraging ministries to encourage their employees to travel on Government Air whenever possible.
K. Jones: Do the direct or incremental costs of this service match the revenues received?
Hon. L. Boone: We are working at that. It hasn't become totally cost-effective yet. The whole point is to utilize the planes, because the more people you can get flying on them, the more cost-effective it is and you reduce the cost of travel for individuals. We are working on getting ministries to encourage employees to travel on it.
K. Jones: With regard to that cost, could the minister tell us exactly what the direct incremental costs are now, so we can compare those to the revenues received?
[ Page 8157 ]
Hon. L. Boone: I don't know what you mean by incremental costs. We are trying to reduce the costs of Government Air by expanding its use through opening it to government employees. We are reducing the cost, but we haven't got it down to a zero-dollar value yet. That is what we are trying to do. There aren't incremental costs associated with allowing more people to travel on the jets.
K. Jones: I will just go back to the question, then. Could the minister tell us, or give us at the earliest possible time, the direct incremental costs as would be detailed.... If she wishes to refer back to the Peat Marwick report, she would probably be able to get the details of what would be included in that. They did an analysis and recommended that the revenue should be brought to the point of matching or exceeding the direct incremental costs of operation. That, I presume, would also include the capital cost portion that's allocated to those aircraft. Therefore we would like to know how closely the costs are matching the total revenues.
Hon. L. Boone: As I said earlier, we haven't actually reached the zero point yet. CRT was implemented in response to the Peat Marwick report, recognizing that we could reduce the costs of travel if we had more people on the flight. That is not the incremental cost. As I said earlier, we haven't reached zero cost yet; we're working toward it. The more people we can get flying on the planes, the more cost-effective it will be. We are striving to do so.
K. Jones: I'll just ask the question once more with regard to the actual costs of the current operation of the coordinated air services. Could the minister tell us the current costs of the coordinated air services, including the capital costs of the equipment?
Hon. L. Boone: The capital costs are there because we have these planes for emergency response. We'll have to get the variable cost information to you.
K. Jones: I understood that at least one of the aircraft is allocated for the coordinated air services, that it was not justified on the basis of emergency services. It was actually being allocated for the coordinated air services; otherwise, it wouldn't be available, because it's off throughout the province almost every day.
Hon. L. Boone: No, there are two used; their priority is emergency response. When they're not used in emergency response they're used for coordinated regional travel. If they are pulled to use for fire suppression or issues such as that, then charter flights are pulled in to do whatever service that they were regularly scheduled to do.
K. Jones: That's interesting, because I'm concerned about the promises and commitments that the minister has made to people who are going to use the service: they would have assured reservations, therefore that could be.... That's what you're using to try and build up your ridership, you might say -- the commitment that there will be a service when people need it. But you're saying they'll get a notice if there's some emergency. Say PEP needs it, or Forestry needs it. Bingo, the aircraft is gone and coordinated air services goes down the tube. Is that what you're suggesting?
Hon. L. Boone: That's not at all what I'm suggesting, and had you listened to the last part of the answer, you would have heard that when they are called off to fire suppression or things such as that, a charter flight is brought in to cover their regular flights.
The Chair: I think that this is the appropriate time for the Chair to remind the committee of the necessity to ask and reply through the Chair, please, hon. members.
K. Jones: With regard to the coordinated regional air travel services, could the minister tell us how often spouses or dependent children travel? What is the total number of spouses or dependent children who have travelled on the service this past year?
Hon. L. Boone: Children of MLAs are not allowed to travel. According to the GMOP regulations, the only person who is allowed to have his child travel with him is the Premier. Spouses are allowed to travel. You have access to the logs -- through you, hon. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. minister.
Hon. L. Boone: The logs do show all those individuals who travel. The hon. member has access to those logs, and I encourage him to look through them. This is what my staff would have to do, hon. member, and I think we have a lot of work to do. I would suggest that if the hon. member is really that interested, he may find those answers as well as we can. The regulations clearly state that spouses of MLAs may travel with them. The regulations also state that those are charged back to vote 1, and are deducted from the travel the same as any other trip to the legislative precincts.
[9:30]
K. Jones: Perhaps the minister would like to read the questions and answers sent or handed out to people with regard to the use of government air services' coordinated regional travel. One of the questions says: "Can my spouse or dependent child fly on the coordinated regional travel service?" The answer is: "No. Commercial services must be used and will be applied to the constituency allowance." Perhaps there's some difference between what the minister is saying and what instructions are going out from Government Services.
Hon. L. Boone: You are right: MLAs' spouses cannot travel; spouses of cabinet ministers may travel, but their children may not.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us why the disparity between ministers' and MLAs' spouses travelling?
[ Page 8158 ]
Hon. L. Boone: Good question. Ministers' spouses may travel if they're on official business.
It wouldn't actually be difficult to make those changes with regard to spouses. We would have to get the agreement of the comptroller, and you know I'm not adverse to doing that. But it took us a great deal of effort to get the agreement of the comptroller and what have you to deal with MLAs. We thought we got success at that. At some point we may actually try to deal with the idea of spouses. But at the particular time when we were dealing with this, we were treading very carefully and moving very slowly in the whole issue of expanding government air services. We took it one step at a time.
K. Jones: Perhaps it would be appropriate for the spouses to travel where there's space available, as that would not be dislocating any potential passengers on an aircraft that would be flying there anyway. As a suggestion for the operations of the ministry, perhaps that would be a fair and equitable way. Members who live up country would have the same advantages that members who live on the lower mainland have in bringing their spouses to Victoria at minimal cost.
I'd like to ask the minister some questions with regard to the flight centre at Pat Bay. Could the minister tell us when the new flight centre is currently expected to go into operational service?
Hon. L. Boone: We are looking to locate on approximately October 1.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us whether the work on that project was done by union or non-union workers?
Hon. L. Boone: I can't tell you whether it was union or non-union. I can tell you that the fair wage policy did apply, but I can't tell you whether it was a union company or not.
K. Jones: With regard to the lease arrangement for the tenancy there, what percentage of the facility is covered by the government's lease?
Hon. L. Boone: We are renting two-thirds of the facility.
K. Jones: Does that two-thirds include an even breakdown between the hangar spaces and the administration or lobby and passenger area?
Hon. L. Boone: We're not renting anything from the FBO or the VIP lounge. That's not within our rental area.
K. Jones: Does that mean that the owner, which I believe is Shell Canada, is tossing the administration process into the lease package? You're obviously going to use that space for your passengers and crews to work through.
Hon. L. Boone: No, we will have our own space, but we won't be using their VIP space.
K. Jones: In the minister's press release, I believe the minister indicated that one of the features of this contract was that the VIP facilities were going to be utilized by the people arriving here for the Commonwealth Games and all that, as this would be the location. Is the government not planning to use government air services to bring people to this terminal, or are other airlines being scheduled for the Commonwealth Games?
Hon. L. Boone: We won't be flying people in for the Commonwealth Games, unless they are government officials who are travelling here, or MLAs or what have you. We won't be flying the participants in to the Commonwealth Games.
K. Jones: Will the dignitaries who will be arriving from other countries -- representatives of the other countries coming to the Commonwealth Games -- be flying in by regular scheduled aircraft to Victoria International Airport?
The Chair: Hon. member, only those areas that are under the direct administrative capacity of the minister's office are examinable. Airline arrangements by participants in the Commonwealth Games from other countries clearly do not fall under the administrative capacity of this minister.
K. Jones: I was trying to ask the question a little obliquely, to try to find out whether chartered airlines were going to....
The Chair: Perhaps, hon. member, it was far too oblique for the Chair to understand it. Nevertheless, airline arrangements from other countries are not the responsibility of this ministry.
K. Jones: I acknowledge that. With regard to the use of this facility, could the minister indicate what the contractual arrangement is with regard to the lease? What is its term? What has to be paid up front, and what are the annual payments?
Hon. L. Boone: The rent will be between $550,000 and $750,000 over a ten-year lease.
K. Jones: Was there upfront money or loan guarantees required?
Hon. L. Boone: No.
K. Jones: Could the minister indicate the size of the fuel service costs for government air services?
Hon. L. Boone: Would the hon. member continue with another question. We'll have to get that information to him. Maybe we've got it. It's $1.5 million.
[ Page 8159 ]
K. Jones: Is the $1.5 million a total for the jet fuel? Does that include the air ambulance costs?
Hon. L. Boone: With air ambulance, it's $2.1 million.
K. Jones: Could the minister explain the $10.25 million that's in STOB 50? I understood that part of that was for jet fuel. The information I had was that $5.3 million was required for air ambulance.
Hon. L. Boone: Those are the charter costs recovered from the Ministry of Health.
K. Jones: The minister said that those were charter costs? STOB 50, I understand, is purchase of supplies, not services.
Hon. L. Boone: The $5.3 million is the recovery costs of charter operations.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what she means by that statement? Is that related to the jet fuel?
Hon. L. Boone: It's the aircraft rentals that we talked about -- the charter aircraft that air ambulance charters, and $5.3 million is recovered from the Ministry of Health.
K. Jones: And that's considered an item under purchase of supplies -- STOB 50?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes.
K. Jones: Hon. Chair, special job postings were established for two pilot 1 positions in government air services that were exclusively allocated to females. Could the minister tell us, first of all, that those.... I'm sorry, just to preface, those job positions required a minimum of 1,000 hours air flight time in commercial aircraft, and that was down from the 1,500 that is normally required for all other applicants for pilot 1 positions. Also, I think the multi-engine service requirements were dropped from 500 hours down to 300 hours for those positions. Could the minister tell us what number of hours the successful applicants had?
Hon. L. Boone: The entry standards for our bridging program have actually been increased to include a minimum of 1,000 hours' flying experience. The member doesn't recognize that previous to this, pilot positions simply weren't posted: they were filled through the old-boy network. Nobody had an opportunity to apply before. We have posted these positions for the first time ever, and provided a valuable service.
So we have increased the minimum to 1,000 hours' flying experience. Training on a Citation aircraft enhances this experience while flying in support of British Columbia's air ambulance and emergency response programs. As for the number of hours that the candidates actually had: one was 1,600, and the other was just over 3,000 flying with Air Canada as a second officer. Neither of them would have had any Citation experience.
K. Jones: Perhaps the minister wants to go back and review the notice that was published in the paper for that position -- and the previous postings also. There is also an adjoining posting that details the service requirements, which were 1,500 hours for the regular position and 1,000 hours for the specialized, female-only applications. It wasn't brought up to that; it has been dropped down to that level -- and this is not a change throughout the past two years of operations, because 1,500 hours was a requirement when the minister took over the position.
[9:45]
With regard to one of the two successful candidates, my information shows that she had 8,000 hours with senior experience for a level 1 entry position, and she was working for Air Canada and Air B.C. The second successful applicant had 1,800 hours and worked previously with Air B.C. Both of them had operated multi-engine aircraft. In fact, they had been practising on Citations in order to make sure that they did have those qualifications, even though that wasn't required in the advertisement as posted by government air services.
Can the minister really indicate that she has a good grasp of why this posting was established, when there are qualified females out there who don't require substandard conditions? I think this is most demeaning to the females who wanted to apply for it. It makes a mockery of the process, having to provide a special standard to get them into jobs just because they happen to be female. I think that the process of proper, fair competition would have gotten those women qualified as air services persons without going through this type of process. I think the minister needs to explain and justify this insult to the women.
Hon. L. Boone: I don't think it's an insult to the women at all, and I certainly think that the women who have these positions don't think it's an insult. Had the previous process worked, we would have had women in those positions. But it didn't work. As I said earlier, there was an old boys' network out there that really prevented women from getting into those positions.
Pilot licensing standards are set by Transport Canada. All pilots at Government Air are trained and certified as safe operators of jet aircraft, and they are not substandard pilots in any way, shape or form. I will not accept the member saying such a thing, hon. Chair. Transport Canada conducts a pilot proficiency check before they assume their responsibilities.
Training programs are not new at Government Air. In fact, student pilots have in the past been hired directly out of Selkirk College with 300 hours. We are presently hiring apprentices in our aircraft maintenance group, and we are working as hard as we can to make sure that women get access to these government jobs. I make no apologies for that. I would think that the member wouldn't either.
As for those particular positions and postings, I've just been informed that they have been appealed
[ Page 8160 ]
through the civil service commission. Therefore I'm not at liberty to discuss them at this time.
K. Jones: Well, if you can't discuss them, we'll go on to other areas. I'll stand down air services at this point.
Hon. Chair, I'd like to go into vehicle management services. The Peat Marwick report recommended that the government and Government Services thoroughly evaluate the costs and benefits before implementing centralized billing for the vehicle maintenance program. Has the government implemented centralized billing for vehicle maintenance?
Hon. L. Boone: No, we're pilot-testing in the Prince George region with the Ministry of Forests.
K. Jones: I'm sorry. The minister said it so quickly, I'm not sure whether I heard her correctly.
Hon. L. Boone: We're doing a pilot project -- it has nothing to do with planes -- in the Prince George region with the Ministry of Forests.
K. Jones: What program or process has the ministry put in place to evaluate the costs and benefits, as recommended by the Peat Marwick report?
Hon. L. Boone: Can the member please be more specific?
K. Jones: I don't know whether there's a need to be more specific than: what method do you have to evaluate the costs and benefits of the program?
Hon. L. Boone: For the pilot project, we will be comparing the previous budgets with the budgets we have now to see if we're actually saving money.
K. Jones: That sounds like pretty slipshod administration to me, with regard to assessing whether you are going to make a little saving over last year's budget. That's not really what most accountants expect out of a cost-benefit analysis. Normally a cost-benefit analysis looks at your total costs and at the benefits you're gaining for that cost. It's value-for-money auditing that is normally done. I'm sure that the minister is not unfamiliar with the Peat Marwick report's recommendations to her ministry; I'm sure she would have studied them quite intently. I'm wondering why she's having so much difficulty in relating her response to a year-and-a-half-old report that she hasn't yet implemented.
The Chair: Does vote 43 pass?
K. Jones: Is the minister not prepared to respond to a report that shows that there's a need for a certain degree of accountability in her ministry? Or is this just another case of not having the appropriate process in place to make her ministry accountable in that section?
The Chair: Does vote 43 pass?
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us how many vehicles are currently in the vehicle fleet?
Hon. L. Boone: There are 5,226.
K. Jones: How many of those are classified as specialized vehicles?
Hon. L. Boone: None.
K. Jones: Could the minister indicate what the maintenance costs for all those vehicles are?
Hon. L. Boone: Maintenance costs are budgeted in all ministries' budgets.
K. Jones: Since she has the responsibility for administering the maintenance costs, could the minister tell us what the total cost is for maintenance of government vehicles?
The Chair: Does vote 43 pass?
K. Jones: I'll move on to the Queen's Printer then. Could the minister indicate what actions have been taken to minimize sole-source purchases from the private sector?
Hon. L. Boone: We tender wherever there's more than one supplier.
K. Jones: I must congratulate the Queen's Printer on being probably the first one to complete their Peat Marwick recommendation. I think that's a good comment in that it's the only one of all of the recommendations under Government Services that's been completed so far.
I'm going to tie these together under the same area. I believe the same staff person would be in the office products centre. Is that right?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes.
The Chair: Through the Chair, hon. members.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what has been done to improve the detail of management information presented monthly, including reports on inventory turnover, order-processing time, contribution margins and picking rates and costs?
Hon. L. Boone: That data is reported monthly in the management reports.
K. Jones: Is that information an improvement from February l992, as indicated in the Peat Marwick report?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes.
K. Jones: Has that same management information been utilized for the product distribution centre?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes.
[ Page 8161 ]
K. Jones: For the product distribution centre, what cost-reduction studies have been implemented?
Hon. L. Boone: We've gone from a $4.3 million operating cost in 1990-91 down to a projected cost this year of $3.07 million.
K. Jones: Has the possibility of decentralizing purchasing and warehousing been looked into? Has it been implemented?
[10:00]
Hon. L. Boone: It has been looked into, and we are currently having some discussions -- for example, with the Ministry of Health.
K. Jones: Are your discussions with the Ministry of Health as a trial with one ministry?
Hon. L. Boone: It is related to the future directions in health care.
K. Jones: Does the minister have plans to do similar decentralization of purchasing and warehousing in other areas?
Hon. L. Boone: We're looking at its efficiencies wherever possible. If there are areas where our services can be utilized, then that's what we're looking to. We're looking to efficiencies wherever we can find them, hon. member.
K. Jones: Is there a just-in-time program implemented in the product distribution or warehousing areas?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes.
K. Jones: How extensive is that?
Hon. L. Boone: Extensive.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us whether 100 percent of the operation is on a just-on-time basis, or what percentage would be?
Hon. L. Boone: Not with everything. Some surgical equipment and medical supplies need a long lead time -- so not for everything.
K. Jones: In the warehousing and asset investment recovery area, has there been any basis for the sharing of revenues from the disposal of surplus assets?
Hon. L. Boone: We follow Treasury Board policy on this. It goes back into general revenue unless it's replacing existing equipment. Or if it's in Crown corporations, we would give it back to the Crown.
K. Jones: We will move over to B.C. Systems. In the meantime, with regard to the Crown corporations secretariat funding that was contributed from the Crowns, and the ministry budget that the minister is responsible for, could the minister give us a detailing of what projects that money was spent on?
Hon. L. Boone: We will have to get that information for the member.
K. Jones: I'm sorry, the minister didn't speak loud enough for me to hear.
Hon. L. Boone: We will have to get that information to you at a later date.
K. Jones: I would like to go back to B.C. Systems Corporation, and I'm grateful that representatives have been willing to stay with us for this time.
D. Schreck: Cruel and unusual punishment.
K. Jones: For all of us, hon. member, for all of us.
D. Lovick: And you are the master of your own fate.
K. Jones: No, the public is the master of my fate, and I am responsible to them.
The Chair: Hon. member, debate in committee, as in the House, must be carried on through the Chair -- standing order 36.
K. Jones: With regard to the B.C. Systems network facilities, is there a fibre optics network in place, or planned?
Hon. L. Boone: The hon. member will be pleased to know that we use B.C. Tel's fibre optics services throughout Victoria.
K. Jones: Is B.C. Systems also involved in providing fibre optics services in the legislative precinct?
Hon. L. Boone: We rent all the lines from one of the carriers.
K. Jones: I understand that there is a newly built fibre optics network placed here in the precinct, and that it was under the billing and direction of B.C. Systems. Is the minister not familiar with that system?
Hon. L. Boone: We have fibre optics to the buildings, but it is B.C. Tel. We have a local area network within the buildings, but it's not fibre optics.
K. Jones: Perhaps I could advise the minister that there is definitely a fibre optics loop network in the building here, and it is in all of the service closets ready to be connected for the data and television services in this building. The minister may want to look into that and get some further information on it, because it is a very good system that is ready to move with the modernization of this building.
D. Lovick: You will have to come out of the closet.
[ Page 8162 ]
K. Jones: Yes, you will have to come out of the closet to find that out.
Could the minister tell us what program there is to upgrade the minister's and the government's computer systems, and what program there is for the opposition's computer updating?
Hon. L. Boone: There's $1.5 million in this budget this year to upgrade the executive offices only. He'll have to look to his own caucus for the opposition offices. I can't answer those questions.
K. Jones: What does the upgrade amount to, for that $1.5 million?
Hon. L. Boone: New equipment, new software and technical support. We have really antiquated services throughout the executive offices, and this will connect them. The networking will allow them to actually talk to each other. We will speak to each other, so maybe we will be able to communicate.
K. Jones: Maybe that will prevent the need for communications in question period. They'll know the answers beforehand.
Hon. L. Boone: We do already.
K. Jones: Not from the look of what goes on in question period. I'm afraid that there's a lot of: "What's that? Who's going to handle that one?"
Could the minister tell us what the metropolitan network is going to look like?
Hon. L. Boone: A fibre optic network, I've been told, connects all the government buildings in Victoria into their data centre. I have no idea what it looks like, but I'm sure the hon. member will tell me.
K. Jones: Well, I'll make it very simple. It's a figure-eight configuration. How's that? You're all the wiser now, I'm sure.
How was this network put out to tender? Or was it granted? What arrangements were made? And who was in competition for it?
Hon. L. Boone: It was at least two or three years ago. It was put out to tender. But I can't answer questions about contracts given two or three years ago, hon. member.
K. Jones: Have there been any improvements in the ProvNet system, which is the telephone network system throughout the province? Or are any planned for this year?
Hon. L. Boone: We'll give this a whirl here. Yes, there have been improvements. Yes, some more improvements are coming up. The integrated backbone network is consolidating voice and data traffic over one set of lines.
K. Jones: My congratulations to the minister; she's actually able to repeat what her staff has been able to tell her. That is complex when you don't understand the technologies, and therefore are trying to repeat what somebody else has said, with all those words that don't really make a logical sentence when you put them together.
D. Lovick: Sort of like you reading questions, right?
K. Jones: Easy there, hon. member. You may be faced with this position after the next election.
An Hon. Member: He says he doesn't want to.
K. Jones: That's good.
Could the minister tell us whether Bob Williams has asked B.C. Systems to provide an integrated provincial system for all government communications operations? I understand that right now there are separate communications networks in some ministries other than Government Services.
Hon. L. Boone: Bob Williams has no right to tell B.C. Systems to do something. As I've told the member before, the chair of B.C. Systems has had discussions with the Crown corporations secretariat and the Minister of Finance to try to find ways and means to coordinate the systems we have, so that we are not duplicating things and are getting the best value for the taxpayer. But Bob Williams does not direct B.C. Systems.
K. Jones: I'm afraid I didn't ask whether Bob Williams directed B.C. Systems -- at least, I don't think I did. I was basically asking whether the minister had been asked by Bob Williams to come forward with an integrated provincial network.
[10:15]
Hon. L. Boone: Bob Williams does not direct me either. As I've stated, I have asked the chair of B.C. Systems to see what he can do to try to pull the various Crowns together, and he has entered into discussion with the Crown corporations secretariat. I know that he has met with the chairs of quite a few different Crowns to see how they can cooperate and how we can best meet the needs of British Columbians. But Bob Williams does not direct me, nor does he direct the Crowns that I'm responsible for.
K. Jones: Did the minister on her own recognize the need to coordinate ministries' communication needs since she has responsibility for Government Services and also for B.C. Systems Corporation? Has she on her own recognized the need to bring these services together? And what plans is she making in that direction?
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
[ Page 8163 ]
Hon. L. Boone: Obviously I can't do that on my own, because I am not aware of what B.C. Hydro has, or what B.C. Rail has, or any of those things. Through discussions in the Crown Corporations Committee of cabinet it has come up that there are a lot of systems out there, and through those discussions I have asked the chair of B.C. Systems to look into this, and he is doing so. As I said, I could not have come up with this on my own, because I have no idea what the capacity of the other Crowns is. One of the good things the Crown corporations secretariat and the Crown Corporations Committee allows us to do is to talk and to find out what the Crowns have, and to interact and try to see how we can coordinate those things.
K. Jones: Is it the board of B.C. Systems that the minister is depending upon to bring forward the suggestions about securing efficiencies within government? Or is she bringing the direction to the board of B.C. Systems in regard to coordinating communications or to any other policy?
Hon. L. Boone: I've already answered this.
K. Jones: I'm afraid the minister didn't answer that question before, but if that seems to be her response, we will leave it there.
What program has been put in place by the minister to bring about a coordination of the purchase of software or the joint purchasing of software through B.C. Systems?
Hon. L. Boone: I have already answered that.
K. Jones: Is that going to be the minister's response? Can the minister tell us what efficiencies she is attempting to bring about within B.C. Systems Corporation?
Hon. L. Boone: It is not my job to bring about efficiencies; it is the board's job, and the board is working very hard to bring about all efficiencies. I would urge the hon. member to have a meeting with the chair of the board if he wants to find out more about the detailed operations of B.C. Systems.
K. Jones: We will stand down on B.C. Systems. Thank you.
The Chair: Hon. member, do I understand correctly that that is the end of your questions on B.C. Systems, so the staff may leave?
K. Jones: That is correct.
The Chair: Thank you kindly, hon. member. I appreciate that.
K. Jones: Could the minister answer some questions with regard to the B.C. Lottery Corporation? I have information that the break-open prizes appear to be increasing, and yet the chances to win the $2 and $5 prizes have decreased in the break-open lottery system. Can the minister explain what is happening there? It looks like the small purchaser is not getting a fair break.
Hon. L. Boone: From what I understand, there has been no change in the basic structure of the break-open.
K. Jones: Is the minister saying that the people out there using the break-open are not telling the truth, or is it just that she doesn't know what the Lottery Corporation is doing?
Hon. L. Boone: Neither.
The Chair: Hon. member, before you continue I would advise you that we are recalled here to look at the estimates of the administrative budget of the ministry. Speculations about whether the minister did or didn't know a particular thing are not really in order. So I ask the hon. member to please restrict his comments to the specific areas of the ministry estimates. Please proceed.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what programs the B.C. Lottery Corporation is planning to bring in in the immediate future, within this budget year, in the area of video lottery and bingo?
Hon. L. Boone: As the hon. member knows, there is a pilot project for video lottery and bingo. That has been going on for some time. Decisions as to what takes place with that are taking place at the cabinet level. The Lottery Corporation does not have a say as to what happens with regard to that.
K. Jones: If the Lottery Corporation doesn't have any say in the decisions of the establishment of equipment out there, could the minister tell us why the Lottery Corporation is contracting to have video lottery terminals and video bingo terminals manufactured?
Hon. L. Boone: They have a pilot project. They are looking at the replacement of the video bingo terminals -- I answered this sometime last week. We are not warehousing. We are not manufacturing. We have not contracted with anybody to build video lottery terminals or posts, as we call them -- player-operated terminals. They may have a prototype that they had built, but they are not warehousing these. There is no contract out to build these at this particular time.
K. Jones: Are there only one or two prototypes out? How many prototypes are there out?
Hon. L. Boone: There is none out there. They may have one or two around in their offices, but there is none out in the public.
K. Jones: Would the B.C. Lottery Corporation be in violation of the cabinet direction if they were to establish some posts where the public can access them, other than in their office to run a pilot program or something like that?
[ Page 8164 ]
Hon. L. Boone: It would need my approval to do that.
K. Jones: Has the minister given any approval?
Hon. L. Boone: No.
The Chair: Another exciting day at Wimbledon. Hon. member.
K. Jones: What action would the minster take if the Lottery Corporation were to proceed to...? Let's work at this. What action is the minster capable of taking if the Lottery Corporation goes ahead and develops a program that is outside its current mandate? Does the minister have any authority?
Hon. L. Boone: I have already said that the Lottery Corporation cannot introduce any new gaming machines out there without the approval of the minister. I have not given that approval. I will not speculate as to what may or may not happen if the Lottery Corporation breaks that, goes outside that mandate or does so on its own. That is purely speculative. We have a good Lottery Corporation board, and I am sure that they will work within the mandate they have.
The Chair: I hope the member will be guided by that answer, and decide not to pursue that particular avenue.
K. Jones: I am being guided by that, and I look forward to the minister's resulting actions as things transpire. It think it ought to be very interesting. With that, I think that we have completed Government Services, and I would ask that we report completion....
The Chair: Thank you very much, hon. member. We have to deal with the particular vote here first, and then we will take that motion.
Vote 43 approved.
Vote 44: ministry operations, $89,512,263 -- approved.
Vote 45: product sales and services, $10 -- approved.
Vote 46: pension administration, $10 -- approved.
D. Schreck: I move the committee rise, report resolutions, and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The Committee rose at 10:29 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]