1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 1994
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 13, Number 21
[ Page 9765 ]
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, I have the distinct pleasure of introducing two people who are visiting from Vancouver. The first is an old colleague who was on the Vancouver city council with me for many years. He had a distinguished career in architecture and headed up the Architectural Institute of B.C. for a number of years. I think it's totally fitting that on this day when we have a proclamation to celebrate one of the great ethnic groups in our society, the Scots, an alderman -- or councillor, as they're now known -- is among us. Would you give a very warm greeting to Warnett Kennedy and, if I may say, the brains of the outfit, Joan.
Mr. Speaker, I'm also delighted to introduce a visitor from Vancouver, Sharon Costello. She is the constituency assistant of the member for Vancouver-Burrard, who happens to be the Speaker. Would you please welcome Sharon.
G. Janssen: Visiting us today from that beautiful community of Port Alberni is Barb Dolan and her daughter Erin. Barb is a speech pathologist at the Hilton Centre in Port Alberni, and I ask the House to make her welcome.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: Hon. Speaker, I would like to introduce some very dear friends of over 25 years from England via Edmonton and Spruce Grove, Alberta, Barb and Brian Hunt. Accompanying them is my wife, Alice. I'd like the House to make them welcome.
F. Gingell: I'm glad that I waited until after the Minister of Education made his introduction, because I'm going to introduce to the House a friend of mine of 42 years, Mr. Walter Burian. Walter and I have been friends for such a long time that he took all the photographs at our wedding. I won't say anything more, I promise. With Mr. Burian is Mr. Dave Karran, both from Milestone Wood Products, and I ask this House to please make them welcome.
S. Hammell: I'd like to welcome Mr. Murdoch, a grade 10 teacher, and with him are 50 students from L.A. Matheson Junior Secondary school in Surrey. It's quite a remarkable school. Would the House please make them welcome here.
F. Garden: I am not rising at this time to introduce individuals to the House, but it gives me the greatest of pleasure to once again have a proclamation by this government in my hand which proclaims today, April 6, as Tartan Day. This was first started in Nova Scotia in 1987, then it was adopted by the Ontario Legislature, and for the last three years I've had the pleasure of introducing it here.
It's not to put down any other great pioneers, because all of them, no matter what country they came from, joined together to build a great nation. What Tartan Day does is recognize those Scots who left their homeland and made great contributions to Canada. I put a little piece of tartan on the desk of every one of the MLAs. It's just a wee token of Scottish tartan, and if you could save it till next year.... [Laughter.]
Thank you very much for helping me celebrate Tartan Day in the House today.
R. Chisholm: I'd like to rise in support of Tartan Day and in support of keeping Tartan Day going.
One of the peculiarities of the Celtic nations is their fondness for local traditions. Every ruined keep or dismantled tower throughout Scotland has some marvellous tale or romantic incident connected with it which is lovingly preserved and handed down from generation to generation.
So I will tell you one tradition to help keep it alive and well. Naturally, one would expect heather to be the Scottish national flower, and perhaps it might have been, had not a chance incident conferred the distinction on the thistle. History says that the choice was due to James III, who took the thistle to illustrate his royal motto, "In Defence."
But according to tradition, the preference given the thistle dates back to a time when the Norsemen ravaged all the shores of northern Europe. On one occasion, in the dead of night, an invading Norse force approached unperceived the camp of the Scots who had gathered to oppose them. While the Norsemen paused to ascertain the undefended points of the camp they proposed to assault, one of their spies stepped on the thistle, and sudden pain brought forth a violent oath. This aroused the Scots, and they hastened to attack the invaders. They gained a complete victory, and afterwards adopted the plant, which has become their emblem.
It gives me great pleasure to keep the tradition alive. So I will end with two quotes from Robbie Burns: "Is there that bears the name o' Scot, but feels his heart's blood rising hot" -- from "The Author's Cry and Prayer." And for our government members: "While Highlandmen hate tolls an' taxes," "When taxes he enlarges," and "Your sair taxation does her fleece."
HERITAGE CONSERVATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
Hon. B. Barlee presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Heritage Conservation Statutes Amendment Act, 1994.
Hon. B. Barlee: I have the pleasure to introduce Bill 21 to the House.
This bill amends the Heritage Conservation Act and 21 other acts that affect the protection and conservation of heritage resources in British Columbia. The bill is a result of extensive discussions and consultations with a wide range of groups. The amendments address issues, and provide improvements and corrections to existing legislation.
In brief, Bill 21 provides an expanded and better integrated tool kit of powers for local governments to improve heritage conservation in communities; provides a more appropriate basis for recognizing first nations cultural heritage values; more effectively integrates heritage conservation into land use planning; provides new incentives for heritage protection and long-term stewardship; provides new, tougher penalties to deter and punish offences to protected heritage resources; improves procedural rights for owners of heritage properties; and provides for improved heritage stewardship by provincial agencies.
[2:15]
The 1977 Heritage Conservation Act has provided a useful framework for British Columbians to protect, reuse and enjoy aspects of our province's rich heritage. Much has been accomplished under its provisions. However, because of the changing needs and values in our society, the challenges presented by economic shifts, changed relations
[ Page 9766 ]
with the first nations and anticipated urban growth, legislation dealing with heritage resources requires comprehensive updating. These changes were called for by the heritage community and are supported by provincial ministries, local government and the private sector. I submit this bill for your consideration and urge its passage.
Bill 21 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
RELEASE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION BY MINISTRY OF HEALTH
L. Reid: Every victim in the province today should be worried about their safety. The circumstances revealed yesterday by Lorne Razensoff about the serious breach of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act must be revealed further. Protection of privacy cannot be stressed enough. Will the Minister of Health indicate when the request was made, when it was approved and who approved it?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Like all of us, I'm very concerned with the allegations the press has recently revealed and with violation of anybody's privacy, particularly under the circumstances that have been alleged. I have asked my staff to do a thorough and comprehensive review of the circumstances under which this information was released.
I can share some facts with the House now; more work needs to be done. Under law, patients are entitled to their own medical files. My understanding is that the file in question contained information regarding sexual offences occurring between 1971 and 1982. It was reviewed by the patient with his clinician before it was released. The patient then requested his file under the Freedom of Information Act in order to request that changes be made.
Notwithstanding this, I want to make it clear that the Ministry of Health and this minister are not in the business of providing third-party information on convicted offenders. I understand this issue has been raised with the privacy commissioner, David Flaherty, and I will be requesting strong and clear guidelines to help direct requests such as this in the future.
L. Reid: The minister doesn't seem to understand. What information could be a greater violation than revealing a victim's name, address and telephone number? That is the issue for the official opposition today. This minister -- as any Minister of Health -- is in charge of the most personal information on any British Columbian. Would the Minister of Health indicate how many other requests have been made by convicted offenders for access to their files?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll take that question on notice and provide the information later.
The Speaker: The hon. member has a further question?
L. Reid: Section 30 of the act states that the head of a public body....
The Speaker: Hon. member, is this a different question?
L. Reid: It's a new question.
The Speaker: Please proceed.
L. Reid: The question is to the Minister of Health. We talk about personal information, and the act talks about the need for reasonable access -- and about unauthorized access for collections use, disposal or disclosure. There is no question that this Minister of Health is responsible for that information making its way into the public domain. Will the minister now do the honourable thing and resign?
M. de Jong: We understand that the released files provided to this convicted sex offender by the Minister of Health included the name, address and phone number of his victim. The minister will know that section 486 of the Criminal Code provides protection for victims in cases of this sort and provides for criminal charges to be laid against persons who, contrary to the section, disclose information about victims. My question is: has the Minister of Health directed that a criminal investigation be commenced to determine whether his ministry is in violation of the Criminal Code, and will he step aside pending the results of that investigation?
Hon. P. Ramsey: One of the pieces of information that I have been able to ascertain since this case was brought to my attention yesterday evening is that the address released was apparently already known to the offender to whom it was released. Notwithstanding that, I take both the protection of privacy and the concern about possible criminal violations very seriously. My deputy minister is now in contact with the Ministry of Attorney General and the RCMP to determine if any future assistance is required.
M. de Jong: Not only was the victim's name, address and phone number disclosed, but the names of other sex offenders who were in therapy with the recipient were also disclosed. Again, my question is to the Minister of Health. Given that this act may represent a violation of the Criminal Code of Canada, will he direct the appropriate investigation into the disclosure of this personal information, and will he step aside, pending the results of that investigation?
Hon. P. Ramsey: As I indicated earlier, I have already directed that the appropriate investigations take place.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
M. de Jong: The minister will recall having taken an oath of confidentially. Does he feel that he has violated that oath, and will he step aside while the proper authorities look into whether he has violated that oath?
PEAT MARWICK REVIEW OF MINISTRY OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Can the minister explain why he has refused to make public the Peat Marwick review of his ministry, which was completed in January 1992? Could he tell us whether or not it's because he and his government are afraid to reveal the costs of land claim settlements outlined in that report?
Hon. J. Cashore: I'll take that question on notice.
[ Page 9767 ]
FORMER VANCOUVER POLICE CHIEF
G. Wilson: Yesterday I asked the Attorney General whether or not he could point to somewhere in the act that would either prohibit an employer from further prosecution or allow that employer to exempt an employee from further prosecution on matters that may arise. The response from the Attorney General was that, in the instance of the Marshall case, the city of Vancouver and the Vancouver Police Board were acting in their capacity as an employer. I wonder if the Attorney General might clarify that answer with respect to the provisions of the act, so that he may outline whether or not such an exemption does exist within the statutes of this province.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I had, in fact, prepared some notes to share with the House by way of a ministerial statement following question period. But if the House will indulge me, I'll try to answer this question as briefly as I can now.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In responding to the member's questions yesterday, I understood the member to be referring to an agreement by the Vancouver Police Board not to proceed further with internal disciplinary proceedings against William Marshall. On reflection now, and again from the member's question today, I realize that the questions also concern potential immunity from criminal prosecution. Clearly that's not possible, and that did not happen. Responsibility for deciding whether to initiate criminal prosecutions is entirely within the criminal justice branch of my ministry. The Vancouver Police Board does not have the authority to grant anyone immunity from criminal prosecution. With regard to William Marshall, the Assistant Deputy Attorney General for the criminal justice branch appointed a special prosecutor, Mr. Jim Taylor, to determine whether the potential evidence supported a criminal prosecution. A full report was submitted to Mr. Taylor concerning the circumstances surrounding an alleged assault on Mr. Mountain. In June of '93, Mr. Taylor concluded that criminal charges should not be laid against William Marshall, because there was no likelihood of conviction. In March 1994 -- and this is the important point for the member's question....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm sure all members in this House would be interested in this issue. In March 1994, Mr. Taylor also reviewed the inquiry report of Mr. Justice McKenzie and concluded that there was nothing in the inquiry report which caused him to change his opinion that the activities of William Marshall were "not criminal in nature."
In summary, I wish to advise the House as follows: I was not aware of the terms of settlement between William Marshall and the Vancouver Police Board until I was advised through the media; the Vancouver Police Board does not have authority to grant immunity from criminal prosecution; and finally, all decisions regarding potential criminal prosecutions in this matter were made independently by a special prosecutor, who concluded that the evidence did not support criminal proceedings.
The Speaker: Before the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, I believe it would be appropriate, in light of the length of the minister's response, to add an additional two minutes to question period. That will be so ordered. Please proceed, hon. member.
G. Wilson: By way of supplementary to the Attorney General, in light of the content of the ruling, does the Attorney General not feel that it was inappropriate for the board to make a severance agreement in advance of that ruling coming down? Does the Attorney General not believe that his ministry, as per the act, now has a right to intervene or intercede in this matter to make sure that all matters of justice are dealt with in this case?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Police Act does not give me the authority to intervene in respect of decisions made by a police board which are essentially personnel matters. The police board made a decision; they're accountable for it. It's not my job to make judgments about the rightness or wrongness of the particular decision they made. That's on their shoulders.
G. Wilson: A final supplementary, then. Under section 43(2) with respect to practices and procedures -- and also within the regulations that govern the board -- subsection (1) quite clearly suggests that no ruling is binding on a person unless approved by the minister. Perhaps the minister can clarify, for those of us who are not as familiar with this act as he is, why he feels that his ministry is not in a position to take action in order to ensure that justice has in fact prevailed here.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Given the detailed reference to the regulations, I'll take the question on notice.
RELEASE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION BY MINISTRY OF HEALTH
W. Hurd: I have a question to the Premier regarding the actions of the Ministry of Health. Will the Premier agree that personal information is defined in the Protection of Privacy Act as recorded information about an individual, including the individual's name, address and telephone number? Would the Premier agree that the action that has taken place is a clear breach of the act, and that the Minister of Health should be in some way held responsible for that?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I think the minister has made it very clear that an investigation is taking place in his ministry and that he is involving officials of the Attorney General's ministry. Those are appropriate responses.
The Speaker: A further question, hon. member?
W. Hurd: Mr. Speaker, as a reminder to the Premier and this government, sections 22, 23 and 33 of the Protection of Privacy Act clearly protect personal privacy in this province. The sections indicate that a third party must be contacted and consent provided by that individual for the release of personal information. Would the Premier indicate whether the victim was contacted in this case? And if not, will the Premier do the honourable thing and ask his Minister of Health to step aside?
[ Page 9768 ]
REPORT ON B.C. LOTTERY CORPORATION
R. Neufeld: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister responsible for the B.C. Lottery Corporation. Can the minister explain why he never tabled the Deloitte and Touche report on the B.C. Lottery Corporation, which was completed as part of the Peat Marwick review in 1992? Could it be that he was afraid to make the report public because it indicated that the government was planning to dramatically expand gaming activities in British Columbia in order to generate an extra $200 million in revenue by 1995?
Hon. E. Cull: As the minister responsible for the Lottery Corporation, I'll have to take the question on notice with respect to why the former minister didn't release the report. But I think you're absolutely incorrect about the intent of the government. As you know, the minister responsible for gaming has....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. The minister has taken the question on notice. That will be appropriate. Does the member have a further question?
R. Neufeld: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I have in my hand a copy of that report to the Minister of Finance, which shows that the Lottery Corporation had actually budgeted $22 million this past fiscal year for computer bingo equipment and player-operated sales terminals. Can the minister advise the House how much has been invested in these capital expenditures by the current government?
[2:30]
Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, I was going to try to answer the second part of his question a minute ago. The Lottery Corporation is probably rightly ambitious about its own responsibilities; but as all members in this House know, the government has announced that there is a review of gaming policy underway and there will be no expansion of gaming of any sort until that review has been completed.
RELEASE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION BY MINISTRY OF HEALTH
F. Gingell: My question is to the Premier and refers back to the gross breach of privacy with respect to actions within the Ministry of Health. I'm sure the Premier will remember that a very similar incident happened within the past two years in Ontario, where the Minister of Health breached the privacy of a citizen of that province. The minister in that case did the honourable thing and resigned. Will the Premier today call upon the Minister of Health to do the same honourable thing and resign until this matter has been cleared up?
Hon. M. Harcourt: There are quite different circumstances in the case that the member has referred to, and the answer is no.
CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT 23
C. Serwa: My question is to the Minister of Education. School District 23 has not yet been advised of its capital budget allotment for this year. Normally that occurs by the end of December, so they know what projects will in fact go ahead. It's now April 6. Could the minister advise us of the reason for the delay?
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'm astounded that a member of that discredited party would have the nerve to ask a question about capital funding for schools. That government reduced the entire capital funding for the province to less than $25 million in one year and to an average of about $70 million for five years. They fell four years behind in a five-year period. Shame on them for having done that!
With respect to your question, I'm in the final stages of determining the capital plan for this year. Stay tuned.
The Speaker: Hon. members, the bell terminates question period.
J. Weisgerber: I request leave to table a document received under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
Leave granted.
R. Neufeld: I ask leave to table a document from the British Columbia Lottery Corporation.
Leave granted.
FEE INCREASES
Hon. J. Smallwood: Yesterday I took on notice a question from the member for Abbotsford with regard to fee increases.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The question had to do with fee increases with respect to the debt settlement provision of the Debtor Assistance Act and the crematorium certificate of operation. First of all, the fee for the debt settlement service is deducted from the settlement and paid to the creditor. The fee can also be waived to effect a settlement in extraordinary circumstances. Increasing the provincial fee to 10 percent brings it in line with the federal orderly-payment-of-debt program fee of 10 percent. The branch administers this program on behalf of the federal government. The staff of the debt counselling branch provides a number of services at no cost to the debtor, including arranging repayment schedules and personal budget counselling.
I'm sure the fee increase that the member was particularly interested in, though, is the increase to the crematorium certificate fee. This licensing fee, introduced in 1960, was originally $50. The annual fee was changed in 1990 to become a one-time certification fee for new crematoriums only. The fee was left at $50. This one-time-only fee was designed to more closely reflect the cost of issuing operating certificates to new crematoria -- usually one or two applications per year. No other provincial licence fee is required. Before the certificate can be issued, the registrar of cemeteries must review building plans and equipment specifications; consult with an independent professional engineer and the affected municipalities; ensure that the applicant provides information to the public and deals with their concerns; and attend the final certification and testing of the facility. On average this process takes nine hours of the registrar's time. The total cost, including overhead, is approximately $450.
[ Page 9769 ]
(continued)
On the amendment.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm delighted to rise to respond to the Speech from the Throne that was delivered by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. I will say that the message contained in the throne speech was indeed very positive for the people of British Columbia, and I will quote from what His Honour said:
"There is a saying: 'Times change, and we change with them.' Around the world change has become the watchword for this historic decade. Here in British Columbia the winds of change swept in a new government elected to lead our province in a new direction. In the last two and a half years, we have indeed seen a profound change in provincial government, especially with regard to fiscal policy. Spending growth has been cut in half, and the budget deficit has been reduced by $1 billion. Conservative estimates project a balanced budget by 1996, and a practical plan for managing government debt will soon be put into effect. In order to protect the pocketbooks of British Columbians and provide the highest level of service to the public, the government has moved to further eliminate wasteful spending and to control administrative costs, realizing significant savings without sacrificing quality in education, health care and other vital...services the people of British Columbia expect and deserve."
I am proud to stand to respond to the Speech from the Throne. Indeed, if you look at the sound fiscal management and taxation fairness policies of this government, the long-term job creation and economic growth, the skills training being put forward to prepare our citizens for the 1990s and the twenty-first century, and the revitalization of our forest sector, you will see that British Columbia is finally headed in the right direction. British Columbia leads the way in Canada in the initiatives that are underway.
The deficit is down not only $1 billion; it is down $1.5 billion. It is decreasing to the point that the program budget for this year, as we saw in the budget recently tabled, is now almost $90 million in the black. We are paying for the services that are provided to the people of British Columbia. The program budget is in the black.
The $898 million deficit we have is the accumulated payment on the debt from the time of Amor De Cosmos to Bill Vander Zalm. That is what we are now in the process of paying down, and we will be in the black on those interest and capital payments by 1996 -- again leading the way in Canada on a balanced approach to sound fiscal management.
The people of British Columbia are proud of the fact that the job creation rate in British Columbia has gone up three times the national average, that 43,000 new jobs were created in British Columbia last year, and that 64 percent of the full-time jobs in Canada were created right here in British Columbia. And we're ahead of that in 1994.
On top of that, taxes have been frozen for the next three years. As a matter of fact, $112 million in tax cuts have been introduced to make sure that young British Columbians, with the first-time homebuyer exemption from paying the property transfer tax, can have up to another $3,000 to put into a down payment on a house, so they can start their families and have a good solid foundation on which to have a good-quality family life.
This government has also reduced the extravagant overspending that happened during the previous government -- 12 and 13 percent increases a year, which were clearly unsustainable, to 3.5 percent in this year's budget. This is almost half of what the growth of population and inflation are in British Columbia, and it will come down next year and the year after.
Because we are making such progress in paying down the deficit, our government is now proceeding with a debt management plan that has seen some positive initial steps. Five agencies have been eliminated. The B.C. Endowment Fund will be sold off over the next 15 months, and the $600 million will be applied to start to reduce the debt that has accumulated over the last many years. British Columbia leads the way, and a balanced approach has been taken to our fiscal management and fair taxation policies.
That has allowed our province to accelerate the job creation initiatives that have led the way in Canada and to create economic growth throughout the province, to make sure that the economic benefits and advantages of our natural resources and the entrepreneurial abilities of British Columbians are taking place throughout British Columbia.
As a matter of fact, the initiative that the government took last year with B.C. 21 is now leading to some very positive, practical results, such as the opening of the three new SkyTrain stations into the centre of the new city of Surrey. It has led to the historic and important agreement reached between the federal and provincial governments and the municipalities on a $675 million municipal infrastructure program, so that we can start to clean up our water with proper sewage treatment and water purification plants throughout the province. It has led to B.C. 21 funds that have boosted the regional economies of British Columbia with the $1.2 billion Vancouver Island Highway, which will be built on time, on budget, and without strikes or lockouts. It has led to the creative relationship reached by the people of the Trail area, Cominco and the province to revitalize Trail and save 6,000 jobs, which could have been jeopardized if the new lead smelter had not gone ahead and that arrangement had not been reached. That's the kind of cooperative partnerships we are building, utilizing the Crown corporations and the social capital that's available to invest in British Columbia.
[2:45]
This government is continuing to build assets that British Columbians can use for many generations. There is no better asset than building new educational facilities, like the new University of Northern British Columbia that's going to open this September.
It's important, too, for the government to play its role in the promotion of entrepreneurial activity -- in value-added, knowledge-based, Pacific-driven economic opportunities that are fuelling the B.C. economy very successfully. That is why the new partnership announced by the Minister of Employment and Investment, myself and the Minister of Finance last fall is such an important innovation to British Columbia. That is the B.C. Focus fund, which is a partnership with five of the top merchant banking and venture capital companies throughout not just Canada but the world. This $87 million fund, which has been supplemented this year, is going to allow British Columbian entrepreneurs to not have to go back and deal with the banks in Toronto, but to have access to a commercially based, hard-nosed fund here in British Columbia, where decisions are made in cooperation with the private sector on the basis of risk and the talent of merchant bankers and venture capital outfits.
The small business community -- particularly in growing areas like tourism -- has benefited from a number of initiatives that this government has taken, which are referred to in the throne speech and, of course, the budget speech. For
[ Page 9770 ]
example, the 50 percent increase in the tourism marketing budget will be applied to a very successful partnership with the private sector. Of course, they will be working with the federal government to encourage that high-growth industry, which employs many British Columbians, to prosper even more.
Hon. Speaker, you can see a range of initiatives that this government has taken to make sure that the long-term job creation and economic growth that's happening in British Columbia continues to happen, so that British Columbia continues to lead the way in Canada in economic growth and in job creation.
As well, the throne speech made it very clear that we would be focusing on skills and training of our young people, of our workers who need new skills and of other British Columbians, so that they can successfully compete in the tough global economy that we are in. As a result of the summits dealing with economic opportunity and trade and skills and training, which took place last June and the June before that, a new ministry was established to show the importance that our government places on skills and training -- the new Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour.
It was no accident that a qualified millwright was put in charge of that ministry. It was to get the point across that 100 percent of our young people have got to be taken into account in the education system, rather than just those in the academic stream. It is important that our young people gain apprenticeship training, entrepreneurial skills and the ability to be technically sophisticated and to be involved in a number of vocations that are equally valued. All of those unique skills are required in a modern, growing economy like British Columbia's economy. That's why an increase in resources is applied to skills and training. Hon. Speaker, you and British Columbians will be very pleased with the number of initiatives that our government will be taking over the next few weeks.
As well, some have questioned the future of forestry in British Columbia. I can say that our government has never questioned the great future that forestry has in British Columbia. It is not a sunset industry; it is a sunrise industry. It is going to continue to provide opportunities for British Columbians not just in the natural resource communities but in Vancouver and Victoria, where one out of five jobs depends on forestry. The Forest Practices Code, the initiatives around the forest sector strategy and the land use planning going on throughout this province are going to make sure that we have sustainable development. The two go together, not just in our forests but in other natural resource activities taking place throughout British Columbia.
I am delighted to be able to speak to the Speech from the Throne and to look at the progress that our province has made. We have turned the corner. If you look at the record of sound fiscal management and fair taxation in particular, you will indeed see that we have turned the corner. So it was with some puzzlement and bemusement that I looked at the responses over the last couple of weeks of the members of the opposition, who don't seem to understand that the throne speech and the budget is what ordinary British Columbians -- the working people, middle-income people, the business community and workers in this province -- have wanted to see.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. M. Harcourt: The Minister of Finance listened, heard and delivered. The budget delivered all the resources required to keep British Columbia leading the way, which has been missed by many members of the opposition. The other thing that has been missed is this strange way the opposition has of keeping books: where they see only one side of the balance sheet. All they see are liabilities; they don't see the assets. The opposition doesn't see that there is a $60 billion replacement value of public assets in British Columbia, an increasing number of assets. They do not see, and they leave out of the equation, when they stand up, that this government has overcome two huge hurdles. It has overcome the extravagant overspending of the previous government that we have had to absorb. If you look at the Peat Marwick independent financial review that was done, there was over $3 billion of sloppy spending, and we have overcome the hurdle that the previous government presented us. We have also overcome the other thing the opposition practises wilful blindness on: the $6 billion of Ottawa-based deficit and central-Canadian debt that has been dumped on the people of British Columbia. This government has overcome the almost $10 billion of overspending by the previous government and the tax dump from Ottawa and has still reduced the deficit over 60 percent.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. The Chair has been most tolerant this afternoon with interjections by hon. members who have been heckling the Premier unfairly, I would say, particularly since they are not even in their seats. So the hon. member for Chilliwack has certainly made quite a few attempts to distract the Premier and the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca has been interjecting. The Chair finds that the trend is getting unruly. I think all hon. members can appreciate the difficulty for anyone speaking when members are constantly interjecting in an unfair way, so I would ask hon. members to please consider their behaviour. Let's try to have the decorum that the public expects.
Please proceed, hon. Premier.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I quite frankly understand why the opposition would be interjecting. They have very little to offer in their bookkeeping abilities; they see only one side of the equation.
The Speaker: Order, hon. Premier. Please proceed with the debate.
Hon. M. Harcourt: Thank you, hon. Speaker.
As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted by the opposition.... I was talking about their half-baked idea of a balance sheet. I thought someone would know better, after having been in business, that in a balance sheet there are assets and liabilities, and that assets have some value.
Some of the members over there asked who would buy a bridge. I'll tell you: they would have bought a bridge. They not only would have bought a bridge, I can show you a constituency in the Peace River where they built six bridges and didn't even built roads between them. The government did that to the people of the constituencies they represented. They got behind five years on school construction....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
[ Page 9771 ]
R. Neufeld: On a point of order. I would like to correct the Premier in the correct way....
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members. That is not a valid point of order, and the hon. member knows it.
Please proceed, Premier.
Hon. M. Harcourt: This shows that the bookkeeping abilities of the Liberal opposition are skewed: they change their numbers to suit their purposes.
The Finance critic -- the member for Delta South -- in a fit of outrage said that this government has increased the tax load by $2,000 for every average B.C. family of four. I don't know what you consider an average family of four, but I don't consider it one that's making $125,000 a year. I think it's wonderful that there are families that are making $125,000, because I understand the cost of buying new running shoes and keeping a family going and paying the mortgage, but $125,000 isn't usually considered an average family income unless you happen to be a member of the silk-stocking crowd who get their speeches written in the Vancouver Club. I just had to have those few comments, Hon. Speaker, and I appreciate your advice to us here today.
I would like to close by saying that British Columbia is leading the way. Our citizens are very proud of the progress being made in job creation, in the deficit going down and jobs going up, a three-year tax freeze, $112 million in tax cuts, a reduction in government agencies, and in the use of those assets to pay down the debt. I'm sure W.A.C. Bennett would have approved of that prudent fiscal policy. I'm sure that that prudent business Premier of the past would have smiled at that approach to building assets, having a good sound grip and bringing the terrible overspending we inherited to a realistic level. He's probably smiling right now at this sunshine budget brought in by this government.
[3:00]
The message of this budget is confidence and pride in British Columbia's accomplishments. The message in the throne speech is one of hope for forest workers and their families, and a message of hope for our young people who are going to see a tremendous expansion of educational and employment opportunities. Our young people know we have a very clear economic strategy focusing on diversification for our economy through value-added forestry, fisheries, agriculture and tourism opportunities, an expansion of mining, gas and gas exploration taking place at a record pace in this province, and an expansion of the knowledge-based industries -- subsea, telecommunications, and pharmaceutical and biomedical opportunities -- and the focus on the Asia-Pacific, where 60 percent of British Columbia's trade is now and 80 percent will be within a decade. Young British Columbians know that they have the best opportunities -- not just in Canada but in North America -- and that that diversifying economy is happening.
Women know that equality is starting to come to British Columbia. There are 12,500 child care spaces for families. Pay and employment equity programs have been introduced. Training programs are being introduced for single mothers on welfare who want to get back into the workforce and want the training that they need and deserve. Women in British Columbia are seeing the tremendous progress that this government has made in bringing equality between women and men.
For the first time in our history aboriginal people see a government that is prepared to sit down and negotiate fair and just settlements with a treaty process that is now underway.
The multicultural community has seen the first Multiculturalism Act in this province. There are many new programs to assist new immigrants, who have built this immigrant-filled province. These programs enable them to learn English, to learn our customs and to learn the workplace skills that are necessary to become a participating, productive member of our society.
The disabled community has seen a number of initiatives, both in the budget that is being presented and over the last two years. They are seeing hope, when before they were treated very shabbily. People with emotional disabilities were homeless and wandering the streets after being deinstitutionalized without proper facilities to live in. That is being taken care of with over $50 million being invested in community-based facilities for the most vulnerable people in our society.
There has been tremendous praise for the messages in the throne speech and in the budget. I would like to refer you to some of the comments that have been made about the initiatives we have seen over the last few weeks. "...B.C.'s debt-to-GDP ratio is still the lowest in Canada, and this budget will not alter the market's view of B.C. as a top-notch credit risk." Those comments are from Wood Gundy. I go on: "B.C. is on its way to having the lowest tax burden in Canada, the lowest debt and debt-servicing burden in Canada, and the highest quality of public service in Canada. Right now B.C. is the place of choice to live in Canada -- the reasons will become even more compelling in the future." That's from G.A. Pedersson and Associates; also from them: "...the budget document is a clear explanation of the nature of government debt, and should be read by anyone who wishes to better understand the need for some government debt and its legitimate uses. To my way of thinking, the government understands the benefits and pitfalls of using debt."
I am delighted to have been able to speak on the contents of the throne speech, which gives so much hope, so much confidence and so much pride to the people in this great province of ours.
Hon. M. Harcourt moved adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Motion 41 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]
DESIGNATION OF SECOND ESTIMATES COMMITTEE (COMMITTEE A)
Hon. G. Clark: We've had this motion, which splits Committee of Supply into two sections, since the beginning of this parliament. This motion renews a reform initiative originally passed unanimously by the House on March 26, 1992. I remember it well. It was announced and developed jointly by the three House Leaders of the day. Those names have changed several times since those heady days in 1992. I remember that the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, the member for Peace River South -- who is now, I guess, the leader of the Reform Party in the House here -- and I had a press conference to announce this new reform initiative. I think it's certainly in keeping with reforms the members of the Liberal Party have talked about from time to time, and
[ Page 9772 ]
with ones that members of the government have pursued. As you know, this allows Committee of Supply to split into Section A and Section B. It gives the opposition the right to name three estimates to be debated in Section B, which is in the House here. In 1993 the motion was debated again and passed by the House. This is essentially becoming routine.
I want to inform the House, however, of three very small changes to this sessional order from last year and highlight these changes so all members are aware of them. First of all, the number of representatives on the government side has been reduced from 14 to 13, and the number of representatives from the official opposition has been reduced from six to five. I know the Liberal Party House Leader is not here today, but I assure all members that I have certainly canvassed that with him. This reflects the actual participation at any given time in Section A debate, and it increases the number of independent and third party members, relatively speaking. We have tried, essentially, to accommodate the changes that have taken place by reducing the number of representatives from the official opposition and the government membership.
As I say, this was done in consultation with -- I apologize because he's not here, but we certainly discussed it -- and, I think, with support from the Opposition House Leader. I don't mind saying, though, that the Opposition House Leader has indicated that they plan to speak against this motion, so I'm not implying support by the fact that we've discussed it with him. There is a broader question of participation of independent members, opposition members and government members in all the committees of the House, and that's a separate question. But reducing the government membership by one and the official opposition by one does give more....
Second to that, of course, is that we have allowed for two independent members. Just to refresh members: we've gone from 14 to 13 government members, from six to five official opposition members and from one to two independents on Committee A. This is proportionally an increase to the third party membership of last session, and I think it reflects the changing makeup of what we call "independents" in the House at this time. This gives access to two independents at any given time. Remember that in order to be flexible on these questions, we've allowed this essentially rotating membership in Committee A so everybody can speak on it. It is only for voting purposes. People may recall that in the two years this has been in operation, I don't believe we've had any votes in Committee A. I'm looking for any wise counsel from members who spent more time in there than I have, but I don't believe we've had any votes in that House, so I don't think it's particularly pressing. The sessional order is also amended. That's the first change.
We've also amended it to allow legislation to be referred to Section A. The Speaker ruled last year that we could do legislation in the House and estimates in committee, or estimates in both Houses at the same time. This would allow us to move legislation; as well, it gives more flexibility to both sides. I want to assure members of the House that we will not move legislation into Committee A without the full support of the official opposition, and we certainly have no intention of moving any controversial bills into Committee A. This is simply to allow for what is a bit strange now: we can do bills in the House and estimates outside of the House, which is the practical reality of the motion we had before. This will allow the reverse to take place as well, should the House so desire. It may well be, for example, that we could do committee stage of the accountants' amendment act.... Sorry, that might be an important one; I apologize. It may well be that the.... What else have we got? We have the Architects Amendment Act. We could move that committee stage, if we so desire, into Committee A while we are debating estimates in the House. So that's the purpose of that. Again, I assure members that there won't be any legislation debated in Committee A without the support of members of the House. That's not our intention. It's really, in consultation with the Clerks, just to fix almost an anomaly that has arisen as a result of the functioning of this motion. I think that Section A will be used just for estimates, unless all parties agree to using it for legislation.
My view on this subject is that this reform has worked quite well. I think all members -- at least those who spent five years in opposition under the old rules -- would agree that Committee A has meant a different style of debate: a more intensive, less partisan debate with deputies allowed to speak. I think that's an important, worthwhile reform, providing that we continue to consult with the opposition about ensuring that estimates which are deemed to be controversial or important to the opposition for scrutiny will be held in this chamber, if they so desire. We certainly have no intention of changing that; in fact, I'd be amenable to more of that. I don't really have a problem with debating them in the House. It's a matter of trying to get more of a collegial approach in the committee room and more of an informed debate and discussion, with deputies and officials being allowed to testify before that committee. I think that has been a very useful reform for the House.
This motion continues that. It allows us to move minor legislation there as well, and we have made some changes to reflect the changing makeup of the opposition in the chamber. I think that, on balance, this has worked well, and I think this reform is a positive one. Most legislatures are doing something similar to this, and I think we should continue it for another session with these rather minor amendments.
In conclusion, I remember that when we did this the first time -- the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi was there -- it was an all-party agreement. It was an important day for the rules of the House, and I think it has worked quite well. I'm certainly prepared to continue that cooperative spirit, including discussing what estimates go to which committee and which legislation goes where, if that's desirable. We don't have any intention of ramming anything through or debating anything. I think it's a functional reform that makes sense, and I offer assurance to members of the House that the government is quite prepared to work cooperatively to implement this amendment to the standing orders, which we've had for the last two years, notwithstanding the fact that there have been some reservations by members opposite. I have discussed it with the House Leader and some other members of the House, and I'm prepared to continue to discuss it, amend it and work with them to make sure that this is genuinely a reform of the House and nothing other than that. It's a reform that leads to better debate and more thorough discussion and canvassing of the issues by having deputies and officials being able to make comments. With that, hon. Speaker, I hope this will have speedy passage.
A. Warnke: In response to the motion that has been put forward, it's quite correct that the first time it was introduced in this House the official opposition did get behind it. I believe there was unanimous support the first time around, although at the time and since then we have expressed reservations. Nonetheless, any kind of innovation for the reform of this place certainly has been advocated by us, and we have met with that.
[ Page 9773 ]
But on the attempt to introduce a motion very similar to the other ones in the last two years, we on this side still have to not only express reservations but point out some of the problems as a result of this initiative. In particular, I found it interesting to be a part of history by being the first member to shadow and critique in Committee A as well as being the first to pose a question which a deputy minister was allowed to answer. I was certainly enthusiastic about it.
[3:15]
The following are some of the problems that we experienced. When bills were introduced in this forum at the same time that estimates were being conducted in Committee A, members should remember that there was considerable confusion. Dealing with legislation and addressing the problems in legislation was not handled smoothly or easily. This can cause an adverse impression in the opposition concerning whether fair treatment will be given to estimates on the other side and to legislation on this side.
I'm aware of the reductions that have been proposed for Committee A by the Government House Leader: 14 government members down to 13, six official opposition members down to five, and two independents. While the Government House Leader is technically correct that the presence of independents in Committee A still exists and has been proportionately enhanced a bit, the fact is that the composition of this House has changed a great deal. The independents might want to defend themselves; I'm sure they are quite capable of doing that. I'd still like to suggest that the independents may face some difficulty moving between Committees A and B for the purposes of addressing both legislation and estimates. It might actually be more difficult, regardless of the argument that the independents have increased their presence proportionately on Committee A. Our experience would suggest that what does emphatically not occur is dealing with legislation in Committee A. That's even more confusing, and it's difficult right now.
That doesn't mean that the official opposition is going to be obstinate and forever oppose this. We will reserve our support this time around and vote against the motion. We don't mean to say that we want to return to something that existed in past. The official opposition wants to caution all members and make it extremely clear that our experience in the last two years has not met the expectations we had when this supposed reform was introduced.
When the first estimates were passed in Committee A, I remember commenting in the summary debate that it was premature to make an assessment as to the success of Committee A. I recall that the Attorney General at that time concurred that it was too early; we had to gain some experience. Our experience has been such that we in the official opposition would not want to recommend any further changes that might add to further confusion or, most importantly, add to a situation where it actually reduces public involvement in the committee stages of both legislation and estimates.
I think we can agree with the format that has been proposed here; it's similar to the format that has been proposed in the past. If this motion were to pass, we would cooperate to our utmost in making Committee A work as efficiently as possible. But our experience has been that public input should be enhanced as much as possible, especially in matters of legislation which seems to affect groups and individuals more directly than the budget itself. Indeed, if we were to put this kind of legislation into House A in the committee stage, that would actually reduce public participation. There is no guarantee that only true housekeeping bills will be exclusive to House A and so, from our standpoint, we want to exercise extreme caution in this regard. I believe that the jury is still out on whether the full, effective use of Committee A is up to the standard as outlined by the Government House Leader.
On that basis, we would certainly not want to see any further moves to introduce legislation into Committee A -- in the small House, so to speak. We would prefer that to be kept here. We would also approach this whole subject on the point of principle that even in estimates -- Committee of Supply -- it is sometimes necessary to have as much public input as possible. We do live in an age of television -- not that we should always react to television -- but let's face it, the medium of television is an instrument of the modern age, and it does facilitate the public being able to view exactly what sort of questions are being put forward and what sort of answers are being received. There's a risk for everyone involved here, because sometimes we ask dumb questions and we're going to be shown up; and sometimes dumb answers are given by the government, and they should be shown up too.
It also helps the public to understand the nature of the legislation that's being put forward. I recall on many occasions the government putting forward a bill in good faith, which, indeed, I accepted -- I can think of one in particular last year -- but it somehow got sidetracked. Indeed, sometimes legislation can be derailed or taken in a direction that was not intended either by the government or the opposition.
I just wanted to make some summary remarks to encourage the smooth flow and enhance the public visibility of legislation and of Committee of Supply. On that principle, we would have to oppose this particular motion. If it does pass, I want to assure the House, on behalf of the official opposition, that we will do as much as possible to facilitate and still conduct ourselves in a manner which, hopefully, would be experimental. That's how Committee of Supply A was originally introduced. We still want to contribute to a good experiment that will hopefully expedite the process in such a manner that at some future time it will be more or less routine, by putting forward a motion or by instituting Committee of Supply A. But for the time being, we have had enough experience to know that it is too early for the jury to make a definitive statement of support. On that basis, we still reserve judgment.
D. Mitchell: I'm rising to speak to the motion moved by the Government House Leader. The motion essentially wants to split this House into Committee of Supply A and Committee of Supply B for the consideration of the spending estimates of the government. They also want to allow that to apply to legislation.
I was involved, as one of the House Leaders, when we first started this experiment in the first session of this parliament. At that time, I think there was enough goodwill in this House to try it on an experimental basis to see if it could work. There have been a few problems and a few wrinkles. But now we're talking about expanding the system in a significant way, at a time when the House is perhaps less cohesive than it was when we first started the experiment -- and I don't refer to the government side of the House when I say that.
There's something fundamental here: the issue of consultation through the usual channels. I guess the usual channels have perhaps broken down, because the consultation on the intent of this motion is happening right now in this chamber, as we speak. That should have
[ Page 9774 ]
happened before the Government House Leader called it today for debate, because a number of issues in this motion need to be clarified.
There is a fundamental issue here. When this House considers and debates the spending estimates proposed by the government, we are performing one of the fundamental acts of this Legislature. Even if the government did not bring forward any legislation during the course of a session -- in a perfect world where no new bills needed to be introduced or no existing laws needed to be amended -- this Legislature would still have the very important function of reviewing the spending proposals of the government.
Some would argue that those debates about spending should take place right here in this legislative chamber because that's what it was designed for. However, on an experimental basis and through consultation, we tried to divide this House to allow the spending estimates of some ministries to be referred to a committee outside this chamber. To some extent it worked, but there were some difficulties and problems. Members can't be in both places at one time, and some members want to represent their constituents on a whole range of issues, not just on some select issues. I think that most MLAs in this House want to represent their constituents on a broad range of matters that affect them. It's impossible to do that and be in two places at one time. It's not easy for me, as an independent, and it's not easy for members who are part of a larger caucus. So I'm not sure that the experiment has been entirely successful when it comes to reviewing spending estimates.
When we talk about expanding that and breaking this Legislature up into committees to review legislation as well, that raises some serious concerns. I think there are alternatives to the way this is being proposed in the Government House Leader's motion. For instance, some Legislatures have proposed, and have used in the past, a select standing committee of the House to review non-controversial bills. When legislation comes through the House and it is truly of a housekeeping nature and non-controversial and all members agree with it, those bills can sometimes be referred to a select standing committee so as not to take up valuable time of the House.
[3:30]
If the only intent of the Government House Leader's motion is to improve the efficiency of this Legislature, I think all members would applaud that. We would like our Legislature to be able to do the taxpayers' business as efficiently as possible. Maybe we need to consider things like setting up a committee for non-controversial bills and continuing the estimates review in committee, as long as proper consultation takes place. But the very manner in which this motion is coming forward in the House this afternoon does not suggest that consultation is really the order of the day.
We have to consider the fact that grievances must be expressed before supply is granted -- that's part of the estimates process -- and that legislation has to be reviewed thoroughly. Not all legislation requires the same degree of scrutiny, and not all spending estimates require the same degree of scrutiny either. By agreement, members in this House can come to some kind of accommodation. But the manner in which the Government House Leader is proposing this bill raises some serious concerns. I said earlier that there might be other ways to do it. This is a modest reform that was tried on an experimental basis, and now some reservations have been expressed.
A much easier way might be to adopt a fixed parliamentary calendar, where members would be forced to discipline themselves to do the business of their constituents within a fixed range of time. I can't speak to it right now, but a private member's bill standing in my name on the order paper deals with the issue of a fixed parliamentary calendar. That would be one way of addressing this issue of creating efficiency in the Legislature. Other parliaments have adopted such techniques.
But here we are today talking about referring estimates and legislation outside of this chamber, where there isn't as much attention, and when, in the dying days of a session things speed up and the good times really start to roll -- you know what I'm talking about, Mr. Speaker: proper scrutiny is not given to legislation. Proper scrutiny is not given to millions and billions of dollars worth of taxpayers' spending. I'm not really sure that breaking up into Committees A and B can help us in this House at this time and under these circumstances.
Proper consultation has not taken place on the Government House Leader's motion, and for that reason I beg leave to adjourn this debate.
Leave not granted.
Interjection.
The Speaker: The member asked leave; leave was not granted. Just in case there was some confusion, the question was asked that leave be granted, which was denied. In my opinion the nays had it, and I suggest that the debate continue.
L. Reid: In terms of the motion on committees and whether or not this House divides to consider the estimates process, you heard my hon. colleague from Richmond-Steveston suggest that that is not in the best interests of the people who elected us. I would concur with that statement. The hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi suggests that it's difficult to be in more than one place at one time and to do a reasonable job of advancing the issues on behalf of our constituents. That is the concern of this official opposition. We're not convinced that this test case, if you will -- the fact that we've divided estimates for two successive sessions of this Legislature -- has been successful. We've done it. I don't believe that, as a pilot project, it has met the expectations of the average voter. For the most part, they don't believe in the process. They don't believe that they have access to the discussions or decisions reached by this government when they are excluded from the process.
It's very difficult to follow the proceedings in the committee room. It's impossible for individuals who are not able to come to Victoria to get a handle on that process. It's difficult for that information to reach them in written form, particularly with the delay in Hansard that we're now experiencing. I concur with the members who said that due diligence is not something that can be put in place when estimates are going on in two committees -- and perhaps legislation is being called as well. We need to rethink the issue of parliamentary reform and decide whether or not this is how we, as 75 legislators, wish to proceed. We are not giving due consideration to the legislation that comes before this House. We were elected to come to this chamber and debate all issues in a full and open manner, not to be fragmented into two or three different locations so that it's almost impossible to do the best job on behalf of our constituents. That is our position as members of the official opposition, and that's the concern we carry into the debate today and the reason we're not favouring parliamentary
[ Page 9775 ]
reforms. In fact, we do a disservice to the individuals in this province who have elected us.
This pilot project has not met expectations and is not one I wish to see continued in this Legislature. It is important, in terms of spending taxpayers' dollars -- and no dollars in this province belong to anyone other than the taxpayer.... It doesn't magically become government money. It is always the taxpayers' dollar, and they have every right to be apprised of the proceedings upon which those allocations are decided. To move it into an isolated committee room does not lend itself to the openness that this government suggested was important to them.
I also have an extreme concern regarding the use of Fridays in this chamber, which are considered private members' days. If we're talking about a useful parliamentary reform, perhaps we could return that day to the use it was intended: to debate bills from individual members of this House. As we all know, that has not happened in the past two and a half years of this government. We have not used that day for the purpose it was intended. We have somehow bastardized a process, and at the same time we're saying: "Aren't we favouring parliamentary reform?" This government is only favouring reform when it's convenient, not when it's in the best interests of the taxpayer, and certainly not when it's in the best interests of our constituents. And that is a serious concern for me today. I know there are private members' bills on the order paper, and I trust that someone in this government will have the sense to allow one of them to come forward this year, because that is a vehicle for members of this House to bring issues forward and have their concerns see the light of day. To have other issues take precedence denies members of this House the opportunity to bring forward issues that represent their constituents.
The hon. Minister of Employment and Investment talks about congeniality. Isn't it wonderful that we can come forward and be congenial! Frankly, we can do that in this chamber as well. Physical surroundings don't determine that. The quality of debate and whether people have done their homework determines that. And that is not a reasonable enough basis upon which to fragment this House even further.
I am not in favour of this motion. It has been singularly unsuccessful as a pilot project. No attempt has been made to analyze the outcome. No cost-benefit analysis has been made of running a second House to determine how we are going to spend the taxpayers' dollar. We are spending additional dollars, and I'm not convinced we are returning a reasonable product for that. In terms of where my colleagues and I are today, we will support a reasonable parliamentary reform, and we did appreciate the opportunity to evaluate this pilot project. Because it was put forward and we participated does not mean that we want to see this idea continue. It hasn't returned a reasonable product, and I don't believe it has involved the majority of British Columbians to the degree they might wish to be involved. As it stands now, they have no choice. I don't think this government wants to continually take away choices from British Columbians who may wish to see debate surrounding the allocation of dollars for all the ministries in this government, not just a select six or eight that come forward into the larger chamber.
All the allocations of the estimates process of this budget should receive due diligence by all members of this chamber. And if they choose, every single British Columbian should have the opportunity to examine those decisions in some detail. To deny them that is not a position I am comfortable with, and I can't imagine members on the government side of the House suggesting that this is novel parliamentary reform.
So I would not support this motion. I ask all colleagues to enter the debate in terms of whether they believe this indeed qualifies as a viable parliamentary reform. Again, we're not addressing the true issue, which is whether we wish to have these debates in an open and proper manner.
J. Weisgerber: I rise, to my surprise, to speak against the motion. For a number of years I have encouraged and supported reforms in the Legislature. I have been a keen supporter of changes in our legislative process to make it more efficient -- to allow us to more efficiently do the business of the people of British Columbia. I was disappointed in the years '87 through '91, when the current government was in opposition and consistently refused our attempts to move debates on estimates into committee and out of this Legislature. In 1992, when we came back here the first time -- even though the government had completely changed the position it had taken for so long in opposition -- I was quite willing to experiment with the idea of moving estimates to committee. We have now had two sittings of the Legislature in which the estimates of many of the ministries have been debated not in the Legislature but in Committee A, as we like to refer to it, in the Douglas Fir committee room. I supported the motion in 1992 and again in 1993.
We now look at a motion that proposes to take the process further down the road, to take not only estimates into committee debate but indeed to take committee stage of legislation out of this chamber -- away from the televised broadcast of the debates in this chamber -- and into Committee A. I have to ask myself and other members of this House: why would we want to do that?
In 1992 we sat in these chambers until mid-July. There was no efficiency. The debate lasted longer than it had in most of the sessions leading up to the separation into committee. But, I thought, perhaps one year.... There are some growing pains here. Next year some of the enthusiasm that accompanies a first session won't be there. We'll be more inclined to get down to business and deal with those affairs more efficiently next time around. We were here, Mr. Speaker, as you recall, until nearly the first of August, trying to get through a host of business that was dumped on us at the end of the session. We hadn't even managed to work our way through the estimates in committee during all of that time. So I think we've got to say, first of all: has the experiment to use committees for estimates been successful? I suggest to you that our experience in the last two years points to the contrary.
The shape of the Legislature has changed; it's different than it was last year. We now have a Liberal caucus, a Reform caucus, a Social Credit caucus, the Progressive Democratic Alliance and an independent member. Each of the nine independent members should be guaranteed an opportunity to participate in all stages of debate, on all legislation and on estimates. But we've been provided with only two seats in the committee to consider debate and committee stage of debate on legislation, if this motion were to pass. It would be impossible for us to structure any process that would ensure members of each group an opportunity to sit on that committee and debate estimates or legislation.
[3:45]
At the very least -- and I'm not suggesting this change alone would make this motion acceptable to me -- there should be three seats on that committee for members other than those of the official opposition. A makeup of 13 government members, five members of the official opposition and three independent members would not in
[ Page 9776 ]
any way disrupt the balance in the committee. It would be consistent with the representation of various groups in the Legislature, and it would ensure that Reform members had at least one seat in committee. We could work out among ourselves how to ensure representation through that seat, and I'm sure other arrangements could apply to other groups. At the very minimum, we should have an amendment to the structure of the committee.
One other element that I think is critical to these kinds of reform is that it be done with consensus of the members. Reforms that are simply pushed upon us by the majority are never going to work very effectively in this House. In retrospect I suspect that one of the reasons the committee has not been successful over the last couple of years is the reluctance of Liberal members to go along with it. I'm not being critical of the Liberals. I'm just suggesting that if you're going to have workable reforms there has to be consensus among members before they are implemented.
I can't for a minute believe that we would take the step suggested in section 10 without some very serious considerations. That's a radical departure from anything we've ever done in the Legislature. It takes debate on committee stage of legislation away from this chamber. How easy it would be for the government to allow second reading on a very difficult bill to take place in this chamber. The minister, in his or her closing remarks, could simply say that they would deal with all of that in committee, then whisk the legislation out of this chamber, away from these cameras and away from scrutiny, and deal with it in committee without any real public exposure to the nuts and bolts of the legislation -- always the issues revealed in committee stage of debate.
In closing, I'll first of all say that I believe we should simply stand this motion down, have a meeting of representatives of the various groups and work out a more acceptable process. Failing that, I think we should go back to what we've done for a hundred years in this chamber; that is, debate the people's business here in the Legislature where every member is guaranteed a seat and guaranteed constitutionally the right to stand and take their place in debate as outlined in our standing orders.
J. Tyabji: It was with considerable surprise that I saw this debate coming up this afternoon. When I read the motion, it was with considerable anger that I understood what the Government House Leader was attempting to do with this motion.
In the last two years the government brought in a new practice of splitting the estimates in this House. We have found that splitting the estimates has hindered the abilities of each MLA to participate in all the debates of the House. Legislation has come before the large committee of the House while the estimates are ongoing in the small committee. Many people may consider these debates unnecessary or superfluous to the proceedings of the Legislature. I have found that only in the estimates debate have I been able to pin down the cabinet members of government on some of the issues brought to me by my constituents. I have found that it has sometimes taken me six or eight months of chasing the ministers around through letters, papers and meetings before I can finally pin them down -- on record, in public -- in the estimates debates.
When the estimates were split, we were prepared. At that time, the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi brought it forward as a pilot project. From discussions with some of my colleagues on the opposition benches last year, I think it was conceded that even the first year was difficult, and as far as serving our constituents is concerned it was a failure. We saw one of the longer sessions of the House last year, even though it was supposed to be a move toward efficiency.
If we want to be truly efficient, we can just abolish the House and the buildings and pass everything through order-in-council. That might sound like a facetious recommendation, except when we see that this jurisdiction is one of the laziest in Canada for sittings of the House. This parliament sits fewer months of the year than almost any other jurisdiction in North America. We have a hard time accounting to our constituents for the fact that we didn't have a fall session last year. Any pressing legislation was passed through order-in-council. Executive decision-making is occurring already, and we are being told, in effect, that the estimates debates are so trivial that we can just split them into two different sections and it doesn't matter if some of us can't get into the debates.
I understand that the Government House Leader is preparing an amendment that would allow for three committee members from the nine independents who sit here from our various parties. As soon as we move the 75 MLAs down to another number we are, in effect, restricting our ability to speak on behalf of our constituents and abrogating the rights of every member of this Legislative Assembly in those debates. How am I to account to my constituents when they ask me about a piece of legislation that may have passed in this House while I was in the middle of trying to follow an estimates issue in the other House?
Each of us elected here as one of 75 has a responsibility and a duty to the people who elected us. Only through the public debates in these chambers can we effectively follow through on that duty and obligation. Even though we may be chasing the ministers around in letters or having face-to-face meetings with them, those meetings are not a public record; they are not something that comes out in Hansard or is televised into the homes of the people of the province. That is basically the preliminary work to set up the debates of the House. That's how I have found it working in the past.
Under section 10 of this motion we find that Section A -- the small committee -- is authorized to consider bills referred to the committee after second reading. That means that once we get to the actual meat and details of the bill, we take it out of the legislative chamber and put it in front of a committee. If we can remember back to 1991, the people of this province demanded more accountability and a greater effort on behalf of our constituents. They wanted a reform not just of the institution of government but of the way in which we serve the people who elect us.
It is only through this chamber that we can be truly accountable to the people who elect us. Only by having the freedom and opportunity -- and I stress opportunity -- to participate in every debate in this chamber can we represent our constituents. How can we have the opportunity to follow up on committee stage of a bill in the small House if there's second reading or committee stage of another bill in the large chamber? Believe it or not -- and I may be speaking for all the members of the opposition -- I know some of us actually read every single bill that gets tabled in the House. We may not be able to pay attention to every word of every bill, but some of us actually read the bills tabled in the House.
Some of us actually have opinions on those bills, based on the duties and obligations passed on to us by the mandate we received from our voters. Based on that mandate, we have an obligation to debate those bills. How can we effectively represent our constituents if we can't address the committee stage of the bills, or -- if we're addressing second reading of
[ Page 9777 ]
a bill in this House -- we have the estimates closing in the other House?
I have found that one of the reforms of this government -- of the institution of parliament -- can occur just by the political will of the individual who comes forward to the debate. I think estimates are an excellent example of where we can reform the way in which we participate in the institution of parliament. When I first came into this Legislature -- and this is only my third full session -- I was a bit bewildered by the estimates; I wasn't sure what they were for or what they meant. Now I understand that they can be a very effective tool for canvassing the philosophical direction or the concrete capital expenditures of any line ministry. In finding out where money is going, one can find out where money has come from. One can find out, on behalf of one's constituents, what kind of projects are on the horizon.
In the last couple of years I've built up a system by which I can represent my constituents through the estimates. There's an expectation in my riding that people can participate in the estimates. Whether it be through the school district, the food bank or any of the local community groups, they know that if they send a letter to me with specific questions as to what the minister's spending will be, I will ask that question on their behalf. I have separate files for each of the estimates debates, with the expectation that I will have the opportunity to address each of those estimates debates.
It has been with considerable frustration that I've seen the small House operate in the past. I've not been happy with the way it's operated before, but I've been willing to compromise for the purposes of the House or if the House had already come to that agreement. I'm finding that a compromise that wasn't working before is now being carried to an extreme that takes legislation out of the main chamber. If we're to participate as members who advocate reform on behalf of our constituents, how can we support a process that's being labelled efficient -- and therefore something we would favour -- but that has almost no accountability? How can anyone follow those debates?
The room for Section A to occur in isn't even specified. If we wanted to read this to the letter of the wording, Section A could be sitting concurrently in two rooms -- which means the membership would be divided in half -- or, as one of the other members says, in several rooms of the Legislature. In effect, we could have one member of Committee A sitting in each of these rooms while the committee stage of a bill is being debated. That's not accountability.
If this government really believes this chamber is unnecessary for doing the people's business, just abolish the chamber. And let's get rid of the cost associated with it; if we abolish the chamber, we can get rid of all the little accoutrements that go with it. And we can prevent debate on any issues of any substance. We know that when we've come forward with motions for debate, or with private members' bills or initiatives, each of them has met with a brick wall, anyway. We know we had no fall session of the House last year. The year before, we know that the only reason we had a fall session was to pay back the NDP obligation to the unions.
It's with great frustration and anger that I see a motion in the House that will exclude members of the opposition from representing their constituents in the work we are elected to do. We are elected as Members of the Legislative Assembly. When that opportunity is being taken away from us -- when we are being denied the opportunity to participate in debate -- we are abrogating the democracy that the taxpayers finance now. It's unfortunate, if people have an expectation that they are in a democratic system, that accountability is being removed. There's so little accountability in the B.C. legislative chambers, anyway. There's such great need for reform and for greater accountability. Instead we have motions that will allow two and possibly three members of a nine-member group -- and of these nine members there are three parties and one independent.... How can we possibly manage to address all the needs of our constituents in two Houses, where there is an exclusive opportunity in the small House? It can't happen.
It's regrettable that this is here. I had hoped, after the failure of the previous two years, to have effective representation in debates in the small room and actually see a movement away from that model. I was hoping that we would be moving to proper spring and fall sittings of this chamber, and that we would allow for proper debate of the estimates in the large chamber, with some of the bills being carried over to the fall session. It will be an absolute travesty of democracy if this government is not planning to sit in the fall. There should be a fall session of this House. If there is a fall session, there will be adequate time to address all the debates that should be coming before us in the large chamber. There should be a complete reform of this chamber, anyway. We should have direct delegation to the chamber, regardless of what we decide to do with the structure of the debates in this House. But if we're not going to be reforming it in that manner, we should at the very least allow it to function as the most accountable vehicle by which to represent our constituents and voters.
When we look at the way the Section A has been constituted over the previous two years, we see there are 13 members of the NDP, five members of the Liberal Party and two other members. It's unfortunate that it's been designated by partisan affiliation, because we could say 13 members of the government, five members of the official opposition and two other members, but they've chosen to use the party designation. Why do we need 13 members of the government, other than perhaps for a vote? If you want to vote, it could be just a simple majority. The fact is that when you're in the small House in estimates, there is ample opportunity for all members of the opposition to participate in the debate and have enough seats at the table -- and still allow the government to have a majority in that House. So if there is really going to be an amendment to the motion before us, it should take into account the fact that there are three parties and one independent, in addition to the official opposition, who need a seat at the table of the small House.
At a time when the public is calling for greater accountability and dramatic reform to our political institutions, we see a further decay of the B.C. Legislative Assembly. We see a further decay of our ability and opportunity to represent our constituents. It's unfortunate. I feel strongly that the opportunity for democracy will not be served by splitting up the debates. If this government wants to show a true commitment to this legislative chamber, the motions that we would see on the order paper would be inclusive of public input to the debate -- rather than the way we see it right now, where members who are elected by the public are being excluded from debate. This is an unfortunate day for democracy. It's an unfortunate day in a province where the legislative chamber for too long, since well before this government was elected, has been decaying. It has been the subject of scorn and contempt by many members of the public who don't believe that we adequately serve the needs of democracy through the debates of the House.
[ Page 9778 ]
Hon. Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate.
Motion negatived.
[4:00]
V. Anderson: We're here once again to deal with government experimentation according to their own idea of experimentation. As other members have said, there was not a great deal of enthusiasm when the first suggestion was brought forward two years ago, because there was no trust between members of the Legislature and those who had the majority of votes -- namely, the NDP. Because there was no trust that it was a real reform but only a managed reform, there was concern. We went along with it in order that it might be tested and evaluated. The test did take place, but there was no consistent evaluation of that test. There was no feedback from all the members of the Legislature as to the success or failure of that test, and those who had concerns about its inadequacies were not taken into account. So we meet here with a lack of trust again, and it's not a very good way to start this session of the Legislature.
In his presentation of the bill, the hon. minister indicated that it would be implemented with consultation. The bill itself was not brought in with that kind of consultation, so why should we suppose that there would be consultation after the fact? The consultation did not take place before the fact. We've become used to dealing with not what we hear from this government but how we see this government in its actions. I'd like to look at the bill itself because, apart from our previous dissatisfactions and uncertainties, this bill compounds that.
The minister tried to tell us that these are only minor amendments. They're only partially fixing it with minor tinkering in the back room. Even while the debate is in process, they're out tinkering with the bill and changing it. We must give them credit if they do a little listening, but because of our experience with them, we've discovered that they listen but they don't always hear very well. The concern is that it continues to take the discussion of estimates out of the public eye for the most part and into an area that does not even have the same accommodation for gallery members to listen and watch, as the Legislature does. Also, because it is not broadcast, there is no opportunity for the public to be a part of and aware of the circumstances and to reply as the situation warrants.
I'm not sure that the public is aware that as we go on with the process, the bill states that referrals -- and now it's referrals either of estimates or of bills -- shall be made without notice by the minister responsible for the bill. That's the kind of process that has clouded this in previous years. Without notice means that you come in here prepared to be involved in one particular function, debate or activity....
Interjection.
V. Anderson: I know the minister is trying to shut me up at the moment.
Interjection.
V. Anderson: You're changing it, yes. Perhaps you need to hear a little more before you change it, unless you're going to do away with it altogether, hon. minister.
The Speaker: Please address the Chair, hon. member.
V. Anderson: We're concerned that the minister is once again, without notice, going to change things, and that has been the whole problem. Whether it's estimates or bills, it's a fact without notice. They don't even get the opportunity to prepare or to have people on hand. If we have to deal with that in estimates and in bills -- operating in two places at the same time -- it's going to be totally impossible and impractical.
I think we need to ask the minister what he means by consultation. Here we have just another process where the 51 members of the government can use their majority power to force the minorities in opposition to bow to their demands. We must object as strongly as we can to this kind of process, and therefore we will quite definitely vote against this motion.
C. Serwa: Some of the debate on this matter reminds me a little of the writing that appeared on very ancient maps when everyone thought the world was flat and the ocean fell over a precipice, or falls: "There be monsters." I stand in support of the motion, actually. I've been a supporter and a proponent of the reforms that I've been very pleased to see take place in this Legislature. Certainly Committee A has been very successful, both with the ministry of the Attorney General when the initiative started, and also when we had a senior civil servant, a deputy minister, speak for the first time in committee in estimates. They were both historic occasions, and I'm very pleased.
I think sometimes, though, that perhaps the motion doesn't go far enough in limiting the time of debate in estimates. It's my belief that as this House matures, we will actually allocate a certain block of time for government members, official opposition members and other members. We should look at averages over the past four or five years so that we can have a smooth and orderly flow of business through this Legislature. What has complicated the matter is that some individuals take an inordinate amount of time in the course of estimates and actually diminish the opportunity for close scrutiny of the government's activities.
So I am supporting this motion with two amendments that I believe to be friendly. They were developed in consultation with the Government House Leader, my colleague the hon. member for Peace River South and official opposition members. The first, an amendment to section 4, would replace the 13 government members with 15 members, the five Liberals with six Liberals and the two independents with three independents. That concludes my amendment to section 4. I would also like to see everything struck out after "shall" at the bottom line of section 10 and replaced by the following: "only be made with the unanimous consent of the House." Everything else can stand as presented. I think those two amendments are friendly, and I believe they are responsible and will assist a smooth and orderly flow of business through this Legislature.
The Speaker: The amendments appear to be in order, hon. members. It is the intention of the Chair to have them spoken to -- first section 4, then the question on that, and then proceed to section 10 -- if that is agreeable to members. Are there any other speakers? Otherwise we will have the question on section 4.
Amendment to section 4 approved.
Amendment to section 10 approved.
On the motion as amended.
[ Page 9779 ]
W. Hurd: I appreciate those friendly amendments, but I think we still return to the principle of a division of this House for the purpose of debating the people's business. It's significant that there are limitations on Committee A which have to be read into the record. There is a limit in Committee A, which is the small chamber, in terms of substitutions. A limited number of members can participate in that particular chamber. It's also significant that there still is no television coverage of that particular committee room and that the government continues to control the agenda of estimates for those two committees.
We've talked about this motion every year that it has come up. It really is an affront to the assembly to have a motion dividing committees of supply being passed off as a motion of reforming the assembly, when there are so many other measures that could be undertaken in this assembly to streamline debate, to make it more orderly and more important. Many more changes could be made to this assembly, but the government has not sought to bring them forward.
I think it's significant to note that any committee of supply which limits participation by members of this assembly by virtue of its physical confines does not represent a positive change to this assembly. It's significant that before the amendments were read into the record, it would have been possible for the government to introduce bills in both chambers. I have a great deal of difficulty with this. As the member for Vancouver-Langara stated, this is an oversight by the government -- something that was accidentally introduced in this motion to approve committees of supply.
Well, I don't buy it. I think there was an honest attempt on the part of the government to introduce bills into a chamber in which, by virtue of the substitution rules, limited debate would have been possible. Despite the amendments, the opposition will continue to speak against this motion, to oppose it as not being a responsible measure, as not being a measure that will in any way enhance or improve accountability -- which is, after all, what the opposition is here to do.
It's unfortunate that what is being debated is how this motion affects opposition members only. I regret that in committees of supply there isn't more participation by government private members. It's an opportunity to participate in a full debate about the various ministerial estimates.
I can recall that the hon. member for Skeena had a real concern about the Ministry of Health and a decision that was taken under a vote of that ministry. Surely he and any other government member should have the opportunity, with full television coverage, to stand up and address the concerns that they might have with individual ministries.
I don't find this motion to be one that will improve accountability in this assembly, as the government has indicated it will. It's really an attempt to introduce issues to Committee A that the government may not want to see televised. I do not regard it as a positive initiative. The opposition, as it has always done and must do, will be opposing it when it is brought before the assembly.
[4:15]
A. Hagen: The debate this afternoon has been quite interesting. As a member of the legislature who has now had the honour to serve through two parliaments, I want to speak very strongly in support of what has been a very constructive change in our House rules. I was pleased to hear the words of the member for Okanagan West -- with whom I don't always agree -- concerning those reforms.
Let me be very brief, because the public wants us to do its business in ways that are, to use the language of accountants, effective and efficient. I really do believe that this year we have an opportunity to show what can happen. Many members of the Legislature are coming into their third session. As many other members have said, it has taken some time to really understand the role of estimates, Committee of Supply and this chamber, while at the same time doing the people's business.
A number of aspects of Committee A are new and provide citizens and members of the Legislature with an opportunity to more thoroughly explore the estimates of the line ministries. For example, deputies can be questioned in those sessions, which is a good move; it brings our senior civil service into the discussion. That has been a very useful and productive change for those members who have participated in Committee A.
All of us have work to do. We work in this chamber, we work in consultation with government cabinet members and their bureaucrats, and we work in our constituencies. It's important for us to have opportunities to do that work as efficiently as we can. In order to do the extensive business of this Legislature, allowing us to sit where more than one person has a voice at the same time is a very good initiative. With two committees, we have a dialogue and a debate that involves more than one member at a time.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
In the last two years we have had protracted debate that has not always been to inform the public or to explore issues. Rather than provide a wide variety of activities for all 75 of us to participate in, we've had people dominate the debate. The debate this afternoon has provided some amendments. We've listened to the discussion and looked at ways in which we could broaden the opportunities of this new House, which now has five parties -- they are designated as parties in their own lexicon, at least -- and one independent. Sometimes it's hard to keep count of the changing scenario. All of those people have a point of view, including government members. I believe that having those two committees provides members on both sides of the House with opportunities to speak. We can't all speak on everything; we all have to make some choices about the things that are important to us. That's the reason that the opposition designates people in the role of critic, where they take particular responsibility to develop responses.
We've had a debate on this that has lasted about an hour and a half. I believe that's about the amount of time that we should spend. It's important for us to get on with House business and deal with bills, motions, private members' bills and Committee of Supply.
The suggestion made by the member for Richmond East that we try to look at how Friday can be used for private members is a good one, and I hope the House Leaders will deal with that when planning our work for the session. One way to do that would be for the people on the other side of the House to go along with the suggestion of the member for Okanagan West that we make commitments about the amount of time we spend in Committee of Supply in the House.
One of the best pieces of advice I received from a longtime member of the Legislative Assembly about serving my constituents was that if you really want to serve your constituents on an issue, write to the minister. Dog the minister. Dog the government and make sure you get an answer. Your chances of having that happen in a way that
[ Page 9780 ]
will deal with the issues in the House is possible. But if you are going to represent your constituents, there are other ways besides House business to do that. Contrary to the member for Okanagan East, who says that there is no record, correspondence is a wonderful record of your initiative, the minister's response and the outcome.
So there are lots of ways for us to represent our constituents, and we should get on with the business of doing it in two committees where more voices can be heard and more business can be accomplished. With the cooperation of House Leaders, I hope there will be a much more organized and manageable House than we have sometimes had in the past. It has been difficult for our House Leader to plan, because people on the other side have not always been prepared to live up to their agreements. That would be a help too.
J. Beattie: With the amendments the opposition has come up with, I feel very comfortable with this motion. I am a little bit disappointed that the member for Surrey-White Rock indicates he still won't support it, despite these amendments.
It's a bit of a misnomer to say that the business of the House is being whisked away to Committee A. It is very clear, as the past speaker, my comrade, has said....
Interjection.
J. Beattie: That's right. She is a very good comrade of mine, unlike members of the opposition....
Interjection.
J. Beattie: An honourable comrade, in fact. As she stated very aptly, the business of the House is very visible to those who wish to take the time to examine what's going on.
I think the whole argument about television is becoming a little bit overblown. The hon. member should remember that the development of democratic process over a number of decades took place without television. So I don't think we need to depend on it to that extent.
Many times we hear that the opposition would like matters of business to be directed to legislative committees. In terms of their relationship to the House, legislative committees are one step removed from the work that took place in Committee A with respect to visibility. So I think that we have ample opportunity to be visible.
At the end of debate in Committee A last year, the estimates were moved back in the House for the final wrap-up. At that time, members of the opposition had an opportunity to encapsulate their feelings about the debate that took place in Committee A. That can be done again.
This is a good motion, the amendments are strong, and I would urge all members of the House, including the Liberals, to support this motion.
D. Symons: I rise in objection to this motion, because it has a great many faults in it. I am somewhat surprised that the government feels that we should go ahead with it, because I am quite sure that in their hearts they know it's working to their advantage, particularly when it divides the opposition in such a way. I'm surprised at the third, fourth and fifth parties and independent, because it spreads them even thinner. It does not give those members an opportunity to represent their constituents well, because they are not able to be in two places at the same time, as has been said two or three times in this House.
I am concerned that the government is using this as another tool to subvert the democracy and the purpose of the Legislative Assembly, which is to discuss in a meaningful way the legislation that is brought before it.
Approximately a year ago in this House and getting close to the witching hour of midnight, the Minister of Forests introduced a bill. I can see the same sort of thing happening by having bills introduced in the House.... Seeing the sorts of tricks of the trade, if I can call them that, that this government is using, I'm not sure that this is not simply another trick of the trade in order to go ahead with their agenda and weaken the effectiveness of the opposition. I would like to give a couple of personal examples, so that I don't repeat many of the arguments given by others. I think they've given very sound arguments, which I hope the government will pay attention to -- and withdraw this bill.
I was attending Committee A when the Attorney General's estimates came up, because I had some concerns about drinking-driving offences. Unfortunately, at that time I could not be in Committee B and listen to the main event going on in the House. The problem is that it's not really possible for members, while doing all the chores they do -- keeping track of constituency things that come up during the day and dealing with them, as well as preparing for legislation that's coming up -- to read every word of the Hansard Blues and find out what happened the previous day. It is difficult to read everything and keep track of it, as well as do the other tasks of preparing for legislation coming up and looking after constituents. The argument given to me when I was complaining about being in two places at once was: "Well, you can read it in the Blues." Indeed, what you read is after the fact.
That happened to me when I went to speak to the Education estimates last year. I attempted to raise a question about the Richmond campus of Kwantlen College, and I wanted to discuss something about the staffing of that facility. I was informed by the Chair of that committee that that discussion had taken place already, and I was basically told to sit down because we've done that. Believing the Chair, I sat down. But the next day when I read the Blues, I discovered that the aspects I was going to ask about were not discussed. Unfortunately, in the meantime the estimates of the Education ministry ended, so I was denied the opportunity because I was not able to be there to hear the whole debate. I could not be in two places at once, and I could not represent the best interests of the Richmond students who were unable to find accommodation in Kwantlen College. They've got a beautiful new campus there, and they don't have sufficient staff to allow the students to get in. In fact, half the students who would like to attend there are denied access to that accommodation because we just don't have the staffing, although we do have the facility in our community.
That was the issue I wanted to bring up, and you cannot represent the interests of your constituents if you can't be in those two places at once, which was discussed earlier by many members of this House. So for those reasons I believe it's incumbent upon the government to withdraw this motion and leave things to take place here in public where it's witnessed by all. If we're not representing our constituents well, it's our fault and not the fault of the system that we've been put under by this government, which seems to be using this as a way of stifling debate rather than encouraging open and honest debate in this Legislative Assembly.
[4:30]
[ Page 9781 ]
Hon. G. Clark: In closing debate, I have a small consequential amendment to move: that the number 20 in the first line of section 4 be changed to 24. It's consequential to the number....
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: Apparently I can. The Clerk advises that I can do that.
Deputy Speaker: On the advice of the table, I guess the amendment is in order. Mr. Clerk, do we require a vote on that amendment?
W. Hurd: On a point of order, if the minister would be so kind as to provide a rationale for the amendment, the opposition, having not had the benefit of....
Deputy Speaker: Point made.
Hon. G. Clark: We amended the original motion to move the number of government members from 13 to 15, the number of Liberal Party members from five to six and the number of independents from two to three. It says, "The committee of selection shall appoint 20 members," and the new additions make it 24. It's simply a consequential amendment to the amendments agreed to by all members earlier.
Amendment to section 4 approved.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Motion as amended approved on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 50 | ||
|
Petter |
Sihota |
Marzari |
|
Priddy |
Edwards |
Cashore |
|
Zirnhelt |
Charbonneau |
O'Neill |
|
Garden |
Perry |
Hagen |
|
Dosanjh |
Hammell |
B. Jones |
|
Lortie |
Giesbrecht |
Miller |
|
Smallwood |
Cull |
Harcourt |
|
Gablemann |
Clark |
MacPhail |
|
Ramsey |
Barlee |
Blencoe |
|
Lovick |
Pullinger |
Janssen |
|
Evans |
Randall |
Beattie |
|
Doyle |
Streifel |
Simpson |
|
Sawicki |
Kasper |
Brewin |
|
Copping |
Schreck |
Hartley |
|
Boone |
Jackson |
Mitchell |
|
Serwa |
Hanson |
Weisgerber |
|
Neufeld |
|
Fox |
|
NAYS -- 13 | ||
|
Tyabji |
Stephens |
Gingell |
|
Hurd |
Reid |
Dalton |
|
Chisholm |
Tanner |
Jarvis |
|
Anderson |
Warnke |
K. Jones |
| Symons | ||
Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 8.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
ACCOUNTANTS (MANAGEMENT) ACT
Hon. D. Miller: I move that Bill 8, Accountants (Management) Act, be now read a second time. Bill 8 repeals and replaces the Accountants (Management) Act, so that this statute governing certified management accountants is consistent with those governing chartered accountants, certified general accountants and the other accounting professions in the province.
The bill includes three significant changes from the current act. First is the change of name of the society. Second is an increase in the number of non-accountants serving on the board of directors of the society. And third is the enhancement of procedures for practice review and disciplinary action and their incorporation into the act.
The name of the society is changed from the Society of Management Accountants of British Columbia to the Certified Management Accountants' Society of British Columbia. This change will bring the name of the society in line with the membership title of certified management accountant, which is authorized by the current act.
The number of non-accountants appointed to the board of directors of the society is increased from one to four. This increase in lay membership addresses the need for more public participation in the decisions of the board's professional associations. This increase can enhance public confidence in self-governing professions and improve the quality of their decisions by bringing a broader perspective to them.
The procedures for practice review and disciplinary action have been enhanced and incorporated into the act, providing a prospective complainant who is a member of the general public ready access to information about them. The bill provides for the investigation of the conduct of a member and for the review of a member's professional practice. It gives the board of directors of the society the power to hold a disciplinary inquiry and render a decision, which may be appealed to the Supreme Court. It also grants the power to suspend a member, pending an inquiry, where the circumstances of a case require it. These proposed disciplinary provisions will provide greater public protection and a more explicit and manifestly fair process.
[4:45]
The Society of Management Accountants of British Columbia has requested the repeal and replacement of the Accountants (Management) Act. I'll close on that.
F. Gingell: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise to speak to this bill -- very briefly, I promise -- to give it my unqualified support. As you all know, I'm a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. I spoke to the senior staff at both the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Society of Certified General Accountants. Both bodies support this bill, and I wish it speedy passage.
C. Serwa: This matter came up for a number of years and was very controversial at some point in the previous government's history. I'm very pleased that the matter has been resolved to everyone's best wishes, and that the certified accountants and certified general accountants are happy with the name change and this particular bill. So we're very pleased, and we will be supporting this bill.
Hon. D. Miller: I'm pleased at the very positive reception...
Deputy Speaker: Are you closing the debate, Mr. Minister?
[ Page 9782 ]
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, I'm closing debate.
...which is very supportive of the opposition. Of course, we as a government do want to work with the various boards and agencies affected by legislation and try to minimize controversy where that is possible. I'm pleased to see that we've done it on this occasion.
I move that Bill 8 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House....
Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Mr. Minister, I need first the question on second reading.
Hon. D. Miller: I did move that, hon. Speaker. We could vote now on second reading.
Deputy Speaker: Fine. The question is second reading of Bill 8.
Motion approved.
Bill 8, Accountants (Management) Act, 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. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 6.
INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
Hon. G. Clark: I'm just filling in for the Minister of Finance. This is a very brief amendment -- it could have been included in a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. It has, however, some positive public policy and consumer protection aspects. For example, just to read one of these nice, plain-language explanatory notes, section 3 "requires a clause in an insurance policy that limits liability to be in large bold type." I'm sure this was hotly contested by the drafters and by the insurance industry.
This bill, though, is supported by the insurance industry, and many of these amendments came from the industry itself. I think this modest initiative is generally a very good public policy, and I urge all members to support it. Of course, the minister will be here in committee stage to answer any detailed questions.
F. Gingell: It gives me pleasure to rise in support of this bill, which is truly, as the minister has said, in the interests of consumer protection. I would just like to bring one issue to the attention of the minister, and that is in section 1(a)(1.1), where it requires the company to act promptly. I would like to suggest that they might like to put in a definite specified time, like 14 days. If they were to do so, we would certainly consider that a friendly amendment. If the government doesn't do it, I will do so at the appropriate time, and hope that it will be considered as a friendly amendment. With that, Mr. Speaker, we intend to support this bill.
Deputy Speaker: The minister wishes to close debate?
Hon. G. Clark: Actually, I have no wish to close debate, but just to have the motion....
Deputy Speaker: The question is second reading of Bill 6.
Motion approved.
Bill 6, Insurance Amendment Act, 1994, 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. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 2.
ARCHITECTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
Hon. D. Miller: I move that Bill 2 be now read a second time. Bill 2 contains amendments to the Architects Act, and some of them are similar to the accountants' act amendments that we just dealt with. It will do three things: (1) increase the number of lay members on the council of the Architectural Institute of B.C.; (2) require corporations offering both architectural and engineering services to register under the act; and (3) replace the two-step disciplinary process with a single-step process. The Architectural Institute of B. C., which governs the practice of the profession of architecture in the province, is requesting these amendments.
Increasing the number of lay members on the council of the Architectural Institute from one to four addresses the need for increased public participation in the decisions of the board, and it enhances the public's confidence in these self-regulating professions. That's really being doing across the full range of professions that are regulated by their own act.
Requiring corporations offering both architectural and engineering services to register under the Architects Act will enable the Architectural Institute to regulate them as it does individual members and corporations offering architectural services. These joint-practice corporations will be required to obtain a certificate of practice prior to practising or offering to practise architecture, and will be subject to the same disciplinary procedures and the same degree of liability as architectural corporations and individual members.
Replacing the two-step disciplinary process with a single step will make the process fairer and more efficient. Currently the council determines disciplinary action after an inquiry committee has conducted a hearing. With the amendment, a disciplinary committee of the council will hear and decide all disciplinary matters.
Several miscellaneous amendments are also contained in this bill. One of these will remove the requirement that the two-to three-year period of employment of a candidate for admission must be within the five years preceding the application for membership. A small but fairly significant point is that this restriction has been especially problematic for women who have taken time out from their careers to have children. To the extent that it removes that kind of barrier for women in the profession of architecture, it is, I think, a welcome change to the act.
I will close on that point.
L. Reid: I am pleased to rise in debate on Bill 2, the Architects Amendment Act, 1994, in second reading.
Certainly I would concur with the minister's comments. We in the official opposition believe that the role of government is to set standards and ensure that public accountability is met. We believe that this amendment act enhances that position, and it seems to be well supported by players in the field. Indeed, as the minister has said, the Architectural Institute of British Columbia did request that a number of these amendments come forward. I understand that their only concern is that it took the government a long time to address their issues. However, they are looking forward to having these amendments finally approved.
With that, I lend my support to the package.
[ Page 9783 ]
C. Serwa: I don't know what has got into the government these last few hours. They have been reasonable and approachable, and that is so unusual for this government. I must compliment the minister on this particular act. I think that all professions should be self-regulating and should work in cooperation with the government. This particular bill, the Architects Amendment Act, was produced in close consultation with the architects, with the intent of protecting consumers as well as maintaining standards in the profession. I'm very pleased to rise in support of this bill.
Hon. D. Miller: As with Bill 8, I welcome the comments of members of the opposition. I can only say that if the government has been slow to address the needs and issues contained in this bill, I apologize. I've only been the minister since last September, and I can't really say that I'm the architect of this act. I really should give credit to my predecessor in this ministry for doing the bulk of the work. I'm pleased that there appears to be unanimity among members. I'll move second reading.
Motion approved.
Bill 2, Architects Amendments Act, 1994, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
(continued)
On the amendment.
L. Reid: I'm pleased today to rise in debate on the throne speech in the third session of the thirty-fifth parliament. It is indeed an honour to represent the constituents of Richmond East. I would also like to take a moment this afternoon to welcome the two newest members of the Liberal caucus, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quilchena and the hon. member for Matsqui.
The amendment, which was just moved by the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston, talks about opportunities in education and this government's inability to provide long-term opportunities for the citizens of British Columbia. This government continues to assault the education system in this province, thereby jeopardizing the future of our children.
That is the particular aspect of the amendment that I wish to address this afternoon. I believe it's very important that, as British Columbians, we in the opposition come forward with some opportunity for our young people as we proceed into the next century. I'm not convinced that we are acknowledging the new economy in British Columbia. There are a number of very fine documents on the subject. Some very fine literature suggests that we have a long way to go in terms of preparing our young people for the next century. We also want to take a very careful look at the institutions that we currently have in place which are going to give people access to these new opportunities. We must understand that education is a lifelong pursuit, not just an institutional experience early in one's life. I believe that we need to shift from being a society of institutions to being a society of learners.
I had the opportunity recently to attend the launch of the international commercial centre in our riding of Richmond. The person taking that initiative forward, Mr. Wayne Duzita, can be incredibly proud that he is futuristic enough to look not only at what can create new opportunities for Richmond residents but also at what can create new learning opportunities for this corner of Canada. Our proximity to the Pacific Rim.... We need to be making more of our ability to look at trade as a viable generator of new jobs. It is something that he certainly seems to have a very fine handle on.
New jobs will be created in Richmond as a result of the international commercial centre, which is basically a trade zone that recognizes that corner of the province and that corner of Canada as being integral to an overall trade policy for this country and for North America. That is something we can be incredibly proud of, particularly as MLAs for Richmond, but also as British Columbians who want to see opportunities unfold for young people in this province.
We all know that business opportunities for our young people will be in companies that employ fewer than five people, and we'll see those individuals working together over the next number of years. Today's new companies are about ideas. We need to examine in tremendous detail private enhancements for public service. I very much want to see those discussions undertaken in this Legislature. I honestly believe that we can generate new dollars in health care and education. The days are long over where we can expect the tax base to fund all the services that we would like to see.
[5:00]
Following that point, we very much need to create a supportive climate for research and development in British Columbia. The Premier and the past Minister of Finance came out and supported the KAON project at the University of British Columbia. Where were this same Premier and minister when the budget for the Science Council was slashed by 75 percent? There has to be an overall commitment to science in this province and country, because it's a package. You can't continually slice off different parts of it and expect it to generate revenue or jobs. The facts are clear. More than four dollars in benefits have been created by every dollar of Technology B.C. money awarded to industry. The spinoff from the associated industry which revolves around science and technology investment is a very significant sum of money and employment activity.
We need to be very clear that government is not the economic driver of today's economy. It is business, and business will also be the driver of new educational partnerships. British Columbians will not be looking to employers for job security. In the future, they will be creating their own opportunities and businesses and becoming entrepreneurs in their own right.
For the new economy to succeed, government must have an incredible respect for intellectual property. Sadly, the NDP government does not understand intellectual property. In fact, this NDP government has difficulty reading patent law. That is why they are spending the taxpayers' money to advance an ideological position. What a message to send to Merck Frosst, which has just invested $15 million in the B.C. economy! That issue is currently underway in the court system of British Columbia. First it was the corporate capital tax; now this government welcomes business to our province by taking companies to court. How many other bizarre tricks does this NDP welcome wagon have up its sleeve? You can't take people to court when you are trying to create an investment climate. You cannot send the message to taxpayers that the corporate capital tax is good for investment. It is not a message that makes sense for prospective investors in this province.
This government continues to suggest that it understands educational opportunities. Sadly, it doesn't. This province will be in a position to successfully educate our population
[ Page 9784 ]
if, and only if, we can successfully partner with business. It will be business that generates the revenue, and business that creates opportunities.
Biotechnologies, information technologies, environmental technologies -- each has the ability to put British Columbia on the map in terms of expertise. Why not British Columbia as a world leader in environmental technology? Why not British Columbians marketing their expertise the world over, taking their skills to new markets? Biotechnologies can generate new dollars in health care, and I believe that they can assist in reducing overall health care costs.
Let's take the example of the scientists in Canada who discovered the protein that assists in the regeneration of skin after a serious burn. This is only one example where that type of science, if applied, can reduce health care costs. As we all know, hospitalization for burn patients is very, very expensive. If we can shorten their stay by introducing a science application, that is exactly what we should be doing.
I believe that information technologies can and will create new jobs. I think we're going to have a very successful future in the telecommunications industry. For every ten jobs in research and development, 12 additional jobs are created in associated and support fields such as marketing, manufacturing, finance and administration. Those are the jobs that can succeed in Richmond East, in Richmond and anywhere in this province -- if government sends the correct message.
This government talks about diversifying the economy, but it doesn't have a plan for the future. Post-secondary educators must understand that the tools of the job are changing. Why not a Stanford, an MIT or a Cal Tech in British Columbia? Why not centres of excellence that deliver?
We currently have private dollars going to education and to health care in this province. We see today that the majority of British Columbians who need an MRI travel across the border into Blaine or Bellingham and pay $2,000 (U.S.) to $3,000 (U.S.) for that service. I for one want to see that money spent in British Columbia.
As the critic for Skills, Training and Labour, I want to see every British Columbian understand the actual cost of all post-secondary education programs. In fact, I would like to see this information published in every university calendar. We have individuals who don't understand the percentage of subsidy that taxpayers in this province put towards post-secondary education. Having a better-informed voter base will only add to the quality of the debate.
My hope for both health care and education is to see British Columbians make better choices about the dollars to be expended on their behalf. I'm not convinced that this government is focusing on either the learner or the patient. It's time we put the power in the hands of the consumer. Imagine hospitals and post-secondary settings where both the patient and the learner felt valued, and both were a priority. This government is creating a parallel bureaucracy. This is not about people.
The Liberal vision for post-secondary education is one of partnership. Liberals are planners. We would put in place a three- to five-year funding formula. Why not an educational RRSP, where education savings could be banked at some point so that you or a family member could engage in some type of training program? The tax advantage would exist if the money was spent on retraining for yourself or for a family member. We believe that education is a continuous process, and we would put a mechanism in place to provide for continuous opportunities. It's time for this government to walk the talk.
We would also put in place a clearly articulated credit transfer and assessment program. At the present time, students who move between institutions in this province are penalized. It's a very difficult process, and it's not fair to students who invest much of their time and many of their dollars and often end up moving to a new institution and being forced to start over. It would not be a difficult concept to allow students to bank credits and move them to different institutions in the province. We would also move to a very fine telecommunications infrastructure that will provide jobs in the future.
A continuing theme has to be some type of outcome analysis. It's very important to measure what we're doing to see if we're making any progress in any of these areas. I continually speak of some form of cost-benefit analysis, and I would like to see that extended to post-secondary institutions in this province. Imagine a situation where we have performance standards you must reach, instead of: here are the hoops you must hop through in B.C.'s education system. That's the current state of the art, and it's not in the best interests of students in this province.
As members of the official opposition, our goal would be a seamless post-secondary situation. We would like students to be able to move freely between institutions. That makes sense, and it's probably in their best interests -- not having them expend unnecessary dollars, trying to create that system piecemeal. If we could put a national strategy in place that encourages individual educational choices, it would be nice to know that you can move from province to province and carry some credits with you. Our learners would be customers: come to us and we will design a program for you. On the supply side would be business, universities, open learning agencies, colleges, centres of excellence, learning networks, community centres and television access. The possibilities are endless. On the demand side would be learners and programs for those learners when they need them and where they need them.
The future is not about buildings, it's about ideas. The throne speech put forward by this NDP government is not about the future. There is no plan, and nowhere is this more evident than in health care and education. I am awaiting a general election, as are the patients and students in British Columbia.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: It greatly pleases me to rise to support both the throne speech and the budget of this government. They are truly a fine pair of balanced initiatives. There is something in them for everybody. There are capital tax breaks for business. We are going to improve things for about 2,000 small businesses. There are tax breaks for mining, opportunities for business to participate in a very healthy infrastructure program, and taxes are frozen -- they know that now -- for the next three years. The property transfer tax is eliminated for first-time homebuyers. That is going to be particularly important to young men and women in my riding of Kamloops. We have a very vibrant housing market, and this is going to greatly help them to get into their first home.
It's going to help the children and the parents of British Columbia, because this province has provided the strongest support for education of any jurisdiction in Canada. We have done it in the last two budgets, and again in this throne speech and budget -- the best in the country. We've increased the special initiative for special needs -- a new, major initiative at this time.
In addition, we are reforming some aspects of post-secondary education by increasing career opportunities
[ Page 9785 ]
and relevance for students. This budget is great for young men and women heading on to college or university. There are 8,100 new positions to fill. All of those opportunities did not exist up to this time.
This budget is great news for workers who are caught in a changing economy, both in terms of job opportunities and in the opportunity to acquire new skills. There are $4 million in tax breaks for farm families and co-ops and people in agriculture. The ongoing improvements to health care and its increased funding is great news for all citizens. We are going to be making many prudent investments in infrastructure to benefit all British Columbians. There will be more jobs for the citizens of B.C., and taxes are frozen for three years.
We've accomplished all of that in a fiscally prudent way. While we've been doing all of that, we have also been able to make steady progress on reducing the deficit. We've reduced it by about $1.5 billion, and we've done it in a balanced and careful way. We've done it responsibly, such that no part of our society has been hurt unduly. The deficit is down 60 percent, and we have met our deficit reduction targets every year. If there happened to be any extra revenue, we didn't spend it; we used it to pay down the deficit further. We are still left with the second-lowest taxes in the country and the lowest debt of any province.
In addition are these indications of a great and sound economy: capital investment is up about 8 percent, exports are up 16 percent, I believe, and we have the best job creation in the country -- 78,000 jobs in a 12-month period. Ours is a thriving economy all the way around. The best all-around indicator: our international credit rating, which is the highest in the country. The rules don't permit the credit rating of a province to be higher than that of a country, or British Columbia would certainly have a higher credit rating than the Liberal government in Ottawa.
A few words -- words that I have heard before in this chamber, but they are as true as true can be -- sum it all up: jobs up, deficit down and taxes frozen. Probably every Liberal Premier and treasurer or finance minister in the country would do well to come to B.C. and find out how to do the job right. All you have to do is look at the budget document. Look at those Liberals. Almost all of them have terrible credit ratings. Look at the debt they have built up. It's terrible -- far worse than in British Columbia. They ought to come here and find out how to do the job right. This is a really easy budget to support. It stands up. Business supports it; financial analysts support it; bond rating agencies support it. It is a very good budget.
[5:15]
What about our friends across the aisle? You could judge the impact on their faces. Did they ever get long and glum looks when they heard all of the good news, and they couldn't do anything about it. The best they could attempt was: "Gosh, if we were government, we would have done that." They are not government, and they are not likely to ever be government. If they were at liberty to speak their true thoughts, they would probably like to stand up and support this budget. They would also like to support the initiatives in the throne speech, because they truly do reflect the kind of progressive society that we all share.
Unfortunately, they have this new boss who gives them their marching orders and says: "Get out there and complain about the deficit, but don't talk about the horrible job that those other Liberal governments in Canada are doing with their finances, and for heaven's sake, don't talk about the federal Liberals." Their boss also says: "Get out and complain about the debt, but don't mention my record when, as the mayor of Vancouver, I managed to increase the debt load by 46 percent in a brief period. You'd better not talk about that." What we have is a lot of ritualistic whining, carping and complaining. It's a favourite theme: the sky is falling because of the debt. A well-known author summed it up: "There's much sound and fury signifying nothing." That's more or less the situation.
You would think that people who purport to understand business would have a better grasp of the basics. Look at it. We have the lowest debt of any jurisdiction in Canada. B.C.'s debt is growing -- certainly -- because we are the fastest-growing province in the country, and we need infrastructure to support the future generation's wealth and to deliver the programs that this province will need. If they looked at fast-growing corporations, what would they see? They would see that fast-growing corporations support increasing the debt load, because that is how they go about generating their future wealth. Many business people seem to forget that a set of books includes both assets and liabilities. They like to concentrate on the liability side; they ought to glance at the asset side, where we have $60 billion worth of assets -- far and above the liabilities.
What are they complaining about exactly? They don't seem to like investment in infrastructure. I guess they don't want schools and colleges, hospitals or roads, because all of those things are supported by debt financing, and they are against debt. Their neoconservative friends carry on the agenda of the debt clock -- of all of the phony things that this country has ever seen. If you're going to put up a debt clock, you ought to put up a wealth clock beside it. If you and your friends want to be honest, there should be a debt clock and a wealth clock. The wealth clock would show the acquisition of assets by our society. Instead of just the debt clock ticking, they would see an asset clock ticking even faster. They also don't address the consequences of not providing the social infrastructure. What would the future social deficit be as a result, and what would they then find to complain about? They also fail to identify what they would be willing to forgo.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
The last couple of times when we have got to the estimates -- and we'll do it again next week -- suddenly there were new tunes. They will suddenly stand up and say: "My constituency needs this." On a couple of occasions when I was Minister of Transportation and Highways, I saw them stand in the House and rail against debt, and then they would stand in estimates and ask for all kinds of things for their ridings. Let me make a prediction, and I'd even make this an open wager: I'll bet that when it comes time for the estimates next week, every one of them will stand up and ask for new schools. They'll suddenly forget their railing about debt and they'll want new schools.
I've tried to figure out the opposition. I've actually gone back and looked into some of the curricula to see if I could find a way to understand them. I checked with arithmetic, but it can't be arithmetic, because none of their ideas add up. Besides, you can't build anything when you've only got negatives. So it can't be arithmetic that does it, right?
I thought maybe it's alchemy, or something like that -- transmutation. This caucus has been going through a transmutation or two, or three, over the last couple of years. Unfortunately, although they've tried incantations, conventions and many other things, they haven't converted lead into gold yet. They still haven't got the lead out of their caucus. Alchemy hasn't worked for them.
[ Page 9786 ]
Then I thought: it's physics, of course; now we can find some explanations. A little physics -- a little quantum mechanics, actually. Fusion: we haven't had too much of that. But fission -- now there's something else. Every once in a while an unidentified particle is ejected from caucus and pops up someplace else in the room. You can't predict it, but it happens.
We have another opposition party that seems to have a half-life of about seven months. You can regularly predict it: you can look over there every seven months and there will only be half as many as there were before. They seem to pop and transmute, indeed, to another party. So that's a possibility.
Relativity? Certainly, because what they say is relative to where they're standing. If they're standing in their constituency, it's: "We want schools. We want hospitals. We want roads." If they're standing in this chamber, it's: "Debt! Debt! Debt!" So it's certainly relativity. We even had a case of special relativity with the ex-Leader of the Opposition, but we're going to leave that one alone. We're not going to go any further than that.
We have a black hole problem, as well, over there. Nothing will escape from that area -- certainly no light. It's the absolutely typical black hole.
Symmetry is another principle in quantum mechanics. Well, these folks have it in spades. They can talk out of both sides of their mouths. That's symmetry. And if you delve a little further into quantum mechanics, you can find multidimensional universes. Then they could talk out of all sides of their mouths in seven or eight different ways, and they could simultaneously support every conceivable position. So I think there might be something....
Interjection.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: It is.
Chaos theory: there it is, in operation right in front of us. So that plays a role. There's even a neutrino in here. There was a particle ejected that popped out over here someplace. As far as physics can figure out, the neutrino is very fast but weightless; there's no substance. So I'm sure we have at least one neutrino over there. That probably does it.
But best of all, there's the superstring theory. I don't know if you've heard anything about superstring theory lately -- the newest in quantum mechanics. If you take two superstrings and move them past each other at high speeds, you might be able to accomplish time travel.
Well, one opposition party tried it. They moved a string called Vander Zalm past a string called Gracie, and they went by each other at high speed, but time travel didn't work. They were still in the nineteenth century. Then there was a spontaneous fission, and it threw both remnants back to the Jurassic. So maybe there is something to the superstring theory -- just possibly.
The Liberals are feeling their oats. They think they've got a new captain for the Good Ship Lollipop, and they're going to sail off and do the government great damage. But I've got some bad news for them. First of all, before they even got out of port, their ship was hijacked by the Howe Street pirates. And they don't have a captain, I'm sorry to tell you; they've got an errand boy as leader. That's all he is. The Liberal ship, so to speak, is more like -- if you know your naval terms -- a pocket cruiser, except we don't know whose pocket it's in yet. But it's over there someplace.
Then the big question is: who has the errand boy decided to get? Apparently he doesn't like some of his colleagues over there, and I have an idea that a few folks will walk the plank. In Robert Louis Stevenson's Treasure Island somebody gets a black mark and they're doomed. Well, I'm afraid that about half the folks over there have gotten a black mark. They don't know which ones yet. Palmer seems to have a fairly good idea, but they don't know which ones yet. A lot of folks over there are going to walk the plank -- they've got the black mark -- and I wonder exactly what kind of unity we're going to see on that side of the House.
I will close by making reference to an ancient Mayan philosopher. We have five parties -- particles, fractions over there, all on the right wing -- and as that ancient Mayan philosopher said: "Eagles might soar, but turkeys with five right wings will always go in circles."
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I would draw attention to the clock. As you know, by the standing orders, votes on amendments are held half an hour before the normal hour of adjournment.
Amendment negatived on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 12 | ||
|
Chisholm |
Dalton |
Hurd |
|
Stephens |
Hanson |
Serwa |
|
Neufeld |
Symons |
K. Jones |
|
Warnke |
Anderson |
Jarvis |
|
NAYS -- 35 | ||
|
Petter |
Sihota |
Marzari |
|
Priddy |
Edwards |
Cashore |
|
Charbonneau |
Garden |
Perry |
|
Hagen |
B. Jones |
Lortie |
|
Giesbrecht |
Smallwood |
Cull |
|
Harcourt |
Gabelmann |
Clark |
|
Ramsey |
Barlee |
Lovick |
|
Pullinger |
Janssen |
Evans |
|
Doyle |
Streifel |
Simpson |
|
Sawicki |
Jackson |
Kasper |
|
Brewin |
Copping |
Schreck |
|
Hartley |
|
Boone |
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
Hon. G. Clark: A very productive day in the House. With that, I move this House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:37 p.m.
APPENDIX MOTIONS ON NOTICE
MOTION 41 The Hon. G. Clark to move -- Be it resolved that this House hereby authorizes the Committee of Supply for this Session to sit in two sections designated Section A and Section B; Section A to sit in such Committee Room as may be appointed from time to time, and Section B to sit in the Chamber of the Assembly, subject to the following rules:
1. The Standing Orders applicable to the Committees of the Whole House shall be applicable in both Sections of the Committee of Supply save and except that in Section A, a Minister may defer to a Deputy Minister to permit such Deputy to reply to a question put to the Minister.
2. Subject to paragraph 3, within one sitting day of the passage of this Motion, the House Leader of the Official Opposition may advise the Government House Leader, in writing, of three ministerial Estimates which the Official Opposition requires to be considered in Section B of the Committee of Supply, and upon receipt of such notice in writing, the Government House Leader shall confirm in writing that the said three ministerial Estimates shall be considered in Section B of the Committee of Supply.
3. All estimates shall stand referred to Section A, save and except those Estimates which shall be referred to Section B under the provisions of paragraph 2 of this Order and such other Estimates as shall be referred to Section B on motion by the Government House Leader, which motion shall be governed by the provisions of Standing Order 60A. Practice Recommendation #6 relating to Consultation shall be applicable to this rule.
4. The Committee of Selection shall appoint 20 Members for Section A, being 13 Members of the New Democratic Party, five Members of the Liberal Party and two other Members. In addition, the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole, or his or her nominee, shall preside over the debates in Section A. Substitution of Members will be permitted to Section A with the consent of that Member's Whip, where applicable, otherwise with the consent of the Member involved.
5. At thirty minutes prior to the ordinary time fixed for adjournment of the House, the Chair of Committee A will report to the House. In the event such report includes the last vote in a particular ministerial Estimate, after such report has been made to the House, the Government shall have a maximum of eight minutes, and the Official Opposition a maximum of five minutes, and all other Members (cumulatively) a maximum of three minutes to summarize the Committee debate on a particular ministerial Estimate completed, such summaries to be in the following order:
(1) Other members; (2) Official Opposition; and (3) Government.
6. Committee B shall be composed of all Members of the House.
7. Divisions in Section A will be signalled by the ringing of the division bells four times.
8. Divisions in Section B will be signalled by the ringing of the division bells three times at which time proceedings in Section A will be suspended until completion of the division in Section B.
9. Section B is hereby authorized to consider Bills referred to Committee after second reading thereof and the Standing Orders applicable to Bills in Committee of the Whole shall be applicable to such Bills during consideration thereof in Section B, and for all purposes Section B shall be deemed to be a Committee of the Whole. Such referrals to Section B shall be made upon motion without notice by the Minister responsible for the Bill, and such motion shall be decided without amendment or debate. Practice Recommendation #6 relating to Consultation shall be applicable to all such referrals.
10. Section A is hereby authorized to consider Bills referred to Committee after second reading thereof and the Standing Orders applicable to Bills in Committee of the Whole shall be applicable to such Bills during consideration thereof in Section A, and for all purposes Section A shall be deemed to be a Committee of the Whole. Such referrals to Section A shall be made upon motion without notice by the Minister responsible for the Bill, and such motion shall be decided without amendment or debate. Practice Recommendation #6 relating to Consultation shall be applicable to all such referrals.
11. Bills or Estimates previously referred to a designed Committee may at any stage be subsequently referred to another designated Committee on motion of the Government House Leader or Minister responsible for the Bill as hereinbefore provided by Rules Nos. 3, 9 and 10.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]