1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
FRIDAY, JUNE 16, 1995
Morning Sitting
Volume 21, Number 6
[ Page 15653 ]
The House met at 10:03 a.m.
Prayers.
D. Lovick: On your behalf, Mr. Speaker, I want to make an introduction of some guests from the United States. We're joined this morning by a group of young women, ages 11 to 12, and their leader, Ms. Keirn, as well as a number of other chaperons, I gather. These are the Dancers Under the Wind Campfire Girls from Vancouver, Washington. I ask my colleagues to please join me in making them welcome.
J. Dalton: I and my colleagues are very pleased to welcome Mr. Ron Tarr of Cranbrook to the House today. Mr. Tarr is our candidate in the upcoming election and, like all of us, I'm sure -- the government, of course, and all British Columbians -- is looking forward to the next election. Please welcome Mr. Tarr.
G. Farrell-Collins: I rise today to move, under standing order 35, a matter of urgent public importance. In complying with practice recommendation 8, I advised the Speaker yesterday, and this being the first opportunity to do so, I would like to make the case for that motion.
Earlier on in this week -- I believe it was Wednesday -- the Minister of Finance tabled in the House correspondence between herself and Mr. Quantz, the Deputy Attorney General. At that time she said she'd received 17 copies of Mr. Parks's report on June 5; that was the Monday. She reviewed the report with Mr. Parks and was contacted by him later that day -- again, Monday, June 5 -- "at which time he advised me not to release the report until such time as he could discuss it with the Ministry of Attorney General officials." Then it goes on to say in her correspondence: "I directed Mr. Parks to contact the acting Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Hal Yacowar." It goes on to say after that: "As you know, I read a copy of the report, as did two senior staff. A verbal report was given to a committee of cabinet on Tuesday afternoon, June 6."
Hon. Speaker, at no point in this correspondence does the Minister of Finance inform the Assistant Deputy Attorney General that she had also briefed the head of the New Democratic Party. On June 5, the minister was aware that this matter was being referred to the Attorney General's ministry and that criminal charges were a possibility; yet she went ahead the next day and briefed not only cabinet and the planning committee but also Mr. Gardiner, the head of the New Democratic Party, which was fundamentally involved in the audit done by Mr. Parks. That matter alone.... The fact that the Minister of Finance did not inform the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General that Mr. Gardiner was there at the time of her correspondence is a serious enough matter on its own, but the fact that Mr. Gardiner, as head of the party, was involved and was one of the people who would be involved in the review that Mr. Parks had done is, I think, unconscionable.
Pursuant to standing order 35, the motion that I would like to move is that the House do now adjourn in order to deal with a definite matter of urgent public importance; namely, the disclosure that the Minister of Finance received the interim report of forensic auditor Ron Parks into the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society bingo scandal on June 5, 1995; and that the Minister of Finance disclosed contents of this report to the NDP provincial secretary, Brian Gardiner, thereby knowingly jeopardizing a potential criminal investigation into the self-described fundraising arm of the New Democratic Party. This information only came to light yesterday, and that's why I'm bringing it forward today.
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to speak in support of the motion. I believe that this is an extremely serious affair. Indeed, it is incomprehensible that a senior minister of the Crown would hold a briefing for a cabinet committee at which a senior member of the New Democratic Party -- the provincial secretary for the party -- was in attendance. It's inexcusable. I can't imagine how it can be rationalized by the government, but I would very much like to give them an opportunity to rationalize and explain those events.
In addition to that, I would very much like to know the involvement of the Premier in that committee -- whether the Premier was in attendance at that committee meeting, and whether he condoned the attendance of Mr. Gardiner. We need to know whether this government has any moral base at all, or whether this government will simply do anything to keep itself out of trouble. It has demonstrated how totally inept it is even in that exercise.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I would put to the House that there is no emergency here. The only emergency that could occur is if, indeed, anyone decided to take the opposition's advice. That would truly be an emergency in this House. Hon. Speaker, the opposition is not concerned about the course of justice or about fairness; they are concerned only about politics. Quite frankly, that isn't any emergency with these opposition parties. They have demonstrated over and over and over again....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order! Order!
Hon. members, a motion -- standing order 35, I should say -- is before us on a very serious matter that is going to be considered by the Chair, and I'm trying to get input from all concerned parties. The Government House Leader is attempting to make a submission on this matter which will be of assistance to the Chair. Please allow her to complete her comments.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, the opposition has stated very clearly that they want this report released. They maligned the police and the criminal branch, and they want to put politics before the course of justice. The members have already heard....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
The Opposition House Leader rises on a point of order.
[ Page 15654 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: On the comments the minister is making, the comments made by the member for Matsqui were misinterpreted and were withdrawn, and that was clarified. So for her to say that there is any maligning of the Ministry of Attorney General or the RCMP is incorrect, and I would ask her to withdraw those comments.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Would the hon. Government House Leader restrain herself and speak to the matter.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm pleased that the opposition party recognizes the errors of their own ways.
The Speaker: Order, please. Would the Government House Leader please withdraw any references to matters that were addressed earlier and have been dealt with.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, absolutely. I withdraw.
The Speaker: Please proceed.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The members have already heard from the minister responsible for the Society Act. The opposition chooses to ignore the fact that from the outset, when she received Mr. Parks's report, she has fulfilled her obligations as minister responsible for the Society Act. By receiving the interim report and taking steps to release it, together with our government's response that could have included legislative change, she was preparing to respond to the recommendations. Remember, the report was not confidential, and nothing in the report recommended a criminal investigation.
The minister was not advised until Wednesday that she could not discuss it any further. The author of the report was encouraging its release. The minister listened to the author of the report, and that's what she was proposing to do. She was briefing her colleagues and getting ready to get it out the door. There's no emergency there. We have to let the course of justice proceed here. By having an emergency debate, you interfere. The opposition party would not let the course of justice flow, they would interfere with politics, and I say that that is no emergency, particularly with the behaviour of our government.
The Speaker: The purpose of standing order 35 that the Chair will have to consider is on the merit of the issue itself. This is not the time for actual debate, should the Chair allow it to proceed. On the basis of submissions that have been made to this point, I'm satisfied that I have sufficient input to bring forward a ruling, which I shall do in due course. I want to thank all hon. members for making their submissions, and I will conclude this matter at this point. The hon. member for Matsqui rises on a matter.
M. de Jong: I am seeking to make submissions on the application presently before the House.
The Speaker: As the hon. member has just heard, the Chair has sufficient input, I believe, right now.
[10:15]
WHAT MAKES BRITISH COLUMBIA A GREAT PLACE TO LIVE
F. Jackson: One of the many things I've learned since being elected to sit in this chamber is that a great many of the fellows believe that we are involved in some kind of team sport in politics, a team sport where, like in a Stanley Cup or Memorial Cup, the Liberal team might be playing the NDP team or the NDP team might be playing the Social Credit team. Some also say that it's kind of like an individual sport where we pit one individual against the other.
In fact, I would suggest that politics has less to do with us who sit in this chamber and more to do with the people who watch from the gallery or from the other side of the television cameras. Politics is about vision and how much of their vision we reflect, because we are the reflection of their vision, and it is their vision that's important to us in this House. In order to conduct ourselves in here, we must know what their vision for the province is.
Does it include things like medicare or decent education for young people? Does it mean that we should have jobs at decent wages and the ability to control our economy? Or does it mean that we should have a two-tier medical system and that only those who can afford it can go to university?
This is a great province to live in. One of the great untold stories of the province in the last three years is the fact that it led in job creation and economic growth. The economy grew by over 4 percent; new business is up over 12 percent. Over 60,000 new jobs were created in our province -- the most in Canada. We need to work hard and do even better to make sure that continues. In order to do that, again we need to know what their vision is.
Is their vision based on bringing people together to ensure that this prosperity continues into the twenty-first century so that our children can enjoy the same economic opportunities and security that we enjoy? Or does the vision lean more to those who were not listened to: groups such as labour unions, small business and first nations?
In the world economy, where billions of dollars move around in seconds, we have to be clear about who we are, where we want to go and who we want to compete with. Medicare, good education, infrastructure and our natural resources are some of the things which make British Columbia an attractive place to live. But it's the skills of our people that really give us that competitive edge.
We must know whether their vision is that of an era where a single lifelong job has largely disappeared and where we must continue our educational processes so that we can adapt to the changing needs in the workforce. Does the vision include, on a down-to-earth scale, community skill centres like those in Clearwater, so that people can get the training they need to compete in a changing labour market? Or does their vision concentrate the jobs more and more at the low end of the income scale? Does their vision say we should compete with developed economies like Germany and the Scandina-
[ Page 15655 ]
vian countries, or does the vision say we should get rid of our labour laws and minimum wages -- the measure of safety for our working people -- and compete with the Third World economies by bringing our standards down to theirs?
In a presentation to our forestry committee, a couple who did some work in Papua, New Guinea, training people to work a sawmill, told us that they could not pay the workers in cash, because they had no use for it. They never needed it; they didn't use it in their day-to-day life. Our province can't compete in that environment, and it would be foolish for us to try.
There are those in British Columbia who think that Mike Harris is the greatest thing in Ontario since the Studebakers, and what Mr. Harris is going to do in Ontario they think should be done in British Columbia. They say that Ralph Klein's massive cuts to children and seniors are just what we need in British Columbia, and that parents perhaps should pay for their children to go to kindergarten.
Should our vision be their vision? Or should it target new transportation facilities, hospitals and schools so that British Columbia can keep its competitive advantage, attract investment and create the jobs that help make this province the great place that it is to live in? I hope, whether or not we share the vision, that the opposition response this morning will consider the vision of the people on the other side of the cameras and maybe tell us how they would like to reflect that vision.
K. Jones: "I love B.C. It's the greatest." That is what I hear wherever I go in British Columbia; that's what I feel right in my heart, right in my soul. That is what it is all about, and it's been like that for the last 56 years I've lived in this province. This a passionate province, and the people of British Columbia are passionate about it. We have had a history in this province that has made our province very, very special. We have had a history of free enterprise, of opportunity for independent thinking, of opportunity for the pioneer spirit to come forward in this part of western Canada -- the "go west, young man; go west, young woman" atmosphere that has been developed here. The people of British Columbia have moved here because there is that opportunity. It is that opportunity that is going to continue, because we have a vision for the future that is going to make that possible.
We have so much beauty in the diversity of the people, most of whom have come here from some other location, and they have brought with them their spirit, talents, cultures and religions.... These people have made British Columbia special.
We have a real love of being Canadian. We are not part of North America as a whole; we are an identifiable part of North America. We are Canadian, and we are proud of that. We probably have the finest scenic beauty of anywhere in the world. I compare any part of British Columbia to any part of Switzerland, and we are on par, if not better, in British Columbia. I've been to Hawaii, and believe me, the hot springs of Hot Springs Cove are just as fine a place as Hanauma Bay.
There is everything we want here in British Columbia -- from the beautiful seas and the storms we get off the west coast, to the mountains clothed with trees that are continuing to provide jobs in our province; providing places to go hiking and an environment for our animals and birds to grow and create what makes the whole diversity of our ecosystem so special.
We have job opportunities in British Columbia that are greater than any place in Canada. And they are going to continue, because they were set on a solid base many, many years ago.
Within British Columbia we have beautiful green spaces and modern golf courses that are adding to those green spaces. There is recreation of all types in British Columbia. We have the mountain tops where we can go skiing, hiking, cross-country skiing and snowshoeing at the same time. In no other place in the world can you do this: go from a skiing opportunity to a swimming opportunity or a boating opportunity within a few miles. Here in British Columbia that does occur; it occurs not just in the lower mainland but in various other parts of our province. We have here a feeling of spontaneity, of being able to make changes with the knowledge that you can make that change or propose a change and not be criticized for it. You can find support for that making-things-better approach.
We have a diversity of weather in our province. In the far north we have extremely cold temperatures in the winter and extremely warm weather in the summer. We have the deserts and the warm weather of the Okanagan in the summer, and in the winter we have snow and a cold, dry climate there. The west coast is the only place where you can get flowers all year round. The grass is green all year round, and at the same time, you can find some of the finest-growing gardens. In the interior....
Interjection.
K. Jones: I hear the member from Prince George saying that I haven't covered that area. We have wonderful opportunities in Prince George. We in this province have opportunities galore.
I noticed in yesterday's edition....
The Speaker: Hon. member, your time has expired; I'm sorry. Thank you.
F. Jackson: I would like to thank the member for his support for the idea that B.C. is a great place to be. I would also like to thank him for demonstrating how he would reflect the vision that he feels is out there. I'm rather glad we didn't get into a partisan discussion this morning, which we are wont to do. What I did want to do was perhaps get the people of British Columbia involved in the discussion.
I would repeat what I said in my response to the throne speech. If, in fact, people have a vision of what British Columbia should be, they should get involved, join the party of their choice, help to form the policy and elect the members to this chamber who will make sure that British Columbia continues to be the best place in the world to be.
PROCRASTINATION
J. Dalton: I would start off by saying that given the topic of my discussion, Procrastination, I suppose I should be last on the list, but I happened by accident to come second. I also had in mind that I probably should give this statement next week or perhaps in July, but I'm here, so today it will be.
Interjection.
[ Page 15656 ]
J. Dalton: I have support for July, do I? How about August?
"Procrastination is the art of keeping up with yesterday."
That's a statement by the well-known Donald Robert Perry Marquis. I don't know who he was, but his remark is appropriate for this occasion. "It's never too late" is another expression -- better known, but author unknown; at least, I couldn't find it in my Bartlett's, so perhaps I'll claim credit for it.
It's never too late for what? I will suggest that for government, it's more than time to put the affairs of state in order, to address and attend to issues both local and provincial -- and indeed, federal, of course.
[10:30]
Recently we witnessed the angst of the voter in several elections across this country. The Kim Campbell barbecue campaign had no hope, of course, in the aftermath of the rotten Mulroney administration. When I say rotten, I'm repeating the words of Stevie Cameron, who wrote at length on that topic. Obviously the NDP would be wiped out in Alberta; that was a given. Bob Rae would have been defeated the day after he was elected. His waiting for four and a half years made absolutely no difference -- no difference at all. All of these governments and parties had one thing in common: they were out of touch. Instead of governing, they dithered, delayed and, of course, procrastinated.
Procrastination is the addressing of social and economic problems with bureaucracy. Witness the controversy over the universal gun registration issue. That issue in reality was that a government-imposed, costly and intrusive system with no demonstration that safety would be improved was unacceptable. It was well demonstrated the other evening with an informal BCTV poll, which was, admittedly, unscientific, and they said so. That poll, conducted on June 13 -- the day of third reading of Bill C-68 -- had 27,171 calls, which is a record for BCTV. Also, the Prince Rupert area couldn't get through on the line, and I don't think they were terribly supportive of gun control. Eighty-five percent of the 27,000-plus respondees said no to the gun bill. I have to ask: what happened to the so-called 70 percent who allegedly supported that bill?
We see evidence in this province of bureaucratic procrastination. The pending human rights code is an example. The Criminal Records Review Act is another example. The Employment Standards Act is an obvious example. Government cannot solve problems with layers of bureaucrats. The intrusion into our lives is not acceptable and unwarranted, and it is certainly not affordable.
Procrastination is denying the inevitable. We must address the size and number of school districts, but government has failed to do so. We must redefine the status of municipalities, both administratively and geographically. These are not money-driven concepts; they are designed to make government more accountable and more responsive. The only thing that is not responsive now is the government itself.
Up north yesterday, the Premier said that the Liberals represent Howe Street and that Reform represents the Zalmites. What the Premier neglected to say is that the NDP represents the procrastinators. We are also witnessing the long-ranging ongoing three-year bingo game -- yet another example of procrastination. Surely the government could have found a winner in that game by now, but they haven't. It must be the longest-running game in history, and it will probably appear in the Guinness Book of World Records. I suspect it will.
Procrastination is denying responsibility, and that's the message I want to impress upon all members. Government cannot deny responsibility; government should address the issues and take responsibility and leadership. We witnessed this week -- and I made reference earlier to Bill C-68 -- the gun control bill. We witnessed this week MPs of all parties breaking rank and voting yea or nay on the gun bill, for a whole host of reasons. For example, Ted White, the MP for North Vancouver, used an unscientific North Shore news poll as his excuse for abdicating his responsibility and not voting his conscience in the party line of the Reform Party, which they also pronounce in this House on an almost daily basis. Ted White shamefully voted against his own beliefs, and that, I would submit, is classic procrastination.
I have one more quote: "Procrastination is the thief of time." That is a comment by Edward Young. Again, I don't know who Edward Young was; perhaps some members can help me with that. But given that I am about to run out of time, I think I will take the advice of Mr. Young and conclude my statement.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Parksville-Qualicum responds.
L. Krog: I want to thank the member for his most interesting discussion on procrastination, and I want to assure him that in light of the fact that I wasn't sure what he was going to talk about, I have waited until the last minute to prepare my response. I am most interested that he has chosen to wait three and a half years into his mandate as an elected member of this House to talk about procrastination.
Governments aren't about procrastination; governments are about choosing priorities. It has become increasingly clear to me that the only solutions that ever work are ones that are generally arrived at through a very long, difficult and frustrating process of consultation. If the mention of the federal Liberals' gun registration bill is an example of what consultation is all about, then I would suggest to the hon. member, of course, that that's a very good example of what happens when you don't consult with people.
The member talked about dealing with the size and number of school districts, the status of municipalities, etc. I don't disagree with him that those are things that we should look at; he is quite right. I think the size and number of school districts is an issue, and it should be examined carefully. But I'll reflect on the suggestion of year-round schooling in School District 68 as an example of the kind of furore that any suggestion of change in the fundamental way we handle our affairs brings about in any community.
When you tell parents that you are thinking of having their children in school in July and August, I can assure you that you will create a public furore, and you will create it because you are attacking something fairly basic. If the government is going to make changes to something like the school system, the size and number of districts, I can assure the hon. member there will be the same kind of public outcry if you just throw out the proposal instead of spending a great deal of time discussing it with people, getting their input and assessing, as a government must, what the priorities are and
[ Page 15657 ]
asking if that is really a problem that needs addressing, when you have a whole host of other issues that require solutions.
The member said that it was basically denying responsibility. If we could all be king for a day, I am sure we would run governments very differently. But it is fundamental to the democratic process that nothing be done speedily. That may seem like a very silly remark to make, but the truth is that if you believe in the democratic process, speed can often be -- and generally is, frankly -- the enemy of democracy, because if you pursue something with great speed, you will inevitably fail to get the backing of the people whose backing you require. You will fail to get their views and their input, and the solution that you think requires speedy implementation will simply not work.
The discussion in this country is about crime. Everybody is taking about crime: "You know, we've just got to do something about crime." Yet anyone who has studied crime knows that you are not going to solve it with the implementation of harsh penalties. You're not going to solve it with a three-strikes-and-you're-out bill, as has been suggested by the MP for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Dr. Martin. Crime will be solved, if it can be solved at all, by ten, 20 or 30 years of consistent social policy. Poverty will be solved by ten, 20 or 30 years of consistent social policy.
What the opposition is really doing this morning, it seems to me, in terms of criticizing the government for procrastinating, is failing to reflect on the fundamental of good government, which is that you have to have a long-term policy. You have to have a long-term plan; everything has to fit into a plan, because you are never going to get anywhere if you don't have a plan and some consistent policy. You have to think about the future. You have to address the problem today, realize what it is and figure out where you've got to go.
If someone wants to call that procrastination, so be it. But it's not procrastination; it's the kind of thing that businesses do. We only have to look to the major successful economies of the globe, Japan and Germany, talk to their business people and their governments to see how they work, and look at their long-range plans. They're not looking for quick returns; they're not looking to go in and find a gold mine and clean it out; they're looking at long-term planning. Hon. Speaker, if my friend wants to call that procrastination, so be it. But I think it's good government.
The Speaker: The member for West Vancouver-Capilano concludes.
An Hon. Member: Take your time.
J. Dalton: Well, certainly I'll take my time. Perhaps the House will allow me an extension of my three minutes.
I certainly appreciate the remark of the member who just replied. Of course, we're all searching for good government, and that was my message. I didn't just pick on this government, as the members will recall. I made statements about all governments, government in general; it's a generic statement, not a specific one.
We don't want to get political this morning, but I'm just reminding the House that the Minister of Education had a process to look at the size and number of school districts, and he has procrastinated in that process -- enough said about that.
Another quote I would like to read into the record is: "Never put off till tomorrow what you can do today." That's a statement of Lord Chesterfield, and I have heard of that person, I'm happy to say.
Another bureaucratic nightmare I would like to cite to the House is the Mineral Tenure Act. This is science fiction, quite frankly. A free miner must have knowledge of the regulations, the Criminal Code, the Heritage Conservation Act, the Mines Act, the Mining Right of Way Act, and the Health, Safety and Reclamation Code for mines in British Columbia. If this genius doesn't, he or she will lose their free miner's certificate. What a horror story, hon. Speaker, and what a way to encourage economic development.
I happened to notice in today's Times Colonist -- this goes back to a comment I made in my statement about long, procrastinating bingo games -- that there was an insert, and I would encourage all members to get the insert. It's a bingo card, and I think we should all participate and play the ongoing bingo game.
So my advice to the government is: don't procrastinate, don't delay and don't wait for next spring. Let's attend to the public issues now. Of course, what I'm referring to is an election.
Just one last comment. The other day a remark was made in this House about turkeys. Well now, I might suggest that turkeys are perhaps turning into peacocks. However, the peacock of the day may be the feather duster of tomorrow.
The Speaker: For the third private member's statement of the morning, the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara.
FAMILY BUDGET
V. Anderson: I rise to speak briefly on the family budget. I have listened with interest and concern to the discussions and unsubstantiated comments that are often made on all sides of the House about the finances of this province. I have heard from constituents and other concerned persons from across the province that they, too, have listened to these discussions. As a result, I have discovered that their concerns are similar to mine. By listening to these legislative discussions, one is unable to learn or discern the real financial realities of the province. The terminology is often confusing, and different meanings for the same words are used by different persons. When programs of government are being discussed, the costs of these are difficult to comprehend, and the talk of millions and millions and trillions is not in the experience of most citizens. The result is confusion and uncertainty in the minds of the citizens, with a resultant distrust of the system and of the persons -- namely, the legislators -- who are their representatives. This is very unfortunate and can lead to disastrous conclusions and the resultant actions coming from them.
[10:45]
Therefore I maintain that there is an urgent need to rethink the matter of presenting our provincial budget and finances in terms that are more user-friendly to our citizens. This must go further than simply truth in budgeting and using generally accepted accounting principles, though, of course, both of these should apply. Indeed, most of our citizens do not have the technical language to understand technical accounting statements. The accountant members of my
[ Page 15658 ]
own family have heard this comment on many occasions. Each profession has its own internal language, generally only intelligible to the professional members of that association.
The urgent reality of making ourselves more understandable -- was demonstrated to me many years ago by a bank manager, in representing the annual church budget of a congregation in which I was involved. In the annual report was the regular accountant's audited statement and budget for the coming year, which usually created much confusion and misunderstanding among the members.
However, in his particular presentation, he presented the church budget in the form of a family budget and quickly got the interest and the understanding of the members, because this was familiar ground, and the language was that which they could understand. He related the items of the church budget to the family budget, such as heat, light, rent, taxes, food, clothing, entertainment, education, special interests and savings. He explained in family terms what happens when expenses overcome income. He explained how yearly savings are important to prepare for future projects and/or emergencies, and why operating on borrowed money can lead to disastrous results. There was immediate, positive response to his presentation. As one elderly lady said: "For the first time in many years, I actually understand what the budget is about."
This understanding by the citizens of British Columbia is equally as important and very necessary, if they are truly to participate in supporting what we are about here in this Legislature. They must be able to understand the relation of the provincial budget to their own personal family budget.
It's particularly appropriate, perhaps, that I raise this, because I understand that next Friday is the balance day -- the day on which we quit paying taxes. We've earned enough money to pay our taxes to the government, and after that we can keep the money for ourselves. After all, a significant part of the provincial budget comes out of the personal budget of each citizen and is a very important item in their yearly expenses and income. On the expense side, there must be accounted the many, many taxes that they pay to the governments, both directly and indirectly. It is important that each citizen have a clear understanding of the total taxes they personally pay, just as they need to know how much they spend on the items of food, clothing, shelter, etc. Also, they need to have a clear awareness of how many benefits they receive from the taxes they have paid. Then they would be able to see clearly in their own personal budget whether they are getting value for the money spent. Every business or private enterprise is expected to clearly deliver an accounting to their customers.
This is the crux of the issue: whether the personal family budget is balanced and the family members get value for money which is beneficial to them and to the community in which they live. Do the expenses serve their values and their wishes? It is a question of trust. Families in this province have paid, through taxes, a significant portion of their personal family budget to the members of the provincial government. They wish to know how this is being used.
L. Boone: I can understand the member's frustration in trying to understand some of the complex financial records. I too am a layperson and often find it confusing understanding financial records of any organization. I know when I was on the school board, I certainly found it difficult.
But it's a rather simplistic approach to think that we can use the family's financial efforts to interpret everything in the financial budget of the province. Most families, for example, don't have a justice system. I know my daughters would certainly agree that there's no justice in my family. It doesn't cost me money to implement my justice system, anyway. We don't have an administration for mines, forests and agriculture and all of these very complex things that are very important. For many in this house, they aren't important items. For example, if you were to evaluate how important fisheries was to my family, it would be very small. But ask me about forestry and the dollars that are spent on it, and that's very important to me and my family. How do we justify those things?
I think it's equally important that we recognize the effect it would have if we had a reduction in taxes, and what effect that has on budgets. That's really important. What we're seeing right now across this country is a move to say: "Get out of our face. We don't need more taxes. We want a reduction in taxes." But what does that mean to families? How does that give breaks to the families out there?
Corporations receive tax breaks, and the Liberal opposition has already indicated that they want to give them more tax breaks. Their tax-free day, one of my colleagues just said, was in January. I don't think they need any more tax breaks than the average citizen. But the tax breaks that are given to the wealthy corporations and the wealthy people out there will have an effect on the pocketbook of the average citizen.
Items that are not paid through the public purse will come out of the private individual's pocket. That means that the poor and the average working person is going to be paying for services that should be -- and have been in the past -- paid through taxation.
Look at Alberta. Just recently Alberta cut back their education budget, and they no longer pay for kindergarten. In Alberta, if you want your child to get an education in kindergarten, you must pay for that out of your own pocket. How does that affect that family budget? Does that help them? I don't think so. It may help the wealthy; it may help the corporations, but the families that are looking to put their kids through school are not helped one bit.
If we don't repair our highways, what effect does that have on your budget? I know; I've lost a couple of mufflers on potholes going out.... That affects my budget; it comes out of my pocket then. If there are more potholes out there, that affects my budget even more than having taxation come there. It certainly affects it more when you're giving the tax breaks to the corporations out there that should be paying their fair share.
Hon. Speaker, I agree that the language of the accounts is confusing and hard to understand, but it's really simplistic to say that we should be doing it in terms of the family budget. It's up to us to make each and every one of our constituents know what effect our budget has on them. It's equally important for each of us to make our constituents understand what effect cuts will have on their budgets, because that's not what is being said right now.
We see a move in Alberta, and we see it in Ontario. They're saying: "We are going to cut budgets; we are going to reduce services." But when you reduce those services, it's not the corporations that pay the price in terms of the services. It's
[ Page 15659 ]
not the corporations that suddenly have to take money out of their pockets to pay for services that are not there. It's not the corporations that will see the increase in crime because the justice system is not there. It's not the corporations that will see kids go hungry because there are not the necessary dollars to provide social assistance for them.
When we cut our budgets, there is an effect that takes place throughout everywhere. We can either pay for services through everybody paying their fair share of taxation or we can, as they have in the States, reduce those budgets and have everyone pay for services out of their own pockets. The services are still needed, and I can guarantee you that their family budgets will be reduced as a result of this.
V. Anderson: I'm sorry that the hon. member thinks it is simplistic to try and convey to constituents across the province the functions that we undertake here in government in terms that are appropriate and understandable. That is her point of view, and I must say that I disagree with it. It is our important responsibility to make ourselves understandable. We expect every business to explain the cost of an item clearly and fairly, and we expect a business to explain what services they provide for that item. The government can do no less than explain the costs that people have to pay and the services they receive in turn. After all, government is the biggest business in the province, providing the most services of any business in the province. Therefore, of all people, they should be most accountable.
One of things we have stressed is that there should be plain language in our legislation. We have spent a great deal of time trying to rewrite legislation in plain language. I'm disappointed that the person who spoke from the government benches did not feel that there should be plain language in the presentation of our accounting activities. That is what we are asking for: plain, honest, straightforward language that explains what this government is about in terms that people can understand.
We have spent a great number of hours in estimates in this House over the last period, trying to find out from the government in plain, everyday language what this government is about, how they are spending their money, where they are spending their money and what kinds of services we are getting for it. It has been very difficult to discover what that is. Of course, that's what gives the community a sense of distrust. It's not enough for us to say: "It's okay, we're looking after it. It's fine, you don't have to worry about. Just trust us." They are not going to trust us -- and I use the "us" collectively -- unless we can put what we are doing in our accounting practices plainly and simply, in the plain and simple terms that they use in their own family budgets. When parents are not able to tell their children what we are about in plain terms, we are in trouble.
BRITISH COLUMBIA'S EXCELLENT FISCAL PERFORMANCE
M. Sihota: At the beginning of this legislative session, our government introduced its budget -- our fiscal plan for the future of British Columbians. The highlights of our fiscal plan as a government were a balanced budget, a debt management plan, continuation of the three-year tax freeze and increased expenditures for health and education. We said at the time that the fiscal plan that we put forward laid the foundation for a prosperous British Columbia. The opposition at that time -- the agents of doom and gloom, those negative Nellies -- stood up in this House and said that the budget was catastrophic, that it would result in the province losing its credit rating, that jobs would vanish, that economic growth would cease and that we would all die in a sea of debt.
Of course, one expects the opposition to be critical, and one expects government to be self-serving, but since that early debate at the beginning of the session, we've now had the opportunity for the marketplace, and the four bond-rating agencies in British Columbia to express their opinions and pass their judgment with regard to our budget. I thought it would be interesting this morning to take the speech from the Leader of the Opposition, that leader of doom of gloom, and compare what he had to say in his budget speech with what the bond-rating agencies and the marketplace have to say about the excellent fiscal performance of this province.
[11:00]
During the course of his budget speech, the hon. Leader of the Opposition stood up in this House and shrieked about the expenditures of this government and about the deficit. He said that everyone should understand what a sham this budget has been and is. He said she -- referring to the Minister of Finance -- has overspent by 45 percent, according to her own target. His argument was that expenditures were wildly out of control by about 45 percent.
It's interesting that this week the Canadian Bond Rating Service says, with regard to those expenditures: "While revenues were better than expected, the province's expenditures were practically on target." "Practically on target" -- wrong on the part of the Leader of the Opposition.
During the course of his speech, the Leader of the Opposition stood up in this chamber and said the economic trends are down; job growth is down. He said they're going to be down by 30 or 35 percent. He predicted that all those trends would be down, down, down.
Well, it's interesting to see what the Canadian Bond Rating Service had to say about those very same trends. They said: "On aggregate, the province's economic fundamentals continue to improve." Wrong again -- that agent of doom and gloom, the Leader of the Opposition.
During the course of his speech, the Leader of the Opposition said, with a sense of pain, that today B.C. is losing its competitive advantage; all this taxing and borrowing and spending hurts; in fact, instead of attracting investment and securing jobs, the government is attacking investment and reducing jobs. So he said there was going to be more unemployment in British Columbia and less investment.
Interestingly, the Canadian Bond Rating Service says, very calmly and coolly: "The province's private and public investment is expected to increase by $1.2 billion -- 6.1 percent in 1995. Its export sector will continue to perform well due to a still-low dollar and higher resource prices, and its unemployment rate is forecast to decline marginally in 1995 from 9.4 percent to 9.2 percent." Wrong again. The agent of doom and gloom, who predicted more unemployment and less investment, stands corrected by the bond rating agencies and the marketplace, which say less unemployment, more employment and more investment in the province of British Columbia.
Then that agent of doom and gloom, the Leader of the Opposition, talked about the debt load of the province of
[ Page 15660 ]
British Columbia. He said, shaking his head, that this government's policies are slowing down what was the strongest economy in Canada. Their own officials warn that the debt load this government has created is unsustainable and is leading B.C.'s economy towards a worsening condition as other economies in the country are improving. He said, in effect, that we had introduced a debt management plan that was not going to work.
Interestingly, the Canadian Bond Rating Service says, speaking of our debt management plan:
"This pay-down schedule is viewed favourably in the marketplace since it provides for the elimination of the province's direct debt" -- this from the Canadian Bond Rating Service, not a democratic socialist organization -- "as well as reduction of the tax level of taxpayer-supported debt relative to GDP. B.C.'s total debt to GDP ratio, which declined by 1 percent in fiscal 1995, will continue to decline, albeit at a fairly moderate pace. The province's debt-to-GDP ratio is expected to remain the lowest of all the provinces in Canada."
Again, year after year. I don't know what the Leader of the Opposition was thinking; I don't know what he was smoking.
R. Neufeld: A point of order, hon Speaker. The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin certainly did not read the instructions that were given by the Speaker about non-partisan debates on private members' day. It's absolutely amazing what's going on in this House today, and I think it would do the member well to read those notes and abide by them.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. I think the point is well taken, and I would hope that the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin will apprise himself of those helpful instructions next time he is preparing a statement.
M. Sihota: The Liberals are so hurt by this that it takes a Reform member to stand up in the House and raise a point of order.
Maybe the Leader of the Opposition has been reading Brian Kieran's columns. Lord only knows what Brian Kieran gargles with every morning before he writes his column. During the course of his commentary on the budget, Mr. Kieran says: "[The Finance minister] would have us believe that she has struck a realistic balance between revenue and expenditure expectations. Again, she takes us down the garden path." And he says that we won't be able to maintain our surpluses.
One interesting thing the Canadian Bond Rating Service says is: "Despite further federal transfer reductions [from those Liberals], the province intends maintaining surpluses. Given the province's conservative economic and financial assumptions" -- to the credit of the Minister of Environment -- "these surpluses are likely to occur." I'm wondering why Mr. Kieran hasn't written a column correcting himself.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Your time has expired. Responding, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock. W. Hurd: It's understandable on this side of the House why the rules governing private members' statements wouldn't be necessarily understood by the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, because so far in this parliament he hasn't had an opportunity to be a private member. One can understand exactly why he wouldn't know the rules, and I don't imagine he'll be delivering too many other private member's statements before the next election.
I was interested in the remarks from the member with respect to the B.C. economy, because today in the same media that he referred to -- it wasn't Brian Kieran's column; it was the respected Toronto Globe and Mail -- we've been advised that British Columbia's economy has now slipped to fourth overall in the country, behind Alberta, Ontario and Prince Edward Island. This is not a great shock to us on this side of the House.
On behalf of the member for Delta South, the opposition Finance critic, I want to briefly quote from an article the member for Delta South wrote for the magazine for chartered accountants in Canada: "One of the biggest challenges we face as a society is deciding which programs and levels, or standards of service within these programs, we expect our governments to provide. A reduction in government expenditures, whether measured as a gross amount or percentage of gross domestic product, is an essential ingredient in any potion to cure the country's financial ills."
So what I think taxpayers in British Columbia and throughout Canada are saying is that there has to be a reduction in the size and the cost of government. That's what they're saying. What's happened in the province in the last three and a half years? Well, the size of the provincial civil service has increased, the tax load on individual British Columbians has increased and the size of government has increased. The results of a succession of provincial general elections have clearly indicated that Canadians and British Columbians want to see more efficient government and less government and more cost-effective government.
We've been going in the opposite direction in this province. I know the member feels that the government has performed well. That's the reason why he's standing up to defend it, but the fact is that we have a very cyclical economy in this province, and there are several indicators that should be of concern to us. One is commodity lumber prices in the province, which have perceptively slipped during the course of the last fiscal year, and that will definitely, definitely impact on the revenues of the Crown.
There's no question that when we look at the general provincial economy, we see that we are inevitably going to go into a slowdown. That's the way the economy works. Governments are being asked to tailor their insatiable demands for revenue in conjunction with those economic cycles. We have had an opportunity during the last four years to begin to reduce the size of government, to reduce the tax load on British Columbians and to reduce the debt, and we have had that opportunity during a time of 4 percent per annum economic growth.
As we know, what has happened in the past four years is that we have gone in the opposite direction. The public will be called on to cast their ballots for this government in the next year, and those are the kinds of questions that will certainly weigh on their minds when they cast those ballots. Is government smaller? Is it more efficient? Is my tax load lower? Are the services that I'm receiving better? All those are questions that most voters ask when they go to the polls.
The former Minister of Labour and former Minister of Environment has suggested that he is placing his faith in the
[ Page 15661 ]
Canadian Bond Rating Service agency. I hope he takes it to the ballot box, because the agency can't vote in British Columbia. They can't vote. I hope he continues, as I'm confident he will, and British Columbians will support a lower-cost and more efficient government. More importantly, I'm confident they will support less government in the province.
M. Sihota: Those right-wing Liberals over there would never admit to the fact that we have the best-performing economy in Canada. As the hon. member just pointed out, their plan is to provide tax breaks for large corporations, to cut back expenditures for health and education, to reduce the minimum wage, to get rid of environmental regulation and to put on a hiring freeze for public sectors. Our plan on this side of the House....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order! The hon. member for Prince George-Omineca rises on a point of order.
L. Fox: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker. As entertaining as this is, and it's truly entertaining to see the NDP and the Liberals fight each other, I think that if we're going to continue to have any kind of decorum during private members' statements, we should stick within the rules.
The Speaker: Before recognizing the next hon. member, I must concur with the hon. member's point of order. Would the hon. member please take his seat for a moment...
For the last two Fridays, we have had difficulty with members going beyond the guidelines that we all agreed on for private members' statements, and I issued a statement trying to assist members with respect to this problem. Perhaps some members have not had a chance to apprise themselves of the guidelines. If we're going to continue private members' statements in the spirit intended, however, it would help if members would apprise themselves of the limitations that are placed on us during private members' statements. They are not intended to be confrontational or in any way to reflect upon legislation that is before the House or to cause the kind of normal debate we get when we're dealing with legislation in the normal course of duty in the House.
I recognize the hon. member for Esquimalt-Metchosin.
M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I can understand why the opposition wants to employ the defence of the rules to stop me from talking about the best economic performance in Canada.
Under our plan here in British Columbia, we have created 40 percent of all the new jobs in Canada since 1991. We have the best credit rating of all the provinces in Canada. We have the second-lowest level of taxes, and the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio. Consumer spending in this province is up 9.7 percent, capital programs are up 14.4 percent, exports are up 20 percent, housing starts are up 8.2 percent, retail sales that the hon. member referred to are up 9.4 percent, and this morning Ms. Sanatani should look at retail sales performance in British Columbia -- 9.9 percent. The rest of the country is averaging 1.2 percent. We're only eight times better than the rest of the country. And Liberal provinces -- New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and P.E.I. -- have averaged 2.7, minus 1.1 and 0.9 percent respectively in that regard.
[11:15]
This week's Stats Canada points out, and I quote: "Albertans have the fattest public sector in the country; the leanest, by a wide margin, is British Columbia." And they talk about having lean government!
I encourage those members opposite to show me one right-wing government in Canada that can boast of the kind of economic record I have just laid out. Show me one right-wing government in Canada that can say it has created 40 percent of all the new jobs in this country. Show me one right-wing government in Canada that can have all the bond rating agencies support their position. Our fiscal plan is working, and they're afraid to apologize and admit that they were wrong during the budget debate.
The Speaker: Hon. member, your time is up. The period for private members' statements has ended.
Hon. B. Barlee: I would like to call the summary of the estimates of the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture.
The Speaker: Could the minister wait for a moment before we proceed. The hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast rises on a matter.
G. Wilson: I rise to reserve my right to bring forward a matter of privilege.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. So done. The Opposition House Leader rises on a point of order.
G. Farrell-Collins: I believe the general procedure is to give the House some notice of what that privilege might be, so that we know what it is.
Interjections.
G. Farrell-Collins: Well, I could stand up and do that and hang onto it for three years, hon. Speaker. The intent should be stated, I believe.
The Speaker: Thank you, member. I appreciate your concern about what the subject matter might be. However, there is no requirement under standing orders that the matter of concern be stated -- simply the right to reserve for future. So that's the way it stands at the present time.
Hon. B. Barlee: I'd like to take this opportunity to thank.... For my closing remarks on the estimate debates of the Ministry....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. minister, I accepted your statement that there will be windup statements on your ministry, but we should start with the independents, then go to the official opposition, then the minister can conclude. The hon. member for Prince George-Omineca will speak first.
[ Page 15662 ]
REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES:
MINISTRY OF SMALL BUSINESS, TOURISM AND CULTURE
L. Fox: Let me first say that in the course of the estimates of this ministry, we found that this minister must indeed have some divine power. Throughout the course of the estimates he claimed that he would be able to have some influence on the weather of British Columbia, some influence on the depth of the snowpack on the ski hills, and some influence in terms of the fishing and the hunting that has enhanced tourism opportunities in British Columbia.
The other influence he claimed to have a lot of authority over was that of the Canadian dollar versus the U.S. dollar, which, as we all know, has enhanced British Columbia's business and tourism opportunities. On that point, I'm sure the minister has had some influence, because it's the debt that's been created in this province as well as in this country that has influenced the Canadian dollar and made it more attractive for Americans to come across the border and spend their dollars in British Columbia.
There's no question that British Columbia has had substantial growth. But this government can't claim....
Hon. B. Barlee: I can and I will.
L. Fox: The minister says that he can and he will. When we hear these members stand up and talk about bond ratings and our fiscal position versus other jurisdictions, the one thing they fail to tell us and British Columbians is that they came into office with all those bond ratings. Indeed, we were in a lower per capita debt position prior to this government coming into office than we are today.
During the wrap-up of this minister's estimates, we will learn that this minister feels that he has some divine authority over British Columbia and has been able to contribute to British Columbians by utilizing that authority.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Hon. Speaker, I can tell you this: I did enjoy the estimates. We had a lot of good, frank discussions around many concerns. The minister was cordial and at times comical.
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, members. Could I ask that we extend the courtesy to the member who's speaking of listening to his wrap-up comment.
L. Fox: Thank you. I know my speech and comments are so titillating that these folks are having great difficulty holding themselves. I thank the minister for his time and consideration during estimates; I enjoyed them.
C. Tanner: This minister was, as usual, affable; as usual, though, he was voluble. There was no end to the explanations, all of which, as the member for Prince George-Omineca illustrated, came from some divine source, where he claims credit for everything. It really is incredible.
There is one thing that he must not claim credit for -- except in that his government has participated in forcing down the Canadian dollar because of their lousy fiscal policies -- and that is the fact that the American dollar makes it very attractive for Americans to come here. It also makes it difficult for Canadians to go to the United States without higher costs. So Canadians are staying here and spending their money in British Columbia, and Americans are coming here because it's such a financially attractive place to have their holidays when their dollar goes so much further. The people from Europe and Asia are coming here because their money is worth more than ours, which is in some part thanks to this government's lousy fiscal policies. Consequently, the only credit he can really take is for being part of a government that has helped to force down the Canadian dollar.
He takes no credit at all for the fact that our goods go down to the United States in great volumes because of the fact that the dollar is lower. He should take no credit at all for his government having brought in the corporate capital tax, which affects hotels more than any other industry, because they have a high investment and high debts to carry their investment. His government's attitude toward salaries and wages in that industry has made it very difficult for the industry to make a living. His government's general anti-business attitude.... The exception, I must tell you, hon. Speaker, is this member, but the rest of his friends over there all have an anti-business attitude.
It was three and a half years too late when they finally brought in the $20 million that was invested in tourism in 1989. Three and a half years later, they finally bring that back again, and he takes credit for that. The fact is that the so-called legislation which the minister introduced this year to help the industry was absolute nonsense; it was just a piece of paper which had no credibility at all.
All those things apart, the minister is always a joy to listen to, because at least the stories he tells are at least amusing. They have no consequence; they have no relationship to the office he holds; they give no help to the tourist industry; but he always tells a good mining story. If you're short on history, there's no harm in going to listen to this minister. He'll give you a history lesson on the way he's been around the province digging up gold, and apparently failing in that effort, too.
Other than that, he claims credit in his Culture portfolio for having invested more money in the cultural industry. He is finally persuaded, and I agree with him, that money invested in culture is money well spent; it pays off many, many times. However, all he did with that was merely fulfil a promise three and a half years old and lift this province out of the cellar in cultural investment -- the lowest in Canada. He has lifted it up a little bit; it is about time.
Other than that, I thoroughly enjoyed the minister's estimates. Hopefully, it will be the last time I will have to listen to any more history lessons, because he's not going to have another chance. Fortunately I won't be here to listen to him, either.
Deputy Speaker: On that cryptic note, I call upon the minister.
Hon. B. Barlee: I would like to take this opportunity to offer my closing remarks on the estimates debates of the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. I must also admit that when I reread Hansard... I would like to thank all
[ Page 15663 ]
opposition members for being remarkably congratulatory during those estimates debates. I could hardly believe my ears when some old friends of mine -- not speaking in this House, but speaking in the privacy of the estimates debates -- were very, very congratulatory and generous, shall we say, in their remarks. Now I see a slight retreat. It's not a headlong rout from the original position, but it is a slight and steady retreat, and I appreciate that as well.
As we all know, it's an enjoyable ministry. I don't think there's any debate about that in the House at all. I am rather pleased with the achievements made during the past year -- I really am. We have made, I think, a number of innovative partnerships with business all around the province. I went over it again with one of my directors about half an hour ago. Some things were brought up in this House, by the way, which I will mention.
The investment opportunities in Small Business, Tourism and Culture are multifold, as several of the members alluded to. The provincial economy has grown, and I will not be strident about it. But if any of you wish to have a personal briefing.... The economic and investment opportunities and the economy and economic record of this province are surpassed by no one in Canada. No one was close. Ontario was very close in retail sales, followed by Saskatchewan -- by the way, all of those were NDP provinces -- which was followed by the other seven provinces in Canada, and the other seven provinces were remarkably far behind.
One of the chief indicators of economic performance in British Columbia is retail sales. These are not my figures; these are from Statistics Canada, which is certainly not a social democratic organization. Here is what they say: "British Columbia led the nation with 9.9 percent in retail sales." That means another $2 billion will be spent in the small businesses of British Columbia this year.
The next province was Ontario, at 7.9 percent; the third was Saskatchewan, at 3.8 percent. With that 9.9 percent increase in retail sales, we averaged eight times as much as the other nine provinces, and Ontario saved them. When I look at some of the other provinces, they are in the minus quantity of 2.7, minus 1.1.... Even vaunted Alberta is plus 0.4 percent. They are dropping through the floor. There are economic reasons for that, and some of the members understand that as well as I do. I haven't time to go into all of the economic reasons, but Ralph is not the guru you think he is.
Ralph Klein is very quick with a quip. But I'll tell you, Ralph Klein got a lot of credit for things he did not do. Here's an example. May 29 in the Globe and Mail... You won't read this in the Province or the Sun, but you will read it in the Globe and Mail, which is a national newspaper. It says: "Ralph Klein gets all the credit, all the attention, as the country's top clipper of bureaucracy." We are always accused of being heavyweights in bureaucracy. "British Columbia is too fat," I just heard over here five or ten minutes ago.
Well, here's what they did. They took all the Statistics Canada figures, put a researcher on it and said: "Despite all of the slashing and all of the headlines, Albertans still have the fattest public sector in the country. The leanest by a wide margin" -- I repeat, by a wide margin -- "is British Columbia." They go on to say that Alberta, which has this vaunted reputation, has a bureaucracy that is 24 percent above the national average. British Columbia's provincial services.... And I will read again: "Public services were leanest in British Columbia again, at 12 percent below the national average."
Will I use that to good effect? Of course I will. I'm saying this year's economic performance and this year's strategy have worked well for British Columbia, despite our political preferences. There's no doubt about that at all. The members in private will admit this and have admitted this to me. We have been successful. There's not much doubt about that at all.
[11:30]
By the way, our ministry is helping to create employment opportunities. When I look at employment, there are problems in British Columbia, as there are all across the Dominion of Canada. But we have created 203,000 jobs since the middle of 1991. Every year people are flooding into this beautiful province, and I don't blame them, because Canada is the nicest country in the world, and this is the finest province.
R. Neufeld: Why do we have another 100,000 people on social assistance?
Hon. B. Barlee: And 100,000 people are coming into the province this year. We will create jobs for most of those, except for a few in the far north.
R. Neufeld: Why do we have 9.5 percent unemployment?
Hon. B. Barlee: As far as small business is concerned -- very, very important -- small business creates 87 to 90 percent of all the new jobs in Canada. All of us who have been in small business know that's absolutely correct. Small business is doing very well by all of the indicators. We have led the country for three years in a row. We would have led it for four or five years in a row, but we weren't here in those other years.
R. Neufeld: You also incurred a $9 billion debt, you people, in four years.
Hon. B. Barlee: I will give you an example, hon. Speaker, through you to the members from Peace River and Omineca. Last year the Premier gave Tourism $5 million extra as an add-on, which the Premier is entitled to do. He said: "Turn this into a quarter of a billion dollars." You know, I misled the House the other day, I must admit. I said we turned it into a $476 million increase, and I was wrong. We turned it into $496 million. We were $4 million short of a half-billion-dollar increase in tourism revenue.
The Conference Board of Canada, which is certainly not a social democratic organization, said British Columbia led the nation by far in tourism growth last year, and they had the audacity to admit we will lead the nation again in 1995. Indeed we will.
R. Neufeld: When you came to the House there was $19 billion a year; today it is $28.5 billion.
Hon. B. Barlee: The member mentions debt. I'm very pleased the member brought up debt. Certainly the economic guru for the members of the Reform Party opposite is Ralph Klein. Now let me tell you about Ralph Klein. Alberta....
R. Neufeld: That has to be paid back, you know. Even socialists have to agree to that one.
[ Page 15664 ]
Hon. B. Barlee: I'll wait till they're....
R. Neufeld: Even socialists have to realize that at some point in time you have to pay your debts. I know that's tough for you, but if you're really on that one, you'd sit over here.
Hon. B. Barlee: I must be making some very salient points, because they're quite disturbed about this.
Ralph Klein governs the province of Alberta. The province of Alberta has a debt of $36 billion. Now, this is for the intelligent listeners....
Deputy Speaker: It is with deep regret that I advise you that your time for the wrap-up has expired. I'm sorry, minister.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply to hear the estimates of the Ministry of Social Services.
The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SOCIAL SERVICES
(continued)
On vote 53: minister's office, $402,165 (continued).
V. Anderson: I want to bring up two issues of concern that came in just this morning. One is a phone call from a person in Victoria who had an operation on Monday of this week. Yesterday she went to a Social Services office in Victoria, which I gather was under great stress because five of their workers were apparently off that day and were not in the office. They were off doing other business, I presume. So there was a very long waiting period -- up to two hours, apparently, for some people. Since this person was not that well, having come out of hospital on Monday from an operation, she had come with a doctor's prescription so that she might receive assistance for that prescription, which she was entitled to. When she approached them, they said: "Well, you will have to wait. Please sit down." When she went back because she was having difficulty with her health and her circumstances in waiting, they said -- very rudely, apparently: "We have zero tolerance in this office, and if you don't go and sit down, we will call the police." I don't think that is an appropriate response. I think it's a concern, and I'm bringing it up because I don't think that creates a great deal of confidence in our system.
The other point I'll bring to the minister's attention is a letter that came in today from a grandmother who, by court order, is caring for her four grandchildren, aged 11, six, five and three. The mother has left, so the grandmother is, by court order, caring for the children, which she is delighted and happy to do. But the grandmother, who herself is a single person on welfare, receives only $547 for her total expenses. She does get a food and clothing allowance for the children, but she does not get any shelter allowance to help with the house expenses when the children are living with her.
She's in a situation where after she has paid her monthly heat, light and other expenses, she is left with $12 a day to feed the four children and herself. The ministry told her, through the local office, that she should apply for the child tax credit, and she has done that. But this has been going on since January, and apparently the child tax credit will not be available until September, so there is all that time when she will have the food and clothing allowance, but no shelter allowance. I know the minister can't deal with an individual case, but could she suggest to us what this person's actions should be in order to receive the support which she desperately needs to carry out the court order of caring for her grandchildren?
Hon. J. MacPhail: My staff and my office would be more than happy to take up these two cases with the hon. member opposite. It would be improper of me to give advice on individual cases at this time, but I'd be more than happy to investigate the cases.
V. Anderson: I realize that each ministry was required to make a report on its multicultural activities to the Ministry Responsible for Human Rights and Multiculturalism, and I'm wondering if the minister would be able to share with us a copy of the report -- not today -- that was given by the ministry as part of the requirement to give multicultural reports each year. I have also asked that question of other ministries, and they have indicated that they would provide their reports to me. I'm asking if the minister would provide us with that report as well.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, we'll get a copy for the member.
V. Anderson: The other day I asked a question about work tools. We were commenting about clothing and other items being available, and I mentioned to the minister that I had seen a comment about work tools in a recent announcement. It came on February 3 of this year to change the entitlement, which included work tools. It referred to a change which had apparently been made in September 1992 under this ministry. Until September 1992 there was, as well as one for clothing, an emergency grant for tools to enable someone to get a job. Could the minister explain why this government dropped that emergency grant for work tools as well as for work clothing? The minister indicated that it had not been there for many years, but according to this, the change was made in September 1992.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Because there are limited resources available, we made an assessment that the dollars should go to people for basic food, shelter and living expenses. There was some evidence that there was no effect from the provision of work tools; there was no relationship between us providing work tools and increasing the number of people moving from welfare to work. There was extreme pressure on the budget for basic food, shelter and clothing, though. The member is quite right that the GAIN regulations were changed in September 1992.
V. Anderson: Also, after our discussion the other day about the Woodlands site, I went back and checked a report in the winter 1994-95 Queens Park Journal. They had a Woodlands site update in that journal. I'll read just part of it for the minister's edification and comment, because we were asking about the William Rudd House, in.... It says:
[ Page 15665 ]
"Rogers Cable 4 'Eye on Life' program had a nine-minute documentary on the future of the Woodlands site, reported by" -- and it gives the names of the reporters. "It was learned that of the approximately 200 residents presently on the site, some have learning disabilities while others -- in different buildings on the site -- are receiving treatment for substance abuse. Queens Park Hospital, the new senior care housing, and the future -- 1995 -- William Rudd House will be a home for young people with disabilities. They are located at the north end of Woodlands and will remain out of the study."
Could the minister explain to us why the William Rudd House for people with disabilities is being built, but people who have been used to living in that area would not have accommodation built for them?
[11:45]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm pleased to be able to respond to this question and that the member for New Westminster is here, who is very actively involved in ensuring the best interests of not only her community but the people who live on the site.
William Rudd House has nothing to do with my ministry, and I am sure that in his investigation the hon. member has determined that. It's in the Ministry of Health. Queens Park Hospital has built William Rudd House to allow for a very unique and special and, I think, very effective kind of living for people with disabilities. The support is a much different kind of support than would be needed at Woodlands, because the disabilities are mainly physical and debilitating as time increases. It's done by the Ministry of Health through Queens Park Hospital, which the member knows is owned and operated by the Pacific Health Care Society and already has much long-term residential living. It's on leased land and is not part of the Woodlands downsizing process.
However, that doesn't mean that such a model should not be considered fully and completely, wherever it could be effective. There are certainly people participating in the planning process for Woodlands that refers to that. But at this stage of the game the planning process is very much determined by the users, including families, at Woodlands and the community members themselves, all through BCBC. From talking to various people, my understanding is that the process is very effective and, at this point, precludes nothing.
V. Anderson: On another matter I've had another person inquire of me, this person -- and I've had a number of similar cases -- has to go from their own community to another community for health care or to meet their doctor or that kind of thing, and they have inquired about the expenses of going. As I understand from them about the expenses, they get 12 cents a kilometre for a car allowance and $12 per diem. The question is: in comparison to the 12 cents a kilometre or the $12 a day that they get for three meals for the day, what is the comparison between what they get and what a government person would get to make the same trip and take the same opportunity during the day? In comparison, does the minister feel that these are at all adequate? How far can you go on 12 cents a kilometre?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll be pleased to await the member opposite's reply for how we actually save some tax dollars in terms of the expenditure in this budget.
But let me answer this question. What government employees get is part of a contractual arrangement negotiated through collective bargaining. What we're attempting to do with limited tax dollars and limited resources available is cover the basic costs of a person who needs to travel, with the understanding that there is a huge pressure on the income assistance budget. In my mind, with federal off-loading, that pressure is going to increase unbelievably over the course of the next couple of years. It is in that context that we establish how to cover costs, and it really is irrelevant to the contract negotiated on behalf of government employees.
V. Anderson: I want to make one other comment, because I believe we're going to adjourn at this point. The hon. minister was commenting about the Premier's forum on skills and development. I just want to highlight that in the June 1994 issue of The Long Haul, put out by End Legislated Poverty, their assessment of the Premier's forum is that it would increase poverty. They have a great deal of concern about that. I want to highlight that that concern is there, and though I agree with the minister that there are many good ideas within the Premier's forum, there is also a strong concern from the community, at least in the way it's being presented to them at this point, that it's not going to respond as well as it might to their needs. I don't know if the minister wants to respond before we adjourn.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes. I actually met with members of the anti-poverty groups after they published that letter. They admitted to me that they had a misunderstanding of the report. They were commenting more on the tone of the report. Of course, members of the anti-poverty groups participated in the Premier's Forum on New Opportunities for Working and Living. So I have followed up on that article.
But I certainly would appreciate further discussion with the members opposite about where in their view, rather than in generalities, we should proceed on renewing the social safety net.
V. Anderson: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. J. MacPhail: It is a surprisingly early adjournment. It's unfortunate that we're adjourning at this time, but I hope everyone has a good rest and commits to their constituents throughout the weekend.
Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]