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 23, 1995
Morning Sitting
Volume 21, Number 13
[ Page 16099 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
M. de Jong: It gives me absolutely no pleasure at all to welcome Mr. Colin Yakashiro to the gallery. Mr. Yakashiro is a partner with the accounting firm of Ernst and Young, and on the rare occasions that we do speak, he brings me nothing but bad news. Nonetheless, I am pleased to say that he is here on a purely social function today, and I hope members will make him feel welcome.
SAVING PHARMACARE
D. Schreck: I rise today to talk about saving Pharmacare. I'm very proud of having played a part in putting together the provincial Pharmacare program some 20 years ago. As one of my first jobs out of graduate school, I was hired to work with Pat Tidball to develop the program. I think it is 21 years old now. The first year, it came in on budget to almost the dollar. Today, 21 years later, our provincial Pharmacare program pays out almost $400 million a year, and the threat to Pharmacare that exists is that the costs for the program are rising at an annual rate that is more than twice the rate of inflation. Those cost increases are not accounted for by anything other than the rise in the cost of the ingredients of the drugs, and if we're going to deal with what is clearly an unsustainable rate of increase in the Pharmacare program, we have to look at how we are going to cope with these rising drug costs.
There are basically two ways we can deal with this problem. We can take the costs that are being borne by the taxpayer in the five programs that make up Pharmacare, mostly for the seniors, and we can shift them onto someone else instead of the taxpayer. We could shift them onto the people who need the drugs -- the seniors. There have been several reports that recommended to government that this approach be taken. What this approach would amount to is that instead of having the seniors pay for the dispensing fee and the drug program pay for the ingredient cost, it would say: "We'll treat you the same as we would somebody who is 30 years old, and the program will only pay after you pay the first $600 or $700, and then even beyond that limit you'll have to pay the next 30 percent." If the program took that approach, and even if it allowed for some sort of income testing to show compassion for lower-income people, using the same criteria we use for Medical Services Plan premium supplements, some $50 million would be shifted off of the tax rolls onto seniors who need drugs.
Our government has said that it rejects that option. I have done everything I can to make it clear that that option should be rejected, and I'm pleased that the government has rejected it. But in rejecting that option, we have to look at other ways of controlling costs that are out of control. There's a very commonsense approach, and that approach is saying that the program exists to help sick people who need drugs; it doesn't exist in order to subsidize drug companies. Repeated studies have indicated that the problem with the program is that more-expensive substances are prescribed than are necessary and that inappropriate substances are prescribed. Regardless of who pays the bill, whether you pay it out of your own pocket or whether the taxpayer pays it through Pharmacare, shifting the cost wouldn't fix the problem of the wrong stuff being prescribed. So what we need to do is make sure that, regardless of who pays the bill, the right substance is prescribed.
Our government has moved on this in two ways. First, it has implemented what's called the low-cost alternative program. What the low-cost alternative program does, and it has been extremely successful, is say that if two drugs are chemically equivalent -- one is the generic substitute of a brand-name product that is more expensive, and the only difference is that the brand-name product reflects millions of dollars in advertising and promotion -- we will pay for the chemically equivalent, less expensive drug. That has been accepted.
What we are now discussing, which has by no means been implemented, is the next step, and that is called reference-based pricing. What reference-based pricing does is say that there are two chemically different substances, but they have the same effect. They both, for instance, deal with your stomach ulcer problem. The proposal -- this hasn't been implemented yet -- is that we will pay for the least expensive substance that is efficacious, that is efficient and that will do the job. Now, what's wrong with that? I say nothing. If we can find substances that can be substituted that way and thereby avoid having to shift $50 million of costs onto seniors, the only losers are the big drug companies, which won't have that market any longer. The taxpayer gains. The senior gains by the program being maintained. We have good science and good economics.
The response of the pharmaceutical industry has been to take out full-page newspaper ads and radio advertisements in this province in a direct assault to try to stop good science, good economics and good cost control. What we have is an eastern-based industry, headed by Judy Erola, a former federal Liberal cabinet minister. Under the laws of this province, it would be illegal for a person to move from a cabinet minister position into heading a major lobby group. Federally, it is still allowed, I regret to say. We have that powerful interest group tied to that former Liberal government in Ottawa trying with their financial muscle to interfere and to stop reasonable cost control, good science and good economics in this province.
In today's Vancouver Sun and yesterday's Times Colonist, the executive director of the B.C. Pharmacy Association said, quite rightly, that while we have a lot of work to do on the details of how to make reference-based pricing work and how to implement it, the one thing we all agree on is that eastern-based, multinational corporate interests should get their nose out of B.C. public policy-making. The executive director of the B.C. Pharmacy Association wrote: "Although we have made numerous efforts to involve the PMAC in our policy forums, they have failed to reciprocate." Hon. Speaker, I hope the opposition will join in this call to get that eastern influence out of our public life.
The Speaker: Responding for the official opposition, the hon. member for Langley.
L. Stephens: I am pleased to rise this morning and respond to the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale. I'd
[ Page 16100 ]
like to say that all members want to protect the medical services that we depend on in this province. But the way to deliver policy is not behind closed doors, and not to have secrecy -- the way this government likes to do, with no consultation with stakeholders. One thing different groups have communicated to us is that this is exactly what has happened. We believe that before we make decisions, we need to bring in knowledgable people to advise us on how we can best protect and secure benefits that are in the best interests of all British Columbians.
A variety of groups, particularly seniors' groups and mental health groups, have concerns about the government's proposed Pharmacare policy. The opposition shares the concerns of these organizations about how to keep Pharmacare affordable for the people of British Columbia.
C. Serwa: We have a few minutes left, and I'd like to take this opportunity. I don't have a great deal to say.
I listened with a great deal of interest, because the Pharmacare program is very important to seniors in the province. The member has hit on a number of things that make the program far more affordable at the present time, but there are things hanging out there in the future that indicate that we have to approach this in a far more serious manner and with a great deal more depth.
The reality is that in British Columbia, as in other areas of Canada, the baby-boomers are now approximately 50 years of age. This population bulge, as it works through.... They're coming to the area where they will demand more in the way of acute care services as well as more in the way of Pharmacare. There's also the recognition that our young people today, for the first time in many generations, are looking to a future that is probably not going to be as successful and as affluent as that of the present generation.
[10:15]
This really means that seniors are going to have to be more responsible for providing for their senior years. That goes by way of pensions; it also goes, truthfully, to the understanding and appreciation that in succeeding years, seniors will be asked to accept more and more of the costs of programs like Pharmacare. There will always be a provision made for individuals who cannot afford such things as Pharmacare, and we do that in our system; but more of the seniors who are controlling more and more of the wealth of this land are going to have to accept more and more of the responsibility to rely on their own capabilities.
I will continue to listen to the member's suggestions. I wanted to throw this out, so we can make progressive steps, over a period of time, so that seniors in British Columbia can accept their responsibilities as they age.
The Speaker: The hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale concludes.
D. Schreck: We'd like to thank both the Socred and Liberal responders. I hope that they will make clear, as this debate is carried into the public, that they are not on the side of the eastern-based multinational drug companies in trying to whip up fear and hysteria among the population of this province, solely for the purpose of maintaining the profits of those companies.
This government is consulting and, most importantly, this government has put the decision of what drugs will be covered under the Pharmacare program -- and of what, if any, drugs would be substituted for others -- not in the hands of government bureaucracy but with an arm's-length scientific panel. Scientists located and meeting at UBC would make those key recommendations. I have to admit that I can't even pronounce the names of most of these drugs, but I can turn to the Vancouver Sun article of June 21, where science reporter Margaret Munro wrote: "A University of B.C.-based team assessing drugs for Pharmacare reviewed the drugs and concluded: 'There is little difference between H2-blockers other than cost'." The cost difference on this one drug item to Pharmacare is $8 million a year, with little difference other than cost, as evidenced by an independent scientific panel.
I quoted from Bob Kucheran, the executive director of the B.C. Pharmacy Association, saying that the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association should get its nose out of B.C.'s business. Mr. Kucheran is seeking the Liberal nomination to run against me. Notwithstanding those partisan differences that he and I may share, this is a non-partisan issue, and I join Mr. Kucheran in saying that PMAC should get its eastern nose out of B.C.'s business. I ask all members of this House, regardless of where we sit from a partisan point of view, to tell those folks in Ottawa to stop trying to rip off the B.C. taxpayers and to scare the B.C. population. Let's work together to have an affordable program.
MEASURING THE MULTICULTURAL MOSAIC:
JOHN PORTER'S VERTICAL MOSAIC, THIRTY YEARS LATER
A. Warnke: The purpose of my remarks this morning is to essentially draw the attention of as many people as possible to the thirtieth anniversary of the publication by the late John Porter called The Vertical Mosaic: An Analysis of Social Class and Power in Canada. It was a tremendous classic in the study of Canadian society, and indeed it is a classic that has not only brought Canadian sociologists together but is also an essential contribution to the study of society, otherwise known as sociology. Porter brought together the findings of sociologists such as S.D. Clark, Bernard Blishen, and successive generations of sociologists. Two come to mind -- Peter Pineo and John Goyder -- and there are many others.
It's worthwhile reflecting on the nature of this work and why it was a tremendous contribution to the study of Canadian society, because I think 30 years ago there was an impression in our value system -- and this is what Professor Porter wanted to point out -- that there was an anomaly between image and reality. The image at the time was that Canada was basically a middle-class society, somewhat dominated by a conservative ideology, regardless of whether the Liberals were in power or not. This equality stemmed from the fact that we were an agrarian society -- whether it was Quebec, Ontario or western Canada. As a result, there was the development of a middle-class society in Canada, even in the industrial age.
Professor Porter pointed out that the reality might be something quite different. What we saw in reality was that instead of equality of the different ethnic groups making equal contributions to Canadian society, there was a disparity among ethnic groups and their contributions to the Canadian
[ Page 16101 ]
economy and society. Most notable in this were the contributions of French Canadians, especially in the province of Quebec. French Canadians who emigrated from Quebec sought opportunities as Canada was developing an industrial society, and had moved to Montreal to take advantage of certain kinds of opportunities, but not to the extent that it was among other ethnic groups in Canadian society. As a result, there was a disparity between the French Canadians -- especially the Quebeckers -- being involved in industrial society and the benefits of a rapidly industrializing society in the 1950s and 1960s.
As a result of that, I think Porter did articulate something that we saw as the problems of social change in Quebec in the 1960s, because in the 1960s Quebeckers did try to respond to the development of industrial society. They did not want to root themselves in agrarian society; they wanted to have the full benefits and success of Canadian society. French Canadians experienced the phenomenon of blocked mobility. Where Porter's contribution was important at the time was in pointing out that the phenomenon of blocked mobility combined with a rising expectation of economic rewards will, essentially, stimulate tremendous social change -- some would say a revolution. This is essentially where the Quiet Revolution in Quebec evolved from. The lesson, I think, that is learned is that when Canada began to embrace the multicultural ethos, that too stimulated rising social expectations among all ethnic groups.
Porter's contribution was to essentially assess the success of Canadian society -- whether we are, in fact, a middle-class society; whether we match the image of the various ethnic groups; and, as a result of that, whether the various regions, genders and people, because of a number of social factors, are making an adequate contribution and reaping the rewards, accordingly, in Canadian society. This was at a time when Canada was going through a rural decline -- that is, a shift in our society from being rural-based to still trying to protect our agrarian base or ethos, but rapidly industrializing, as Canada progressed into what has been dubbed the post-industrial age.
Porter sort of exposed some of the ideological values that most Canadians hold: those of equality.... We are also, largely, a collectivist-oriented community, especially in sharp contrast to the United States. Americans embrace individualism and liberty. These are certainly noble values to embrace, but Canadians tend to embrace them less. I think there is some truth to that.
As well, Canadians have always -- and perhaps this is something not so desirable, as Porter pointed out -- relied on elites to essentially govern and direct where the rest of Canadians should go. It's almost that we rely on something like a benevolent elite to take us into the future. This means a concentration of power in the hands of a very few: a dependency on the upper echelons of the public service; on the mass media; at the time, of course, on the clergy; and on other ideological elites, including those who shape our educational institutions. It's very clear that what Porter exposed at the time, in 1965, was that the image of Canadian society is not matched by the reality -- that there is an anomaly.
I would like to expand just where we are now in some of my summary remarks.
M. Sihota: For anybody else who attended university in the seventies in Canada, certainly part of the curriculum was reading Mr. Porter's work. I recollect that work very clearly from the course of my studies, as I was an undergraduate student in social work at the time that his work was first brought to my attention.
Porter noted at that time that not only were the people from Quebec denied the full benefits of our society but so were people from multicultural communities generally throughout the country. As a consequence, I think there was a discernable shift in public policy toward a more compassionate society that tried to ameliorate many of those issues Porter spoke to and overcome the gap between perception and reality that the hon. member refers to. I would argue that one of those policies was certainly the policy of multiculturalism. I think it's fair to say that we have come a long way since Porter's work in ameliorating some of those conditions and circumstances that he referred to -- until very recently.
I think that one of the measurements is the success of the multiculturalism policy here in Canada. Every day in the work I do as an MLA, and previously as a cabinet minister, I meet with investors who are looking to invest in this province and take advantage of the dynamic growth of our economy here in British Columbia. They are looking at investing in Los Angeles or Washington, or here in British Columbia.
When you tell them about the benefits of multiculturalism and explain the policy of multiculturalism, you notice a discernable shift in their body language; they're intrigued by the fact that their children can be educated in languages like Mandarin, Japanese or Punjabi within the school system -- a policy which our government brought forward. They're relieved to know that they can visit a Chinatown or Punjabi market to get the foods, the spices and the social camaraderie they're leaving in the nation they're wishing to transplant from. They are excited when they are told that, under that policy, we encourage religious diversity, and that a shrine or a temple that preaches and celebrates their religion is available anywhere in the community they're seeking to locate in. That's not available in Los Angeles. It makes us different.
I have noticed over and over again that people make investment decisions to invest in British Columbia because of the policy of multiculturalism that we have embraced as a province. All too often, we do not look at the economic attributes of multiculturalism; we focus too much on the social and cultural attributes -- which are important.
It's only natural, for example, for my daughter to ask me about her parents' or grandparents' background, culture, religion and traditions. It's only natural, therefore, to encourage a society that doesn't deny answers to those questions but rather encourages a further understanding of the various traditions and religions that we've been able to encourage to live here in British Columbia. There's no doubt that integration has occurred and that people from various ethnic backgrounds are now involved in all walks of life. I congratulate the Speaker as someone who represents visible minority communities, in occupying that post. We have judges, politicians and people involved in political organizations who are from ethnic backgrounds.
It's important to note, therefore, that we have come a long way from the day in which, if you were Asian or Oriental, by laws passed in this chamber you were denied the ability to own land in the city of Vancouver, to become a lawyer or a
[ Page 16102 ]
dentist or an engineer, and even to have the right of citizenship. Thanks to progressive movements like the CCF and the IWA, we've been able to overcome those historical injustices. We now see people from all ethnic communities involved in all walks of life.
[10:30]
This sense of compassion, which I think Porter drove in the development of public policy, is also seeming to diminish in terms of a political and public policy value in political life today. I note, for example, since the election of the Reform Party at the federal level, that we have seen the Liberal Party, which in many ways advocated these things, all of a sudden abandon this base -- abandon the multicultural and ethnic communities of the province on a federal, global basis. We've seen them violate their red book promise in terms of immigration policy, reduce the number of immigrants coming to Canada, reduce funding and support for programs in multiculturalism, and impose a head tax on people who are now seeking to come to this country.
As a result of it, we are seeing a diminishment in the sense of compassion that for so long defined this nation -- the sense of social justice and social equity. Whether it be to women or to ethnic organizations, the principles are exactly identical. We're seeing a shift away from that in a very disturbing way, as we now see a society hurtling to an "I'm all right, Jack" kind of attitude -- blaming everything on their neighbours. It's unfortunate that the federal Liberal Party has embraced that rather troubling notion, which seems to be an undercurrent in society today.
The Speaker: The member for Richmond-Steveston concludes.
A. Warnke: It's rather a pleasure to see one who took such an interest in Porter in the 1970s, as the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin did. It's good to see that he responded, as well.
Actually, he touched on two aspects that are extremely important. Since Porter's time, if we were to quickly summarize in the brief moments that we have, there has been a shift in public policy. Perhaps most important, there has also been a shift in the recruitment of some of the groups in society that were underrepresented in terms of access to political and economic institutions. Porter exposed the anomalies in terms of income, power, authority, social class and occupational prestige. We have seen a marked shift that has been very positive and really reinforces the idea that integration has been very successful in Canada.
Some of the other remarks.... Actually, I share some of those concerns. I want to end on the note that it's extremely important that while we embrace multiculturalism, it's not sufficient to say that we're going to constantly reinforce the virtues of multiculturalism through education and the transmission of knowledge. That's extremely important and must be maintained. But it is not enough just to talk about the virtues of multiculturalism; in embracing multiculturalism, people also have to experience the positive reinforcement of multiculturalism.
I too have some concerns. I see some trends that I want to include in my remarks. I think we have seen a phenomenon in Quebec where multiculturalism is perceived as threatening the French-speaking population in that province. What we will see is nationalism and separatism and some rather right-wing extremist responses as a result. How do we avoid that? How do we avoid some of the concerns that the member has pointed out even in western Canada?
He's quite right in terms of how this is reflected in the success of the Reform Party. It's not that the Reform Party people who embrace that kind of ideology are necessarily wrong; they're afraid. I think the way to do it is this: if we believe that multiculturalism cannot fail, then it must clearly demonstrate inclusion, not exclusion, of all Canadians. If we develop that perception and attain that goal -- that all Canadians are part of this society -- then, in fact, we'll have come a long way in overcoming some of the obstacles outlined by Professor Porter.
M. Sihota: May I have leave to make an introduction?
Leave granted.
M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to welcome to the legislative chamber today a number of students, grades 5 to 7, from the Khalsa School in Surrey. They are here with a number of their teachers and I want to give them a warm welcome, and to wish them a warm sat siri akal. They've just missed a discussion on multiculturalism.
S. Hammell: I'd like to welcome the students from Surrey. They're from Khalsa School in West Newton, close to the gurdwara. We welcome them here to our deliberations in the precinct.
INVESTING IN OUR FUTURE
G. Janssen: It's a pleasure to stand up on a beautiful British Columbia day and talk about our great province. This government has a plan for British Columbia, a plan that will see an economy that is already the strongest in Canada -- creating two-thirds of all new jobs in Canada -- remain competitive and vibrant. This plan will strengthen today's jobs and create new jobs for tomorrow. We must make the investments that protect the quality of life, a healthy environment, good health care and quality education services.
There are opposing views as to how we should improve our advantages and our ability to compete in a very competitive global economy. There are those in British Columbia, particularly on the opposition benches, who say we cannot afford to invest in new schools and colleges. They say that our environmental standards are too high, that our labour laws are too strenuous for business and that we must reduce our standards so we can compete with Third World nations by lowering standards and lowering wages. This was the policy followed by the Social Credit government of Bill Bennett -- they called it restraint. The restraint program plummeted British Columbia into a recession that saw jobs disappear, families devastated, businesses close and the provincial deficit climb. Rather than improve people's lives in British Columbia, it ruined them.
Our course of action is one that will make our economy more productive and efficient, by making affordable investments to improve the skills of our labour force, by modernizing our infrastructure to remain competitive, and by renewing our natural resource base. In Alberni, during restraint, over
[ Page 16103 ]
5,000 jobs disappeared. This government and the community have invested in a new campus at North Island College, a child care centre at the high school, and a new skills training centre. These investments will ensure that people have the skills to continue to work, remain competitive and continue living in their chosen home of Alberni.
It is a strategy that will lead British Columbia to a high-skill, high-wage, high-value economy, an economy that builds on previous investments and experience to ensure that our standards move upwards, not downwards, as the opposition would have. It will ensure that we continue to compete with the advanced economies of Japan, the United States and Europe, and it will keep us from sinking into an economy that competes at a Third World level.
This plan will provide training and employment programs to 42,000 welfare recipients this year. It will ensure that all high school students graduate with real job experiences, by providing 25,000, 30-hour work experience placements each year. Our plan will create 5,000 new spaces in British Columbia colleges and universities -- these are in addition to the 9,000 spaces created in 1994. The plan provides new apprenticeship training programs for 20,000 British Columbians, and Skills Now will retrain 30,000 workers in 1994 and 1995 to take advantage of new and better job opportunities. In Port Alberni, MacMillan Bloedel's $210 million investment in the Nexgen project will create 32 new high-tech jobs in new paper-product technology. Business is adapting to changing global markets. This plan will ensure that British Columbians have the skills to fill those jobs.
I'd like to provide a small example of how investing in community infrastructure creates a healthy climate for private sector investment and jobs. In Ucluelet, the federal-provincial-municipal infrastructure program invested $7.5 million in water and sewer upgrades. This has led to the creation of over 120 new jobs in fish processing. Ucluelet Seafood Processors and Pacific Coast Processors are processing hake into surimi. Just a few years ago, only the foreign offshore fishing fleets were capable of utilizing these fish. Now we're producing it here in British Columbia, creating jobs and further investments in our own communities.
In Port Alberni, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, in cooperation with the city, four-laned the highway into the northern part of the city. As a result, we now have a Pay Less Gas station and a convenience store, Westwind Pub and Westwind Beer and Wine Store, a new expanded Revelstoke Builders' Supply store, a new McDonald's, and two other businesses that are presently seeking permits. Close to 150 jobs were created by the private sector because of our plan to create and support infrastructure. It will attract business. There are those in opposition who say: "No, no, no. We can't afford it." This government says: "We cannot afford to not make these investments."
C. Tanner: It's always a pleasure to stand up and address the remarks of the member for Alberni, because frequently he sounds like a man who could just as easily sit on this side of the House. He's had some business experience, which gives some tenderness to the thought that business can be right and that municipalities, government and business can work together. I think his background helps him understand that proposition, and consequently it makes it even more pleasurable to respond to his proposition.
But on this side of the House we do have another philosophical difference with the people sitting on that side of the House, and it's very simply about how you approach debt. In simple words, it's how you look at investment. We think you've got a major problem in this province in that since this government came to power with a debt of $19 billion which they inherited, they've now managed to make it $28 billion. We think that burden will catch up with us eventually, and you've got to approach the bigger picture before you look at the specifics in his constituency or any other.
For the last three months -- while this House has sat in this session -- the government party across the way has been making a great point of the federal government downloading costs of health care, social services and education onto this province. That has happened to this province, but it has also happened to every other province. This province and all others understand that the federal government must reduce its debt, and we must share the responsibility to reduce that debt. Nobody wants to see those three services of education, health and social services suffer, but we must find some way of reducing our national debt, otherwise people outside this country will be making those decisions for us. Irrespective of how well a program is operating in Ucluelet, Tofino or Alberni, the fact of the matter is that if our national debt is in bad shape, our provincial debt eventually will be in bad shape, and we'll all suffer as a consequence.
The approaches to how we resolve those problems are different on this side of the House than they are on that side of the House, and I think that's fortunate. It gives us an opportunity to discuss these things and tell the public in the coming election our two different philosophies, and they must make a decision between us. Frankly, I think it is between his party and mine. I don't think anybody else is really pertinent to the debate, and I don't think anybody else is going to affect the debate. We do have a different philosophy, and that's how it should be. In my view, the result of the next election will put our philosophy on that side of the House -- on the government side -- and it will put theirs in the dumper, where they've gone in every other province except Saskatchewan, which is the major exception of an NDP government in Canada following basically a Liberal philosophy.
[10:45]
I commend the member, and I commend Ucluelet for the ability to work together to put in the infrastructure and to make the business of fishing in that area successful. But, as I say, you've got to look at the bigger picture. We need to reduce government. We need to downsize government so that our cost to the public on their tax burden is reduced. I will give you three specific cases that, in my view, we should be seriously looking at, keeping in mind that in education, health and social services we've got to be more efficient. We've got to deliver the services less expensively, but we've got to continue those services. Nobody denies that. In my view, and I think in the view of my leader and our party, all other programs should be on the table to be discussed. It is my view that spending $800 million on fast ferries is a mistake. I don't think we should be making decisions like that, but I do think that that decision should be put on the table to be discussed.
My party doesn't think that the 800 people working in Municipal Affairs are accomplishing very much. The decisions they make should be made at the local level, and we think that if we did so, we would not only have a saving at that level of government but we would also have more efficient government delivered to people directly through those services and where they live.
[ Page 16104 ]
I personally don't think that the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture -- with the exception of Culture, but even that could be handled differently -- needs to be a ministry of the provincial government. It could be handled by the private sector more efficiently, more directly and with more success, because in that particular area and in Tourism particularly, the private sector knows a lot more about it than government ever will, because it's directly affected.
The Speaker: The member for Alberni concludes.
G. Janssen: This government and the New Democratic Party believe in British Columbians and in their abilities. We believe in the future, and we have faith that they will provide if there is some leadership and some investment.
It's amazing that the member for Saanich North and the Islands speaks about the debt. They used to talk about the deficit, but now that the deficit has been solved, they talk about the debt. They would say no to the Island Highway because of debt; they would say no to colleges, transit services and fast ferries because of debt. Instead of lining up at the top of the Departure Bay Road in Nanaimo to catch the ferry, people will be lined up in Lantzville and Duncan if we don't build and invest in faster ferries. The population of Vancouver Island will double in the next 20 to 25 years. Where will the transportation infrastructure be? Where will business locate? Will it locate on an island that has poor access or on an island that has excellent access, where there are jobs and high wages and where there is profit to be made?
They talk about reducing government. That sounds like Milton Friedman and Reaganomics in the United States. Under that plan, we saw the recession deepen, jobs and profits disappear, and the stock market plummet. They talk about reducing government, but we already have the leanest government in Canada right here in British Columbia. We have the lowest-cost Legislature in all of Canada right here in British Columbia. A little over $17 of each taxpayer's taxes go into supporting this government.
We have faith. In conclusion, good government is about showing leadership, looking to the future and planning for that future. The British Columbia government is living up to its responsibility with a sense of optimism and enthusiasm that our economy, as healthy as it is today, can be even stronger tomorrow. By making affordable investments now, the vision we share of a strong economy that works for all British Columbians will be realized. The quality of life our families have enjoyed for generations will be protected and our province will continue to grow, with new economic opportunity ensuring jobs for all British Columbians today and jobs for our children tomorrow.
FACING FUNDAMENTALS: STRENGTHENING FAMILIES
L. Stephens: I am pleased to rise and talk today about strengthening families. I believe this is the most important challenge facing our society today, because our societies no longer operate on the community-based agrarian model of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This model made child-rearing the responsibility of parents, because the farm was both a workplace and a home. The extended family and the community, including the church, provided a safety net for parents and children that is no longer available for many communities and families today. We need to nurture and develop a level of social stability that allows families to flourish.
Families today are very different. Ours is a society that is transient, materialistic and bombarded by the media. This can mean that children do not grow up with a stable extended family around them, and parents have to work very hard to provide a safe, secure home for their children. As long as women continue to shoulder most of the burdens regarding the daily care of children, even in two-parent families, issues around child care, paid work and family responsibilities will remain issues of women's equality.
Emphasizing the importance of families is not the same as advocating a return to some imagined golden age when mom stayed home with the kids while dad earned a good living, and everyone was happy, well adjusted and brimming with self-esteem. Stressing the importance of family simply recognizes that all families are a basic unit of society. This includes the more traditional heterosexual couple, single parents, same-sex partners, extended family groupings and even community-based networks whose common characteristic is the mutual care and respect of young people.
If we neglect the health, well-being and self-sufficiency of our various families, and if we fail to provide support to parents and children, we risk building a society on a very weak foundation. We need to strengthen and support today's families through education, advocacy and providing information on the services that are available to strengthen those family units.
As the institution of the family continues to change, the demand for child care, flexible work arrangements and parental choice in terms of finding or providing care will become more pressing. Society generally encourages women to be in the paid workforce yet does not address the impact of that option on either women who are mothers or on their children.
The child care crisis is about more than care; it is also about the need for greater community involvement in providing support to families for better paid and unpaid parental leave policies, more flexible work arrangements and the recognition that many parents would choose to take care of their own children if they were not penalized in terms of losing status and tax treatment for doing so.
Despite women's increased participation in the labour force, many women live at or below the poverty line in Canada, and research suggests that most women can expect to spend their later years in poverty. In fact, divorced or single women, women who are single parents and elderly women all face the prospect of being poor in Canada.
Women living in poverty are particularly disadvantaged when it comes to caring for their children. In 1992, the report of the B.C. community, family and children's services legislation review panel recommended that eradicating poverty in all its forms must be the main focus of new government policy, so parents or primary caregivers may meet the basic needs of their children. The report also recognized that poverty is the number one problem facing families and children today.
The effects of poverty on families continue and include poor self-esteem, low literacy skills, inadequate housing, poor nutrition, poor health, isolation, targeting for violence, substance abuse, mental illness and the need to focus on daily
[ Page 16105 ]
survival. In our schools today we see many social problems where parents need early intervention and prevention programs, by way of community services, to develop parenting skills to be able to respond to their children's and their family's needs in ways that are appropriate.
The Speaker: Responding, the hon. member for Port Coquitlam.
M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and I thank the hon. member for Langley for her thoughtful comments. I must admit that when I first read the title "Family Values and Tradition," I was expecting something like, "What we need is just a little more discipline," and I'm glad to see that the hon. member spoke in a very thoughtful way.
She stressed that the family is more than just a mother and dad in the traditional sense, and I have to agree with her. If you think back through history, except in the 20 years following the end of the Second World War, it has never really encompassed that. Too often in previous generations one member of the family died very early of any number of diseases. Children died at a very early age. In the nineteenth century, children were sent out to the workforce at a very early age -- at five or six. That could hardly be described as a traditional family.
Today the family is under stress more than ever before, for all sorts of reasons, as the hon. member alluded to. There are such things as the inability to make ends meet, the fact that both parents are working, the fact that women's work is undervalued and the fact that women are expected to take jobs that men aren't expected to take, for example. It's harder for women to get jobs. I know that my own sister went for a job, and she was told that she had to get some training and certification, so she went and got that. She came back and said: "I have the training and certification that you asked for, and I want the job." She had been told she had the skills. But the man doing the interview said: "Well, do you really want the job? You have two small kids."
That type of thinking illustrates the problems we face. We have to address those problems, in my mind, in two areas. One is through education in schools, by telling young women in school: "Look, you can be anything you want to be. Make sure that you get the education; the doors are open for you. If you want to be a doctor, you can be a doctor; if you want to be a lawyer, you can be a lawyer; if you want to be an engineer, you can be an engineer. There is no field of endeavour that is closed to you."
The second way to address problems of strengthening the family is, as the hon. member alluded to, through such things as health care. We have to ensure that men, women and children in this province have access to quality health care, that barriers aren't placed in their way and that we don't see such things as a two-tier health care system, which this government is opposed to. We have to ensure that education services are provided equally throughout the province, and that we don't see the development of an education system that sees one district getting more and another district getting less. We have to ensure that parents feel that there are services in place that they can access when times are tough, that we have a social services system in place that recognizes that from time to time families go through stress, and that single mothers can get the training they need so they can get into the workforce.
That's part of this government's plan. That's why we're working to ensure that we have quality health care and an education system and skills training programs that can provide skills, so that men and women in this province can get jobs -- jobs that create strong families. The biggest stress on a family is quite often when one or both parents don't have a job. That's where stresses come in; that's where problems are created. This government is committed by way of our economic plan to ensuring that we create a vibrant economy by investing in the skills of our people and in infrastructure, so we can provide quality health care, a quality education system and quality social services.
L. Stephens: I want to thank the member opposite for his thoughtful comments. I think this is a subject that transcends party lines, if you wish. I think all members, particularly in this House, understand the stresses families are under today, and the help and support that families everywhere need.
We also believe that the services that this government provides, and that all governments provide, should be interministerial, with an integrated planning and implementation approach that recognizes that we must have a comprehensive, overall plan to help strengthen and support these families.
[11:00]
The question is: do we pay now or do we pay later? There are many studies to show that in the corrections system, as many as 80 percent of the young people have learning disabilities and come from abusive and neglectful homes. There is very clear research that early intervention and prevention programs for families are a most successful way to deal with children at risk and families at risk.
We also, I think, have to concentrate on our workplaces: we need family-friendly workplaces. Implementing workplace supports for workers -- men and women with family responsibilities -- is one of the steps necessary for achieving healthy families as well. Flexible work arrangements could include alternative work hours, reduced or extended lunch-hours, compressed work weeks, job-sharing, part-time work and flex-place. Access to proactive participation in skill training and management training programs, and also family-related leaves, such as for births, adoptions, deaths, emergencies, and educational and health needs -- these are also areas that need to be looked at in all of our workplaces, in both the public and the private sectors, to find ways we can support families.
We also need to create safer streets where children can play. We need to assist community services to support troubled families, teen parents, abused children and those who live in poverty. Families are the foundation of our society, and they need our attention, our support and our respect.
REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF WOMEN'S EQUALITY
L. Stephens: It is a pleasure to finally get to the Women's Equality wrap-up comments. We completed the estimates some time ago, but we are finally getting this done. The minister would have, I am sure, a number of comments to make around what we discussed. But at this time I'd like to thank the minister and her staff for the information that was passed along previous to the estimates and during the estimates, and for her responses to questions that were asked in estimates.
[ Page 16106 ]
The current mandate for the Ministry of Women's Equality is to make a positive difference in the lives of women and to deliver programs which expand choices and promote well-being. This should be the goal of government as a whole, not just the mandate of one ministry. It has been our position that the Ministry of Women's Equality should not be a freestanding ministry and that the government should, in fact, be responsible to make sure that women's and family issues are addressed by every single ministry of government. We need to make decisions -- government needs to make decisions -- that understand the systemic oppression. We need to make sure that we increase awareness of women's and family issues, which I talked about just a little earlier in my private member's statement. And we need to continue to make child care a priority.
Economic inequities are still glaring for women. In the ministry's estimates, we talked about upcoming programs and policies for the coming year, but these still do not address those economic inequities for women. Here in British Columbia, women earn only 70 percent of what men earn. In this very House, only 24 percent of MLAs are women. In the teaching profession, only 20 percent of university instructors are women. And while two of every three teachers are women, only one in every four principals is a woman.
This government has created many more much-needed day care spaces, but single mothers still spend three times as much of their annual income on day care as two-parent families do.
I believe there needs to be more emphasis on prevention services, and this should include women mental health clients in communities. Many of the women in these communities are well enough to live on their own, but they are not capable of looking after their emotional and physical safety. I think there needs to be more awareness paid to this problem in our communities, and I would ask the Minister of Women's Equality to make the Minister of Health aware of this particular problem. But we need to support cooperative community initiatives, because communities know what is best and what is needed for their citizens.
We need to look at job retraining programs, which should reflect a greater diversity of options, such as trades and management -- areas that are perhaps not traditionally female. Again, I would like to see the minister more proactive in providing the kinds of trades training and skills that women need to be self-sufficient and to provide for their families.
Helping workers cope with family-work demands consists of a strategic commitment to look at transformation of workplace culture. In a survey that was done for the Canada Committee for the International Year of the Family in 1994, 500 employed mothers were asked what employers could do to assist them in balancing work and family demands. The chart shows that the options most in demand tend to be flexible work hours, more generous family leave policies, on-site day care and, following close behind, supervisors' understanding. Again, I would like to press the minister to make sure the gains that have been made in child care in this province are continued and that they reach into other areas and sectors of the workplace. Many organizations already have some form of alternative working arrangements in place, and we need more of a proactive and more flexible work arrangement both within and without the private sector.
I would like to see the Ministry of Women's Equality be more vigorous in its pursuit of zero tolerance against violence toward women and children. In British Columbia, 59 percent of women have experienced some form of violence. Violence in the lives of our children must be acknowledged and addressed. In violent families, 39 percent of children witness the violence. Violence against children occurs in these families as well, and 48 percent of sexual assaults and 57 percent of violent assaults are perpetrated by family members. The ministry must insist that the Attorney General address these facts.
In conclusion, we need to put some teeth into anti-harassment legislation, and there must be some fundamental change in protection laws to remove the abuser and not the abused from the home, and provide unconditional protection for family members remaining in the home.
G. Farrell-Collins: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
G. Farrell-Collins: I would like members of the House to welcome Mr. May and a group of grade 5 students who I had a chance to meet outside -- excellent students. They're here today with their parents and the teacher. They're going to be going across the street to visit the museum and the Genghis Khan exhibit, and they're here to see how this House works. Would the House please make them most welcome.
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Women's Equality responds.
Hon. P. Priddy: I rise with pleasure to draw conclusion to the estimates of the Ministry of Women's Equality. I want to thank the members of the opposition, people who are here and those who participated in the debates and are not able to be here today, as well as my staff for their support. I think the questions that were asked during these estimates were thoughtful.
There are some concluding comments I would like to make. I want to just begin by reminding the House of the principles in which that debate was framed and in which the ministry was framed. One of them is the fact that the issues in women's lives clearly affect not only women but also their families and whole communities. So the work that the Ministry of Women's Equality does and the issues that we canvassed in our estimates debates clearly affect women, men and children and affect the strengths, gifts and talents that we see in our communities. Also, that debate and the ministry's work is rooted in the fact that we acknowledge all of the choices that women make. They are all valuable choices; they are all strong choices -- as long as they are, indeed, choices, and as long as we know that there are a variety of things from which women can choose.
I know that the member opposite has spoken of the importance of opening doors and providing more opportunities for women. We want to do that, but we want to do it by saying all work and all choices are valuable, whether it's paid work or not paid work, whether women chose to work in the paid workforce or whether they chose to work inside their home but not for wages. Those are all valuable choices. We support all of those and take forth work that will support women in those roles.
Second, on some language I heard the member opposite use, one of the things we have always said about this ministry
[ Page 16107 ]
is that we believe that communities know best what their problems are and what their solutions are. Again, the issues that we canvassed in our estimates talked about programs that were identified by communities, driven by communities and supported by this government in those particular communities.
Child care was one of the issues a number of questions were asked about. I am pleased to hear the member opposite say that this government has created many more, much-needed day care spaces. I thank her for that acknowledgement of this government's work. We canvassed three issues really in the debates: affordability, certainly the issue of greater choice, and some questions were asked as well about day care subsidies.
The member opposite in her comments talked about the fact that affordable day care is still an issue for women -- and for men, by the way. We answered some questions about how the wage supplement, which is a way of lifting the wages of child care workers, has indeed made a difference in affordable child care in this province. We have many, many letters now in this ministry saying that this is the first year in the history of many child care centres they have not raised the fees to parents, because there was a wage supplement. That's about affordable child care, and that's about this government's commitment to children and to their mothers and fathers.
Since 1991 the number of licensed child care spaces in this province is up 48 percent, because we are committed to ensuring that quality child care is there -- again, I appreciate the member's acknowledgement of that when we talked about it in estimates. The number of child care spaces for children under three is up 39 percent, and the number of programs for teen parents is up 140 percent. That is a true and real commitment to child care in this province.
We also talked during the estimates -- and the member raised this as well -- about the issue of stopping the violence against women and children and their families. I'm very proud of the work that this government has done. I continue to say "this government," because this ministry has worked with other ministries across the government on policies like the policy of violence against women in relationships, on many of the new programs begun by the Attorney General and on our new prevention models -- we just announced 11.
We talked about the fact that it's not only about better and new services for victims, it's also about victims becoming survivors. We only do that by good prevention, by good intervention and by breaking the cycle of violence, which this government is committed to do. I worked very hard with the Attorney General on the initiatives to do that. Under those initiatives with this ministry and our government, we've seen the number of transition houses go up in three years by 38 percent, safe houses by 77 percent and second-stage housing by 100 percent. There are 48 new programs for children who are witnesses of abuse -- they never even existed in this province before. That's how we will break the cycle of violence by working with children so that those children will not grow up to be also perpetrators of violence.
I'm interested in the member's comment about the need for more flexible work arrangements. The Ministry of Women's Equality has led the government in a pilot project to look at flexible work hours, where we harmonize work and family. I always worry when we talk about balancing work and family, because it always seems like some kind of balancing act that people will never be able to do. But to harmonize work and family means having workers who are happier and better at doing their jobs and also stronger families, because parents are able to participate with their family in a way that satisfies them. Our ministry has led the way in government, and we provide expertise to organizations in the community who wish to do that. So we're very proud of our work in that way.
We're also proud of women's participation in the workforce, a trend raised by the member opposite. We're also proud of the number of new apprenticeship programs in this province, and the Victoria Downtown Women's Project, where women have had a pre-apprenticeship program. They're now in apprenticeships renovating a house, and we know these women will be able to get skills in a new occupation for them, which is working in the construction industry.
[11:15]
As well, barriers are being broken in post-secondary and other non-traditional jobs. As we break down barriers in non-traditional areas, let us not undervalue what is called traditional women's work, because that also makes our families and communities strong.
In conclusion, I want to comment on one more thing. The member said that only 24 percent of MLAs in this House are women. That is correct, and most of them are New Democrats; I'm very proud of that.
We do have the best options available in this country. I heard the member opposite say that the Liberal opposition does not support a freestanding Ministry of Women's Equality, and it should be the work of the entire government. Well, I actually happen to believe that it is both. It is the work of the entire government, and that is why I have worked with the Minister of Health and the Attorney General on the legislation that we have seen tabled that ensures that women are able to access legal abortion services without feeling unsafe.
I would also say that we have the best of options because this is the only province that has a freestanding Ministry or Women's Equality, and it's the only province that has done the kind of work that we talked about in our estimates. We will continue to work across this government, but the work that has happened has happened because there is a freestanding Ministry of Women's Equality with a voice at the table. This is contrary, by the way, to what I see at the federal table, where they have weakened the voice of women at the table. The Conservative government had a stronger voice at the table. We'll continue that good work.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply for the purpose of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Investment.
The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT AND INVESTMENT
(continued)
On vote 24: minister's office, $375,615 (continued).
Hon. G. Clark: For the purposes of today, I would just like to remind members that we have been canvassing some
[ Page 16108 ]
of the issues that I'm responsible for for the last week: B.C. Hydro is completed, B.C. Ferries, B.C. Transit, TFA and a variety or other aspects. We're now canvassing the B.C. Buildings Corporation component, and I'll do my best to complete that momentarily, before the weekend.
K. Jones: It's good to carry on with what we finished at 11 o'clock last night. It was moving along fairly well, considering the late hour that we were dealing with. I hope things will continue at this forum again this morning.
With regard to the energy and environmental department of the property management group, I'd like to ask the minister: what does that group do in its current format, and what are its goals?
Hon. G. Clark: It's primarily to provide advice and leadership on energy management programs and environmental programs within the corporation.
K. Jones: I understand that some of its work has been in the area of.... There have been thoughts or discussions with regard to doing services outside government. Could the minister give us some details on that?
Hon. G. Clark: Actually, the corporation has restricted itself to doing work in what we might call the broad public sector. BCBC's services are in some significant demand by some public sector agencies, so there has been some work done beyond just the narrow scope of government. For example, school boards and hospitals boards have sometimes requested their services. We haven't done that; it's beyond the mandate of the corporation to do that, really, although I think it's certainly something that might be worth considering in the future. If we can save a school board money by using the project management expertise that BCBC has, I think that would be desirable. We don't do that. For the purposes of the energy management and the environmental divisions, though, we have provided some consulting services beyond just the narrow scope of government.
K. Jones: I know that some school districts are contracting energy management companies to do work for them. Is there any reason why the B.C. Buildings Corporation would be able to do it better than those outside companies?
Hon. G. Clark: We have to be a bit careful here, because what BCBC often does is provide the management expertise. So even if they're doing.... I agree generally with the member that it would be nice if we could do some energy management work for school boards. I don't have any problem with that. But if BCBC were to do that, they wouldn't do it themselves; they would engage a private contractor to do the work and then provide their management expertise in managing the contract, which is really where their expertise lies. We don't want to see BCBC grow in such a manner that it's out there competing, really, with the private sector for an area where there's expertise in the private sector now. But if the management expertise at BCBC can be utilized to help provide that service, then that would be a good way of getting more value for the tax money that we have already invested in the corporation.
K. Jones: Currently there is an energy and environment department. I understand that it does energy management work. Is that energy management work, as you've indicated, contracted out to various suppliers, and then the property management group actually operates only as a management facility for some outside contracts?
Hon. G. Clark: I just want to make sure that we don't confuse the property management group with the energy management unit. The energy management unit primarily uses private contractors for their work, and they have developed an expertise in the management of those contracts and in understanding the issues. I say "primarily" because there's a bit of overlap. That's separate and distinct from the property management group. The property management group is managing the operations and maintenance of a huge number of government-owned and, in some cases, leased buildings.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us why the work in energy management could not be spun off as a private operation and sold by B.C. Buildings Corporation, so the work would be done by people doing it under direct contract or by having that section compete in the marketplace so that we as taxpayers would get the best price?
Hon. G. Clark: I think we have a nice balance now. I think I have mentioned that it's the private sector that does the work. There's a handful of people in energy management managing private sector contracts, and I don't think you'd really want to relinquish the management of those, especially with the in-house expertise. I suppose you could contract that out, but in-house management with private sector delivery seems to me to be the most efficient method of achieving the objectives we've set for ourselves.
K. Jones: How does the minister measure the effectiveness and the economics of this being done in-house rather than outside?
Hon. G. Clark: In 1991, BCBC won an international award for energy management. They've developed significant expertise. I can assure the member that we constantly review all aspects of the corporation -- the corporation itself does; the Crown corporations secretariat does -- to ensure that we're achieving private sector benchmarks and that if there were opportunities for more efficiency, either through the private sector or otherwise, we would explore them.
The energy management unit has saved the taxpayers, really, about $7 million a year -- about $75 million since it started -- by diligent and aggressive energy management. Its record is exemplary. It has won, as I said, international awards. It's viewed as a leading corporation in this sector, and it's average consumption of energy is down by 55 percent since the program started. By any private sector test, either in terms of efficiency or accomplishments, this corporation is exemplary in this area.
K. Jones: The B.C. Buildings Corporation has 15 property management units. Could the minister tell us if that could be more effectively operated if the number of management units were consolidated and there was some reduction in staff in that area?
[ Page 16109 ]
Hon. G. Clark: We're constantly looking for ways to try to improve the efficiency of the organization. There are three regions in the province, I believe, and 15 property management units. Again, that's not a static thing; it's not etched in stone. We review these matters all the time. As I said, since we've come to office, in addition to the corporation, which, in its own right, does a very good job in terms of reviewing its operations -- very professional, very businesslike -- we also now have the Crown corporations secretariat that is sort of probing and looking to make sure that efficiency gains are being made where possible.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us if any of the funding for the operations of the Crown corporations secretariat is received from B.C. Buildings Corporation?
Hon. G. Clark: The answer is yes to that.
K. Jones: The next question is how much?
Hon. G. Clark: The Crown corporations secretariat vote is based on a share of revenue of each individual Crown, so there is a chargeback, generally, for its annual operating budget. That means that the lion's share of it is paid for by B.C. Hydro, but then again, they command a fair amount of the attention of the secretariat. BCBC's share is.... We'll have to get it for you, but it's quite modest. In addition to that share, I don't mind saying that when we do a specific audit or review of an aspect of BCBC's work -- often at the request of management, the minister or the board of directors -- there is usually a cost-shared arrangement: the secretariat pays for some of it, and some of the services for the audit, usually contracted services, are charged back to the corporation. They're really quite modest, but I don't mind getting it for the member.
K. Jones: Could the minister provide us with the Crown corporations secretariat's statement of revenues and expenses for the last five years and the projection for the budget this year?
Hon. G. Clark: I'd be happy to provide it, although I believe it's provided for in the budget documents every year. But I'd be happy to provide it for the member.
[11:30]
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us if it shows, within the budget documents, the expenses and revenues as split by various corporations?
Hon. G. Clark: No, it doesn't. But we can do that without any problem.
K. Jones: With regard to the region 1 property management group, there are three offices located in the Victoria area. Is there any reason why those couldn't be consolidated in one office and some of the staff then reduced?
Hon. G. Clark: Yes, we are examining a possible consolidation in the one location. The main objective is to provide effective property management services. That may mean more staff, less staff, more decentralization or less. We have to keep focused on efficient delivery of effective property management services. You wouldn't want to compromise effective property management services for cost savings. You want to make sure that.... At the end of the day, that would end up costing the taxpayers more money, I'm sure.
K. Jones: It's the same situation in region 2, where there are two offices in the downtown Vancouver area, one on West Broadway and one on Hornby Street. Then there's another one out on Canada Way in Burnaby, another one out in New Westminster and another one in Port Coquitlam. Could the minister justify why each of these property units has a separate office location, when perhaps most of that could be operated out of one central operation -- perhaps one that B.C. Buildings already operates for its other operations in the area?
Also, could the minister...? Relating to region 1, the Victoria area, I note that the three locations shown as property management location offices do not coincide with the general headquarters of B.C. Buildings, which is in Victoria. Therefore is there any reason why they shouldn't be consolidated in that one head office building?
Hon. G. Clark: Each property management unit manages, on average, a million and a half square feet of office space, and that's not insignificant. That helps explain why there's a certain optimum size. You wouldn't want to get too much larger than that -- as at least the corporation believes, and we constantly challenge that.
Secondly, in Victoria there isn't the room at the corporation's head office for such a property management unit. Remember, property management units often have to have a vehicle compound. They have to have repair vehicles, service vehicles, equipment and staff to manage these million and a half square feet, on average, that they manage. That's why a separate office in Victoria, separate from the head office, is deemed the appropriate course of action.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us, with regard to property management groups: is there any reason why the whole property management operation could not be privatized?
Hon. G. Clark: I have a note; I think it's my first one. Crown corporations secretariat's chargeback to BCBC for '94-95 was $178,917 for services rendered, to give you a sense of that. It's expected to be approximately the same in '95-96.
What was the other question he asked? Could the whole property management group be privatized? The answer is that it already is substantially privatized. Again, if you look at the.... BCBC attempts wherever possible -- in fact, almost exclusively -- to use private sector contractors. Sometimes, I might argue, they may do that too much. The janitorial staff in most of the offices are contracted services; the maintenance staff are often contracted services.
So it's substantially a private sector operation, with a relatively small management team that specializes in contract management and service delivery. It's helpful to have some balance of public sector participation so we have a handle on costs. We have a handle on a window, if you will, in the industry. We can test whether we're doing a good job against the private sector benchmarks and we can test the competitive bidding process to make sure that we're getting good value
[ Page 16110 ]
because we have some public sector expertise. So right now about 70 percent of property management is contracted out, and 30 percent is in-house. That's the balance we have, and it seems to work quite effectively.
K. Jones: Can the minister tell us how many FTEs there are within the property management group?
F. Randall: I request leave for an introduction.
Leave granted.
F. Randall: On behalf of the member for New Westminster, who is not available this morning -- she's attending the official opening of the Justice Institute in New Westminster -- I would like to introduce 35 grade 5 students who are in the gallery from Herbert Spencer Elementary School in New Westminster. They are accompanied by their teacher, Ms. C. Taylor, along with 15 adults. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. G. Clark: I believe there are a total of 550 FTEs in property management.
K. Jones: If there are 550 and you say they're managing approximately $1 million per region was it, or per unit...?
Hon. G. Clark: A million and a half square feet.
K. Jones: Per unit. This appears to be not any small operation; this appears to be a very, very large operation. It's bigger than some of the ministries that exist in this province, and that seems like a very good reason it should be considered for contracting out or privatization. Could the minister give us some good reason why this should stay within government?
Hon. G. Clark: There are 24 million square feet of space being managed by BCBC. This is not insignificant. I thought I had said to the member that 70 percent of the services provided to maintain and operate those buildings are already contracted out. In addition to that, about 60 percent of the buildings are owned by the government and 40 percent are leased. It's a balance to try to maximize effective management and maximize the use of tax dollars. In Victoria, for example, where there's a 1 percent vacancy rate and a large government presence because it's the capital city, there is a difficulty with leased space. Developers obviously have an excellent ability to extract significant leases from government. So that calls for some balance with respect to government-owned buildings where we can ensure that competition maximizes the value to the taxpayers.
A 1992 study showed that BCBC was 12 percent below the private sector in operating office buildings. As I said at the outset, I have no ideological disposition to require that all the buildings be owned by the government, nor that they all be managed by the government. We have an excellent businesslike corporation with professional staff, and every time we review this matter they meet or beat private sector standards. They are always looking for efficiencies and change, and no doubt there is room at BCBC as well. When every study shows that it's better than the private sector by most benchmarks, it seems to me to be not a very compelling case for further privatization of this corporation.
K. Jones: The project development group of B.C. Buildings Corporation is the group that looks after the provision of large-space projects, I understand. Could the minister tell us exactly what the key projects are that are under construction at the present time? Does that also include some lands that are not actually being built on but are being provided for for the future?
Hon. G. Clark: I think I answered this yesterday, but I'll just recap quickly. The two that are under construction, which are being managed, are the Abbotsford veterinary lab and the Royal British Columbia Museum across the street here. In addition to that, there's the Selkirk Building coming up shortly and a variety of other small projects, whether they be highway yards or forestry buildings. In addition, we have two large courthouses being constructed, one in Prince George and one in Port Coquitlam. Those are roughly $25 million buildings, by my recollection, and they are big projects to manage. And finally, the group the member talked about within the corporation that does all the leasing for the government.... That is, as you can imagine, with 40 percent of the government buildings being leased, a very large task indeed.
K. Jones: Just for clarification, did the minister mention that the two projects in Prince George and Port Coquitlam are courthouse facilities?
Hon. G. Clark: If I didn't, I should have.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us the status of the Prince George prison facility, which I understood was a major project there, and also of the prison facility that is proposed for the Port Coquitlam area, which I believe is a pretrial facility?
Hon. G. Clark: The Prince George regional correctional facility is just being finished; it will be open next month. The pretrial centre at Coquitlam is still under discussion with city officials and through a community process -- a site search, I think, is the appropriate term.
K. Jones: When the Attorney General met with the Surrey council and MLAs a while back regarding our concern about the double-bunking and overloading of the Surrey pretrial centre, he indicated that the relief of that would be the Port Coquitlam pretrial building. At that time there was an indication that it would be moving ahead right away. Could the minister tell us exactly when construction will be started, and when the actual facility will be available to relieve the overtaxed facilities in Surrey and the Vancouver pretrial centre?
Hon. G. Clark: Of course, the Liberal Party is demanding in the House every day that we not build British Columbia. They are opposed to the capital spending that the government has undertaken. They have opposed the Prince George courthouse, the Port Coquitlam courthouse, school construction, the commuter rail project and the ferry construction program. And now, of course, every time they stand up in the House, they say: "We demand that you spend money on a pretrial facility." The hon. member should know that we have a consolidated capital plan and a debt management strategy which commits the government to building infrastructure for the future. We're doing that the best we can.
Most of the criticism from the other side is that we're spending too much money, so that's a challenge for us to
[ Page 16111 ]
balance what we can afford and what we need. We're doing the best we can. I know there are demands for pretrial facilities, courthouses, schools and the like. We have done more in the last three years than has been done in the last 20 years in this province, and I believe that our record stands well. If the member is asking us to spend more money, I suggest that he at least talk to his leader before he comes in and makes those kinds of demands.
[11:45]
K. Jones: It sounds like we're off on another tangent. The request was not a demand for funds; it was a request to find out the scheduled dates for start of construction and completion of construction on a project that the minister has already indicated is going to go ahead.
I'd like to also correct the erroneous statement made by the minister that the Liberal caucus had made requests that the government not proceed with the courthouses in Prince George and Port Coquitlam. Those statements have never been made. As the minister says, we voted against them, and there has been no opportunity for the official opposition to vote on any aspect of that as it is not a factor in the process we have. The government does not bring forward individual projects for approval or disapproval by the official opposition. Perhaps we should get the air cleared and the facts corrected, because the minister is obviously trying to become provocative by making statements that are totally in error. They should not be brought forward at this point on the basis that if you make a big enough lie and say it enough times then perhaps people will believe that it's the truth.
Could the minister respond to our request as to when the start of construction on the Port Coquitlam pretrial facilities will be, and when they are expected to be completed?
Hon. G. Clark: We're still looking for a site. These are areas with lots of community concern, and we want to move very carefully. We know there's a need, and we're working hard to find a site. There is no commencement date that can even be contemplated until we find a site that's acceptable to city council and the people of the community.
K. Jones: I hope that the ministry and the B.C. Buildings Corp are putting a lot of pressure on the council and the community to get on with it. The council and community in Vancouver and in Surrey are under extreme pressure because of overloaded court systems, and the additional facilities are not being built to relieve the growth requirements of the corrections service. It is therefore paramount for us to be moving ahead with some commitment to this.
There are people in corrections and persons under custody in both Surrey Pretrial and Vancouver Pretrial who are under greater risk because of the circumstances of having two people in the same cell. We have already heard of examples where there have been assaults on fellow prisoners as a result of this double-bunking. What is the minister going to do to address this urgent need?
Hon. G. Clark: We're working on a planning program with the Ministry of Attorney General -- and this, of course, is his program area -- and we are working in consultation with the communities. I appreciate the member's concerns; but he must also appreciate that there is a lot of concern about putting a jail or a pretrial facility in your neighbourhood or my neighbourhood. I appreciate that this is a challenging one, and the government does not wish to proceed precipitously without working through a process that ensures peoples' safety and comfort so their concerns are alleviated.
That's a big challenge indeed, because these are very controversial building projects. The B.C. Buildings Corp is working with city council, as we speak, in a process involving the community. We know we have a need, and the province is committed to filling that need. We need to provide facilities for those on trial, and it's not acceptable to not do that. But we also have to balance that against the demands of the community to be consulted on these very sensitive issues. We are moving as fast as we can, and we're committed to it. We have a process under way with Coquitlam to try to resolve this question.
K. Jones: Does the ministry or B.C. Buildings Corp have funds available for proceeding beyond the meeting with city council, such as the detailed drawings and planning process, the start of construction, capital funding available...?
Hon. G. Clark: We have the funds for the planning and design phase of the project, which is the first phase, but we can't begin the planning and design until we get the site.
K. Jones: We've probably expressed enough concern in that area. The fact is that there needs to be a real push put on.... There should be some deadline put on this project. Surely B.C. Buildings Corporation has some deadline that they are not going to allow this to go beyond. They need to have time to have the completion within this year, I hope. Does B.C. Buildings Corporation not have a deadline? Could the minister tell us what their planned deadline is to conclude this process with the municipality?
Hon. G. Clark: No, we don't have a deadline.
K. Jones: It's an unusual planning process where you just leave it wide-open like that. I've never seen an operation that wouldn't have a deadline to meet commitments with a municipality to get a decision. I don't know how you can plan on that basis. Is it just that you're at the whim of the municipality, and whenever they come up with a decision you'll then proceed, regardless of the pressure put on all the other facilities? Is that how it's working? It doesn't sound like a very good operation on that basis.
Hon. G. Clark: No, that's not correct. We have a commitment, or at least support. We've had support from the city council of Port Coquitlam. Everybody knows that there are bigger provincial needs, and we have a site selection committee underway. I think it's improper for the province to sort of jam a facility like this down the throat of a particular community. You have to work it through and talk to people, and make sure there's some comfort. I'm sure the member would agree with that. These are always controversial, and we intend to proceed. We have a good relationship with the city and the community in terms of cooperating to find a site, and we intend to proceed as fast as we can. But we're not at the stage of putting any particular deadlines before them, because we're still working to resolve the question cooperatively.
K. Jones: Does the minister expect a decision by the city council on the site acquisition by September, November, December?
[ Page 16112 ]
Hon. G. Clark: We hope to get an agreed-upon site by the end of the year.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us some details on the Oaklands site, which is the old Oakalla site in Burnaby? What is the status of that project, how much money was made from it by the B.C. Buildings Corporation and how much money did it cost?
Hon. G. Clark: Before I answer that question, because my attention has been drawn to.... On Tuesday, April 25, the opposition critic for the Attorney General presented a public petition to the House against a pretrial facility in Coquitlam. The petition contained 3,600 signatures. So I suggest that he talk to his colleague the justice critic for the opposition party about pursuing this question. He seems to be arguing against proceeding with a pretrial facility in Coquitlam.
K. Jones: Providing a petition from some people in a community doesn't mean that's a request against something; that's tabling citizens' concerns, and I am sure the minister is well aware of that.
Hon. G. Clark: The total revenue that we expect to realize from the Oaklands site when the last two phases are sold is about $45 million. The net revenue to the government will be somewhere in the range of $25 million.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us the total costs and the total revenues received on it?
Hon. G. Clark: Well, I answered that question, but I guess it is being asked now in a different way. If the gross revenue to the province is $45 million and the net revenue to the province is $25 million, then one can assume that the costs are about $20 million -- at least, they're in that magnitude.
K. Jones: With regard to the total cost, did that include an evaluation of the land as purchased by B.C. Buildings Corporation, or was that assumed to be of zero value when the B.C. Buildings Corporation took it over?
Hon. G. Clark: That's the all-in cost. Remember, BCBC bought the land from the government. I mean, it's our land; it's government land. That includes the costs of demolition, soil samples, site remediation, infrastructure, the bidding process, dealing with a very tough city council in Burnaby on that site, rezoning applications, architectural drawings and consultants. At the end of the day, the costs are in the magnitude of $20-odd million, and the net result will be a profit to the taxpayers, on a very valuable piece of urban property, of some $25 million.
In addition to that, I might add, partly because of the work of the city council.... I see the member for Burnaby-Edmonds here, who was on council at the time. They extracted concessions with respect to social housing components from the government of the day -- including our government -- and BCBC in particular, limiting the density so that it was livable and compatible with the community, and developed a plan that I think is really outstanding. People who have seen the development now can see that this is a quality development -- as it should be, since a Crown corporation pursued it -- with a nice mix of amenities, public housing, social housing and, of course, mostly market housing. At the end of the day, there is also a profit to the taxpayer.
This is an excellent example of the work that BCBC has done, and they should be commended for it. So should Burnaby City Council. They were intimately involved in negotiations with BCBC to ensure that the site meets the needs of the community and the people of Burnaby.
K. Jones: What price did BCBC pay for the land?
Hon. G. Clark: Remember, it was purchased by BCBC in 1977, so I'm not sure that it's particularly relevant. But we'll be happy to get it for the member.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us, then, if the roughly $25 million cost included the price of the land?
Hon. G. Clark: Yes.
K. Jones: With regard to the accommodation planning department, could the minister tell us: what does that department actually do in this year's budget?
[12:00]
Hon. G. Clark: Essentially what we do is.... The clients for BCBC are the government ministries. A branch of BCBC works with the ministries to scope out their needs, their future needs and what kind of growth or contraction is expected, works out the square footage required for potential future needs, tries to minimize the cost and size of requirements, and then of course has to take that planning information and translate it into ensuring that the buildings are available when the programs are started. This is a challenge that is constantly under review, because arms of government contract and expand.
I just mentioned yesterday that much of government's work is statutorily driven. That means that when a child turns six years old, by law in this country they get a free public education. I'm sure even the Liberals and Reformers support such statutory obligations. That means that if there are more students in the school system, we have to provide for them. We cannot bring in legislation that simply saves money by not providing; we have to provide for them. That means you need schools. That means you need in ministries, whether it's a welfare ministry.... If you're poor in this country, by law you cannot be destitute, and there is welfare for you. These are statutory programs, which are part of the underpinning of the Canadian social safety net -- which is being eroded, of course, by federal Liberals in Ottawa.
But to date we have programs in place which are driven in large measure by population. We have in British Columbia 100,000 new people moving here every year. That's an amount equivalent to the province of Prince Edward Island's population moving here every year. In the lower mainland alone, we are adding 50,000 people a year. That's a city the size of New Westminster added to the population of the lower mainland. That's why the government believes infrastructure investment has to be made to keep pace with population growth. In the
[ Page 16113 ]
government itself, programs and program deliveries -- whether it's schools, hospitals or even welfare -- are, in large measure, population-driven.
B.C. Buildings Corporation works with the ministries of government to look at population growth in the region served and at the requirements for staffing to service that population, and to plan accordingly. It's their job to look ahead and ensure that the government's space needs are met -- whether by purchasing land and building buildings, by leasing buildings, by doing innovative public sector-private sector partnerships, by financing or by discussing with pension funds their future plans for investment -- to make sure we get the best taxpayer deal we can for space utilization for the government of British Columbia.
K. Jones: It's an interesting statement made by the minister.
Could the minister tell us, with regard to the accommodation planning department that provides space planning, design, development, construction and furnishing documentation and project management of intermediate tenant improvement projects, which schools they were involved in?
Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry, member, but I was using the broad definition in my discussion about the needs of government.
They were not involved in school construction, but they are involved with the Ministry of Education's space requirements. They do work from time to time with agencies like school boards to help assist them in their planning needs.
K. Jones: How much or what percentage of their time is spent on providing that service to schools?
Hon. G. Clark: Very little; general advice. But with the Ministry of Education, of course, they're a key component of the government. They have staffing, which also grows according to population, by and large, although the growth in the public service in many sectors has not kept pace with population growth. That's a factor that the B.C. Buildings Corporation has to take into account when they plan future space needs.
K. Jones: With regard to this same planning group, how many and what hospital projects have they been involved in?
Hon. G. Clark: Of course, they're involved with the Ministry of Health, which has a huge number of staff associated with it: public health units, clinics, mental health facilities, community health care facilities and the like. BCBC is involved in many aspects of health care, all associated with the Ministry of Health.
With respect to hospital facilities, the member may or may not know that there's the Greater Vancouver Regional Hospital District, at least in our area where we live, which pays for 40 percent of the capital cost of hospital construction, and the government pays 60 percent. On the hospital side, the planning around that is largely driven by demands of the region. We're of course changing that and trying to impose, if you will, a more rational set of rules, including community health care councils and regional health councils which will plan more accordingly. BCBC may well be drawn increasingly into some of that discussion as an agency with particular expertise, or they may not be, depending on the most effective use of tax money at any given time.
K. Jones: With regard to the accommodation planning department, how many hospitals are involved in their work?
Hon. G. Clark: None.
K. Jones: With regard to health care and hospitals, what percentage of the time of the accommodation planning department is spent on this?
Hon. G. Clark: If the member just wants a ballpark number, we would guess that about 20 percent of BCBC's staff time is dedicated to dealing with that. That may be a bit high, but about 20 percent, maybe, of their staff time is spent dealing with Ministry-of-Health-related matters.
K. Jones: I presume the minister meant all of BCBC staff time, not the accommodation planning department. The question was relating to the accommodation planning department. What percentage of their time is spent related to the hospital health care...?
Hon. G. Clark: Sorry. I meant the accommodation planning unit -- 20 percent of their time.
K. Jones: It's 20 percent? Okay, thank you.
Could the minister tell us, with regard to that area, accommodation planning, how they get involved in doing contract work in the local-level areas? Or do they have no role to play in that but are actually only working in provincial government areas?
Hon. G. Clark: They only work in the provincial government area, but in these areas I've tried to allude to there's a fair amount of overlap and shared responsibilities. Increasingly, municipal governments, school boards and others are asking whether they can contract to BCBC to do more work. Up to this date, we've not really allowed that, but it's something which I'm quite sympathetic to. We have this talent and expertise, and it might better serve the taxpayer and be more efficient to have smaller school boards or smaller hospital areas contract to BCBC to provide service which they're not now currently doing.
K. Jones: With regard to the accommodation planning department and project development group, how many FTEs are there currently, and how many were there in the last two years?
Hon. G. Clark: We've just combined the two planning departments into one, so it's a bit more efficient. I think there are about 25 FTEs involved in all kinds of accommodation planning.
K. Jones: Which two planning departments is the minister referring to?
[ Page 16114 ]
Hon. G. Clark: We had an accommodation planning group and a facilities planning group, and they are now merged into one accommodation and facilities planning group. I guess the marketing of our services is also part of that mandate.
K. Jones: In this field of accommodation planning, how much work of a similar nature is done throughout government operations? Or is B.C. Buildings doing the only work that's being done? Is this a segment of B.C. Buildings Corporation's operations? Or are there similar types of operations occurring in other Crowns and in other ministries?
Hon. G. Clark: Ministries don't do accommodation planning, although they're involved in giving us a sense of their needs. The accommodation planning is done by BCBC.
K. Jones: Is the minister stating that individual ministries do not do space planning or design development for their needs on a regular basis and that they contract all that work to B.C. Buildings Corporation?
Hon. G. Clark: The ministry's facility planning divisions do the assessment of what they think they need in terms of space, but all the detailed work -- accommodations planning, design work, space standards, etc. -- is worked through with BCBC, and they do the accommodation work.
K. Jones: I'll move to another area of interest. The Jack Davis Building was in the situation of having a claim action transpiring. Could the minister tell us the status of that claim?
Hon. G. Clark: Both of them have been settled. We settled for about $850,000 from the consulting engineer and $200,000 from the general contractor.
K. Jones: Including those settlements, could the minister tell us the total final project cost for the Jack Davis Building?
Hon. G. Clark: Roughly, about $25 million.
K. Jones: I believe $25 million was the figure before those claims, or even something above that was quoted before. Are you sure of that figure?
Hon. G. Clark: The advice of staff is that there is another three or four million dollars which the ministry paid for special racking devices and other things. I guess in this case they had some special needs that they accommodated. If the member wants the all-in figure to the taxpayers, it sounds more like $28 million if you include the million or so we received in recoveries from the law suits.
K. Jones: I just want to clarify that. I have the market value of the Jack Davis Building as being $29,500,000. Does that mean the current assessment, and has the value increased that much?
Hon. G. Clark: Yes.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us on what basis that figure was calculated?
Hon. G. Clark: It would have been determined by an independent appraisal.
[12:15]
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us if that is the assessment value established by the B.C. Assessment Authority?
Hon. G. Clark: I don't know the answer; I'll have to get back to the member on that.
K. Jones: Throughout the Victoria area, government buildings are worth millions and millions of dollars. There's the Waddington Building at $45 million; there are the provincial courts at $17 million -- I'm just taking the highlight ones. We've got a Y-lot parking facility valued at $10 million; we have the museum complex at $25.5 million; we have the annex to the Douglas Building at $10 million; we have the Douglas Building at $11.5 million; we have the Jack Davis Building at $29.5 million. There are a large number of office properties in the Victoria area.
Could the minister tell us if there has been a serious look at the staffing requirements in Victoria, and at the values of these properties, to see whether we're getting the proper value for the real estate involved? Perhaps we have to look seriously at reducing the cost of these real estate investments by reducing the number of people currently accommodated in those buildings -- by reducing the size of the Victoria complement of the provincial government.
Hon. G. Clark: I really don't understand the question. You're saying that we've got all this high-priced real estate. These are assets that the people of B.C. own. The member is correct that we can.... The nice thing about B.C. Buildings Corporation is that they have a billion and a half dollars -- I believe a little more than that, $1.6 billion -- in assets. Those are assets; they go on the books. They don't disappear; the government can sell them. They're valuable pieces of real estate.
It's not like it's a burden to own this valuable property. This valuable property is something that can be sold at any time. If the government decides to close the British Columbia museum across the street -- which I wouldn't support, but the Liberals might -- then we can sell that property and return the revenue to the government, or we can sell the museum. These are decisions that government makes. We try to optimize the balance.
In general, we have an appreciating land value in the lower mainland and southern Vancouver Island and the Okanagan, and it's good news for British Columbia that we own that kind of valuable property.
K. Jones: One of the features of a growing government is a growing real estate burden that it carries with it. If the government is going to try and address the costs of government, balance the budget and bring a reduction to the debt -- which is ever-increasing under this government, averaging about $2 billion a year -- there has to be some way of rationalizing the number of employees. It looks like a number of employees appear to be in the high-rent district of Victoria. Could the minister tell us why he thinks that it's good to have these assets, when it's really costing the taxpayers, with all of the people who are involved in it, a large amount of our budget? Also, if we were able to reduce the number of assets
[ Page 16115 ]
that we had, we would be able to pay down our debt and maybe balance the books. It would be a good place to find $250,000 that would help balance the books, which seem to be short at the present time.
An Hon. Member: They're balanced already.
K. Jones: I'm afraid that the member who says that they're balanced already doesn't know much about finances, or he wouldn't have made the statement.
Interjections.
K. Jones: The fact is that the budget is not balanced, because the money isn't there.
An Hon. Member: You're not balanced.
K. Jones: I'll ignore that one.
The Chair: I think that would be desirable, member. At the same time, perhaps we could focus on this ministry's estimates.
K. Jones: The real issue is that we have a very large corporation as far as assets are concerned. We have a very large government service. A good part of it is located right in Victoria, which the minister has already said has a 1 percent vacancy rate, and therefore real estate values and rents are higher than they would be elsewhere. Rather than just shifting them around the province, perhaps we could do a combination of reducing the number and shifting them to lower-cost areas, so they could provide those services at a lower cost to government. Has the minister and B.C. Buildings Corporation...? I guess B.C. Buildings Corporation really has no say in this; it's a government decision to reduce and relocate government. But certainly from BCBC's standpoint, the assets of that become a factor in being able to pay down the debt of the province. Could the minster respond with regard to that factor?
Hon. G. Clark: It is certainly beyond the realm of these estimates to discuss some of the issues the member talked about. I'm tempted to respond to some of his erroneous remarks, but I fear a debate would break out, so I'll refrain at this point.
There is a real.... The issue here is this: if we don't buy land and build buildings, then we lease them, and lease costs from private developers tend to be higher than the cost of building it ourselves. We have the highest credit rating in the country and the lowest debt per capita, and therefore we borrow at a cheaper rate than any province in Canada. When we borrow that inexpensively, it tends to lean us toward the decision that the taxpayers save money if we own the building. That's not always true, of course, but from time to time it is, and that's why 60 percent of the buildings are owned by the government.
If we sold them all and cashed them out.... We could do that, and we'd receive a billion and a half dollars; that's correct. Then we'd have to turn around and lease them back at a higher annual cost. We would receive some upfront payment. It's just like taking the house that you own, selling it and then leasing it back from the person you bought it from. People do that from time to time. They could do that; we in the government could do that. But we know that in almost all cases it would cost the taxpayers more in the end to lease than to own all of these buildings. That's the choice.
If the member opposite wants to pursue that.... Of course, he'll never have the opportunity to have any influence over public policy, but if he did that, that would be his prerogative. I would argue that we should do what costs the least for the taxpayers and not act ideologically and sell buildings. Rather, we should act in a way that's pragmatic and that saves the taxpayers the maximum amount of money.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what the original projected estimate was for the cost of the regional forestry office that was moved from the Vancouver area to the Nanaimo area?
Hon. G. Clark: It was $8.5 million to $9 million.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us the actual cost of it as constructed?
Hon. G. Clark: We bought it for $9.1 million.
K. Jones: The minister said that we bought it. Was the property developed on a turnkey basis for the ministry as a project by somebody else, or was it something that was existing? I believe it's a new building.
Hon. G. Clark: It's a brand-new building built by the private sector. We had a lease with an option to buy, and when the building was all built, we exercised our option to buy. The member has been making this comment about decentralization, and this was a case where the government actually moved to get out of high-priced space in Vancouver and move to Nanaimo, relocating some hundred public employees -- good news for the Nanaimo economy. And, of course, it did make sense, it seems to me, to have the regional forestry office in Nanaimo as opposed to Burnaby.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us if that building is fully occupied by Forestry?
Hon. G. Clark: Yes, it is, and I was remiss, of course, because the current Chair -- the MLA for Nanaimo -- was instrumental in convincing the government that it made sense to relocate to Nanaimo. I know that he has received significant kudos in his community for that, or at least he should.
It's fully occupied by the Ministry of Forests.
K. Jones: Based on the information you've just provided, I presume it was moved only for political benefit to the member, the current Chair of the committee. Is that perhaps why these things get moved to NDP ridings?
The Chair: I'm sure the question was rhetorical; the member continues.
K. Jones: Yes, it was. We wouldn't want to put the Chair on the spot like that.
With regard to the Nanaimo Correctional Centre, could the minister tell us what the status of that building is at the present time?
[ Page 16116 ]
Hon. G. Clark: I think the member is referring to the Brannan Lake facility. It's still being used as a medium-security facility. As part of the long-range plan, we're looking at how we manage these facilities, but it's still being used.
K. Jones: How old is that facility at the present time? It's a complex, I presume.
Hon. G. Clark: I don't know. Did the member attend or something? About 30 years, I guess.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us whether the $5,676,000 is considered to be the property value or the value of the buildings on that site?
Hon. G. Clark: It's both, but the land is obviously increasing in value rather significantly.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us the strategic objectives of B.C. Buildings Corporation for this current year?
Hon. G. Clark: I think it's best if I send the member the ministry's mission statement and overview documentation rather than reading it into the record and using the valuable time of the chamber.
[12:30]
K. Jones: I'm not talking about the mission statement; I'm talking about the strategic objectives for this current year.
Hon. G. Clark: It's several pages long, and I'll have it sent to the member.
K. Jones: I'm surprised that it's several pages long, because in the official annual report of '93 it only takes up one page and it's only got a few key highlights. Is it not possible to answer the question with regard to the strategic objectives? This is something that.... Being knowledgable about what the board of the B.C. Buildings Corporation is doing, the minister should know what their strategic objectives are; otherwise, he has no way of measuring what they're doing.
[N. Lortie in the chair.]
Hon. G. Clark: They're substantially the same as the annual report the member has referred to. I just don't think it's productive for me to get out next year's annual report and start reading pages of it in the House.
K. Jones: When we're talking about strategic objectives, we're talking about things like making improvements to organizations, communications, customer services, research and analysis, business discipline, skills and training, and information systems upgrades, according to the statements already made in the '93 annual report. Those should be detailed as to current objectives under those headings. Surely the minister should know what he is expecting from the B.C. Buildings Corporation within those various parameters.
The Chair: I recognize the member for Port Moody.
M. Farnworth: Port Coquitlam, hon. Chair.
The Chair: I'm sorry, Port Coquitlam.
M. Farnworth: I know it's kind of late in the day.
Anyway, I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
M. Farnworth: I notice in the gallery today a constituent of mine, Roger Smith. Roger is from Port Coquitlam and has been active in working to make Pinecone Lake-Burke Mountain a provincial park, which this government just did. I would ask the House to please make Roger welcome.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us, with regard to long-range space planning, what long-range planning work is being done in regard to the B.C. Buildings Corporation? Is the Victoria accord the only project that is considered a long-range planning project?
Hon. G. Clark: We've done 14 strategic space plans. It was one of the first things that we asked the corporation to do after we formed the government. Only a few of them have actually gone through Treasury Board at this time, just because of the vagaries of the system as we work it through. So there has been quite an extensive long-range space-planning exercise carried out by the corporation. I have alluded to that several times today and last night.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us, with regard to the contract work being done in the maintenance area, whether there is a wage standard established? Does it have to fall under the category that is established for fair-wage operations, or do they operate independently of that?
Hon. G. Clark: If the member is talking about service contracts, the answer is no; but I think it's a good question, and I'll review that matter with the corporation.
K. Jones: Could the minister elaborate on what he meant when he said he would review that with the corporation?
Hon. G. Clark: I thought the member was advocating that we have some minimum standard for janitorial contracts and the like, and I'm advising the member that we don't -- it's a low-bid procedure. Now that he has drawn that to my attention, I'll review that with the corporation to ensure that we're being a fair employer, as we expect all of our corporations to be.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what percentage of the maintenance work is done on a contract basis?
Hon. G. Clark: It is 70 percent.
K. Jones: If it is 70 percent, that means 30 percent is done in-house. What wage scale is used for the in-house maintenance work?
Hon. G. Clark: I think that most of it is unionized with the BCGEU, so it's whatever the collective agreement says it is.
K. Jones: I think that we have pretty well gone through most of the projects of interest here, and I think I have covered most of my questions, with the exception of a couple.
[ Page 16117 ]
The government air services had an airport hangar at Victoria International Airport that they moved out of. Could the minister tell us what the actual value of that hangar was at the time they moved out, and what value did BCBC get for selling that?
Hon. G. Clark: We're not absolutely sure, but we can get the details for the member. We think it's about $400,000.
K. Jones: Was that the assessed value or the actual sale value?
Hon. G. Clark: I believe that was the sale value.
K. Jones: Could the minister also provide us with the assessed value prior to that sale? Could we also get an update on the status of the $10 million lease the B.C. Buildings Corporation entered into after Treasury Board was already reviewing a recommendation to get rid of the government air services? Could the minister explain why the lease was entered into at all when it was already a point of discussion before Treasury Board?
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, the member's incorrect. BCBC was acting appropriately in securing hangar space, as their client requested. The government was constantly reviewing services, and it decided to privatize government air services. This was a decision made by Treasury Board. BCBC and the air services division of government have to act according to their business plans.
We entered into the new arrangement some months prior to the government making that decision to no longer own and operate its own fleet of aircraft. What we've done is this. The original lease was some $800,000, and we had a lease reduction of $160,000. We are now subrenting parts to Vancouver Island Helicopters Ltd., and we have rented some of the space to the supplier and purchasing branch of the government. That still leaves a net cost to BCBC of about $130,000 a year.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
K. Jones: The minister didn't address the question of why Treasury Board did not put a stop to BCBC entering into that lease, when there was a study before Treasury Board calling for dissolving the government air services.
Hon. G. Clark: The government doesn't come to a halt because Treasury Board, the Crown corporations secretariat or any other control agency of government recommends a certain course of action. The fact that there was a study looking at eliminating the government air services for cabinet ministers and privatizing the service for air ambulance is a legitimate role for government to review. We did, and we took some action. That decision is within the government's purview, and it was made after BCBC had entered into a lease for the government air services.
Government Air and BCBC are not made aware of all the studies or deliberations of Treasury Board until after Treasury Board makes its decision. In this case, the net savings to the taxpayer are significant, from eliminating that perk for cabinet ministers to eliminating the significant costs of managing its own air fleet and utilizing the private sector. So yes, there were some costs associated with getting out of the lease that BCBC had entered into, but they are overwhelmingly offset by the savings to taxpayers by getting out of the government air services.
K. Jones: The minister stated that the occupancy fee for the lease was $800,000. To be more correct, it was actually $800,000-plus per year for ten years. Isn't that right?
Hon. G. Clark: Yes.
K. Jones: That is very close to a $10 million contract. The government decided to allow B.C. Buildings Corporation to enter into it at the same time Treasury Board had on its table a recommendation to privatize government air services. There was no rush to move from the existing hangar, because right now that hangar is still in operation and this is two years later. There seems to be a question why the minister, who, I believe, as the Finance minister at the time, was responsible, did not direct B.C. Buildings Corporation. Could the minister tell us if the B.C. Buildings Corporation board was informed that there was a recommendation before Treasury Board to eliminate government air services?
Hon. G. Clark: I'm not going to discuss Treasury Board deliberations or what did or did not go before the board. I do want to correct the record and say that yes, the contract was $800,000 a year, but it has been mitigated dramatically. Now that the hangar is empty of Government Air, the supplier and purchasing branch of government has leased it out to Vancouver Island Helicopters Ltd., and we got a lease cost reduction from the owners. That has reduced the cost to government to some $130,000 a year, which is still obviously more than we would like, but again, it's more than offset by the savings of eliminating Government Air.
K. Jones: That's an interesting suggestion the minister just made; he suggested that they're making this great cost savings. Has Vancouver Island Helicopters Ltd. changed the contract arrangement from $10,000 a month on a month-to-month basis to a permanent annual fee, or is there a lease fee for an extended period of time at the present time?
Hon. G. Clark: It's still month to month, but we were getting $120,000 a year from Vancouver Island Helicopters Ltd. They will have expanded the space as of July 1, 1995, and they're paying us another $20,000 a year for the lease.
K. Jones: So B.C. Buildings Corporation has a firm contract that has been entered into on a long-term basis, and pays $140,000 a year? That's on how long a term?
Hon. G. Clark: That's the annualized value of a month-to-month contract. It's still a month-to-month contract.
[12:45]
K. Jones: So the actual value of this is only $10,000 from month to month, plus perhaps $1,000 or a little extra for the additional space. Is that what we're dealing with at the present time? The minister nods yes. If that's the case, then really, we do not have any long-term commitment to that space. It's dependent upon, I understand, the ability of Vancouver Island Helicopters Ltd. to be able to enter into some future long-term
[ Page 16118 ]
contract. Has that long-term plan that Vancouver Island Helicopters Ltd. was indicating they might be able to firm up come to a conclusion? Or is that still up in the air?
Hon. G. Clark: Yes, it's still up in the air. Obviously we have a marketing division of BCBC, which is attempting to secure tenants for the building that we now no longer need. Every day, I assume -- or every week or so -- we try to firm up that commitment; we have not been able to do that. They're on a month-to-month contract, and we're hopeful that they will enter into a long-term agreement with us to mitigate any costs associated with owning that building. If they don't, we'll go and try to find other tenants, as we are continually trying to do.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us in detail the role of B.C. Buildings Corporation in the sale of the existing new hangar facility operations, if any -- such as the instrumentation lab section that was in that hangar?
Hon. G. Clark: Any equipment that belonged to the ministry went back to the ministry, and we just sold the building.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us the reason that the government chose to move out of the existing hangar, the original hangar that government air services had...?
The Chair: I'm sorry, member. That is material that was dealt with approximately two years ago under another ministry. This minister is not responsible for answering about what other ministers did in other ministries in the past. Clearly, member, that is out of order. We've all been very patient, but we're beyond the pale, I think. I would ask the member to please make his remarks and questions specifically relevant to this minister's estimates.
K. Jones: This is specifically related to B.C. Buildings Corporation.
Interjection.
K. Jones: Yes.
Could the minister, with regard to the existing facility -- this is the new hangar facility at the international airport that the government entered into a ten-year lease arrangement for -- explain to us why there would be any saving by moving the Purchasing Commission's purchasing and supplier development branch of Government Services from its existing location at 4000 Seymour, which is actually the B.C. Systems Corporation building, into the hangar office space at the airport, at some considerable cost of moving? Could the minister also indicate whether there are any additional continuing costs related to that move that have to be considered in regard to why this decision was made?
Hon. G. Clark: BCSC owns their own building. They needed the space for their own use; they would not renew the lease for the Purchasing Commission. So they had to find other space, and we found other space at the new Government Air hangar.
K. Jones: That concludes my questions. I thank the minister for his responses to these questions, examining the costs of the B.C. Buildings Corporation. Also, I'd like to congratulate the B.C. Buildings Corporation staff for their continuing cooperation and work in providing a large part of the ministry's responsibilities. B.C. Buildings does a good job in meeting the mandate it has been given.
With reference to privatization and those things, that is completely separate from the actual operations of the B.C. Buildings Corporation. It's a matter of looking at the fiscal responsibility of government in regard to that; that's the basis of those questions. I have great confidence in the talent that resides in the management of B.C. Buildings Corporation.
Hon. G. Clark: I don't believe we have agreement to wrap up estimates today, although I'd love to. For the benefit of the House, I'm away Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. I hope that Wednesday evening or Thursday we'll conclude these estimates shortly, after a long, gruelling week.
I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:53 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]