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)
THURSDAY, JUNE 29, 1995
Afternoon Sitting (Part 1)
Volume 21, Number 19
[ Page 16429 ]
The House met at 2:08 p.m.
J. Weisgerber: I want to take this opportunity today to recognize our very capable and very able legislative intern. Kevin Megale has worked with the Reform caucus and research team for the past three months, and this will be the last day for us to recognize his contribution. I'd like everyone to join us in extending congratulations to Kevin for a job well done.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I understand from Mike Smyth of the Canadian Press that we have some visitors with us today: Stephen Ward, who is the Vancouver bureau chief of Canadian Press, as well as Kathy Bell from Vancouver, the news editor of Canadian Press. Stephen has recently come from Washington. Fortunately, he escaped by the skin of his teeth the arrival of Brian Kennedy; a very astute career move was made by Stephen. The Minister of Employment and Investment was recently in Washington and has not been seen since after a night out on the town with Brian Kennedy. Would you give a very warm welcome to Stephen and Kathy.
G. Wilson: In the House with us today are two friends, Daryll Jolly and Monica Schraefel. I would like the House to please make them both very welcome.
G. Brewin: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a young woman who is new to Victoria from P.E.I., where she was the youngest candidate in the provincial election in '89. Her name is Stephanie Ibsen-Dyment. Would the House please make her welcome.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I see a friend in the gallery, Dave Aulakh, who lives in Richmond. I've known him for many years, and I'm glad to see him here. Could the House please make him welcome.
M. Sihota: I don't know why this has happened three times this week, but I notice in the gallery today there are a number of senior citizens who are visiting here from the Indo-Canadian community. On behalf of all members, would you please give them a warm sat siri akal.
Hon. J. Smallwood tabled the annual report for 1993-94 of the Ministry of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services.
GOVERNMENT DEBT MANAGEMENT PLAN
G. Campbell: The B.C. Liberals have obtained a confidential cabinet planning document which was submitted to the cabinet planning board regarding NDP strategic priorities. This document, which was meant for the eyes of the cabinet and Brian Gardiner only, is a very frank and forthright analysis of the NDP's performance. The document states: "The debt management plan still means an absolute rise in debt, which is not debt reduction." Finally we have an honest assessment of the NDP's so-called debt management plan. My question to the Premier is: why does the government keep telling the people of British Columbia that the government has a debt management plan, when their staff keep telling them that their debt is going up and it's not under control?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition realizes that he's been asking me this same question endlessly in estimates for the last two hours, and I have answered this question continually. Frankly, my estimates are on right now, and that's the appropriate place to be asking these questions -- not wasting question period.
The Speaker: The member has a supplemental.
G. Campbell: It's interesting that when we're in estimates, that's not the appropriate place to ask questions, and when we're in question period, it's not the appropriate place to ask questions.
The document clearly states that producing surpluses requires lower spending growth than the government has been able to achieve. The government continues to pretend that it is reducing our debt, when its own document points out that the government is not reducing the debt. My question to the Premier is: why does he continue to pretend that they are reducing debt, when their own document says the debt is going up? Why do you pretend that you have costs under control, when clearly your document states that your costs are not under control and you have no debt management plan?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'll be glad to continue this dialogue in estimates. I can say that the Leader of the Opposition is no example to follow. He increased the debt in Vancouver 50 percent; he increased the budget 30 percent when he was at the GVRD. He gave himself a 12 percent salary increase -- the second decision he made as mayor. He's trying to give us advice on how to take care of people's finances? Thanks, but no thanks, I say to the Leader of the Opposition.
The Speaker: Thank you, Premier.
Hon. M. Harcourt: And furthermore, I say that we are not going to take his highly partisan, distorted view of British Columbia -- his downgrading of British Columbia -- seriously. The four bond-rating agencies have said that B.C. has a thumbs-up from every one of them: we have the best credit rating, the lowest per capita debt, the best job performance and the best-performing economy -- and that's who the people of British Columbia are going to listen to.
[2:15]
SKILLS NOW PROGRAM
M. de Jong: To the Premier: the leaked cabinet document provides confirmation from the Premier's own staff of what we have been saying for months and months, and that is that Skills Now has been a disaster. Last September we learned from a leaked document that over $1 million had been blown on a failed communications plan to sell this program. This cabinet document leaked today confirms once and for all that Skills Now is nothing more than a publicity road show for this Premier.
My question to the Premier is: who is telling the truth about Skills Now -- the Premier and his spin doctors or the author of this cabinet document? [Applause.]
[ Page 16430 ]
Hon. M. Harcourt: The seals have stopped, so I will answer the question now.
The truth is very straightforward: Skills Now is a tremendous success for thousands of British Columbians. As we speak, 42,000 British Columbians are receiving training to get out of welfare and into the workplace. There are 10,000 workers going to skills centres to upgrade their skills throughout British Columbia. There are 20,000 new post-secondary places that this government has opened up. This government is the first government in Canada in 25 years to open up not just one new university but two: the University of Northern British Columbia and the new university of the Fraser Valley in Cloverdale. On top of that, there are 25,000...
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. M. Harcourt: ...high school students who will be out getting work experience in the high school system. If the opposition would listen to the facts about Skills Now, they would see that tens of thousands of British Columbians are getting the skills they need now.
The Speaker: Hon. member, a supplemental?
M. de Jong: Well, the Premier is a busy man, and he probably doesn't get an opportunity to read all of his own cabinet briefings. If that is the case, let me read a couple of lines from this one to him: "[It's] not clear if...Skills Now has been effective in placing people in jobs...[The] overall ability...to evaluate program effectiveness...is lacking." The Skills Now program is identified by the Premier's own people as an abject failure -- period. It's a failure. My question to the Premier is: why is he spending millions of tax dollars to tell us how successful Skills Now has been when the information he's receiving from his own staff, his own people, is just the opposite and confirms that Skills Now has been an unmitigated failure?
The Speaker: The question is pretty much the same as the first, but the Premier will proceed.
Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to be able to say that the only failure isn't Skills Now; it's the Liberal opposition in this Legislature. It's the Liberals who said that the federal cuts to training for British Columbians weren't deep enough. They want even deeper cuts to training and to health care. They are the ones who are standing up to put down British Columbians and the thousands who are getting training in high schools -- real skills for the real workplace. They are getting more post-secondary places to sit down and learn the skills they need. There are 20,000 people in apprenticeship programs; there are over 10,000 people in the skills centres throughout this province. All the opposition can do is talk about a leaked document, instead of having something decent to say about skills for British Columbians.
ADAMS LAKE BLACKADE
J. Weisgerber: The Adams Lake band continues to deny non-natives unrestricted access to their homes and properties. The B.C. Supreme Court has ruled that the Crown failed to secure title to the road right-of-way, thus leaving the residents at the mercy of the band. Will the Attorney General confirm that the province has a legal right to exercise its power of resumption or expropriation to secure the legal title to the road right-of-way through the Adams Lake reserve?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The issue could be very easily resolved if the federal minister responsible would use section 35 of the Indian Act.
J. Weisgerber: This government is more concerned with mollifying militant native bands than with protecting the rights of British Columbians. Time after time we see the government try to off-load its responsibilities to the federal government. Why won't the Attorney General bite the bullet and resume the road right-of-way through the reserve, and secure and guarantee access to the people who live in the area and must pass through that reserve and across that road?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I've already given the answer to the hon. member. The answer to this problem lies in Ottawa, and I hope Ron Irwin gets on with it quickly.
PROMOTIONAL POSTCARDS
G. Wilson: My question is to the Premier. This Premier's government has distributed literally thousands of these beautifully coloured postcards which are being given away free in every tourist info centre, in direct competition with chambers of commerce and non-profit societies that try to sell postcards to make a little bit of money. Inadvertently, these postcards have created a craze throughout the province because you can detach the portion along the back where there is the smiling face of the former Minister of Environment. Children all over this province are collecting and trading them. They call them Moe POGs.
What they want to know from this Premier is: is it only former cabinet ministers who can go on these Moe POGs? If so, when is the next cabinet shuffle, so they can collect more of these expensive postcards?
Hon. M. Harcourt: First of all, can I have one of the pages bring those over so I can hold them up, too?
I would like to show off the more than 100 parks that have been created in this province by this government. I am very proud of that, and I think the member is proud of the park that we created in his riding. His constituents have been asking for the Tetrahedron park for many years. I hope that he is distributing copies of that postcard with the former Environment minister's picture on it to his constituents, because we want to recycle those. We don't want to waste any of the very valuable wood in this province.
The Speaker: Supplemental, member.
G. Wilson: While this has created a new and the fastest-running craze in this society -- to trade and collect all of them -- we note that no Moe slammer comes with them, and that's a great disappointment for those children who are collecting them.
[ Page 16431 ]
Can the Premier tell us the cost of these postcards, and why this would come in direct competition to those chambers of commerce and non-profit societies that find that they cannot sell their postcards because the government is using taxpayers' money to compete with their free-enterprise venture?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I understand that this is a cooperative venture with the chambers. The very modest and cooperative Minister of Tourism, Small Business and Culture would have liked to have answered this question himself, but I thought we should save the question period for some more questions.
B.C. HYDRO CHAIR'S TRAVEL EXPENSES
F. Gingell: John Laxton decided that it was critically important to witness the opening of the Yacyreta Dam project in Argentina, a project dubbed "an environmental nightmare." Worse, B.C. taxpayers were hosed for the cost of first-class air tickets for Mr. Laxton and his spouse to the tune of $14,000. We understand also that Mr. Laxton is fond of flying on the Concorde, where first-class flight soars into the stratosphere. Mr. Speaker, let's get this straight: the chair of B.C. Hydro jet-setted with his wife to Argentina to attend the opening of a dam which President Carlos Menem has called "a monument to corruption" -- a subject Mr. Laxton seems to know a lot about. Does the Premier believe that it is acceptable for his good friend John Laxton to rack up first-class air miles at the taxpayers' expense?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I can see why citizens find it difficult to take on public appointments, when they get attacked like this by members under the privilege of the House. This is one of British Columbia's top business people, one of the top lawyers in the country, not just in British Columbia, who has waived his $200,000-a-year salary, who has not collected any of the per diems, and who has paid for the artwork in his office. He is travelling and giving up his very valuable time as a lawyer and a businessman to make business deals for British Columbia's business community, and what he faces are cheap attacks from the opposition. Shame on you.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
F. Gingell: On the way back from a trip in the Far East, we learned in today's Vancouver Sun, Mr. Laxton finished up in London, and the taxpayers of British Columbia paid over $4,000 to fly his wife from Vancouver first-class to London to meet with the Queen. What was the purpose of the meeting with the Queen? What value did poor British Columbia taxpayers get for that trip?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Again, that is a week out of the life of a very busy lawyer and businessman. He was there. I'm sure that the hon. member wouldn't want him to defy the Queen, who invited Mr. Laxton and Mrs. Laxton to attend at Buckingham Palace to launch the Queen's Baton, which B.C. Hydro was sponsoring as part of the highly successful Commonwealth Games that were held last summer here in Victoria. I am sure that the hon. member for Delta South wouldn't want to defy the Queen. If so, how much further will the opposition sink?
The Speaker: Hon. members, the bell terminates question period.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in Section A for the purposes of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services, and in Section B, in the House, I call the Premier's estimates.
The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.
ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET OFFICE
(continued)
On vote 8: office of the Premier and cabinet office, $4,365,000 (continued).
G. Campbell: As I mentioned this morning, the pattern of deception of this government continues. The Premier told us this morning that you shouldn't say one thing and then do another. I'd like to go through a number of issues this afternoon and this evening that are covered by the cabinet planning committee's internal report and relate them back to what the Premier has said in the past. In the New Democratic fiscal framework, we read that New Democrats will not commit British Columbians to increased government debt. The Premier has said that mismanagement by the Socreds "has hurt British Columbians, but what is worse is that it has saddled our children with debt." Since this government took office, the debt load of each and every British Columbian has gone up by almost $1,500, from $5,761 four years ago to $7,230 today. The internal cabinet planning board review document states: "Holding down spending to produce surpluses requires lower spending growth than the government has been able to achieve." Further: "The debt management plan still means an absolute...rise in debt, which is not debt reduction." Can the Premier justify increasing per capita debt by 25 percent after saying: "If the money isn't there, we won't spend it"?
[2:30]
Hon. M. Harcourt: Again, I think the Leader of the Opposition should listen to the business and community leaders who helped prepare the province's debt management plan. Now that we are rid of the deficit a year ahead of time, which was caused by the dumping of health, education, social services and other costs from Ottawa onto our taxpayers -- almost $10 billion of extra costs -- plus the overspending of the previous government, they said that our goal over the next 20 years was to get a debt management plan going. We have a debt management plan going now. That debt management plan was prepared with the cooperation of the business community. Business leaders said that this was a goal that we should push for, to reduce the B.C. per capita debt as a percentage of GDP from 18.8 percent to 15 percent over the next 20 years.
Now, Mr. Chair, as you're aware, the next-lowest per-capita-debt-to-GDP ratio is that of Alberta, and it is 37 percent, so it's almost double that of British Columbia's. The federal government's is 75 percent. We took that debt management plan, which was delivered by Darcy Rezac, the co-chair of the business and labour task force, along with Ken Georgetti and many other business, labour and community leaders, and we said: "Thank you very much for that proposal." We are going to make that proposal tougher. We are going
[ Page 16432 ]
to reduce the goal from 18.8 percent to 10 percent of GDP, and that is the goal. Now, we have hit all of the targets that we said we would hit so far in terms of deficit, from $2.4 billion to a surplus this year -- $114 million, a year ahead of time. I am confident that we are going to be equally able to carry out the debt management plan.
The difference between the Leader of the Opposition and myself is that he is not prepared to invest in the long-term plan that this province needs and has. He's not prepared to invest in schools, except in his riding. He's not prepared to invest in transportation systems, except when the individual MLAs come to him from his caucus and say: "Gee, we need that expansion of the No. 1 highway," or "Could I have a bus system in my community?" or "Could we have an increase in our health care facilities?" or "We need a new hospital in the Fraser Valley." You can't have one without the other. I say to you that if you look at the response we have had from the financial community and the bond-rating agencies, they have said very clearly that British Columbia's house is in order, that we have a good debt management plan and that our economy is doing well.
We're doing well simply because -- as much as the Leader of the Opposition wants to deny it -- we have a plan. It's a very straightforward plan: "Investing in Our Future: A Plan for B.C." The investments in this plan are affordable. We said very clearly that any investments in our citizens' skills, in our infrastructure -- transportation and the information highway -- in our natural resources, through the Forest Renewal Plan and the other investments we're making in parks, and in encouraging economic development, would be affordable and would fit within the debt management plan. That is exactly what our government is doing. We have a seamless, integrated, linked plan that fits within the debt management plan of affordable investments.
Clearly our plan is to take our economy up to the advanced economies, not down to the right-to-work, no-minimum-wage and push-worker-and-environmental-standards economies of some of the states in the United States and developing countries.
G. Campbell: The important thing for people and the Premier to remember is that I'm not asking what someone else said. I'm asking about what the Premier said. I'm asking why people in British Columbia should believe this particular plan, which tax dollars paid for, compared to that plan. That is the plan the New Democrats told British Columbians they were going to follow; that is not a plan they have followed. The Premier said explicitly that if the money weren't there, they wouldn't spend it. Since he said that we've watched as public debt increased by 62 percent. My question to the Premier is: why should they believe that this so-called plan he has will be implemented any better than that one has been?
We've watched a Premier who undertook to the people of British Columbia that he would not spend any money he didn't have, and who suggested to people that the Social Credit public debt was somehow a real problem for young people, but it's all right for New Democrats to increase public debt by 62 percent. His own staff have told him that the debt increases this government has undertaken are not sustainable.
So my question is not about Darcy Rezac or anyone else. It's about the Premier. Why should any British Columbian believe the Premier -- when he's gone so far off base with his initial undertaking from the last election -- that if the money isn't there we won't spend it? Why should British Columbians have any trust in him, when he has clearly told them that he wouldn't spend money if it wasn't there? He's gone out and increased public debt. He's increased the tax load on the young people of British Columbia by 62 percent.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm glad that the Leader of the Opposition is finally reading some decent ideas contained in our 48-point platform in the last election, all of which we have carried out. It's encouraging that he is reading the commitments that my government made, and has kept, to the people of British Columbia. I made it very clear that we were going to take a balanced approach; we have taken that balanced approach. We have balanced the budget for the first time in years in this province. On top of that, I said that we would not take the slash-and-burn approach of some of his heroes in other parts of the country, which is causing real devastation for working people: parents are having to pay for kindergarten now next door, and there are some real cuts to health care that are imperilling people's health. We're not prepared to do that.
We're taking a balanced approach. Yes, we inherited a financial mess. We didn't think the deficit was going to be $2.4 billion. We were told it was $400 million; it turned out to be $2.4 billion, and it was going to climb like this to $4 billion this year. We grabbed hold of that. We brought down the spending levels from 12 percent to 2.9 percent, and we have had three years in a row of minus per capita spending in this province. We have taken a balanced approach.
We have cut out waste. We have cut $46 million worth of abuse and fraud out of the welfare system so far. We got rid of certain services like Government Air -- $18 million against the debt, and $3 million a year in savings. We have closed down 20 different agencies, bureaus and commissions. We are, on top of that, making the health care system more efficient and closer to home. We are squeezing more money out of every tax dollar -- including, under the Minister of Finance, a task force of Michael Phelps and Jill Bodkin to work with the minister to de-layer 450 to 500 middle-management positions. We are carrying out all sorts of other efficiencies to take that balanced approach of bringing down spending levels and getting rid of waste and duplication, and to maintain medicare -- not to go to a two-tier health care system like the Liberals want, and not to go to a charter schools public education system that's a private education in a public education system that the Liberals want, but to maintain good-quality public education and to invest in the future with a well-thought-out plan, which I have shown the members before.
"Investing in Our Future: A Plan for B.C." was put together by thousands and thousands of British Columbians, and it carries out the commitments that I made in the 48-point platform and in the election to make affordable investments in British Columbia -- a province that we're optimistic about. The New Democrats in this province are very optimistic about British Columbia's future and about where it's going. We have a plan that is going to invest for good, family-supporting jobs now and in the future. That was the commitment we made in 1991; that is the commitment that we're carrying out in 1995.
G. Campbell: The Premier can hold up his document as much as he wants, but it probably has about as much validity
[ Page 16433 ]
as this document, which he held up as often in 1991. The fact of the matter is that this goes to the very heart of the government's integrity. The Premier said clearly that he wasn't going to spend money that he didn't have; he repeated that. He told British Columbians there would be no tax increases; he told British Columbians there would be no new taxes. We have had 29 tax increases. We have had new taxes. The Premier told British Columbians that with this plan, he was going to keep spending under control in British Columbia. He has missed his target by over $3 billion in just four years. With this government, we know that costs are up, debts are up and taxes are up. Does the Premier agree with the internal assessment that his government does not have a debt reduction plan, and that his government must cut costs so that we can in fact balance the budget -- a budget which this year had a $473 million deficit?
Hon. M. Harcourt: We debated this ad nauseam during the budget debate. We went through this in the Minister of Finance's estimates. This is not new ground that the Leader of the Opposition is plowing up. It's old ground. I stand by the financial record of this provincial government. We have taken a quite different approach than the Leader of the Opposition's heroes, like Newt Gingrich, Preston Manning, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Brian Mulroney -- all those really liberal types he believes in so much who have crashed the lives of tens of millions of working people. They severely harmed middle-income and working people, and they engorged bondholders and the rich, who are the people that he represents. That is the clear difference between him and me.
As a matter of fact, in this really strong, progressive and liberal magazine called the British Columbia Report, there was a comment on "his rainbow coalition" -- those who attended a fundraiser that the Liberals held April 26 at the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre.
"More than 2,800 people, mostly Vancouver business leaders, paid $175 a plate to hear Mr. Campbell outline his agenda for government."
They went on to say:
"Big money is a double-edged sword. A professional campaign on the scale the party plans is expensive. Depending on rich financiers from Vancouver opens the party to charges that it is the captive of Howe Street, a symbol of B.C.'s big business interests."
That's who the Leader of the Opposition represents.
The tax cuts he wants -- to get rid of the corporate capital tax and the school tax for business -- are to benefit big business. There's no equity there for working people living in ordinary houses and working at jobs that pay $40,000 or $50,000 a year. Just as Ronald Reagan, Brian Mulroney and Margaret Thatcher did, those tax breaks are for big business.
By the way, those political leaders cruelly gave the illusion that they were going to deal with the debt and deficit. Ronald Reagan, in his eight years, quadrupled the U.S. debt, quadrupled the deficit. Look at Brian Mulroney's record. Look at the emasculation of health care and the two-tier health care system that Margaret Thatcher brought to Great Britain. These are the heroes of the Leader of the Opposition. They're not my heroes, because of the harm they do to ordinary working people.
[2:45]
I know that the Leader of the Opposition tries to erase from his mind the independent bond-rating agencies and what they have to say, but he really can't do that. Moody's has given British Columbia an Aa1 credit rating. We would have had an Aa1 credit rating on our international debt except that Canada is holding us back. If we didn't have the problems of the national government, we would have a AAA credit rating for our international debt. Standard and Poor's have us AA+; Dominion Bond Rating Service Ltd., AA; Canadian Bond Rating Service Ltd., AA+. Moody's rated Alberta Aa2. Standard and Poor's gave us an AA+; Alberta gets an AA. The Dominion Bond Rating Service Ltd. gave us an AA and gave Alberta an AA with a negative rating. The Canadian Bond Rating Service Ltd. gave an AA+ to us and an AA with a negative outlook to Alberta.
There's a reason for that. The reason is that we have half the per capita debt that Alberta has. We are a leaner government than Alberta is. We spend 40 percent of the cost of the Alberta Premier's Office. This is a well-run province. It has a low cost structure despite a growing population that drives up our costs. With 100,000 new people a year, P.E.I. moves here every year; every five years Newfoundland moves to B.C.; every ten years Manitoba moves here. That's what drives our budget.
I am quite prepared to put our record up against the Leader of the Opposition's. By the way, the last year he was mayor he increased the tax on small business by 62 percent. That's a good bookend to the way he started his mayor's career: the second decision he made was to give himself a 12 percent increase. Then he built himself a shower when there was a perfectly good public shower that the staff could use just a couple of floors below. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that you're a real tough cost-cutter and are going to keep spending down when you increase the debt of the regional district 50 percent and increase the staff 30 percent. You come in here and say that you're going to cut government, you're going to make it smaller, when your record is exactly the opposite.
We have carried out the commitments that I made to the people of British Columbia in 1991. I look forward to being able to go to a new future, to talk about the plan we have for the province -- "Investing in Our Future: A Plan for B.C." -- and have a very different vision put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. I look forward to that day.
G. Campbell: I look forward to the day as well. In fact, I wouldn't mind if we started next week reviewing this with the public in British Columbia, because I know that the public knows it was misled by this Premier. You can talk around it as much as you want. The Premier said that he would not spend money he didn't have, and he has increased public debt by 62 percent. The Premier said to the people of British Columbia, "What the Socreds did was wrong; they were saddling our children with public debt," and he has increased public debt to the extent that his own Treasury Board has to tell him that the increase in public debt is not sustainable -- that his increase in public debt is, in fact, eroding the very programs that he claims to be protecting. In fact, if the Premier looked at the numbers, he would see that the tax-supported debt was 13 percent of the GDP when he took office in 1991. In 1994 it was 21 percent of the GDP.
The question for the Premier is: why should we believe his fancy brochure -- which the taxpayers are paying for -- when we clearly couldn't believe his brochure from 1991, when his expenditures have gone up by over $3 billion of
[ Page 16434 ]
what he said they would do, and when public debt has gone up 62 percent when he said that he wouldn't spend money that he didn't have? Let me ask the Premier this question: does the Premier understand that the only way we are going to balance the budget in the province of British Columbia is to cut the costs of government?
Hon. M. Harcourt: That is not the only way. We have balanced the budget; we have balanced the budget in a balanced way. What the Leader of the Opposition is saying is that he has a different vision for this province. He has a slash-and-burn approach towards services for our citizens. He wants a two-tier health care system, where the rich can hand a cheque to a doctor for a quarter of a million dollars to get heart surgery, and the rest of us wait. He wants a system where the richest kids go to private schools, and the rest of our kids with less money go to public schools. He is prepared to not borrow, not to have the funds for our kids to have decent schools. This government has invested $1.8 billion in new schools; we are not going to back away from that.
I have said very clearly that we are not going to bring on board debt that we can't afford. Well, we have a difference of opinion. The Leader of the Opposition says we can't afford the expenditures on schools, hospitals, new highways, new ferries, new bridges and new rapid transit systems. I say we can. We have to, for a growing economy. We have to invest now so that we can realize dividends later with trained citizens, mobility in our transportation systems, sustainable forests, parks from which we can create hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue through our tourism and visitor industry. We are investing for the future.
At the same time, we are absorbing billions of dollars. The majority of our new debt is billions of dollars created when Brian Mulroney and the federal Liberals bit the bullet by dumping costs of health, education and social services onto our citizens. Brian Mulroney dumped $6.5 billion of extra health, education and social services costs onto the B.C. taxpayers; that is a substantial part of the new debt.
We also absorbed $3.5 billion from Bill Vander Zalm's Social Credit government. The Liberals represent the Bill Bennett wing of the Socreds, and the Reformers represent the Bill Vander Zalm wing. Together they overspent for years: 10 to 12 percent increases in spending every year.
Our government brought down those spending levels dramatically to a 2.9 percent increase this year, driven entirely by growth -- driven entirely by 100,000 new people in this province who need heart surgery, whose kids need a place in the school, who need mobility on the ferries and the highways and the transportation systems of this province. The Leader of the Opposition clearly has a different vision. He's being critical of our vision; I'm being critical of his vision. Our vision is an economy that's competing with the best in the world; not the right to work and not the lower worker standards, lower environmental standards and the let's-compete-with-a-developing-country model that he's working on.
We are carrying out the commitments we made in the 48-point platform that we put before the people of British Columbia, and we don't know who to believe in the Liberal party. They've had so many different leaders, we don't know what kind of a platform they put before the people in the last election. We don't know what they stand for now, except we know that they don't believe in the economic plan "Investing in Our Future: A Plan for B.C." that thousands and thousands of British Columbians have put together that's going to make sure that we have a secure and prosperous future.
G. Campbell: Let's remember that we are referring to the Premier's staff's own internal document for the cabinet planning committee. We are referring to the Premier's own comments -- his own program. It wasn't me who said that the Socreds were saddling our children with debt and that that was a bad thing to do. I can't understand this double standard the Premier keeps setting for himself where he expects people to believe him in 1995, when clearly they couldn't believe him in 1991. When he refers to his 48-point program, I'm amazed that he would have the gall to stand up in this House and do that, in view of the incredible deals he's made for his particular friends. A party that said there would be no special deals for friends and insiders has given more special deals to friends and insiders than anyone can remember.
I am trying to get the Premier to discuss why he has so dramatically changed his mind, and why people in British Columbia should believe he's going to execute this plan any better than he executed the last plan. The fact is that expenditures have not been kept under control, as the Premier undertook to do in 1991. "Expenditures are $3.1 billion," he said in 1991. The Premier told the people of British Columbia there would be no new taxes. There are new taxes. He said there would be no tax increases. In fact, to be fair to him, that was one of those situations where the Premier said one thing in one place and another thing in another place. In this particular plan, I believe that $225 million in tax increases were suggested, and as we all know, this government has increased taxes by over $1.5 billion in the short period of time they have been in office.
Unfortunately, because this Premier and this government did not live up to their commitments of 1991, the average income for families across this province has gone down every single year that this government has been in office. The Premier has spent a lot of time saying what we represent or what we believe. We believe in a health care system. We believe that when someone breaks her ankle in the north, she should be able to have it set in Prince George, instead of having to be flown to Edmonton. We believe when someone hurts himself in a hockey game in Prince George, he shouldn't have to be flown to Kelowna to be cared for. This government's health care policies have deteriorated health care services across the province. Having said that and having recognized that you can't go to a community in this province that doesn't complain about the deterioration of health care services....
I would like to give the Premier one more chance. In 1991 he said that if the money wasn't there, he wasn't going to spend it. In 1991 he said that it was wrong for the Socreds to have saddled our children with debt for the future -- saddled our children with debt before they even had a chance to get out and earn a living. The Premier's own staff have pointed out that the debt management plan does not reflect debt reduction. It is pointed out that holding down spending to produce surpluses requires lower spending growth. This Premier and this government know that in the last year -- in this last budget -- we have seen the cost of government go up, public debt go up and taxes go up. This Premier knows that he has not kept costs under control as he told people in 1991 he would. He knows that he hasn't done that, yet he tries to pretend that he has. In his plan of 1991 he missed his target by
[ Page 16435 ]
$3.1 billion. A Premier who said he wouldn't spend money he didn't have has watched as the per capita debt for British Columbians has gone up by almost $1,500 for every man, woman and child who lives in this province. Why should the people of British Columbia believe the Premier and his spin doctor plan for 1995, when they so clearly could not believe him in 1991?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I never thought I'd see the Leader of the Opposition so blatantly become such an obvious apologist for Bill Vander Zalm. I think it's really extraordinary. But I guess there's a reason for it. The Leader of the Opposition nominated Bill Vander Zalm to run against me for mayor in 1984, so I guess he's still travelling in that same right-of-the-right political orb he's been in for many years.
I can see why he would try and create a diversion for -- I guess the politest words would be -- the gross misrepresentation of the true state of the finances of the province that the previous Social Credit government, led by Bill Vander Zalm, left us with. They said there was a $400 million deficit; it turned out to be $2.4 billion. On top of that, we anticipated the real deficit would be $1.2 billion, which is the budget stabilization fund plus the $400 million. When the books were opened, there was found to be $2.4 billion in deficit.
It wasn't me who did that analysis; it was an independent financial review that was carried out by Peat Marwick and Deloitte Haskins, who, like Standard and Poor's and Moody's, are independent financial businesses that make these judgments independently of the politics of any particular government in any particular jurisdiction. They said we had this huge problem, and we did. We had the problem of the 12 percent spending increases that the Socreds were involved in in the 1990-91 period; we had the $6.5 billion to come from 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 in the budgets of the previous Tory governments -- $10 billion of overspending and dumping that our taxpayers had to absorb.
There are three ways you can deal with that. You can just totally crash health, education and social services to ordinary working people, and cut them 20 or 30 percent. Or you can spend, spend, spend, the way the Liberal Premier, David Peterson, did in Ontario, or Grant Devine did in a Conservative Saskatchewan -- at that time; thank God it's not anymore -- or Bill Vander Zalm, who was trying to spend his way to prosperity. You can't do that. You can't do the slash and burn or the spend, spend, spend approach of those governments.
We've taken a more balanced approach, and it's working. That's why B.C. has the number one economy in Canada. That's why we have the lowest per capita debt; that's why we have the best job creation record of all of the provinces. That's why everybody except the Leader of the Opposition looks at the objective reality of B.C.'s economy -- the bond rating agencies, the financial houses -- and they see a well-run province that has a plan for the future, that's doing well now and will do even better in the future.
[3:00]
J. Weisgerber: Mr. Chairman, I was prepared to take the advice you gave earlier around the scope of debate on the estimates of the Premier. However, in light of that last tirade, that last political pre-election speech, one feels obliged to respond.
Interjection.
J. Weisgerber: The Premier says: "Let her rip." It seems to me that the obvious area the Premier overlooked -- the jurisdiction he didn't want to talk about -- was that of his good friend Bob Rae, the person who has led every decision made by this NDP government in the three and half years it's been there. Look at every piece of legislation we've done here in British Columbia and you'll see it was introduced a year earlier in Ontario by Bob Rae. Indeed, the fate of the Rae government, I think the Premier probably recognizes as being the fate that he and his government await as well.
The Premier wants to talk about different governments -- the divine government or the government of Manitoba or whatever government he likes to bring in -- but the Premier doesn't like to talk about Ontario, because the failed administration and policies in Ontario are exactly the same policies and approach to government that has made British Columbians so absolutely determined not to have another term with the current government.
I've got to comment on the Premier's statement with respect to the $2.4 billion deficit that he likes to pretend he inherited. The fact of the matter is that that budget was finalized after six months of the wildest spending -- by his government in the first half of their mandate -- ever seen by any government in the history of British Columbia. I was getting calls from ministry staff and people like folks in administration at UBC, telling me that the word was out that there was any amount of money -- an unlimited source of money -- available to the ministries and agencies of government as long as it was spent in the last half of 1991.
The Premier knows that's true. He knows that his government set about deliberately and systematically to inflate the size of the deficit in 1991, so that his own deficit of $2 billion in the first year of his administration wouldn't look as outrageous as it really was. Indeed, the highest and largest deficit ever tabled in the history of British Columbia was tabled in this House in March 1992 in the first budget brought in by this government.
It's unfortunate that the Premier feels called upon to try and rationalize that sorry part of his administration. Indeed, the growth in debt from the $10 billion that was there when his government took office in '90-91 has ballooned, doubled, to $20 billion today -- $20 billion that can only be repaid by British Columbia taxpayers. That's the legacy that the people of this province remember; that's the legacy that British Columbians understand; that's the legacy that we are going to be talking about over the next 18 months or so.
Mr. Chairman, in view of your admonishments earlier, I would like to talk a little bit about the Trade Development Corporation specifically.
It seems to me that people in British Columbia were outraged by the Gathercole severance package. The fact that someone could work for this government on a contract for two years, could wind up earning $400,000 by way of extremely high salaries for very questionable results, could be kept on the payroll for nine months after the project was finished, and then could be given a $130,000 severance package on the way out truly boggles the minds of British Columbians who are trying to balance their budgets and agencies who are trying to find money to make their budgets balance. My question to the Premier: is there a similar deal written for Wilson Parasiuk? Has the Premier, as the minister responsible for the B.C. Trade Development Corporation, agreed to a severance package for Wilson Parasiuk?
[ Page 16436 ]
Interjection.
J. Weisgerber: Parasiuk, if we are going to quibble about pronunciations. If you've lived with a name like Weisgerber for 50 years plus, you understand that folks sometimes run over the names.
But the issue is: can British Columbians expect to pay this kind of severance for other officials, particularly those people who are close to and friends of the Premier, as Mr. Gathercole was? Is there a severance package in place for Mr. Parasiuk?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I have a similar name; it does get many different pronunciations. So I can sympathize with the Leader of the Third Party. I won't get into the initial rhetorical statements he made about Ontario and the huge spending increases that the Liberal government there under David Peterson was involved in. I won't remind him of his part in the Vander Zalm government or of these huge spending increases -- 12 percent a year there, the same as David Peterson.
I won't remind him about our sitting through those five very difficult years when we brought down the 12 percent increase. He had been part of the cabinet that brought in the budget of 1991-92 that had a 12 percent increase. We stayed within those estimates of the previous government. That budget was a 12 percent increase over the previous fiscal year. We brought that down, after receiving the independent financial review in mid-February. We brought in a budget, in the third week of March, that brought spending levels down to 7 percent -- to the point now where they're 2.9 percent, which is a minus growth in the budget.
When you count in the population growth and inflation, we have had a minus growth in the budget, per capita, for three years in a row. Unlike the Leader of the Third Party, who was part of a government that spent, spent, spent, we brought spending under control. He has a track record that he should be very ashamed of if he's trying to come in here and pretend he's a fiscal hawk, because he wasn't. He was a fiscal spendthrift of the worst sort. I never heard a peep out of him about those budgets and policies when he was part of that government.
I won't get into that sort of a discussion. Instead, I will deal with the Trade Development Corporation. I'm pleased we're able to start the discussion on the most successful trade development corporation in the country and one of the most successful in the world. We have people from Finland and many of the other successful trade development corporations coming to meet with us and collaborate.
I would like to table the B.C. Exporter: Partners in Export -- 1994-95, The Year in Review. As a way of cutting costs....
The Chair: With all due deference, I don't think we table documents in committee. I ask you to....
Hon. M. Harcourt: But I'm going to table it at the appropriate time.
The Chair: You're giving notice of the tabling. I'm sorry; my misunderstanding.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm giving notice that I will be tabling at the appropriate time a document which is a good example of cost-cutting, because this is the B.C. Exporter: Partners in Export, which comes out a few times a year. Instead of putting out a special annual report, it's included in a regular edition of the B.C. Exporter to cut down on costs. I will be tabling this document, which will give you the 1994-95 year in review. We'll be getting copies to the Leader of the Third Party, so he can see for himself the progress that we're making in B.C. Trade.
Having said that, the answer to the Leader of the Third Party about Wilson Parasiuk is no, there is no severance provision whatsoever. He resigned, left at the beginning of May and has been replaced by Michael Francis, a very able business person and business leader in the province. Mr. Parasiuk has gone into a number of enterprises in the private sector. Frankly, I want to praise Mr. Parasiuk for the leadership role he played, when he could have stayed in the private sector in development, trade and financial activities for far higher pay than he received in the public sector. Mr. Parasiuk served us well. The answer to your question is no, there is no severance package whatsoever. He resigned and left at the beginning of May.
J. Weisgerber: If Mr. Parasiuk left with no severance pay, just resigned his position and left, as I think would have been appropriate, how could the Premier then rationalize the severance package for his good friend Dick Gathercole? Here's somebody who was hired to do a job that we knew was term-sensitive; it wasn't an indefinite job, it was a job for a specific term. Early in the term it became obvious that the Energy Council was a complete farce and was never going to contribute anything to the well-being of British Columbia; and I don't think the report has been read by more than half a dozen people, other than the folks who wrote it. This person knew that there was a limited time for his employment. He was kept on for nine months after the decision to terminate the project was announced, and then he was paid $130,000 in severance. How does that stack up? Why wasn't Mr. Gathercole treated the same way as Wilson Parasiuk? Why was there a different standard then? If Mr. Parasiuk did the right and honourable thing that was appropriate for taxpayers in British Columbia, why this different treatment for Dick Gathercole?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Very simply, because Mr. Parasiuk had worked exhaustively for the people of British Columbia for three years, and at the end of his three years he decided that he didn't want to renew those three years. He wanted to go back into the private sector and pursue other matters, so at the end of the contract period he voluntarily left. In Mr. Gathercole's case, he was paid at a deputy minister level. The work of the B.C. Energy Council took a shorter period than we had anticipated. The work on an energy policy for the province and the work on integrating the Crown corporations and those that deal with power and energy took place very, very quickly. At the end of the two-year period...where Mr. Gathercole and the $400,000 have been mentioned, two of those years were him collecting salary for doing good-quality work for the people of British Columbia. The $130,000 he was paid in severance was according to the severance policy that the Leader of the Third Party set when he was in government: when deputy ministers are severed there is the government policy about the severance package, and that was the package that was followed. If he had any problems with that severance package, he should have expressed it when he was in government.
[ Page 16437 ]
[3:15]
J. Weisgerber: This person wasn't hired as a deputy minister, he was hired for a specific job for a fixed period of time. He was advised nine months before he left employment that his job was going to terminate, and still the Premier felt obliged to give a $130,000 package to his buddy, on the way out. There was $400,000 of taxpayers' money spent by this government, approved by this Premier, for his friend who returned nothing to British Columbia in terms of a tangible product. I think it's an awful waste of taxpayers' money. How the Premier, having given his friend nine months' notice, can rationalize the payment of $130,000 in severance, I think we had best leave to voters to decide. But I'll tell you, Mr. Premier, it's going to be a tough sell in your constituency, and an even tougher sell in mine.
I'd also like to ask the Premier about the whole NOW Communications-Struble business. If there is an issue that reflects directly on the Premier's Office and on the way he administers his office, it's this relationship with NOW Communications, and even more directly, the relationship with Karl Struble, recognizing the very close relationship between the Premier and Ron Johnson, and recognizing the Premier's unwillingness to reveal to British Columbians that he was regularly looking for advice in the United States and that he was having an American spin doctor write speeches for the Premier himself. The Premier has acknowledged that their speeches were drafted by Karl Struble and sent to him. He has never provided any rational explanation for that whole process, and perhaps the most disturbing thing is the fact that even after having been caught out, the Premier continues to maintain the relationship.
It seems to me that perhaps it's appropriate for me to read into Hansard some brief reports of the opinion of the conflict-of-interest commissioner when he examined these matters. On page 38, Mr. Hughes says:
"...no satisfactory explanation was ever given as to why, at the behest of the Premier's staff, NOW was interposed as a notional contracting party between the government and Struble; nor was there any satisfactory explanation for the complete lack of documentation which would have revealed the nature and extent of Struble's involvement...the only rational conclusion that I am able to draw is that the retainer contracts were written as they were because the Premier's Office did not want to be seen contracting directly with an American public relations firm. When the suggestion was put to Johnson he candidly conceded that 'it's hard to disagree with that perspective.' "
Mr. Hughes goes on to say:
"I had to ask myself whether NOW was thus being used and allowing itself to be used by the Premier's Office to mask the arrangement with Struble. I believe it was. I also asked myself whether a reasonably well-informed person would perceive that NOW might expect or anticipate some favourable treatment in return for going along with this arrangement. I believe that this may well be a reasonable perception."
I suppose that in a government that has been haunted by scandal after scandal, this is perhaps one of the most disturbing elements that can be directed specifically to the Premier's Office. His ministers and his government have been embroiled in scandals almost from the time they took office, but this particular event and this unsavoury arrangement with someone close to the Clinton administration in the United States reflects directly on the Premier and on his judgment.
As I said earlier, it is the fact that the Premier continues these arrangements which is perhaps most disturbing to British Columbians. Maybe the Premier would like to try and rationalize, because I'd like to hear him somehow spin medicare, a hundred parks and whatever else it is that's on that particular tape loop into his response on how he would rationalize this arrangement with his friend, Ron Johnson, and with Karl Struble.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm glad that some of the tremendous accomplishments of this government -- of creating over a hundred new parks and some of the other accomplishments -- have sunk in. If you repeat it enough, even the most obtuse and denial-oriented minds in this Legislature are finally going to hear what's happening.
To get back to the issue of Dick Gathercole, his position was at the deputy minister level, and his contract was for five years. What the member is suggesting is that we should either have let him be paid out for the five years after he completed his task or have had him sued in court to get performance of contract rather than to have settled as we did. He is suggesting that we cost the taxpayers of British Columbia more money; that's what the hon. Leader of the Third Party is suggesting. I don't think that's a prudent way to conduct the affairs of the people of British Columbia. I don't agree with him that those alternatives: either a lawsuit -- into court -- and all the expense of lawyers.... Why do you want to spend money on lawyers? Why do you want to spend money going to court, when you can settle on the policy that was applicable to deputy ministers...? The Leader of the Third Party helped form that policy when he was the government. The question of severance was done on that basis -- no more, no less.
On the questions of Karl Struble and NOW Communications, I think the real scandal here is the misuse of those processes of the conflict commissioner and the auditor general by people like the Leader of the Third Party. I think that the misuse of the conflict commissioner's office, the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars on legal fees to investigate a specious attack on my integrity, denigrates the importance of the conflict commissioner and the auditor general.
I think that if the Leader of the Third Party.... After the finding of the conflict commissioner that there was no evidence whatsoever that I was involved in any conflict whatsoever, the hon. member should have done the honourable thing and resigned for attacking my integrity, but he didn't even think about doing that. Now he has the gall to come back, after he was humiliated by the conflict commissioner -- he and his pal at CKNW, who put up this totally trumped-up charge, which was found to be without foundation whatsoever -- hand keep plowing ahead off the cliff on this matter.
I will admit that the conflict commissioner said there needed to be some criticism of the way that contract was administered. I accepted that criticism. At least the Leader of the Third Party could have the good grace to accept that I acknowledged that those contracts should have been administered better and that I brought in changes so it would not happen again -- that those subcontracts would have full description of the work that was done and there would be a description of who the subcontractor was on the face of the contract.
Maybe he was too shocked and felt so ashamed of the role that he played in misusing the conflict commissioner to attack my integrity that he didn't hear me say that. I will say it one more time, so that it sinks in -- as the 100 parks have, as
[ Page 16438 ]
the fact has that we have the number one economy, that we have a plan for this province and that we are going to defend medicare from people in the Reform Party and the Liberal Party. I will say it one more time: those changes have taken place. Contracts that involve subcontractors are going to be transparent on the face, and the details of the subcontract will be described. Those instructions have gone out from me, not only to my staff but throughout government.
Secondly, again the Leader of the Third Party was found to be totally out to lunch when he made the accusation that NOW Communications had somehow or other been awarded contracts unfairly, that they were a friend or an insider -- that easy phrase that slips off the tongue of the opposition. The fact is that promise number two was kept, because those contracts were awarded to NOW Communications on merit. The industry itself has said that; the conflict commissioner said that; the auditor general said that.
Only the overactive imagination and political gamesmanship of the Leader of the Third Party would deny the findings of the conflict commissioner, the auditor general and the advertising industry itself that this government has been the fairest government in recent history in the awarding of contracts -- not out-the-back-door, friends-and-insiders style, as the previous Social Credit government did, which is what the Leader of the Third Party was before he became reincarnated as a Reformer. What's been missing over the last few months is the Leader of the Third Party resigning, as he should have, after making a false accusation against another member of the Legislature.
J. Weisgerber: Mr. Chairman, you wonder where to start. The Premier, first of all, chooses to ignore the fact that both the auditor general of this province and the conflict-of-interest commissioner studied the evidence and the facts we put before them, and that both decided there was enough evidence to undertake an examination of the Premier's role. I can tell you that if the Premier thinks that the reports by the auditor general and the conflict-of-interest commissioner were complimentary toward him as a Premier, then indeed he is truly in another space, because these are very critical comments made by the auditor general.
The Premier talks about friends and insiders, and let me read again at least a portion of what the conflict-of-interest commissioner said. He said: "I also asked myself whether the reasonably well-informed person would perceive that NOW might expect or anticipate some favourable treatment in return for going along with this arrangement." We're talking about NOW Communications and Ron Johnson, the person who was the Premier's campaign manager, and we're talking about the analysis by the conflict-of-interest commissioner of the Premier's office in that whole area.
The Premier talks about taxpayers' money. In some information I got back the other day, I noticed it indicated that the Premier himself saw fit to bill taxpayers $18,000 for legal advice given to him to defend himself in front of the conflict-of-interest commissioner. If the Premier was so sure that he was squeaky-clean and that there was nothing for him to be concerned about, why in the world did the he feel the obligation to hire, at the cost to taxpayers of $18,000, a lawyer to represent him in front of the conflict-of-interest commissioner -- a servant of this Legislature? One would have expected the Premier to defend himself and speak for himself, but indeed this Premier -- who we understand was at one time, at least, a member of the bar -- felt obliged not to defend himself but to have taxpayers defend him at a substantial cost. Who's being responsible now?
It wasn't only the conflict-of-interest commissioner who saw the serious flaws in the way the Premier's office handled this affair. The auditor general's report, in conclusion, was at least as damning. It says -- and again I'm going to quote a couple of paragraphs:
"Eight of the public issues and consultation office contracts with NOW cause us concern -- not because of the work actually done under the contracts, but because of the way the work was shielded from public scrutiny. These contracts masked from all but those directly involved the use of contractors who might be considered controversial. We believe that the evidence of the use of Mr. Struble and his firm was similarly minimized because of Mr. Struble being an American and because he had performed work for the New Democratic Party during the 1991 election campaign. NOW understood that their government customers did not want the use of American suppliers to be disclosed."
[3:30]
So, Mr. Premier, we see serious concern from both the conflict-of-interest commissioner and the auditor general of the province over the way the Premier's Office and the Premier himself dealt with this issue.
And what did the Premier do to correct the issue? Well, he called a press conference and said he was disciplining two members of his staff. He was going to move Chris Chilton from his position in the Premier's Office and give him a nice soft landing in the Ministry of Health. Indeed, it was so soft that Mr. Chilton didn't even have to bother going to the Ministry of Health to work; he got to stay right in the precincts and continue to work. He just got somebody else, another ministry, to pay the $130,000-odd per year that Mr. Chilton was earning. So that was the rather severe discipline handed out to Mr. Chilton for his role in the NOW Communications thing. Shelia Fruman, who had been part of the infamous public TV debate, the tax debate....
An Hon. Member: The clown hall meeting.
J. Weisgerber: Yes, the clown hall meeting, as the House Leader for the official opposition says. The clown hall meeting: I hadn't heard that one before. It's such an apt description, one should really try to copyright it.
Interjection.
J. Weisgerber: The bill comes tomorrow?
So what happened with Sheila Fruman? She gets a nice severance package. She was leaving anyway. She wanted to leave -- had already told the Premier she wanted to leave -- so her punishment was a nice fat little package of taxpayers' severance. That is the sum total of the penalties for the NOW Communications-Struble thing combined with their involvement in -- I've got to say it again -- the clown hall meeting.
One wonders what would happen to someone who was being rewarded by the Premier. You look at Mr. Gathercole and Mr. Eliesen, and probably it is hard to tell who is being punished and who is being rewarded. Maybe the Premier tells folks: "Those of you who are being punished stand on one side of the room, and those of you who are being rewarded stand on the other, because you are all going to get the same fat pay package anyway."
[ Page 16439 ]
This business -- the town hall meeting; the arrangements with NOW Communications and Ron Johnson, the Premier's close friend; the arrangement with Karl Struble -- reflects directly into the Premier's Office. I think something that has caused and continues to cause British Columbians a great deal of concern is the fact that someone in Washington, D.C., would be writing the Premier's speeches concerning issues such as the Tatshenshini. We saw, from material released by the Mining Association, that people in the United States knew two weeks before British Columbians did about the decision that was going to be made about the Tatshenshini.
That is the kind of irresponsible activity that has been going on in this Premier's Office -- activity he should be held accountable for and one day will be. It is these kinds of issues that we want to focus our attention on during these debates of the Premier's estimates.
Would the Premier confirm for us whether or not the arrangements with NOW Communications are going to continue; whether or not the retainer for Mr. Struble is going to be maintained, or if there has been some new arrangement made with Mr. Struble to reward him for the work that he is doing for the Premier in Washington, D.C., with the Clinton administration?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The Leader of the Third Party keeps talking about scandal after scandal. These are artificially created accusations that have been proven to be groundless. The accusation against the Attorney General was proven by a special prosecutor to be groundless. The accusation against the Ministry of Attorney General was found to be groundless. The breach-of-privacy accusations against the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance were found to be groundless. The accusation against me made by the Leader of the Third Party was found to be groundless -- there was no conflict on my part. The auditor general said that there was no misuse of the Premier's Office, nor should I have known of some of these matters that the leader brought to our attention.
Now, this is coming from the leader of the Reform Party. He used to be a Socred, who sat in a caucus that had 13 resignations from real scandals -- not make-believe scandals, but real scandals. He sat there silently -- the Alfred E. Neumann of B.C. politics -- and smiled, "What, me worry?" as they went down like bowling pins around him. He didn't say a word. Did I hear anything when Cliff Michael tried to peddle one of his lots to one of the proponents of Powder Mountain? Did we hear anything from the Leader of the Third Party? Not a word. Did we hear anything from him when Bill Reid tried to give a monopoly on the blue-box containers -- not just in White Rock, but also in Surrey and around the province? Did we hear anything from him? Not a word. Did we hear anything about the Premier of this province at the time, Bill Vander Zalm, slipping around and sneaking around the Bayshore Hotel, picking up a $20,000 payoff in a brown envelope from somebody from offshore to buy Fantasy Gardens and to pick up, in cash, a PetroCan site right next door for $1 million by personally phoning the president of PetroCan? Did we hear anything from the Leader of the Third Party?
Out of a sense of guilt, he lashes out and manufactures accusations against other members of this Legislature. In the tradition of this House, when the House or an officer of the House investigates an accusation by one member against the other and finds it to be groundless.... He doesn't even have the integrity to resign, as is the tradition.
If you think I'm going to take moral advice from the Leader of the Third Party.... I'd take it from Rasputin before I'd take it from that particular leader. I find it really unbelievable that I'm getting moral advice from a member of one of the most bankrupt, corrupt and distasteful regimes this province has ever seen. I find it a bit hard to take when the member keeps referring to the word "scandal," when people's integrity has been cleared. He keeps saying that there was a scandal there. He says that, instead of doing the right thing and resigning. I'm not going to place much credence in the outrage he expresses about these issues.
With regard to the lawyer I had to engage to deal with the phony charge he threw at me, where the conflict-of-interest commissioner had to engage counsel that cost at least $200,000 because of this phony charge from the Leader of the Third Party.... The taxpayers wasted over $200,000 because the Leader of the Third Party decided to play politics with an issue. Then he asked me why I engaged a lawyer to defend my integrity against a wrongful accusation. It's a bit like a bank robber coming back to the bank and criticizing the bank clerk for pushing the alarm bell.
I find this really quite astonishing, and I will just remind the member that if I had been found to have been in conflict or to have done something wrong, I would have been liable for the legal fees I incurred when the lawyer was engaged. But, as the member knows -- as a member of the executive council; somebody who has been in government -- when an officer of this government, a cabinet member or an MLA is wrongfully accused and cleared of any charges in exercising his public duty, those fees are picked up by the Crown. The member knows that, so why would he make a political issue out of it here? He knows that. If he doesn't know it, he should know it. So that is the reason that that occurred.
On the issue of the contracts that the auditor general dealt with -- I think there were about 139 NOW contracts -- he found that 131 of them were done totally appropriately, and that the contracts NOW Communications won were won on merit and on the worth of the presentations they put forward. He found that there were eight contracts that either weren't described properly or didn't have the appropriate authorization, and that there were some administrative errors, and I accepted the recommendations in the concerns expressed by the auditor general, the comptroller general and the conflict-of-interest commissioner.
The last question that the Leader of the Third Party asked about was the use of NOW Communications and Struble. If NOW Communications wishes to continue to bid on contracts -- as they are certainly entitled to do -- under an open process with evaluation by their peers on major contracts, and if they win on the merit of their contracts, then they're entitled to do just that, just like any British Columbia company.
In terms of using somebody with unique skills outside British Columbia on occasion, yes, I'm prepared to continue to do that. If I think there is somebody who offers skills in Alberta or Ontario or London or Washington, D.C., I'm prepared to do that, just as the leader of your party is. Preston Manning is prepared to go down to Washington, D.C., and use expert advice. As a matter of fact, the Republican school in Dallas showed him how to dress, how to talk, how to write speeches and how to get a $39,000 car allowance and a clothes allowance. If the Reform Party wants to continue to do those things, I suppose that's their business.
[ Page 16440 ]
I'm prepared on occasion, when there isn't the unique skill that somebody like Karl Struble brings to television communications.... He's one of the best in the world. He has advised governments and corporations around this world. He wasn't involved in the town hall forum which I have received accolades about. We all have moments that we would like to excise from our lives; I am humbled by the one I went through on that occasion.
Clearly, the Liberal Party has used expertise in the United States on occasion; the Reform Party will do that. I'm sure that where there are those unique skills, they will be utilized by political parties in Canada on occasion.
J. Weisgerber: First of all, I'm the leader of the Reform Party of British Columbia, and we haven't gone outside British Columbia. I don't know what advice the Premier seeks outside British Columbia, but he should at least be prepared to tell British Columbians when he's paying for advice by Americans on issues that involve British Columbians in their dealings with Americans and with the United States. He has been derelict in his duty and in his relationship with Karl Struble. He's gone out of his way to hide that relationship. That's public knowledge, and it's on the public record.
Let me say also that this government and this Premier have demonstrated a unique lack of respect for our parliamentary system. They don't understand why people step down. They don't understand the premise that calls for cabinet ministers to step down when they're under investigation. This Premier defends an Attorney General who is known to have signed a false affidavit, and he sees nothing wrong with that. I don't know how much closer you've got to get to wrongdoing before the Premier -- even this Premier -- recognizes that there is a point where cabinet ministers are obliged to step down.
[3:45]
We saw this same Premier stand behind the former Minister of Environment, even though he knew that he was guilty of unethical conduct and had been under investigation for years by the Law Society. This is a Premier who stands up and talks about moral ethics. I find that very hard to accept from the Premier. This is the same Premier that stood up in this House and defended the former Minister of Government Services. He wouldn't allow him to step down, put him on paid leave and sent him home with his company car. This Premier comes in and talks to me about moral ethics. That is very, very difficult to take from a Premier who, when in opposition, demanded that Peter Dueck step down as the minister when the Leader of the Opposition at the time knew full well that there was nothing other than a coincidental relationship between Peter Dueck and the wrongdoing that was done in his ministry. This Premier saw nothing wrong with having that person sit out for a year and a half while an investigation dragged through the judicial system.
This is the Premier who now finds himself perched up on his high horse talking about ethical and moral high ground. Until the Premier can rationalize the actions he has taken, I don't think he should look around too far away from home. Those actions with respect to the Attorney General, the former Minister of Environment and the former Minister of Government Services, to name only a few, suggest to me that the Premier could look at his own actions before lashing out at anyone else and at previous governments.
To get back to the issue, it seems to me that British Columbians are far more interested in the relationships the Premier has within his office and the decisions that are made in that office. At the very least, the Premier should give British Columbians an assurance that any time his office uses advisers, contractors, consultants or spin doctors from outside Canada, he would advise British Columbians immediately that these arrangements have been entered into and that these folks are providing advice to him. Perhaps he would like to get back on track and give us that commitment today.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I have said clearly that instructions have gone out to my staff and elsewhere in government that subcontracts should be transparent, and that the details of the work that's done should be in the subcontract. I agree with the Leader of the Third Party, and those steps have been taken.
Of course, the information is available under the freedom-of-information laws our government introduced. His government didn't introduce those when he was in office, nor did they introduce the tough conflict laws we have now, where a conflict is investigated by an independent officer of the Legislature, not by the Premier. That wasn't so under his own government, where Bill Vander Zalm had his own guidelines you could drive a truck through; he was the judge, jury and executioner.
We now have independent officers of the Legislature -- a conflicts commissioner and a freedom-of-information commissioner -- who have changed dramatically the way the Legislature works. It's not a matter of doing the right thing and being honourable by resigning, because in the old days of parliament there was no independent officer who dealt with conflicts for the first 400 years. Now there is, by statute, and that officer is independent.
If I had to have a cabinet member resign every time there was a phony charge, which the Leader of the Third Party is prone to do, I very quickly wouldn't have a cabinet. If they automatically resigned and were cleared, as every one of those members has been, whether it be the Attorney General, who was found to have made an honest mistake under great personal stress with the health of a member of his family....
Affidavits in the practice of law are changed every day because of honest mistakes or some new facts being learned. It was found that it was not a fraudulent act at all, as the Leader of the Third Party continues to say. He is again besmirching another member's reputation when that member was cleared by the conflicts commissioner. It's sad that the Leader of the Third Party has lowered the standards of this House by continuing to do this. Under our system of law, when somebody is cleared and is found to be innocent, to continue to say that there's a scandal or that they did something wrong is not only unfair, but it's wrong too. I think it goes against the integrity of this House, and it's very unfortunate that the member would continue to do that.
The member talks about the 13 members of his cabinet who had to resign. I don't know why he keeps referring back to that disgraceful period, but I can tell you that, frankly, I believe Mr. Dueck was treated unfairly. I think that the way he was allowed to twist in the wind was cruel. There should have been an expeditious examination of that -- as there would have been under our conflict laws -- and he would have been cleared. It was found very clearly in that case that his deputy minister was wrong. What he did was wrong. I know Mr.
[ Page 16441 ]
Dueck. I think he is a fine person; I think he is a man of integrity. I think he served this province well, and the way he was treated by the Premier of that day was disgraceful. So you don't get any disagreement from me about the way that Peter Dueck was mistreated. I agree that he was mistreated. I said that, and I still feel very strongly to this day that one of British Columbia's fine citizens was very badly mistreated.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I hear from the MLA for Peace River North that some comments were made about that member during the last campaign. You will recall that I wasn't involved in the pamphlet that went out, but I certainly corrected it. I apologized to Mr. Dueck personally, and he accepted that. If we make a mistake, I'm prepared to admit that a mistake has been made and then correct it.
I think that we should realize that there is a new regime in our parliament now. Members don't step down to do the right thing -- because they are being investigated automatically, not at the whim of the Premier. They are investigated automatically by a conflict commissioner who has the power to toss the minister of office, to toss a member out of office. That never existed until we brought in our conflict laws here.
Access to documents that the opposition continues to flaunt as documents that were leaked.... They were documents they got under freedom of information. It's just theatrical. Our government has opened up government more than any other in the history of this province. We have tightened up the integrity of this House with the independent conflict commissioner and opened up governing with some of the most wide-open freedom-of-information laws in the country.
It is a different era, and I think comparing the standards of the past when there weren't those kinds of independent officers, when, in the tradition of parliament, members stepped aside until the matter could be investigated.... It's a different era. It's a better era because there is this independence. There is the ability for a member to have to leave office if the officer of the Legislature, the conflict commissioner, finds some wrongdoing.
J. Weisgerber: I think it's pretty obvious that the Premier is going to continue to rewrite history to suit his own ends and probably will try to do that as long as he's in office. As much as he wants to protest it, the fact of the matter is that his party, the party that he was leading despite his now conciliatory words about Mr. Dueck, actually brought out advertising condemning him during the 1991 election campaign after he had been found absolutely free of any guilt, even by association. The Premier now says how sorry he was that that happened, but the fact of the matter is that they tried to use it, just as he has tried to use other events.
While we're on the low ground that the Premier has certainly taken us over the last little while, why don't we deal...?
Interjections.
J. Weisgerber: Why don't you slither over here? In addition to being offended by the words of the member for wherever it is -- he is not in his place.... I would remind members that if they are going to sit behind the Premier in an attempt to get their faces on television at least once during the session, without ever actually having to stand up and say anything, they had better do it from their own seats. I think it is appropriate that if they are going to sit there and heckle, they should do it from their seats. If not, perhaps they would move.
I'd like to ask the Premier particularly about his involvement in the handling of the Parks report. We know, from the details that have been discussed in this House over the last weeks, about the way the Parks report got to a cabinet committee. We understand that the Premier, although not a member of that committee, was in attendance. I wonder if the Premier could tell us how it is that he couldn't see how inappropriate it was for that report to have been brought to a cabinet committee. Even though he wasn't chairing the committee, why didn't he have the good sense to advise members of the committee -- perhaps those with less experience -- that they shouldn't have been there? Why didn't he take objection to...? Why didn't he understand how fundamentally wrong it was for Brian Gardiner, an employee of the New Democratic Party, to be in attendance when that report was explained, detailed, to that cabinet committee?
Hon. M. Harcourt: This is a wonderful province, and there are many issues of importance that we could be talking about in the Premier's estimates, the Premier's operation. Instead, we're talking about phony charges that the Leader of the Third Party brought, under the NOW Communications-Strubel issue, to the auditor general and to the conflict commissioner. We're dealing now with a report -- the Parks matter -- that has been thoroughly canvassed in this Legislature, in the public and in the estimates. There is nothing being put forward by the Leader of the Third Party that hasn't already been said before.
What I will do is get the questions that the member has asked about this matter before and the answers that have been given and send them to the Leader of the Third party, so that he can look at them once again -- so that he can regurgitate the questions once again. I'll send those same questions back to him once again.
J. Weisgerber: I understand the Premier's lack of comfort with this issue; I understand why he doesn't want to deal with the issue. The fact of the matter is that we're in the estimates of the office of the Premier and, as such, have an opportunity, in a more generous time frame than question period, to ask the Premier to explain to British Columbians how he could sit through a briefing of a matter that might well involve criminal charges against people in his caucus, his former caucus and his own party, and not have the common sense, given his law background, to advise the committee that this exercise was totally inappropriate.
[4:00]
We want to know why the Premier didn't have the same good sense that the Attorney General had. That's what we want to understand. We want to know why the Attorney General would recognize that there was something happening here that he was uncomfortable with, even though he doesn't have the same formal training in law as the Premier does, and the Premier would sit through that. That's what we want to know and, more importantly, what British Columbians want to know.
[ Page 16442 ]
Hon. M. Harcourt: The answer that has been given -- that I've given in the past and that the Minister of Finance has given in the past -- is very clearly that I want to get at the truth of this matter. What happened to the illegally taken bingo money? That's why I secured the records after the appeal period for the previous criminal case had happened, before those records could be lost.
I made sure that the forensic skills that were required to unravel, as the RCMP said, the Gordian knot of the monster account in NCHS.... The best way to unravel that Gordian knot, which the RCMP were frustrated at getting at, was not to have a circus of a public inquiry, but to have one of the best forensic accountants in the country untie that Gordian knot and be given full resources and terms of reference to be able to do that.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Harcourt: He did that. He took eight months to investigate the records that he could find from the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society and other related societies, to try and find out where those funds went. I would like to have that answer; I'm impatient for that answer.
I gave a commitment back in October to Mr. Parks that his report would be made public. I gave the commitment here to the members of the Legislature that the report would be made public as soon as it was available. I cooperated fully, as did my office, with Mr. Parks and his staff to answer questions frankly that he asked about this and related matters. When Mr. Parks -- as you've heard from the Minister of Finance, who's responsible under the Society Act for this matter -- went to visit the minister a few Mondays ago, he showed up with 17 copies of his report and asked that it be distributed publicly as quickly as possible. That assurance was given by the minister. Two of my staff were there to assist in making sure that the report could be released as quickly as possible.
R. Neufeld: Putting spin on it.
Hon. M. Harcourt: No, not to put a spin on it, as the hon. member for Peace River North is saying, but to see that the report could be printed and distributed as quickly as possible and that any inquiries that people may have about the contents of the report could be answered as honestly, genuinely and openly as possible.
A day later Mr. Parks, after receiving eight months of legal advice and after being the forensic accountant for the RCMP in the previous investigation, which led to the trial and conviction of the societies, said he asked the Minister of Finance -- and you've heard this from the Minister of Finance -- if possibly we should let the RCMP or criminal justice branch of the Attorney General's ministry have a look at his report. The minister referred Mr. Parks to the criminal justice division. He met later on that day.
As you know, later on that day, too -- I don't know if it's exactly the same time -- the Minister of Finance came to the government priorities committee, carrying out the intention of releasing the report, to inform the government priorities committee, and cabinet the next day, that the report was being prepared for distribution later on that week or soon thereafter.
She received a call and a letter from Mr. Quantz the Wednesday morning that said: "Do not release the report. Do not acknowledge that the report exists, because it is now the subject of a criminal investigation by the RCMP." That's what the minister did. I believe that the minister has acted prudently; she has acted properly. She has my confidence in the way she has handled this particular matter.
I hope the special prosecutor who has been appointed, ex-Justice Taggart, who is a very, very able jurist and lawyer, will be able to report as quickly as possible that the RCMP investigation will conclude soon and that we will be able, as all British Columbians want, to get at the truth of what happened to those funds. I would like to say that we would be able to table that report as quickly as possible, but that is not in my hands. That is now in the hands of Mr. Taggart, the police authorities, Mr. Quantz and the criminal justice subdivision of the Attorney General's ministry.
J. Weisgerber: The response obviously raises a number of questions. First of all, you have to wonder why in the world the Premier would send senior staff from his office to the briefing with Mr. Parks and the Minister of Finance on the Monday afternoon rather than referring the minister -- if the minister didn't have the sense to call the Attorney General's ministry -- to senior staff in the Ministry of Attorney General. Why send Mr. Walsh from your office and Mr. Heaney, rather than saying to the Minister of Finance: "This is a matter with potential criminal implications; you'd better have legal representation there from the Attorney General's ministry." Question number one.
Number two. We know -- although the Premier skipped over it rather quickly -- that Mr. Parks called back the morning before the Minister of Finance attended the priorities cabinet meeting, and advised that he believed the issue should be referred to the criminal justice branch. The question then is: why in the world would the Premier allow that briefing to go ahead at the cabinet committee meeting, having heard from Mr. Parks that he had reconsidered his advice with respect to releasing the information?
The Premier suggests in his answer that he doesn't know what is in the Parks report. I find that very difficult to believe, given the fact that Mr. Walsh and Mr. Heaney were at the original briefing and given the fact that the Premier apparently had the lack of judgment to sit through the briefing at the planning and priorities committee of cabinet. Indeed, Mr. Gardiner's attendance continues to be a major question unanswered to date and unanswered again today by the Premier.
I think we would want to know those three things. Does the Premier have an explanation for not having a representative from the AG's ministry there on the Monday afternoon at the briefing from Mr. Parks? Does he contend that he didn't and does not know what is in Mr. Parks's report and that Mr. Gardiner doesn't know what is in Mr. Parks's report? How in the world can he explain his sitting through that briefing and allowing Mr. Gardiner, of all people, to be there at that briefing?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Again, the Leader of the Third Party, as he does so often, is reading into people's motives the worst motives he can think of instead of taking at face value the state of mind that the minister was in on the Monday when she received the report. The state of mind she was in was that she had made a commitment to Mr. Parks to release the report as quickly as possible. She was working with two members of
[ Page 16443 ]
my staff to secure the release of that report, which means getting it printed and being able to respond to inquiries. I'm sure that the Leader of the Third Party, members of the press, the official opposition and the independents in this Legislature would have had a number of questions after reading that, which would require some response and some answers.
So the Minister of Finance was in that frame of mind on the Monday through Tuesday. Mr. Parks didn't say to her on Monday: "Listen, before you release this report, I haven't run it by the police authorities, but maybe we should." He didn't say that. He said: "I want an assurance that you are going to release this report as quickly as possible." The minister gave the assurance that that report would be released as quickly as possible. He then phoned -- he didn't phone me; he phoned the minister -- and said: "Do you think that maybe we should take this to criminal justice and police authorities?" She referred Mr. Parks to Mr. Quantz and to the RCMP, and he visited them. As a result of that visit and the police and the Attorney General's criminal justice division reviewing the report themselves that night, they wrote to the minister, and immediately the next morning phoned her and said: "Don't release the report." That's the sequence of events. There's nothing more contained in that. I didn't have a chance to get versed on this and talk with the minister about it on Monday. I was busy doing other things as Premier.
I was at a cabinet committee meeting that Tuesday afternoon after question period -- I think the meeting started about 4 o'clock -- to review a number of items. One of them was the timing and process for releasing the report as quickly as possible. The assumption of everybody who was participating was that the report had to get out to the public and had to be available to members of the Legislature and the media as quickly as it could take place -- the printing and then the release.
So there was no contact by me on the Monday with the minister about the details of this report. As has been said many times, the discussions were about the timing of the report on Friday or soon thereafter, the process by which it would be released in regard to Mr. Parks and the minister, and some of the elements of the report in terms of the terms of reference of Mr. Parks, who was asked to investigate the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society and what happened to these funds and some related issues. It met those terms of reference. So it wasn't a briefing. I have never read a copy of this report. No briefing document came before us. It was going to go to cabinet the next day and then be released as quickly as the matter could practically be taken care of, in terms of the printing and the release.
As I have said before -- and the Leader of the Third Party has heard me say it -- from time to time Mr. Gardiner attends this committee. On this particular occasion he happened to be at that meeting. He wasn't called to the meeting for this particular issue; he was there on another matter and stayed for that matter. So that is as succinct a description I can give of the events that occurred.
[4:15]
J. Weisgerber: The Premier refers to the state of mind of the Minister of Finance. I'm not sure what unusual state of mind or what circumstances he's referring to, but one has to question the judgment of the Minister of Finance in going to that meeting without legal representation. More specifically, given the focus of these estimates, one has to question the fact that people in the Premier's Office didn't provide advice but instead decided to go to the briefing. We have not been able to get any reasonable, rational response or explanation for that action.
The Premier would now lead me and British Columbians to believe that he, Mr. Gardiner and the people at the committee were not briefed about the contents of the report. I'd like the Premier to be very clear in saying that, because I think there will obviously be an investigation of some kind into this whole business. It will be important for the Premier to state on the record very categorically whether or not members of that committee were actually briefed about the contents of the report.
It seems to me, also, that the Premier may want to at least acknowledge that the Minister of Finance, Mr. Walsh and Mr. Heaney, at the very least, have been quite extensively briefed on the contents of the report. But I am particularly interested in knowing and having the Premier state for the record whether or not the committee, with himself and Mr. Gardiner present, was briefed on the contents, the charges that might be contemplated and the persons named in the report.
Quite candidly, I find it very difficult to believe that the briefing of the cabinet committee would be made unless some of those facts were touched on. Who was named? What charges might be contemplated? Who might have been singled out by Mr. Parks for their involvement? Is the Premier saying that none of that was discussed at this cabinet meeting and that that information is known only to the minister, Mr. Walsh and Mr. Heaney?
Hon. M. Harcourt: This is a challenge: to be as forthright as I can with the member without disobeying the instruction of the criminal justice branch of the Attorney General's ministry and the police -- which is to not discuss the report; and secondly, to not breach my oath of confidentiality involving cabinet committees. I'm sure the member, as a previous member of the executive council, would understand that. I have said today what I have said previously and what the minister has said previously.
I think the voyeurism that is now being exhibited by the Leader of the Third Party has gone way beyond the mark of what I am able to respond to. The fishing expedition he's on.... It is inappropriate for me to go further than the instructions that have already been very clearly given to me and to the minister by Mr. Quantz and the police authorities. I don't intend to answer that line of questioning.
J. Weisgerber: The Premier said.... I'll go back and look at Hansard. He said at one point -- before he got nervous -- that the contents of the report were not discussed at the cabinet committee briefing. Perhaps the Premier would stand up and confirm that no details of the report were discussed at the cabinet committee briefing. If he does that, I'll be happy to move on to the next topic.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I will repeat what I've said previously: what was talked about at the committee was the timing, the process, of the release of the report and the basic elements -- not the details. Those were the three things that were talked about.
Interjection.
[ Page 16444 ]
Hon. M. Harcourt: No, they were not. The basic elements, but not the content and the details of the report.
J. Weisgerber: It's an interesting little web to try and unweave. But now we understand the basic elements. I guess the point is that here we have a report that has now become a secret document. It has been referred to the criminal justice branch. It has been withheld from British Columbians. Fair enough, if it had been handled in that way through a process that involved a proper meeting, initially, with Mr. Parks, the minister and legal staff. But instead, what we have are the main players -- the caucus, the leader of the party and a senior official within the party -- being briefed on the main elements of the report and now the report being put off to the criminal justice branch. Surely to goodness the leader of the party -- the Premier of the province -- along with the Attorney General, must have understood, given the warnings that Mr. Parks had given the minister earlier in the day, how inappropriate that briefing was.
That's what most people are concerned about. That's the area where I think the conduct of the Premier directly falls under question. I am hard-pressed to understand how someone with the legal and political experience that the Premier has wouldn't understand that the actions at that committee and the people at the committee represented inappropriate action by a senior member of his cabinet, and a big lapse in judgment by his cabinet or by the cabinet committee that was there. That seems to me to be pretty fundamental, and I have trouble understanding why the Premier can't wrap his mind around that fact.
Hon. M. Harcourt: The fact is that the minister was meeting with Mr. Parks to get advice from him on the progress of his report and on whether he was going to be able to issue an interim report or not. He showed up with a copy of the interim report. He asked that the report be released as quickly as possible. He wanted assurances on the Monday that the report would be released as quickly as possible. The minister has said that on the Tuesday, as she was preparing to do that and carry out her other duties as Minister of Finance and Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, she got a phone call from Mr. Parks about whether they should direct the report by the RCMP and by the criminal justice branch of the Attorney General ministry, and she referred Mr. Parks to the ministry.
There were no instructions, orders or requests from him not to do anything other than carry out what he had asked for the day before. It was the criminal justice branch ADM and the police authorities together, on the Wednesday morning, after the committee meeting, who put that request in writing and over the phone to the minister to not release the report that Mr. Parks had taken to them. They had reviewed overnight, and after that review they specifically requested that we not carry on -- after we'd built up an expectation that the report was to be printed, available and released as quickly as possible, and to answer people's questions.
I'm not sure why the Leader of the Third Party -- except for purely partisan political purposes -- would be miscolouring the intent of the Minister of Finance, who is an honest, genuine person, or of myself, particularly after making the false accusations he has against me. My integrity was found to be of the highest in dealing with the NOW Communications and Mr. Struble issue. I don't know why he's now, once again, imputing motives other than what the minister and I have always described.
D. Mitchell: The leader of the Reform Party might be interested to know that I actually feel some real compassion toward the Premier on this issue. In fact, I feel downright sorry for him. This Parks report issue, which is now before a criminal investigation, certainly cannot help the governing party of the province in political terms, and the Premier cannot, unfortunately -- though I'm sure he would like to -- give an assurance that the report will be made public soon, or that it will be released before an election writ is issued in the province. Because if it isn't, that certainly will be a problem for the governing party. On the other hand, every day that it's delayed, and the longer the delay with the criminal justice system is, it hangs as an albatross around the neck of the governing party. I actually feel some real compassion toward the Premier for the predicament that he and his government have found themselves in -- and placed themselves in, unfortunately -- by having delayed this issue.
Interjection.
D. Mitchell: You know, it's an unfortunate situation. But I don't want to belabour that issue. I want to move on to ask a couple of questions about the estimates of the Office of the Premier and Cabinet Office that are before the committee.
I would like to ask the Premier in particular about some of the senior staff changes he has responsibility for that have occurred in the last little while, and I note that there have been some significant staff changes. The Premier's former chief of staff, Chris Chilton, is no longer with him. Mr. Wilson Parasiuk, the former chair and chief executive officer of the B.C. Trade Development Corporation, which reports to the Premier, has announced that he is moving on. The well-respected press secretary, Andy Orr -- who is well-regarded, I think, by everyone in the parliamentary precinct -- has announced that he's leaving. These are but a few examples of some fairly senior personnel changes in direct reporting to the Premier.
I wonder if the Premier could explain to us what's going on here. Is it simply a natural phenomenon as we get close to the end of the life of a government and a parliament, and as we move toward the fourth anniversary of the election of the government? Is this the natural kind of change that we see in evolution in any government? In that case, are there other senior staff changes that can be expected as we move toward the final year of the mandate of the government?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The member has pointed out three changes. Mr. Chilton is now working on the very important issue of health care, medicare and the future of health care. It is very important to the people of British Columbia that they see the serious danger our fine health care system faces with the cuts and with those who want to dismantle it and go to a two-tier system. I think that Mr. Chilton, through his relationship with many of the key people involved in health care from his days as my chief of staff, or as the associate deputy minister for PIC B.C., as it's called, has gained knowledge of the health care system and its players. He has gained a good working relationship with many people in the health care system, including the B.C. Medical Association, the health care workers and the hospital administrators. Based on that
[ Page 16445 ]
previous experience over many years, and given the huge scope of the issues we're facing in health care -- successfully, I think, except for the cuts that we're having to absorb from Ottawa -- Mr. Chilton's skills are now being utilized in an area of great importance to the people of British Columbia and to me as Premier.
Mr. Parasiuk has worked tirelessly to expand our vision into the Asia-Pacific. At the highest level, he has brought the message about British Columbia to key government and business leaders in Japan, Korea, China, India and throughout Southeast Asia, as well as into many parts of the Americas and into Europe. He has helped raise the profile of B.C.'s economy and this province's strategic location on the Asia Pacific. Mr. Parasiuk has worked tirelessly, with many, many days on the road away from home and a gruelling schedule. Any of you who travel over time zones know how hard it is on the body, how fatiguing, so Mr. Parasiuk, at the end of his three-year contract, made a very clear decision that he didn't want to renew the contract. He wanted to go back to his family and to private life, and he has served British Columbia very ably.
[B. Copping in the chair.]
I say that once again. Wilson Parasiuk was a Rhodes scholar who has been a deputy minister and a superb Minister of Energy and other areas in Manitoba. He has been a successful business person and is going back to the business world. It was time for him -- his choice.
[4:30]
He has been replaced very ably, I'm sure you'll agree, by Michael Francis, who is well-known, certainly not a New Democrat. I think his politics are Blue Tory. He has been successful in community service, whether it be with the film commission or the city centennial. He is a well-respected member of the British Columbia business community -- a very able replacement, I think, and I'm sure that people will agree that he'll serve us well. He's going to be a part-time chair, so we're decreasing the time that the chair spends. Because Oksana Exell has performed very ably as the COO, we're increasing her role as the CEO on the board of B.C. Trade. So we're changing that relationship. But I hope that the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi will agree that we have lost, voluntarily, a very fine chair of B.C. Trade. He's being replaced very ably by Mr. Francis.
The third area is Andy Orr. I agree; I think he has been one of the best Premier's press secretaries that we have seen over many years. He had a good relationship with the opposition and was forthright. He had a good relationship with the media, on most occasions. I think that after three and a half years, with a young family, he felt that it was time to change the pace at which, I'm sure you're aware, the Premier's Office staff travel at. It's a very exhausting, exhilarating, stressful, challenging and exciting pace, but Andy chose this on his own accord. Certainly he and I are still very good friends; I have a great deal of respect and affection for him. I believe he also served the people of British Columbia extremely well. He has been replaced by Brent Humphrey, who has been a journalist here in British Columbia, mostly in the newspaper area. I think you'll find Brent to be just as open and forthcoming. Again, I believe he has a good working relationship with the press gallery. So I trust that answers those three questions about staff changes.
D. Mitchell: I don't question the Premier's tribute to those three individuals at all, although I certainly might debate with him the way that Chris Chilton's appointment has been handled and his mandate. But that's not my purpose in asking the question. My purpose in asking the question is: are these kinds of changes -- not just these changes but these kinds of changes -- indicative of the point in the life of this government, where we're approaching the fourth anniversary of this government? Some senior, well-regarded and capable individuals have left. Some might suggest -- I won't -- that they're bailing out before the dying days of the administration. I don't know if that's the case or not.
But I asked the Premier whether or not we can expect any other staff changes. There has been speculation, for instance, that at the end of this session there may be another cabinet shuffle -- small, minor or major, I don't know. I don't know if the Premier would care to discuss that. But the last time there was a cabinet shuffle, there was an even more significant change of senior officials within ministries as well. In fact, that was even more significant, I would argue, than the changes in the executive council itself. So I'm wondering if we're at the point -- and if the Premier is able to share it with the committee -- where we're about to witness a significant reorganization at the senior level of his administration.
Hon. M. Harcourt: Again, the member is a very skilled parliamentarian -- a very clever fellow. He is a very good cross-examiner, and he is always interested in a sneak preview or scoop on what the Premier is going to do in terms of changes to cabinet and to senior staff. I appreciate his interest and concern about my well-being and about when I'm going to making any decisions.
I don't anticipate, in terms of my office, any further significant changes to the personnel there. My deputy hasn't informed me otherwise -- other than going to Montreal recently to witness the graduation of his son from McGill University. So I don't anticipate that there will be further significant changes in my staff. And with regard to any cabinet changes or changes of the deputies, if there are any, he will be among the first to know.
D. Mitchell: The Premier recently appointed Mr. John Walsh as his new chief of staff. He was formerly the Deputy Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. That's a significant change in the administration of government in the province. I wonder if the Premier can tell us if one of the considerations in making this new appointment was the fact that aboriginal issues are likely to be significantly more high profile for this government as it heads towards the remainder of its mandate. Is that one of the reasons why Mr. John Walsh, former Deputy Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, has now become the chief of staff reporting to the Premier?
Hon. M. Harcourt: That is not the reason that the change was made. Mr. Chilton is now working on medicare and health care issues of great importance to British Columbians. John Walsh, as you know.... I have a great deal of respect for John and his experience and abilities, and I asked him to come in and be the new principal secretary based on that.
You're right that aboriginal issues are, I think, one of the keys to unlocking the civility, prosperity and certainty of British Columbia now and into the future. It's an issue that I feel has to be handled with the greatest of respect, and we
[ Page 16446 ]
need to have experienced people in these challenging times, as we enter into the treaty process with most of the aboriginal people in this province. I believe aboriginal issues are very important. I've been at some extremely good meetings in the last few weeks with the aboriginal leadership of the summit, with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs leadership, with non-aboriginal leaders from business and labour, with the Union of B.C. Municipalities and with other non-aboriginal leaders dealing with the fears, concerns and hopes on where this process is going to take us. Over the last few months I've noticed a significant realization by British Columbians that we're going into the treaty process soon. We're not at any tables, except the Nisga'a. You're right that aboriginal issues are not going to go away. They have to be resolved in a prudent and fair way for all concerned.
To have a chief of staff, or a principal secretary, who was part of the successful conclusion of a treaty process in the Yukon, and who has, as the former Deputy Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, an extensive knowledge and significant experience on aboriginal issues, I think, is an important plus, but it's not the main reason why he was chosen.
D. Mitchell: Thanks to the Premier for that answer. I only hope that he's right in his description of the process that's ahead of us on that issue.
I'd like to change the topic and ask another question of the Premier. In December of last year, in a scrum with the media, the Premier talked about his plans to change the MLAs' pension plan. In February, just prior to the start of this session, he told the media that in this spring session -- which may now be drawing to a close over the next few weeks -- the government had plans to bring in legislation to change the MLAs' pension plan. We haven't seen such legislation yet. Has the Premier abandoned these plans?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The member, as an experienced parliamentarian, is aware that this is a matter of future policy. I welcome his interest in it, though.
D. Mitchell: Fair enough. I won't press the Premier. If he doesn't want to answer, that's fine. I'm just curious. You know, the Premier's made the commitment on the record, the press has reported on it....
The Chair: Member, you are out of order to discuss legislation in Committee of Supply.
Interjections.
The Chair: Or the need for legislation.
D. Mitchell: I would never discuss legislation in committee. I asked the Premier for his intention in this regard, and he doesn't wish to discuss it. Fair enough. I'll leave that on the record, but....
Interjection.
D. Mitchell: I'm not going to say it's another broken promise, hon. member, but it's a promise unfulfilled -- let's put it that way. The reason I asked -- and hon. Chair, you might be interested to know this -- is that earlier in the session I tabled a petition signed by 80,000 British Columbians, organized by the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation, asking that MLAs' remuneration be up-front, on the table -- no hidden perks under the table. The Premier made this promise earlier. It's an unfulfilled promise so far, but I encourage the Premier to get on with it, if he still intends to. If he doesn't wish to discuss it, fair enough. I'm not asking him to hide behind comments about future policy. We have a fairly free and easy exchange here.
Let me change the topic. Let me ask the Premier about one of his plans with respect to his responsibilities for federal-provincial relations. During the last significant cabinet shuffle, the Premier assumed responsibility for federal-provincial relations. It's not an area that's been extremely active. Ever since the Charlottetown accord, in fact, it's been quite a passive area.
But we have, upcoming this summer, a Premiers' conference in Newfoundland, I'm told, at the end of August. I believe the Premier will be attending the conference. Could he tell us what British Columbia will be pursuing on the agenda at the Premiers' conference? What specific issues will British Columbia be bringing forward? Specifically, are there any initiatives that British Columbia is bringing forward that will have an impact on relationships between our province and the federal government?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I can assure the member that there will not be another constitutional conference in the near future. There are, though, a number of....
Interjection.
Hon. M. Harcourt: "Shame," says the member from Sechelt. I don't think there are many British Columbians who would say shame. I think they say that we should get on with our economic challenges and that we've got other priorities.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
There are a number of very active files and issues. There are some very serious international issues around our forest industry -- the number one industry we have. We are dealing with some of the attacks on some of our major companies through an international forestry unit that we established. It has been very effective in bringing people from Europe and the U.S. to see the reality of the changes in British Columbia. I think it's having a real impact in dealing with, for example, the attempts to boycott MacMillan Bloedel by the New York Times and Pac Bell. I think that has been prevented because of the changes we are bringing in in Forests, because of the changes in Clayoquot and because we are giving very serious consideration to the Clayoquot scientific panel, which we will be making decisions on in the near future. That's still a very big issue: the impact on our forest industry of some of the attacks abroad.
Another issue is some of the unfair practices of the United States -- maybe another countervail, the fourth one in ten years. We're working very closely with the federal government and the industry to deal with that potential. There's the salmon treaty, which is at a very intense part of the negotiations between Canada and the United States. There are the questions related to the downstream benefits and the unilateral breaking of the agreement by the Bonneville Power Administration.
[ Page 16447 ]
We have some very important federal-provincial issues around the proposal that I put to the Prime Minister to reduce the deficit by $9.3 billion by getting rid of subsidies to business and transportation and getting rid of duplicating federal-provincial bureaucracies. Why do we have two Forests ministries, two Mines ministries, two Environment ministries and two food and agricultural inspection processes? There should be one. Why do we have two training systems? There should be one training system, and it should be done at the provincial level, where we can coordinate all of those at the local level so that they are dealing with the reality of local economies -- skills that are needed for local jobs.
[4:45]
As you have seen, I have written to the Prime Minister to try to change their approach on getting rid of the deficit, which I think all of us want to see happen. There are ways to do it without harming medicare, without harming the social safety net for people who genuinely need it and without harming the skills and training that our young people need. I am very actively involved in that file, working with my ministers -- the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour, and the Minister of Social Services -- to try and get the federal government to reconsider the $800 million in cuts to Health, Education and Social Services; to take them out of the remaining $4.5 billion of subsidies and duplication instead of out of health care and post-secondary education. There are a number of federal-provincial and international issues that I as Premier and staff in my office are very actively involved in.
D. Mitchell: I am pleased to hear that the minister is active in these areas. We don't hear much about them. The Premier has indicated that he has an aversion to constitutional issues, but in fact many of the issues he has just described have a constitutional implication in terms of the relationship -- jurisdictional relationship, in particular -- between British Columbia and the federal government.
I wonder if I could ask the Premier -- the minister responsible for federal-provincial relations, who happens to be the Premier.... It's an important responsibility, and I'm glad that several files are active right now. I wonder if I could get the Premier to describe or characterize the current relationship between the province of British Columbia and the federal government. I ask that for a couple of reasons. First, the Premier has indicated that there are a number of ongoing files. Just prior to the time the federal government brought down its budget earlier this year, the Premier issued quite a strong statement indicating ways that the federal government could reduce its deficit by up to $9 billion, detailing areas where the federal government should cut. That was quite controversial at the time, given the fact that we didn't have similar cuts here in British Columbia. Nevertheless it was a strong statement.
Recently, I understand, the Premier has had telephone calls with the Prime Minister regarding the Columbia downstream benefits issue and the fact that Bonneville Power Administration has backed out of its treaty obligations under the Columbia River Treaty. I know there must be some ongoing discussions with the federal cabinet minister here in British Columbia, Mr. David Anderson. Sometimes we're told that relationships aren't very good between various ministers of the provincial government and Mr. Anderson. Almost on a daily basis here in the Legislature, we hear of the tensions that exist. One of the opposition parties -- in fact, the official opposition -- is the Liberal Party and it has ties, of course, to the federal Liberal Party. I wonder if that hampers the relationships between the province and the current federal Liberal government. I wonder if the Premier could tell us how he would characterize not only his personal relationship with the Prime Minister and whether there's a reason British Columbia isn't getting its fair share in Confederation -- because we hear complaints about that time and again -- and whether or not partisan politics, such as the connection between the federal Liberal Party and the provincial Liberal Party, is getting in the way of British Columbia getting its fair share from Confederation and whether the federal-provincial portfolio perhaps could or should be managed more aggressively as a result.
Hon. M. Harcourt: The hon. member, as a very gifted historian and writer -- I've enjoyed reading his book on W.A.C. Bennett; it's a very lucid and well-written book -- is aware that in the history of British Columbia we have always felt, with genuine reason, that British Columbia has been shortchanged. Whether it was Richard McBride during a Conservative government in Ottawa and a Conservative government here in British Columbia, Duff Pattullo and a Liberal government here and a Liberal government in Ottawa, or as we had with a Conservative government in Ottawa and a Social Credit, conservative government here in British Columbia. So I don't think that it's anything new in British Columbia feeling that more is going out of British Columbia than is coming in.
I can say that my relationship with the current Prime Minister is a good one. The Prime Minister and I are in touch with each other on a regular basis, either at the first ministers' meetings or on specific issues or as we went together on the Team Canada trip to China, which I first suggested to him at the meeting we had a month after he was sworn into office in 1993. So on a personal basis, we have a chance to talk frankly with each other and to resolve matters that we can.
There are some positive successes. As I said, there's the push onto the Asia-Pacific, the realization by the Prime Minister and the Liberal government of the importance of British Columbia as the front door onto the Asia-Pacific. We're no longer the last stop on the CPR train in an Atlantic-focused country; now we're a Pacific-focused country. Our trade to the Pacific bypassed all of our trade to the Atlantic in 1983. The Prime Minister and the federal government understand that.
The Prime Minister listened to my advocacy on behalf of TRIUMF, that the funding for TRIUMF had to be secured over the next five years, according to a well-thought-out business plan that the president of TRIUMF had put together. You saw the recent, successful announcement -- not as much as the TRIUMF people would like to have seen by the federal government, but sufficient to allow it to be kept intact. Ten million ddollars went from the province to the capital improvements of TRIUMF, so that was a positive.
As well, we have the municipal infrastructure program, Mr. Chair -- through you to the member. I don't want to interrupt his reading. The municipal infrastructure program is one that I attempted to get the previous Tory government to put in place in 1985-86. It took until 1993 to get that in place. You saw that under that $2 billion program, the largest capital project in the country and a very important initiative, was the upgrading of Annacis Island's sewage treatment plant -- $210 million.
I would say that a big negative on the horizon is the Canadian social transfer program. It's just a sneaky way of
[ Page 16448 ]
cutting away federal contributions to British Columbians' heart surgery, cancer treatment, hospitalization and prevention programs -- all the important aspects of health care. It's $800 million -- $1.2 billion over the next 24 months. It's going to be very, very harmful to have that amount of cut come from the federal government. There was another alternative, which I described earlier: to cut subsidies, waste and duplication.
The one that's still a question mark is the Kemano completion project. I've made it very clear that the Kemano completion project is finished and not going to go ahead. We need to go the next stage now. We need to address the water flow and the sustainability of the salmon fishery and other fish on the Fraser River. We still need to work that out. We need to have the federal minister change the 1987 letter from previous Fisheries minister Tom Siddon, so that the water flows are changed to deal with the reality pointed out in the B.C. Utilities Commission hearing. It showed that the water flow set out in the minister's letter wasn't sufficient to keep whole and protect the fishery.
So those are some of the issues. I think there are some positives; there's a big negative in terms of the cuts to health, education and social services; and there is one that's still a question mark.
D. Mitchell: I'll just ask one further question in this area. I'm not sure if the Premier would agree, given the nature of the challenges he's just now outlined, that British Columbia perhaps needs a full-time minister of federal-provincial relations or constitutional affairs. I know the Premier is very busy. I'm not sure how much time he has to devote to that file, but there are some big challenges there.
Currently in our land there is still concern, doubt, confusion and uncertainly about the status of Quebec and the fact that we may be leading to a referendum in that province this fall on the future of their relationship with the rest of the country. It seems that the issue put to the people of Quebec in the referendum will be one of sovereignty association -- a term we've heard before. It's no longer going to be a question of straight independence put to the people but one of some kind of sovereignty association, where a strengthened Quebec will be working in a somehow radically decentralized Canadian federalism.
I'm sure the Premier must have his staff in the federal-provincial relations section monitoring this issue closely. I just wonder if the Premier could briefly summarize whether British Columbia has a position on whether or not a radically decentralized federation could work. Does British Columbia have some mutuality of interest with Quebec in this regard? In that sense, does the Premier believe that a referendum in Quebec on this issue should be matched by somehow tapping into the decision and into the feelings of the rest of the country? Should a referendum in Quebec alone be able to decide such radial changes to the Canadian federation?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'd be more than delighted to answer that question after a short two-minute break. Could we have short recess?
The Chair: I think that's agreeable to all. Shall leave be granted for a two-minute recess?
Leave granted.
The House recessed from 4:57 p.m. to 5:04 p.m.
Hon. M. Harcourt: As I recollect, the two questions from the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi were that I should consider a full-time minister in the intergovernmental affairs portfolio, and secondly, he had some questions about Quebec and the issues of separation, sovereignty-association, the referendum there and maybe a referendum here.
I'll deal with the first question, the full-time minister. We have a full-time federal-provincial bureau, which is staffed by Catherine Holt and some very, very fine people who have a great deal of experience and serve British Columbians very well. On each of the issues you have talked about, there is a full-time minister who works with my office.
On the transfer payments, we have three ministers very actively involved: the Minister of Health, the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour and the Minister of Social Services. We are very aggressively leading the discussions taking place in all the other provinces in these areas, as well as relating federally and provincially. It's a combination of those two, with one directed centrally from the Premier's Office and carried out by the ministers involved.
The same thing happens with some of the other issues, such as the minister of trade dealing with the countervail and the question of the Bonneville power authority, which is an offspring of U.S. authorities, a federal body.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is playing the day-to-day point guard role in the Pacific Salmon Treaty talks that are going on. I think we have the right combination. When I need to talk to the Prime Minister about one of these issues, when they get to that level of intensity or importance or timeliness, then I do just that: I pick up the phone or write to or meet with the Prime Minister. So I think we have the right combination at this time.
On the question of Quebec, I think the proper role is for us to be very encouraging to the people who want to keep Canada together -- people both inside and outside Quebec. It doesn't mean that we believe in the status quo; I don't think the member himself believes in the status quo. I think we in British Columbia, in particular, and for the reasons I alluded to at the beginning.... The reason Sir Richard McBride, Duff Pattullo, W.A.C. Bennett and I felt and feel that we're not being served as well as we could in Canada -- although overall we are well served by being Canadians; I think we realize that -- is that we need change. We need to change, as I've said, to get rid of waste and duplication -- all those 14 different federal ministries and the functions that could be done in one function. The same is true with taxation areas, if we were to finalize some arrangements there -- the GST and PST, for example. There is no need to have two different equivalent sales-tax collection agencies.
I think that the point being raised by a number of people in Quebec, that they want change, is the same one that British Columbians feel: we want change, too. One of the major issues for Quebec is training: it should be done provincially, coordinating the federal-provincial activities and being run by the provincial training ministry. I believe the same is true for British Columbia. I hope that we would continue to play a positive, encouraging role, particularly with the federalists who want change in Quebec, so that when the referendum comes, there will be a "no" vote.
Mr. Chair, I don't see any evidence in the last ten years that there is more than a 25 percent hard-core support for s
[ Page 16449 ]
eparation, unless people can show me evidence to the contrary. There was another 15-or-so percent support for this elusive concept of sovereignty-association. I don't think that there is support at all in British Columbia for that. I think there is no support whatsoever for separation, except that in exasperation, sometimes, people will say something. But I believe people in British Columbia want to keep Canada together, want Quebec to stay in Canada and want to see us get on with some of the changes that need to take place, as I outlined earlier.
D. Mitchell: I have one final but important area I'd like to canvass with the Premier during this estimates review. During the course of reviewing spending estimates for various ministers of his administration, I've raised the issue of the possible privatization of a very successful Crown corporation in the province of British Columbia: B.C. Rail. I've raised that, and I've had some interesting dialogue with the Minister of Transportation and Highways, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Employment and Investment. Coincident with that discussion, we've talked about the government's commitment -- made in the Minister of Finance's budget, which was tabled in the Legislature this session -- to review the taxation for B.C. Rail. Indeed, the Minister of Finance made a commitment to not only review the taxation exemption for B.C. Rail -- which, of course, affects all communities in the province along the B.C. Rail line, some 20 municipalities -- but also take a look at a grant in lieu of taxation.
I know that on June 22 the Premier wrote a letter to the president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, in which he indicated that a major change was about to take place that would affect the assessment of railways and taxation for railways within the municipalities. Of course, the UBCM has been very active on this issue for quite some time. They've had a task force; they've made representation to government; and they've had a commitment from the government that there would be ongoing consultation. However, there is a very grave concern that the proposal, as indicated by the letter that the hon. Premier wrote to the UBCM on this issue, is going to infringe upon the independence and autonomy of municipalities in terms of the assessment process. It may also penalize them by reducing the value that railways would be paying in taxation based upon the property valuation.
The UBCM has been in touch with the provincial government since that time, asking for further consultation on this issue, but so far there hasn't been a commitment to provide that kind of consultation. It should be noted that the UBCM has supported the provincial government's commitment, as outlined in the provincial budget tabled in this House earlier this year. Because this affects railway taxation and some 20 municipalities along the B.C. Rail line, and because it's a major intrusion, potentially, on the independence of establishing property tax assessments in the province -- I think that the Premier as a former municipal leader would understand the concern here -- I wonder if the Premier would agree that this whole issue should not be proceeded with quickly without the UBCM being further consulted. The UBCM has made some constructive proposals. In fact, there was a meeting with the Minister of Municipal Affairs two days ago, on June 27, but no conclusion has come from that meeting. As the leader of the government, the Premier has a key role to play to ensure that all the municipalities affected will not be adversely affected by a precipitous policy that doesn't involve the appropriate kind of consultation that should and could still take place with the Union of British Columbia Municipalities.
I wonder if the Premier would be willing today, in this committee, to make the commitment that we will not be running headlong toward this policy proposal but that there will be further necessary consultation with the UBCM. The independence and autonomy of local municipalities and the integrity of the assessment process is at stake here.
Hon. M. Harcourt: When we talk about B.C. Rail, we have to realize that we can't talk about it in isolation. I agree with you that it's a commercial Crown corporation that has served the province well and has opened up significant parts of the north and the interior of this province. But we have to realize that B.C. Rail does not exist in a vacuum. First of all, in the February 28 budget we received a shock. The $400 million for the Crow rate is going to be eliminated for the grain growers over the next three years: it's gone as a subsidy for the railroads carrying their grain. The federal government cut that out 100 days ago. That will be gone.
Second, major cuts -- privatization in CN's case or restructuring in both their cases are the words used for laying off lots of people and abandoning branch lines -- are occurring right across Canada. That is going to have serious consequences for a lot of communities, particularly in the east, but to a certain extent here in western Canada and British Columbia.
[5:15]
Third, Canadian railroad costs are 20 to 40 percent higher than the U.S. railroads'. When you add all of these factors up.... There is talk coming out of the prairies about trucking or short-line rail hauling bringing U.S. aggressive marketing, wooing, soliciting -- whatever you want to call it by U.S. carriers, whether it be Union Pacific, Burlington Northern, the Sioux Line or whatever -- and very aggressive wooing by the ports on the west coast of the United states for that business, whether it's Tacoma, Seattle or Portland. Here in British Columbia we're facing a very serious challenge to all of our rail traffic, and unless we put B.C. Rail in that context with those forces, we really miss the point.
You have probably talked to the superb president of B.C. Rail, Paul McElligott. He is a very tough, commercially minded businessman who runs the railroad well. He will tell you that the rail revenues are flat, as part of a mature corporation; that they don't see huge increases in their revenues. So they are looking at that situation and looking strategically at how to deal with that and how to deal with all these other pressures that are around.
Those are the things that are driving the review of B.C. Rail and its medium- and long-term future. I believe B.C. Rail is serving B.C. well, but I would not be fulfilling my duty as Premier if I weren't aware of those pressures and weren't planning, and weren't thinking about what options there are for B.C. Rail. So that's the situation we face right now that we have to deal with.
You asked about the review of taxation that has been going on between the government and B.C. Rail and the
[ Page 16450 ]
UBCM. Yes, that review is taking place, and I think the ministers responsible have had a good working relationship with the UBCM and the municipalities along the line. I'm sure the minister will have more to say about that sometime in the near future.
The third issue is the question of how we can make the railroads more efficient. There are discussions taking place as a result of the factors I have just outlined: a hundred days ago, the Crow rate was gone; there are the changes in competitive positions of the railroads in Canada and the United States, and the question of the changes at CN and CP and of privatization. All of those changes are affecting the future viability of the rails. There have been discussions with not just the CN and CP about what they want to see the people of British Columbia do as part of becoming more competitive, and as part of maintaining the existence of the rail system in western Canada.... If we lost that, a lot more jobs would be lost. We're looking at ways to work cooperatively with the railroads, the communities, the ports and the workers at the ports to be more productive and efficient. I have met with the UBCM; I have heard their concerns about the municipal taxation issue. You should know that our municipal taxes are four to eight times that of other provinces. It's a very significant cost factor for the railroads.
We are talking to CN and CP and asking: if we were to take action on that $20 million a year, $12 million of which is provincial -- in other words, the school taxation in the unorganized territories -- and about $8 million of which is the municipalities along the line, what would you do in return in terms of job creation, capital investment and long-term commitment to maintain the rail system in western Canada? It was at that point that we heard the UBCM's concerns about this matter, about potential legislation that could be coming before the House, about severing that legislation as it relates to municipalities and about whether any legislation is going to go ahead before full consultation can take place. I can assure the member that consultation will take place before whatever form of legislation people are talking about goes forward.
D. Mitchell: I'm favourably impressed with the Premier's sensitivity to the need to have competitive railways operating in the province. That's something that is very important to our transportation network. It's crucial that Canada's two largest national railways, one of which is about to become privatized, are competitive. In an era where we have seen deregulation and costs being driven down on the American side of the North American continent, we have to be competitive in a continental context. Indeed, B.C. Rail, Canada's third-largest railway, also must be competitive -- there's no question about that. It's a fine Crown corporation and a very successful business, and the current management team there needs to be applauded for doing an excellent job.
The Premier's awareness of the need for rail competitiveness, though, has to strike a balance with some principles about municipal autonomy in terms of establishing local tax rates. I know that the Premier, as a former municipal leader in our province and as an active participant in the Union of British Columbia Municipalities some years ago, will be sensitive to this issue. I just want to clarify that the Premier has made a commitment, then -- this is what I understood him to say, but I'd like to ask him to confirm this -- that we will not be proceeding headlong towards any precipitous changes in this particular policy without the UBCM being in complete concert with this in terms of the consultation that has been, and perhaps continues to be, necessary.
The reason I raise that is that the letter the Premier wrote to the UBCM a week ago today has caused some concerns that have indeed resulted in a meeting with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, which, I'm told -- and I've had communications from the UBCM to my office as recently as today.... There is grave concern that the government may rush headlong into a policy that is going to seriously intrude in the local autonomy of municipalities to establish their own tax rate policies. That's what we have to balance against the very crucial need, as well, to have a competitive rail service in British Columbia. Has the Premier indeed made that commitment that we will not move forward until the UBCM have been consulted to their satisfaction?
Hon. M. Harcourt: We also have to balance with that the urgency with which we need to start to invest further in the railroads to make them more competitive -- significant capital investments. That's another factor that has to be balanced with the other two that you've talked about.
I met with the UBCM a couple of days ago. They requested, if we were going to be proceeding with legislation, that the province should sever the part that applies to municipal government, or it should not be implemented with regard to municipal government, until there is full consultation with the UBCM and the municipalities that would be substantially affected by any changes. I told the president of the UBCM, Joanne Monaghan, that I had heard her request. I requested that we have a meeting or communications between the UBCM, the municipalities that would be most involved, the railroads and the provincial government -- that we start the consultation process quickly and have a full consultation process with the railroads.
We have to balance that. If we were to delay any legislation a year, the railroads might just say: "Well, there's no certainty out here in British Columbia. There's no commitment from the provincial government to show some leadership in helping us become competitive by being part of the solution, so we're just going to take our scarce investments and put them elsewhere. Put them into the short lines into the south; put them into eastern Canada."
I understand very clearly the balance that's required. I assured the UBCM that I was certainly going to take their request to sever off the part that deals with the municipal governments until we've had a full and frank discussion. I don't think there's an intention, though, if we were to bring legislation forward that deals with the provincial portion -- the $12 million of school tax and unorganized territory tax, which could become applicable next January -- to delay that part of it. That is part of the mix that I'm considering right now, and I think we are into a very speeded-up consultative relationship with the UBCM and the railroads.
D. Mitchell: My final comments, then, during these estimates are to urge the Premier to indeed try to achieve that very delicate balance. It's not easy. He's in government; he leads the government. The government has the responsibility to make these decisions and to try to achieve that balance. We want to have the most competitive rail transportation system in North America right here in British Columbia -- the most competitive. But at the same time, I think the UBCM has some
[ Page 16451 ]
valid concerns -- I hope the hon. Premier will agree -- and when it comes to the independence of establishing assessments and the local autonomy concerns about establishing tax rates, I think those are vital, those are crucial, to the creatures that the province has created, known as municipalities. I know the Premier must be especially sensitive to this, given his background.
This could very well be the last time in the life of this parliament that we will have a chance to review the estimates of the hon. Premier. We don't know that for sure, but I suspect there's a chance that this may be the final opportunity I will have to question the Premier in this very frank way, and I appreciate the Premier's attempt to answer my questions.
I'd like to say a couple of words to him that he might think are uncharacteristic coming from an opposition member. I'd like to say thank you to the hon. Premier. Thank you for your public service. Thank you for the sacrifice you've made to do what you do, and happy anniversary as well, hon. Premier. And who knows? In another parliament, in another life, we may have an opportunity to do this again.
G. Wilson: I'm going to try to be as direct as possible with my questions, noting the hour and hoping to conclude before the supper hour.
I have three areas in which I'd like to direct questions with respect to the Premier's estimates. The first is with respect to trade, and I'd like to go into that. The second is to follow up on a few comments that were made by my colleague from West Vancouver-Garibaldi with respect to the first minister's role in federal-provincial relations. Lastly, I want to talk a bit about some of the personnel changes and pick up on some comments that were introduced by the Leader of the Third Party.
Before I do that, I wonder if I might ask a couple more questions with respect to this matter of local rail taxation, because this is a critically important issue. I am impressed with the extent to which the Premier is briefed and prepared to discuss this matter in these estimates, and I think that says a lot for the intention of this government to be open in its direction and policy.
One of the difficulties we are likely to face if the government proceeds headlong with this matter is that revenues that are anticipated and therefore built into local government may be fairly severely curtailed in the immediate future, or they may be curtailed over an extended period of time if there's a phase-in. Either in his letter of May 22, which went forward, or in the subsequent meeting, which I understand took place a couple of evenings ago, the Premier gave commitments to those member municipalities of the UBCM that will be affected. A number of them will be affected far more than others. I wonder to what extent the government is prepared to address the question of revenue shortfall, because that will be a matter that is ultimately going to be handed down to the local taxpayer. It is a very serious issue, and I wonder if the Premier is prepared to discuss the role he has played in those discussions.
[5:30]
Hon. M. Harcourt: The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast is probably aware that, unlike just about every other provincial government in Canada, we have not taken the off-loading from the federal government and automatically passed it down to the municipal governments. We have kept whole -- and increased, as a matter of fact -- conditional and unconditional grants. We have pushed very aggressively for a municipal infrastructure program, which has upgraded the sewer, water and basic services in this province. We are going to be picking up the cost of municipal health departments under the.... Vancouver's very good health department coming under the Vancouver Health Board is a $4 million impact on their budget.
Our track record is the best in Canada in not repeating the off-loading of costs from the federal government to the provinces. It's in that spirit that we have consulted with the UBCM. If there are changes we all have to make.... We are going to have to make changes, frankly, if we are going to be able to have a competitive rail system in western Canada and not lose it to the States, or lose it period.
We have said that of the $20 million of taxation per year, $12 million of that is a provincial responsibility in any event; that about $8 million affects about 10 communities over 5 percent. We are prepared to sit down with the UBCM and those communities and deal with the phasing that would occur, and to mitigate the impact of this challenge that we face, which is the survival of the transportation system -- and not just the rails. If the rails lose their freight and their customers, so do the ports, and the impact on British Columbia would be horrendous if that happened.
I think we understand that we don't want that to happen. So the second alternative is for all of us to pull together and each do our bit, and I believe that the province has shown some leadership to pull the railroads, the communities, ourselves, the ports and the port workers together to grapple with this new reality.
I think that should answer the hon. member's question. The track record we have as a government, the commitment to consult openly with the municipalities and an awareness that there is going to have to be some mitigation of the impact of any changes to municipal taxation on the railroad system....
G. Wilson: I just have a couple more questions in this area. I think some people would have argued -- in fact, I was one of them -- that the writing was on the wall and that maybe it was made no more clear than when CP changed its logo to have only half a Canadian flag and half an American flag. I think that at that point there really was a very clear indication that this company that benefited from massive land provisions across this country, tremendous land grants that built a railway system to try to unite this country, was clearly going to find itself in trouble with respect to the American competition south of the border.
So I'm well aware -- and the Premier has stated it in a very articulate way -- that this is a horrendous problem if we do not remain competitive. It is really just a very small part of the much larger question of continental economy and what's happening with respect to our trading relationship with the United States. I'll come to some questions with respect to that and the Pacific Rim in a few minutes.
By the same token, the steps that have been outlined -- at least, if we can take the comments provided to us from Joanne Monaghan, the UBCM president, in respect to the letter of June 22 written by the Premier -- are suggesting that the Premier, in consultation, has indicated there is going to be
[ Page 16452 ]
ongoing, almost micro-managing of municipal railway assessment and taxation by the provincial government. We have to question the wisdom of it, because clearly there has been a history of local autonomy. That local autonomy has provided opportunity for local government to direct its destiny with respect to those lands within its jurisdiction. This is a very major departure in terms of the municipal assessment process and the autonomy that local government has to set its rates.
Just to follow up on the question first asked by my colleague from West Vancouver-Garibaldi, once we get into this process and decide we're going to maintain a competitive advantage through effectively providing tax relief, it seems to me that it could be, very clearly, a very slippery slope. That is ultimately going to, like it or not....
I take the Premier's comments to heart when he says his government has not off-loaded federal cutbacks. To a degree that's true. I don't take argument with that, except to say that the way we're going on this question may leave no alternative but to off-load, unless some other policy initiative is going to come forward that's going to say we're now going to take a substantive pool of investment dollars and push that into the municipalities to expand their tax base, in order for them to be able to find relief through expanded tax opportunities. If that's the way we're going, well, there may be some way it could work, except that it might be a very long program of investment at a very high cost to the provincial taxpayer. I wonder if the Premier has some thoughts on that.
Hon. M. Harcourt: Rather than speculate on what is to come, we need to enter into the negotiating process with the municipalities and the railroads. Time is of the essence. We can't twiddle our thumbs. We can't find the most perfect, politically sensitive solution over the next five years. We've got months, not years. If we don't act quickly and boldly and together, the rail transportation system in western Canada is in deep trouble. So I hope the member understands the urgency we have to have. It's in that sense of realism about what we're facing that I say change is going to come. As a provincial government, we're going to mitigate the negative impacts of that change as much as possible on the communities that are most affected.
I have said that the provincial government already has the responsibility for 60 percent of the change, and we'll take care of that. Second, with respect to the 40 percent that rests on the municipal taxation part, I have said that we're going to consult with the municipalities. We're not going to bring in legislation without full consultation with them as it affects the municipalities. Third, I have said that we are prepared to deal with the municipalities that are the most impacted. It's unrealistic to say that the provincial taxpayer should pick up all of this, that there should be no investment or flow back from the railroads and that the municipal taxpayer should be made totally responsible.
We're all going to have to play our part: the workers in becoming more efficient; the shippers in the ports, the same thing -- increasing productivity. The railroads are going to have to agree to reinvest into western Canada -- into British Columbia in particular -- if there are going to be any changes to that municipal and provincial taxation of railroads. This is not something that we can sit down and study for the next four or five years. We have to act within months, and I think that we are in fact carrying out the balancing that the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi suggested.
G. Wilson: I certainly understand that, and I understand the urgency. I can offer the constructive support of the members of the Alliance in trying to find that balance and making sure that what we do put in place in the next number of weeks will work to the advantage of all British Columbians, and I offer that in a sincere way. I do hope that the consultation with municipal authorities will be thorough so that we don't have an unfortunate erosion of municipal-provincial relations, which I think to date have been reasonably good.
Having said that, let me quickly move on, then, to matters of trade. I'm particularly interested in the trade initiative with India that was undertaken by the province recently. I haven't heard anything as to what came out of that. I would refer the Premier to a number of different articles that have been written recently with respect to the very quickly expanding economy in India. Certainly the people writing for very prestigious financial newspapers would argue that India has one of the fastest and most bullish economies in south Asia today. As the Premier knows, a very large and very productive part of British Columbia's population have India as their homeland and roots.
We hear an awful lot about Japan and China, and recently we have heard about Korea and even Vietnam and Indochina, but we don't hear much about India. I was quite intrigued to learn that we actually had a trade initiative go there, and I'd be anxious to hear what came out of it. I'm sure this province could benefit an enormous amount by having very active and very aggressive relations with that nation.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm glad the member asked about the India mission that took place in January, when the then Minister of Environment, the MLA for Esquimalt-Metchosin, and the members for Vancouver-Fraserview and Vancouver-Kensington went to India with Wilson Parasiuk of B.C. Trade and a number of business people. It was a very successful trip. They met with some of the highest officials in the Indian government. I think we have to remember that this is a country with a population of 800 million plus. It is the tenth major industrial power in the world. It is deregulating very rapidly. It is entering into a market economy, getting rid of a lot of the barriers that used to exist in the Indian economy, and there are tremendous opportunities. It was with that intent over the last couple of years that B.C. Trade has been active in India, realizing that the opportunities are there.
Some of the examples of what occurred during the January visit are: Columbia Chrome of Langley signed a $45 million joint venture agreement with Concast of India to overhaul hydraulic cylinders; and the Open Learning Agency entered into a memorandum of understanding with Symbiosis of Poona -- now Pune -- to explore cooperation in curriculum development. As well, B.C. Trade signed a formal agreement with the Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation to promote a number of specific areas of activity in the agrifood industries -- particularly food processing, environmental remediation, power generation and distribution, tourism and film development. As a matter of fact, as a result of that, an Indian film is being made here as we speak, and a second one is underway, using British Columbia for its location.
We expect a visit in the fall from some of the Indian government and business people. I think I have spoken publicly about a second Team Canada trip in January 1996, with the Prime Minister, Premiers and business community going to India. So our relationships with India are intensifying and growing very rapidly.
[ Page 16453 ]
G. Wilson: I'm particularly interested and pleased to hear the Premier mention the film connection. I found it interesting to note that Hollywood pales when compared to the Indian film industry. In terms of the number of films and people involved, and of sheer dollars in terms of viewership, it's an absolutely amazing industry in that country. It is nice to see that there are some connections being made there, because it's a clean industry and one that does bring revenue to Canada, and to British Columbia particularly, with limited side effects.
But I'm particularly interested in the context of environmental remediation and India. We have, I think, been involved fairly significantly with China with respect to initiatives. Having talked to a number of people in private business who are doing work in China now, as well as to some people working within B.C. Trade who are going over to China, I think the opportunities in India with respect to environmental remediation are enormous, particularly in the areas of urban planning and the expansion of the need for urban infrastructure and how those kinds of accommodations can be made.
[5:45]
When one considers that in Calcutta they build a city the size of Vancouver every year, one can see the enormous kind of challenges that country faces on an annual basis. It would seem to me that we have an enormous amount of expertise here, built up over a number of years, that we could market successfully in India. I wonder to what extent there are research and development opportunities now with British Columbia-based companies that would be able to operate in India in some of those areas. I think that there are real opportunities there, with tremendous benefit back to British Columbia if, in fact, we can find solutions to problems that we haven't quite met yet, but that they are living with on a day-to-day basis.
Hon. M. Harcourt: There are immense opportunities in Asia, not just in environmental remediation but in infrastructure. A trillion dollars will be spent in the next ten years in Asia on infrastructure, just through the Asian Development Bank. The opportunities are staggering, and B.C. is well placed. With great cities like Vancouver and Victoria and the smaller urban centres that are growing into very high-quality urban centres like Kelowna, Kamloops, Prince George and Nanaimo.... There are a number of high-quality communities, and I think we have a skill in urban planning. We've got the growth strategies act we've just proclaimed and we've got the Georgia Basin initiative underway. The member for Burnaby-Willingdon is parliamentary secretary on that very exciting initiative with the state of Washington.
We have the experience of our environmental industries working in Globe '94 and Globe '92, to show off one of the rapid-growth industries in B.C.: our environmental technologies and environmental consultants. We have, through B.C. Trade, formed a consortium of environmental companies to work together to make one presentation to the Vietnamese or the Indians and then bring in the resources that are required. Instead of having ten different companies going over and confusing the officials, as we have in the past, we have one presentation in a partnership between B.C. Trade and the private sector.
We are going to be pursuing the issue of dealing with the urbanization stress and strains in the developing countries like India, which is very rapidly becoming a modernized country. So I agree with you, hon. member, that there are great opportunities in India for those areas you have just outlined.
G. Wilson: I'm not aware of this consortium, and I'm most interested in it. Not wanting to take a great deal of time in these estimates about it, I wonder if the Premier might direct this member to where I might get information on that. That is something that members of the Alliance would be most interested in pursuing.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I can certainly supply the member with the information. About 16 strategic alliances have been formed; some of them are very successful. The value-added forest products manufacturers come together in Japan very successfully. The CCD is the consortium on the environmental alliances. I will get you a list of all the companies participating in these alliances. The member may want to talk to some of the officials at B.C. Trade about this innovative approach, where B.C. Trade is a world leader, bringing small and medium-sized companies together in one marketing presence. It is very successful in environmental technologies, shipbuilding, value-added forest products, IGS and surveying. There are a number of these that I will certainly make the member aware of and give him the background material on.
Hon. G. Clark: I am delighted to interject in the estimates of the Premier. It's an interesting and scintillating discussion, but I notice the clock. I move the committee rise and report significant 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.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Clark: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:30 p.m.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 5:52 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 2:49 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES
(continued)
On vote 38: minister's office, $371,984 (continued).
[ Page 16454 ]
D. Mitchell: I have a couple of questions for the minister on the information and privacy branch, and on the B.C. archives and records service, both of which are important agencies within his ministry. The minister no doubt will have learned since assuming responsibilities for this portfolio that he's charged with the responsibility of administering one of the most important pieces of legislation in government, a relatively new piece of legislation called the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, passed by the Legislature just a few years ago.
The information and privacy branch within his ministry is charged with that task. While I have a specific line of questioning on this, which I will not pursue at any length, I'd like to ask the minister, since he's had a chance to familiarize himself with the ministry, if he is satisfied, to this point, that the information and privacy branch is fulfilling its responsibilities under the terms of that statute.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I believe that it is, from the information that I've been able to glean. Of course, there are always areas where efficiencies could be achieved if you looked deeper. But on the face of it, the information that I've received indicates that it's doing well.
D. Mitchell: The information and privacy branch is charged, of course, with ensuring that this piece of legislation is implemented and coordinated across government. I would argue that we're still having growing pains. We're still in the learning phase of getting the public service accustomed to dealing with this procedure, which is available to the general public and the media and Members of the Legislative Assembly. Of course, the general public will have, perhaps, a misguided notion of what freedom of information is all about, partially as a result of how we as members of the Legislature use the act, for whatever purposes.
Having said that, one of the perhaps unintended consequences of the legislation has been a number of leaks of information. This is unfortunate, in my view, but I've noticed a pattern, and I seek the minister's comments. Whenever the media or a Member of the Legislative Assembly requests information that may appear to be sensitive, time and time again we've seen a pattern -- and I've certainly heard other members of the Legislature comment on this -- that when it gets close to the 30 days elapsing, during which a freedom-of-information request must be responded to, surprisingly the information appears in the media. It seems to leak from the public service. I don't know how this happens, but when the legislation was passed it was my assumption -- and we debated this at length with the Attorney General at the time, who was the minister responsible for the bill -- that the identity of a person making a request under freedom of information would certainly have some privacy rights of his or her own. That doesn't seem to be the case.
In fact, it seems to be the case that when a request for information comes forward, if it is sensitive it goes to the person who is identified as the head under the terms of the information and privacy branch. Inevitably the head is the deputy minister of each ministry. It would appear that the ministers, therefore, also become aware of the identity of the person requesting information. I'd like to know from the minister whether he believes that's appropriate under the terms of the legislation.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's an interesting question. I believe that if you are in the public domain and are seeking information, your privacy is treated differently from an individual who is seeking information as a private individual. If a Crown corporation, government agency, MLA or public official seeks information, I think the rights of privacy obviously aren't paramount to the same extent as the rights of privacy of an individual.
D. Mitchell: I think that's awfully close to a new policy statement with respect to the information and privacy branch and how freedom-of-information requests are to be handled by government. Rather than have this information brought to the attention of the heads of ministries and therefore surreptitiously to their political masters, if I can use that term, perhaps there should be a statement. Perhaps the information and privacy branch should make this very clear to any individual who requests information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Individuals who request information should be advised as to whether their identities are going to be revealed throughout the various levels of the ministry, Crown corporation or other agency that they're requesting information from. I don't know if the minister would agree. Does he think that such a change would be required? Do we need to look at some sections of the act with a view to amending them and making this clear?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I would venture to add that if you have an inquiry or request for information in the nature of a public interest -- a request on behalf of constituents in general or a request that essentially concerns a public issue all across the province -- I think one would be able to successfully argue, and it would be my humble view, that there is really no right of privacy in that situation. If, however, an MLA is seeking information on behalf of a constituent with a specific request for information pertaining to a particular issue, I believe that may be treated differently insofar as the information relating to the constituent is concerned -- the name of the constituent or why the information is being sought. Individuals obviously have a right of privacy.
As an individual, I would have more right of privacy than I would have as an MLA. I think that we are in the public domain. When MLAs, political parties or public agencies seek information, it is understood that we are in the public domain, and we are seeking information that is releasable to the public. How can there be a right of privacy when you're seeking information in the public domain that you are seeking to communicate in the public domain?
My information is that much of the information nowadays is being released before 30 days are up. In over 90 percent of the cases, the information is being released before 30 days being up.
D. Mitchell: I think the minister is right. Oftentimes I think of some ministries and agencies of government that are actually dealing with this quite efficiently.
The concern arises when information of a potentially sensitive nature is about to be released. Something happens, it seems. It's mysterious; I can't understand it. All of a sudden we see that information being announced or leaked before it's even given to the person or persons who requested it.
When we conceived this legislation through the process that proceeded to the bill being tabled and passed in the House -- and the member for Burnaby North certainly
[ Page 16455 ]
remembers that and played a key and very useful role in that process -- or during the debates in the Legislature, I don't believe that the identity or the purpose for the request was really an issue. The identity of the person making the request or the reasons why the request was being made were never considerations or criteria that were crucial. We were really giving birth to the principle that government was open. Information that wasn't before cabinet or restricted for any other reason under the act would be made available to any requester, without having to give explicit reasons why or having to give consideration to different categories of requesters.
The minister is saying that's not right. Perhaps the reasons for the request -- apparent, presumed or otherwise -- or the identity of the person making the request is actually important and will result in a different process in the sense that a minister may not have it drawn to his or her attention. Is that correct?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think what I said essentially is that if you have an individual seeking information that may not be or may not belong in the public domain, that individual's right of privacy is superior to the right of privacy enjoyed by an MLA or a public official. It is my respectful view, hon. member, that when you are seeking information that you or someone else may be seeking to put in the public domain, it's important for the public to know that information in any event.
In fact, more and more, all of us are seeing the evolution of a process and perhaps a policy across ministries and across Crown corporations to try and throw as much information out in the public domain as possible, even without a request coming forward for it. So you can pre-empt the thousands of requests, which are coming in day in and day out, and which are much more tedious to deal with than if the information went out on a wholesale basis, as much as can be done.
No, I'm not suggesting that people should be treated differently. I think there is one criterion for people who are in the public domain and are seeking to put information in the public domain. That criterion ought to be that if information is going to be in the public domain ten days from now, it might as well be in the public domain ten days earlier.
What the hon. member is seeking a response to is the loss of that element of surprise, the element of shock, the brown-envelope effect. That's essentially what this whole process is designed to deal with. In fact, I am looking at the possibility of doing a campaign across British Columbia to inform the public that this piece of legislation is available for them to utilize and that any time we provide information pursuant to freedom-of-information legislation, there ought not to be an element of surprise, because that information is waiting for anyone in British Columbia to get at.
[3:00]
I think you raise an important issue, one that I have in the back of my mind. I've been thinking about this ever since I got into the ministry. I think it's important for the government to advise and inform the people of British Columbia that this government put in place the most open legislation in North America and that the best from North America was gleaned in terms of the legislation. The member for Burnaby North, my colleague sitting to our right, had a large hand in the preparation and passage of this legislation. I'm sure he is interested in this debate as to the kinds of questions you're asking. With or without a request, if it comes to the attention of a public official within any ministry that information ought to be released, I'm of the view that that information should be released. What you're saying is that if somebody has gotten that information and attached a request to it, then somehow it shouldn't be "leaked." It should be given to that individual for the element of surprise. That's a novel argument.
D. Mitchell: I think the minister does understand what I'm getting at here; I am referring to one of the unintended consequences of this legislation. I applaud the government for being brave enough to bring in this legislation. It truly is extraordinary legislation. We're just learning how to use it, and we will for years yet. Who knows? The government may ultimately suffer in political terms for having been brave enough to bring in this legislation and this kind of openness, because the legislation has certainly been used by the critics of the government.
Having said that, if the minister is planning a public information campaign about how to use the act.... Now that it has been extended to all public agencies in the province -- local government, police forces, fire departments, police departments and what have you -- I think some education would be useful. It might be wise, as part of this public information campaign, to advise British Columbians that if they should, through a freedom-of-information request, accidently stumble onto something that is sensitive, they should be aware of the fact that the government or agency involved is likely to pre-empt the delivery of the information by coming forward and announcing it before it gets into the hands of those who requested it. We wouldn't want an individual to surprise the government or catch any official off guard or napping with some information that might be a surprise to them.
The truth is that when individuals make requests under the act, they usually don't know exactly what they're going to get. What they get is often severed or sometimes different from what they expect. The element of surprise, I can tell you, is often there when you receive the information. When you get a covering page for a document and 80 blank pages, it's quite a surprise.
Having said that, I think the minister has provided some useful information to the committee today, which is that individuals can't expect to have their identities kept private when they make a request. If they stumble onto something that might be sensitive or potentially critical of the government or public agency involved, they shouldn't expect to get that information before the government announces it. At least that's the way I've interpreted what the minister says.
I'd like to turn to one specific aspect of this whole process that I personally have had some experience with. It's the issue of public opinion research that's conducted by government. Early on in the legislation, I initiated what was then one of the first cross-ministry requests for information in terms of what kind of public opinion research was being conducted in government and Crown corporations. At that time I was critical of the government, because the Premier and this minister's predecessor had committed that all public opinion research paid for with taxpayers' dollars would be made available to the public after cabinet had a chance to look at it.
What happened subsequently -- and the information and privacy branch was directly involved in this process -- is
[ Page 16456 ]
that the British Columbia archives and records service was designated as the repository for all public opinion research conducted by government. Indeed, a registry was established in the Provincial Archives. I'm familiar with this because I've used the registry from time to time, and I'm a user of the archives.
The thing that concerns me -- and I'd like to ask the minister if he can shed some light on this -- is that the registry isn't kept up to date at all. The public opinion polls and surveys that are in the registry at the Provincial Archives are two and three years old and rarely updated. I'm not sure whether this is an issue where Archives simply does not have the staff or the capability to archive and catalogue the information and keep it up to date, and that could well be the case; whether the information and privacy branch isn't delivering the public opinion research to the archives on a regular basis; or whether it's simply a case that the government is not willing to live up to its commitment to make this public opinion research available.
I can tell you this: the registry is not up to date, and the government, on the face of it at least, is not living up to its commitment of making available all public opinion research that is paid for with tax dollars. I'd like to ask the minister to clarify why this is the case and whether or not he can correct it, now that he's becoming familiar with this portion of his ministry.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The archives are a passive recipient of the information. It's the PIC -- public issues coordination -- office that does periodic updates on the information. I have not personally checked on the current status and when it was last done. I don't have the information on when the update was completed last time. However, implicit in the hon. member's question is the idea that because there isn't enough updated recent information in the archives, there is therefore a lack of updating. There is an implicit assumption that the government is doing a lot of opinion research and just isn't updating the archives. That may not be so and I can find that answer for you.
Going back to the original question about privacy and individuals requesting information, the hon. member summed up his understanding of my response by saying that individuals, when they seek information, don't have as much privacy anymore. I did not mean to say that, if I appeared to say that. I said that the individuals are treated differently from people in the public domain or bodies in the public domain. Even if you have a request -- theoretically, it is quite possible for an individual who apparently is not in the public domain to make a request for the information -- the information may legitimately belong in the public domain. If that information is released before the information is somehow given to the individual, I still believe that the individual's right to privacy as to whether he or she made the request as a result of which the information went out..... That right of privacy is still intact, unless there is some reason in the public domain for that name to be made public. The individual's right of privacy is paramount.
D. Mitchell: I thank the minister for that answer. I'm going to go back and read the minister's answers to both my questions very carefully in Hansard and see if I understand this. I don't want to belabour the point now, so I thank the minister for that answer.
With respect to public opinion research, the minister's predecessor made a commitment to keep the archives' registry up to date. The freedom-of-information request I had made initially showed that the government was engaged in very significant amounts of public opinion research. That's not surprising; good research makes good policy. I applaud the government for doing public opinion research. My only criticism is that if the taxpayers pay for it, at some point it should be made public -- maybe not immediately, especially if the policy is still before a cabinet. I understand that. But at some point public opinion research paid for with tax dollars should be made public, and we should all get a chance to see it. We should get a chance to see the input and the research that goes into making, hopefully, good public policy. I would appreciate the minister taking the time to look into this, because my strong sense and belief is that the registry of public opinion research in the archives is not being kept up to date.
I should let him know that I've met with Mr. Ian Reid, who was hired in his ministry. I forget his title right now, and I will refer to him not disrespectfully as the guru of public opinion research within the ministry, but his job -- or my understanding of his description of his job -- is to coordinate the commissioning of public opinion research across government to ensure that there was no duplication and that some coordination was brought to an activity that seemed to have been pursued during the first couple of years of this government's mandate in a rather ad hoc manner.
As a Member of the Legislative Assembly who tries to keep informed of these issues, I have no evidence, either, that there has been more coordination of the millions of dollars that are spent on public opinion research by the government and Crown corporations or that the research is being made available to the public, even though it is paid for in tax dollars. I just highlight that as a concern. Would the minister like to respond?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that a recent policy indicates that there ought to be quarterly updates; there ought to be updates once every three months. I know, and I acknowledge for the member, that their updates have not been very regular recently. We will make every effort to make them regular.
D. Mitchell: I appreciate that commitment from the minister. On this line of questioning _ and I won't take up much more of the committee's time _ one of the other unintended consequences of this new act has been the apparently changed mandate of the British Columbia archives and records service. I'd like to ask the minister about this. I should tell the minister that I'm a regular user of the archives; I do research there.
The British Columbia archives and records service was once the prime provincial repository for historical papers, manuscripts and records, not only government records but private manuscripts, maps, photographs and some very significant private collections. The northwest collection in its library was the best single comprehensive collection of books published about or in British Columbia.
But the mandate of the archives seems to have changed in recent years, and in particular since the Freedom of Information Act was passed. The mandate of the archives seems to
[ Page 16457 ]
have changed to much more of an in-house government service than to a service to researchers throughout the province who are interested in various aspects of British Columbia and B.C. studies.
I wonder if part of the problem here is that the B.C. archives has taken on new responsibilities under the act but hasn't been given the additional resources, in particular the necessary budgetary resources to fulfil it's traditional mandate as well.
My concern here is that British Columbia may be losing an important cultural resource: the Provincial Archives which has really been an important resource, an institution, in the province of British Columbia for generations. Now it's changed almost exclusively to being an in-house government service servicing its clientele within government. An example in evidence of this for the minister's attention is that research hours in the reference room have been cut back significantly. Researchers cannot now spend time in the reference room in the evenings or on weekends to nearly the same extent they were once able. The rationale is that we can't have a commissionaire on service in the evening and on the weekends to the same extent as before.
[3:15]
I'm wondering if we're losing something here. I just bring this to the minister's attention. He may not be familiar with it, but there's something happening here in terms of the mandate of an important institution in the province. I don't think it's positive, and I think it might be one of the unintended consequences of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
[B. Jones in the chair.]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It took me a moment to get the information. I know there have been some changes to the hours. I understand the new hours were put in place April 18, 1995. The full reference service hours did not change; they still remain 36 hours and 15 minutes every week. However, the restricted access hours changed and we lost about 11 hours in April every week. They went down from 34 to 23 hours and that was because.... During that period there is no staff available, I understand. Since then, two hours have been added back to that time due to the concern that the hon. member has raised.
Some of these changes have become necessary as a result of budget constraints. With respect to the focus, it may appear to have changed. There's been no legislative change; the legislative mandate is the same as it has been since 1908, and the focus, essentially, has been the same. I think that with all of the changes that are happening in our lives -- technology the way it is, the freedom of information and all the rest -- sometimes the focus changes, unintended or even unnoticed. I will certainly ask the staff to look into that issue and report to me, and the hon. member and I can share that information.
D. Mitchell: I just have one further question on this subject. I appreciate the minister's commitment on this, and I hope that the minister, who is in charge of a very diverse ministry.... I know it's a challenge, and it requires the attention of a generalist, and I know the minister is a generalist and has broad interests. But I hope that he will take the opportunity to become an advocate for the archives so that it doesn't get lost in the shuffle -- so that it has the resources not only to fulfil its new responsibilities under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and with the new technologies that are emerging but also to fulfil its traditional responsibilities as an important cultural institution in British Columbia.
I had a chance to attend -- and I've had a chance to mention this to the minister outside of this committee -- a B.C. studies conference at the University of Northern British Columbia in Prince George just last month. This issue did come up at the conference -- among academics, broadly speaking and historians in particular.
I wonder if the minister would be open to a suggestion that came out of that conference. There are users of the archives who are now, under the terms of the new act, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, required to sign research agreements. They are quite technical, and quite frankly, I think they're in need of revision. They don't really suit the special needs of historical research. Having said that, there are other users of the archives -- genealogists, land claims researchers, lawyers and a number of academics from our universities and colleges in British Columbia.
I wonder if the minister would be open to a users' group of archives users, perhaps through the B.C. studies conference or some other body. They might provide some input to the minister or to his ministry on some kind of regular, ongoing basis on concerns about how the act is being administered, how it's affecting the terms of their research and traditional academic freedoms with respect to public documents and private manuscripts held in public repositories. This could be done especially with the view that when amendments to the act come forward in the future -- and inevitably, in future sessions of the Legislature, there will be legislative amendments -- they could be made with some input from such a group of archives users. I wonder if the minister would be open to that suggestion and would encourage such a users' group being formed.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm certainly open to that suggestion, particularly when it comes from an expert who uses the archives for historical research and probably has more knowledge than all of us put together in this room on that issue. The hon. member and I have discussed this matter outside of this committee, and I agree that there should be ongoing contact with a group of users who are experts in the kinds of difficulties and concerns people might have.
I forgot to introduce, to my right, David Richardson, ADM. I would suggest that the hon. member be in touch with Mr. Richardson, so that we can deal with this issue.
K. Jones: Just following up on this, I have also had representations from people who are professional archivists and wish to use the facilities more effectively. They're running into the additional situation of the inability to have pages available for the retrieval of files between the periods of 11:30 a.m. and 1 p.m. This makes their trip down to the archives or to Victoria -- in many cases from Vancouver or from up-Island -- difficult, because they are not able to get access to information. I wonder if the minister would be willing to find some way of providing retrieval opportunities over what would be considered the lunch-hour period, from 11:30 to 1 p.m., so that these people would be much more easily facilitated.
[ Page 16458 ]
I'm not quite sure if the member from West Vancouver-Garibaldi mentioned the fact that the archives are closed on Saturday morning and also all day Sunday. A lot of the people in our communities are not able to get to the archives because of their employment during the work week. Perhaps it would be better if we could provide some access on Sundays and Saturday mornings, so that there could be better use of the facilities. Could the minister give us some indication as to his thinking in that regard?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the member makes a point that generally concerns me. However, one has to look at what happens. We've increased the budget in this particular area by 4 percent over the last year, but much of that has been used to enhance electronic access. In fact, people who do research on a regular basis are able to utilize their time more efficiently, save the costs of travelling and are able to do some of this research electronically. At the other end, you have to weigh the benefit and the cost of reducing hours but increasing the access electronically. I think the solution to this problem, if we could do it, would be to make available the specific working hours or opening hours of the facility to the public of British Columbia, who are the users of the archives. That would be a better way of dealing with the issue. We may not be able to increase the number of hours. For people who use these facilities rarely or not so often, I think it's important to pick up the phone and find out what the hours are. That is not to say that we shouldn't do anything to change the situation or devise a means of dealing with it; however, it would make everyone's life a lot easier if they didn't have to wait there for two hours. I agree with you.
K. Jones: Yes, the work that's being done on the mechanization of the archives is something that's definitely needed. But that's only being done in the areas of the photo catalogue and the finding aids. There is no access to the documents, particulary the historical records, at the present time. In fact, they're only available for viewing by bringing out the files. That's why we've asked that the paging opportunities be made available for people so that they're not wasting an hour and a half of their day in the middle of their trip to try to gather information. That would save a lot of expense for those people. I understand that the finding aids are just now starting to be put on the computer systems there and that there is still a lot of work to be done in that area.
Could the minister also tell us what is being done with regard to the historical government records of the Premiers from about 1973 onwards? There seems to be an absence of Premiers' government office records on file. Could the minister tell us why that is and what's being done to correct it?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The latter part of the question is something that I don't have any information about; therefore I will not be able to answer the hon. member.
However, he is correct that we have begun the electronic process in certain parts of the archival institution. Obviously you have to begin somewhere. If we had loads of money available, we would be able to do all of it at once and do it quickly so that everything is available electronically.
I think that the member should know that this electronic access is very well used. Let me just give you the figures. I understand that from February 1, 1995, to May 18, 1995, over 200,000 items were accessed from over 59 different countries, including Canada. I must salute those who are able to provide the mechanisms so that people can access the information to the extent that they have.
K. Jones: I have one last question on the archives, hon. minister. Could you tell us what the minister is doing to resolve what appears to be a serious morale problem in the archives area?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Whenever there is change, people have anxieties; I'm well aware of that. I'm a technopeasant, and I have no hesitation in admitting that. When computers started going all around me, in numbers and in magnitude and with the kinds of skills they have, I felt like a dwarf, and I still do. All of us have anxieties when change happens around us. Sometimes we're involved in the process of change. I do not sense any lack of morale or lowering of morale within the department. There may be anxieties associated with the change that's happening, but it is my understanding that that change is being managed in the way that minimizes the anxieties of those involved.
D. Jarvis: While we are talking about freedom of information, could you tell me if there is any difference, when someone makes a request for information under freedom of information, as to how that request is treated, be it from an individual, a corporation or a political party?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Subject to the discussion I had with the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, I must say that all the requesters are treated the same. You have to take into account whether the requests come from people in the public domain or from individuals so that you can then deal with issues of privacy surrounding the individual or the people in the public domain somewhat differently. However, by that I mean that you are more cautious about protecting the privacy of the individuals involved rather than the people who are already in the public domain. Other than that, I don't think that any requests are treated differently.
[3:30]
D. Jarvis: I was rather interested in your statement earlier when you mentioned that the requests were probably being answered within about a 30-day period, or prior to that. As the official opposition, we are experiencing a different situation. Not only are we just getting the 30 days, we are now getting extensions, and we're up into the 60-day period. I just went downstairs and checked, and a fair number are outstanding. I'm looking at the requests I made. I'm not talking about requests that have to be collated between all the other ministries and everything. That does take time, and I appreciate that, but a single request on a single item for one ministry is now taking 60 days. That's what I'm experiencing. Can you respond to that?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm not aware of the specific requests that the member is talking about, nor would I want to know details in committee. However, I'm concerned that it has taken 60 days or more. I'm simply speculating now. I hate to do this, but one has to engage in speculation a little bit. There might be situations where more information has been sought from the hon. member to increase the specificity of the information that he might be seeking, because loads of information are avail-
[ Page 16459 ]
able, and sometimes the requests are formulated in general terms, which means that it would take a lot of energy, time and expense to collate those responses. Sometimes the staff involved seek further clarification. I would ask the hon. member to raise that issue with my officials, and we would look into it and provide you with the material or with some response as early as possible.
I do believe that the majority of the requests, whether they are from individuals or from politicians in public places, are responded to within 30 days. There are some requests, as the hon. member has mentioned, that are cross-ministries and cross-Crowns that go over 30 entities in government, and sometimes you have to take longer than that to deal with those issues and provide the information.
K. Jones: The reason for the hesitation was that there was an agreement that we were going to go into multiculturalism at 3:30 p.m. I was just wanted to inform my colleague that he should be here, but we'll carry on until he gets here. After that, we'll continue by going back to the area of gambling.
In fact, we'll start with one thing right now on the gambling scene. Could the minister tell us how many employees from his ministry -- the Gaming Commission, the gaming branch, the B.C. Lottery Corporation or any other part of government -- will be attending the First European Conference on Gambling Studies and Policy Issues at St. John's College in Cambridge, England, from August 2 to August 5, 1995?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Cambridge is a delightful place. I lived in England for three and a half years. I visited Cambridge many times. I wanted to go to college there, but couldn't. No one that I know of from my ministry is going to Cambridge. I would have loved to go, but there's no money.
K. Jones: Did the minister include the CEO of B.C. Lottery Corporation in his answer?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm not aware that anyone from B.C. Lottery Corporation is going to attend that conference. We can check that information for the hon. member.
K. Jones: I'd just like to read into the record a slight description of the program. I think it will be of great interest to persons involved in gambling:
"Speakers from around the world will make representations on the spread of gambling forms into new jurisdictions, developments in the regulation and control of gambling in Europe and the impact of such developments on European societies. During the evening there will be time for punting on the river, visits to other historic colleges or a walk along the famous banks, followed by a drink in a riverside pub."
Sounds like a great idea. Shall we all go?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Maybe we should put that to a referendum for the people of British Columbia.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what role the CEO of the B.C. Lottery Corporation plays in international gambling?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand the B.C. Lottery Corporation is a member of the North American Association of State and Provincial Lotteries as well as the European lotteries association; this is for the sake of coordinating and sharing information and expertise across borders.
K. Jones: What is the role of the CEO with regard to these?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have had an opportunity to meet the CEO of the Lottery Corporation, and he appears to be a very competent and well-respected individual who is an expert with respect to the lotteries issues, and I understand he may be an official of one of the associations in terms of being the president or having some other position, but I would not want to specify any more than that. I'm not particularly aware of that information; I've just been advised that he may be so. If the member is interested in getting that information, we can have that available to the hon. member as soon as possible. In fact, the hon. member could pick up the phone and call Guy Simonis and find out. I'm sure he'd be delighted to tell you.
K. Jones: In this business, often you don't ask a question unless you know the answer. I've known the answer for quite some time, hon. minister. I just wanted to know if the minister knew what the CEO of one of the major corporations that he's administering is doing. It's good to know that he's now finding out that the CEO is the president -- and I can confirm that -- of the international association. Could the minister tell us what the CEO will be involved in in the coming year?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that Mr. Simonis and the B.C. Lottery Corporation are preparing to host the 1996 annual meeting of the North American Association of State and Provincial Lotteries and the 1996 congress of AILE. The joint conference, called World Meet '96, will bring over 1,200 lottery delegates from around the world to Vancouver to share their knowledge, accomplishments and innovations. Mr. Simonis and the people who work for that dynamic corporation have been instrumental in attracting that conference to Vancouver. I think they should get our kudos for that.
K. Jones: That's correct. That conference is in the fall of 1996, I believe. Is that correct?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
K. Jones: Hansard is unable to recognize the nod of the head, and therefore you have to stand up and say yes.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I thought we had television cameras in here.
K. Jones: No, there are no television cameras.
As host, the Lottery Corporation will have a role to play in that, I presume. Could the minister tell us what assignment of staff and what expenses have been allocated in its role as host?
[ Page 16460 ]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the conference will be self-financing and of no cost to the B.C. Lottery Corporation -- other than some costs associated with the involvement of its own delegates in the conference, of course, but a minimal cost, I assume. It will be held in Vancouver, and there will be no travel costs associated with it.
K. Jones: Does the minister believe that conferences occur without anybody being involved in putting them together? They usually take some staff. How much staff has been allocated to this and what part of that is in the B.C. Lottery Corporation's budget?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that there has been no additional staff retained or hired to deal with the organizing of this conference. Some of the regular staff of the B.C. Lottery Corporation may devote some of their time to setting this up. It is not costing the Lottery Corporation additional dollars. The associations themselves provide staff to organize it as much as possible.
K. Jones: It's my understanding, minister, that six employees of the B.C. Lottery Corporation have already been assigned to work on this conference full-time and that these are a cost to the taxpayers of British Columbia. Any costs that they entail reduces the revenue that comes back from B.C. Lottery Corporation that is not required for the purpose of raising those moneys. Could the minister tell us whether he is going to look into this more thoroughly and come back to the public with a firm answer as to what is being done about this extra staff cost to the taxpayers?
[3:45]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: One does not have to be a rocket scientist to know that if 1,200 delegates from across the world are going to come to this jurisdiction, spend money in hotels and other places, and spend money as part of their stay in British Columbia, that is going to create millions of dollars in a multiplier effect. Even if the member's information that there are six staff usually working for the Lottery Corporation who have been assigned to deal with this is correct, my statement still stands: no additional staff has been retained or hired to deal with the setting up of this conference. We are going to benefit by way of a multiplier effect of this conference being held in Vancouver to the tune of millions of dollars.
K. Jones: I hope the minister is correct, since all conferences, according to the Vancouver tourist association, bring revenue to the British Columbia area. Sometimes conferences do not make money; that depends on how they're run. The fact is that if six employees of the B.C. Lottery Corporation can be seconded to this purpose with no change in the cost to the Lottery Corporation, there are obviously six more employees than necessary at the present time. They're obviously not needed to do the running of the B.C. Lottery Corporation. Could the minister respond?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Aye.
K. Jones: The minister doesn't wish to recognize that there could be a cut in staffing costs because there's no need for these staff to be used at this time. Therefore there's no need for them at any time in regard to that.
Rather than pursue that further at this time, we'll come back later to some more gaming items. I now transfer over to my colleague from Vancouver-Langara, who will be talking about multiculturalism.
V. Anderson: Just before I transfer over, I would like to ask the minister a little bit about gaming and the discussion that's going on again in the Vancouver community, where we're both constituents. We're both very much aware of the arguments and discussions about a possible casino on the downtown waterfront.
It was not considered by the government, and we all agreed heartily with that. But now we're hearing a great number of rumours about it being revised -- even one from a minister of government suggesting that it would be closed to people with B.C. passports so that it wouldn't do any harm to the people of British Columbia, acknowledging that it could do harm to people from all over the world who come. So I'd like to get the minister's comments about what the stance is, for the citizens of Vancouver and others who are concerned about this kind of discussion, which is being promoted by other government ministers at least.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It gives me great delight in setting the record straight for the third time in the last 24 hours. I don't usually thank BCTV, but that was the only station that carried the message that there will be no major casinos, Las Vegas-style or otherwise, in British Columbia for entry for gaming, with or without foreign or domestic passports.
V. Anderson: Let me follow that up. I had the privilege last summer to go on one of the cruises up the coast to Alaska. I was curious why the gaming facility on the cruise ship operated within Canadian waters. The minister might say it's a federal jurisdiction, but it's along B.C. waters. As soon as they run into Alaskan waters, they shut down, and as soon as they come back in the middle of the night into Canadian waters, they open up again. I was curious about the stance for the cruises that go up the coast of British Columbia.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's an interesting question. Being a lawyer, I think I'll probably spend some time looking at it at some point. I'm told, however, that it is an issue of federal jurisdiction. The RCMP, in fact, have written to the federal government, asking them why the law is not being enforced.
It's obviously a Criminal Code matter, and one could perhaps legitimately argue -- if I'd done the research I would tell you -- that criminal justice enforcement is within the jurisdiction of the province. However, it being a cruise ship anchoring in the Vancouver port for a short while and then taking off in transit, I'm not aware of what the jurisdictional issues are. My understanding from talking to the staff is that it is a complex issue, and the matter rests with the federal government at this time.
V. Anderson: Following that up, the same principles, I presume, would deal with the Royal Victorian, which is a B.C. operation. It is my understanding, although I haven't had the privilege of being on that line, that gambling is very much on the Royal Victorian and that it was part of the plan, as I understood it, to help pay for it. I'd be curious to know about the relationship there.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that there is no gambling on the Royal Victorian; that is no longer the case.
[ Page 16461 ]
V. Anderson: I appreciate that we may have asked something the minister just hasn't received yet, but might we ask if the minister would do some research into the area of federal and provincial responsibilities in this area and report back to let us know what the result of that is? I'd appreciate it very much, and I think others would be equally concerned. I think this whole discussion is relevant to British Columbia.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I will be interested in doing it and will be asking my officials to at least prepare a brief for me as to where to begin.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us how, under section 206 of the Criminal Code, he can stand here and say that the jurisdiction for gambling is a federal responsibility and not a provincial responsibility, when the activities go on within the boundaries of the province of British Columbia?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: If there has been one thing I have made clear in all of my remarks ever since I took office, it's that gaming is the exclusive jurisdiction of the province of British Columbia. However, the hon. member did not hear or pay attention to my remarks with respect to a cruise ship anchoring in the port of Vancouver, which raised interjurisdictional and enforcement issues, with the RCMP having written to the federal government. It is a complex issue. If I had a simple answer, I would provide it to the hon. member.
However, I have a more interesting rhetorical question, I would like to like to hear, perhaps in the form of the next question, whether the hon. member or members feel that we should disallow gambling on cruise ships. That may have the effect of cruise ships not coming to Vancouver for whatever short stay they come to Vancouver for. I'd be interested in what their thoughts are.
K. Jones: I'll ask the minister if he is familiar with the process called steamboat or riverboat gambling. Would the minister have any authority in determining whether any form of riverboat gambling could occur on the waterways of British Columbia?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The issue of waterway gambling within the territorial jurisdiction of British Columbia, in terms of the rivers, is an issue that resides exclusively within the jurisdiction of British Columbia; it is within the legal powers of the provincial Crown. I would have no difficulty dealing with that issue. Riverboat gambling is not anticipated nor expected nor thought of in British Columbia.
K. Jones: What could the minister do to stop a vessel from operating a casino operation in the harbour of Vancouver, anywhere up the coast or on the Fraser River?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: What would the hon. member like me to do? I don't know how to swim.
K. Jones: The minister likes to have a little humour; it's good to have a little humour in the day. I fully agree with his jocular approach to this, but I also think that the minister has to give a serious answer to a serious question as to the jurisdiction he claims to have. I would like to find out by what means the minister would be able to stop any type of waterborne gambling in the rivers, the harbours or up the Inside Passage of British Columbia?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: In terms of local gaming in the waters of Vancouver harbour, for example, it is the province's right to regulate gaming. I did not say we don't have jurisdiction over the ships; I said we may not have jurisdiction over the ships. I have not given that particular issue any thought. Once the issue has been decided, it may fall in our lap to deal with it at some point.
[4:00]
However, with respect to stationary gaming on water, or even local gaming on water which might be mobile within a certain range, the province would have the jurisdiction to deal with licensing or not licensing that gaming.
K. Jones: If the government of British Columbia didn't license a yacht in Vancouver Harbour which then takes off under the Lions Gate Bridge and goes cruising in Georgia strait, opens up a casino operation in the middle of the cruise and has people having a good time spending their money, by what means would the minister or his agencies be able to take any action to stop that operation, whether they had a licence or not?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The temptation is to simply say that that's a very hypothetical question. I will not respond other than to simply say that the matter of unlicensed gaming within the jurisdiction of British Columbia, whether on the run or not, is a matter of law enforcement, and obviously the police would be interested in dealing with that.
K. Jones: That's a very appropriate answer and a very appropriate time for me to indicate to the minister that throughout British Columbia there are all kinds of illegally operating video lottery terminals, as indicated by the documents that have been given to me. They are identified as to the supplier and types of VLTs, as well as the number and locations of machines.
Why are the ministry, the Gaming Commission and the gaming branch totally unable to do anything about an illegal operation within British Columbia on land, yet the minister says that he can easily maintain and prevent the operations on the adjoining waters? Which can we believe? How can we control these? If you have the jurisdiction, why don't you enforce the video lottery terminals that are illegally operating in British Columbia? If you have the ability to do that, why can't you stop the illegal lotteries that are going on in the newspapers regularly? They are being run by various groups with no charitable benefit for them being indicated, nor are they meeting several of the required licensing criteria, yet they continue to operate within the jurisdictions of British Columbia.
Why is it that we have no control? Is it because the gaming branch doesn't have the authority to do the job that should and would like to be able to do? That's what I've heard from their staff. They would like to have some authority to be able to do something about illegal operations in the province, and they don't have the ability to do that. Can the minister tell us how he's going to rectify that problem?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: If the hon. member would care to cast his mind back to either yesterday or the day before yesterday -- I believe it was yesterday -- I answered that very question for him. The answer was that on June 15, representatives of
[ Page 16462 ]
the Ministry of Attorney General met with representatives of the UBCM, the city of Vancouver and senior police officials to chalk out a strategy, a coordinators' strategy, to deal with the issue of grey machines, and the building and designing of that strategy is in place. That matter is obviously being dealt with.
If the member has paid any attention to the continuing debate on gaming in British Columbia, he would be aware that the grey-machine issue is a very difficult issue to deal with. It is not simply a matter of putting ten or five or 20 police officers on the beat and saying: "Go get grey machines."
The difficulty is that you have the criminal court provisions for which you need particular kinds of evidence to be able to convict. First they lay a charge and then successfully prosecute that charge. It is our understanding that there have been discussions, and there will be discussions, with the federal government to see if amendments can be made so that the enforcement can be easier than it is today.
I am told by the law enforcement officers that enforcement on that issue is difficult, if not impossible, and that is not for lack of trying. It is practically impossible to gather the evidence of a particular machine being used for a particular purpose. It can't be done until or unless a police officer sits there with the grey machine and catches a person playing that machine and using it for gaming purposes.
K. Jones: Perhaps the minister is not fully informed. CLEU has made it very clear that they have the ability to enforce it right now with the existing laws. The chief of CLEU has even questioned the government on why it's not enforcing the laws under section 206 of the Criminal Code, which provides the government with the responsibility and the ability to enforce all gaming regulations within the province of British Columbia. I'm going to conclude that section of this right now and turn it over to my colleague, for the multiculturalism section.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I wish to introduce the two people who are going to join me. I have to my extreme right, Ann Bozoian, executive director of multiculturalism and immigration, and to my immediate right, Shyrl Desjardins, manager of finance and administration for the Human Rights Council of B.C.
V. Anderson: It would be an interesting time to meet with the minister in all the areas which are new to him: multiculturalism, human rights and immigration, which is the newest part of that. He keeps collecting things unto himself. We'll see how much else he collects. He has a multiministry and multiculturalism; he seems to collect these things.
Since this is the first time that we have had the opportunity to discuss multiculturalism, we might do a little talking about the nature of multiculturalism itself before we get into programs and acts. I will be using the Multiculturalism Act as a basis for this, because, as the minister is very much aware, as far as being officially described, multiculturalism was done first by the federal government and then later by the provincial government in a series of acts, and it has evolved over a period of time. It has many meanings to many different people, depending on who you're talking to, within or without the multicultural system. It's probably important that we get an understanding of the present minister's philosophy, concerns and expectations about multiculturalism as we welcome him into this new portfolio. I am delighted that he has been given this very creative opportunity, because I think he brings experience and knowledge that can be very helpful.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The question that the hon. member has asked -- somewhat legitimately, of course -- would take a long time to answer. I think one's own philosophy of multiculturalism and one's view of what multiculturalism is all about in the context of what we do in government are obviously very large questions.
Without giving details as to how I will be tackling this issue in the months to come -- they aren't even right in my mind -- I can tell the hon. member that I am not at ease with the way multiculturalism is being perceived in the world today. I have been ill at ease with the way it has been perceived for a long time, and now I have an opportunity to see if we can change that perception. Obviously, to change the perception, one may have to change the reality of multiculturalism. It is my view that governments ought not to promote and do not have the resources to promote retention of cultures per se. What governments must promote, if anything, in the name of multiculturalism and under the rubric of multiculturalism are three things: cross-cultural understanding and acceptance, the antidiscrimination elements of multiculturalism and the integration thrust of multiculturalism. The underpinning of those three areas is in the three pieces of law.
The social, economic and political integration of all people along the spectrum of society in British Columbia obviously has the underpinning of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which has equality provisions that provide us with equality of opportunity, freedom of expression and assembly and those kinds of fundamental freedoms, which we enjoy as Canadians and British Columbians.
There is also the antidiscrimination thrust of multiculturalism, which by and large focuses on the issue of antiracist education, antiracism or efforts to eliminate racism from our society. We have the support of human rights legislation in British Columbia for that. Of course, that is complemented by the human rights legislation in the federal jurisdiction.
Then you have the cross-cultural-understanding-and-acceptance thrust of the multiculturalism concept, as I view multiculturalism. That, of course, has the legislative support of our Multiculturalism Act and the legislation relating to multiculturalism that exists federally. Also, to a certain extent, I believe there is a recognition of multiculturalism in the Canadian constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I don't recall the section, as I haven't looked at it for some time; when you get away from law you forget all of these sections.
However, I view multiculturalism as being of fundamental importance for our society. As a government, it's important for us to deal with those three major thrusts of multiculturalism. Any one of them is not more important than any other; all three are equally important. If we don't do one of those, we can't do either of the others. All three of them make up the essence of multiculturalism, I believe, and over the next weeks and months I'm going to be thinking as to how best I can advance the struggle, which is a struggle, of all British Columbians to deal with this issue. We need to deal with the issue in a progressive way that brings people together and does not give the appearance nor advance the reality of individuals being ghettoized or marginalized. We also need to struggle to deal with the myths that have been created with respect to multiculturalism.
[ Page 16463 ]
I do not believe any government in the history of this province has ever engaged in assisting any culture to preserve itself. What we want to do is create conditions in British Columbia in terms of how we deal with each other and how we treat each other -- the kind of dignity, compassion, fairness and sense of justice we want to have prevail in British Columbia. We want to create that environment where there is the automatic acceptance of cultural differences that people want to retain. People are free to retain cultural identity.
It is not nor should it be the business of government to engage in retention of a particular culture. We have hundreds of cultures reflected in the diversity of British Columbia. We welcome all of those cultures. We wish them well within the spectrum of culture in British Columbia.
But what I want to see done, as a minister of the Crown in this very important portfolio, is that we continuously create those conditions where there is cross-cultural acceptance and understanding, where there is social, economic and political integration and where there is the antidiscrimination edge to everything that we do. Because antidiscrimination is much larger than simply antiracism. Antidiscrimination takes in all of us, whether we come from different backgrounds of Europe, Africa, Asia, Latin America or South America.
[4:15]
Antidiscrimination doesn't necessarily always have anything to do with colour or the features that we may have, either. Antidiscrimination has to do with gender; it has to do with disabilities; it has to do with place of origin, ancestry, race, age.... So within the wholesome concept of multiculturalism I have, I see us with this huge thrust against discrimination in total, not discrimination simply with respect to the colour or the race of the individual.
I would hope that individuals opposite will assist me, inasmuch as I want to do this. In the end, if we are able to engage in this struggle for integration, cross-cultural understanding and acceptance and antidiscrimination education across British Columbia, we will be a better place.
V. Anderson: I very much appreciate the minister's comments, and I agree with the directions in which he's going, and I wish him well on the challenge.
I hope we can spend some time reflecting, because I think it's the basis on which we can understand what else we're sharing and the questions we might ask about the formal structures, where they're going and what their intentions are. It seems to me that one of the things that has not been discussed is: what is culture itself, apart from what is multicultural? We have many cultures, but we haven't discussed.... When I first got involved in this, culture was song, music and dance. That's basically what people thought culture was. We were dealing with the song, music and dance of people who fortunately had a traditional ethnic culture, dance and style of dress which were very distinctive and enjoyable, and we could appreciate them.
One of the difficulties with Canadian culture was that we didn't have a costume per se, other than the RCMP. We didn't have a dance; we didn't have our own music. Often when you had a multicultural festival, the one thing you didn't have was something that was identified as a Canadian presentation.
I'm not sure what Canadians do to present themselves when they go to other parts of the world, in the cultural sense. We don't have the same kind of costume -- I use the word costume positively -- or visible cultural presentation in music, dance or art. We have a whole variety of them, but no singular form. We don't have a cultural food per se; we have many cultural foods, depending which province you come from, even which part of a province you come from. We have a whole host of those.
It seems to me that one of the realities we have to look at first of all is: what do we mean by culture? I think that's a starting place. I agree with the minister that we have to go back and review it. I believe that multiculturalism as we now see it has become an institution. I've been interested, as we study our own multicultural policy, in trying to cut through some of the terminologies and myths in order to rethink it and find out what it is.
I've been amazed to discover that the multicultural groups have an almost standard response to discussion, whereas other groups that don't consider themselves multicultural but are dealing with interethnic and intercultural people on a regular basis have a completely different approach.
It's the same thing, whether it's in education, health or medicine. Those within a system see it differently than those without the system. I'd be interested in the minister's response about a kind of common cultural understanding that we can arrive at or think about, apart from multicultural issues, so that we can get some idea about what that is. I hear him approaching that understanding of cultural identity in that we have multiple aspects of it within the Canadian context.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is a fascinating discussion. Of course, I've been engaged in it for the last 27 years I've been in Canada.
With all due respect, I beg to differ somewhat with the hon. member. That's not by way of criticism, hon member; I have a lot of respect for you. This probably comes from the perspective of an immigrant particularly or someone who belongs to what we now call a visible minority. Maybe I'm able to see things from a different perspective.
I hear a lot of Canadians saying there is no such thing as Canadian culture; there's no such thing as Canadian music or Canadian dance. It saddens me, because it is there for all of us to see.
Where is it? Let me just give you one instance. I feel very philosophical and very emotional about this issue. We have had Chinese-Canadians in this province for 137 years. They brought with them a very rich civilization and rich culture. They built the railway for us to be able to connect with each other across the country. They contributed their music and their dance to the tapestry of Canada. When I see a dragon dance in front of the Chinese Cultural Centre in the city of Vancouver, I hold my head high with pride. To me, that is a Canadian dance.
When people have come for 137 years and have made this their home, then what they do to entertain all of us, including themselves, is what we call cultural activities or art activities or musical activities. What they do in the context of those areas, either sharing with others around them or even by themselves and their families, is as Canadian as anything in Canada. That, for me, is the essence of Canadian culture. In fact, that, for me, is the essence of British Columbia culture.
[ Page 16464 ]
Ukrainians have been here for decades, and when a I see a wonderful Ukrainian dance, I don't see a Ukrainian dance. We call it a Ukrainian dance, because we want to identify it so that we know what we're talking about, but I think of it as a Canadian dance. When I see the Filipinos doing their traditional dance, I don't see it as a Filipino dance, because I don't see those individuals as Filipinos. I see them as Canadians and as British Columbians, and I see their dance and their music as British Columbia music and British Columbia dance. That's how I view it.
I don't believe in juxtaposing melting pot versus mosaic. I think that approach of saying, "we want this as opposed to the melting pot," is essentially very misleading. It distorts the logic of multiculturalism. Whether you want to call it interculturalism or multiculturalism really does not matter much, one way or the other. I think the issue is whether, in the spectrum of British Columbia culture -- and this is not a descending order or an ascending order -- from one end to the other, and in the tapestry of British Columbia culture from all four corners to the middle, we see what we have in British Columbia as an integral part of that unique, evolving British Columbia culture or that unique, evolving Canadian culture.
I think where governments in the past, both federal and provincial, have gone wrong is that they started with the song and dance, and they got stuck with identifying communities based on song and dance. We have taken a long time to get out of that rut and get into the issues of integration, understanding and acceptance, and antidiscrimination. Those are three areas.
Some of the programs we do with the immigrant settlement program may be viewed by some, who want us to totally reject what we have in British Columbia, as simply helping immigrants. Once you have come into this country, no matter where you've come from, I think we owe it to ourselves to say: "Technically, legally you may not be a Canadian citizen, but once you have made the commitment to be part of us, you are then a Canadian and a British Columbian." Then the issue is: what do we do? We have invited them, many of them from across the world, to come and be part of us, based on our rules and regulations. Now we owe it to them and to ourselves to assist them and all of us in trying to integrate them into the mainstream of the political, social and economic structures of this country and this province.
That is what immigrant settlement programs are all about. They manifest themselves in different shapes and forms, in dealing with family problems, language problems or skills and training problems. That is our effort for and our message to those who have joined us here: we want them to be part of us in an integrated fashion -- socially, economically and politically -- while they have the right to enjoy their culture. Whatever food they choose from the smorgasbord of Canadian food and drink, whatever wines they hope to drink with their food, they are all available. For me, that's Canadian culture.
When I see people of different colours and different features walking along the streets and travelling the roads of British Columbia, I see them all as British Columbians. They may look different, and they may act different, but all of their differences are as Canadian or as British Columbian as any other.
V. Anderson: I appreciate that, because I think that's exactly the kind of clarity and understanding we need. To summarize briefly, it seems that the minister is saying that multiculturalism is the culture of Canada. It's not something that's being imposed on Canada; it's something that is the culture of Canada. The variety is the Canadian culture.
One of the concerns I've had in multiculturalism is the aboriginal people, who are the first people of this country and who think of themselves as a multination, rather than as one homogenous group. They're not a mosaic or a melting pot. They're a multination group of people who think of themselves that way. They have felt that they were isolated from the multicultural process, because they do not normally belong to ethnic groups; they don't consider it appropriate.
If we go back to the very beginning, as the minister has talked about it, and say we have this multinational cultural identity, then others from all other parts of the world and of whatever colour -- white, black or whatever -- have come into a process which, until recently, we have not described. It's not something we have put onto the process; rather, it's something that was here when we arrived. We're simply describing the reality that was here from the very beginning. So it does not become an exclusive process, as some are seeing multiculturalism -- I agree that the myth should not be there -- but an inclusive process, beginning with the aboriginal people and adding the others. It seems to me that if we can get the kind of concept that we have in common with each other, then it becomes one that we build on. But I agree with the minister that we may have to go back to the fundamentals in order to see that.
[4:30]
I liken it to the illustration of a gentlemen who lives in Victoria now, who played the piano by ear, and then he decided he would play it properly by note. His difficulty was to unlearn in order to do it in the proper sense, because every time it got too difficult, he wanted to do it the other way and forget about the formal process. It's difficult for us to go back and re-examine the basis of multiculturalism in that sense, but I think it's important that we do that.
I hear the minister describing this in a very unique way, and I would like to confirm that I heard the minister saying that one of the terms which he uses differently from most people -- and I think this is important -- is that the mainstream of Canada is the multicultural stream. It's not that people are coming into a white stream, a European stream or any other stream, but the mainstream of Canada is what has been here, which everybody comes into. I'd like to confirm that, because if so, that is not the normal use of mainstream, although I agree wholeheartedly with the minister's use of it. It's one of the realities that I think we have to work on. I'd be interested if the minister would comment on that, because I think it's a fundamental and very important principle.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I try not to use the word "mainstream" unless I'm talking about mainstreaming in the sense of social, economic and political integration, although over time everybody begins to use the term when it's the fashion to do so. The problem I've had with the term "mainstream" is that it suggests a stream that is somewhat homogenous, with everybody else coming in and joining it. I have never felt that way. Long before the Europeans arrived in North America, whether it was Cartier or Columbus, the aboriginal community wasn't monolithic, particularly in British Columbia. It did not have one culture; it had several cultures, even on the West Coast.
[ Page 16465 ]
The Canadians who came here 500 years ago or later came to a multicultural reality. It wasn't described as such, but it was a reality of many cultures living with each other, warring with each other, struggling with each other, but existing and coexisting in whatever fashion.
The journey of immigrants over the centuries has continued, bringing hundreds of different cultures to this country. It may have been that at a certain point in history you had this major influx of one culture and the other culture, but all through the history of Canada almost a continual influx of people from all parts of the world has been sustained. In the last 40 or 50 years, it has increased manifold. As for the culture of British Columbia or Canada, I don't even like saying it contains many cultures. It doesn't contain many cultures; it's made up of many cultures. The idea of containing many cultures means that somehow those cultures are separate entities living in isolation or in separation within certain walls from each other. I don't see it that way. I see the culture of Canada as a well-knit culture with many varieties functioning together. Somebody might say to me: "What you're talking about is a melting pot." I'm not talking about a melting pot. What I want to see in British Columbia is increased awareness, acceptance and understanding of cultural differences in individuals, families and communities. What I want to see is all of us being integrated socially, economically and, more importantly, politically into a whole.
Also, I want to see the antidiscrimination thrust and work that we're doing continue with much more vigour than it has. That is not to blame people for what may have happened in the past; that is simply to rectify what is wrong in the present. I shy away from using the term mainstream, although I use it occasionally because that's what people understand. I'm quite at ease saying that what you have in front of you when you go to Chinatown, 49th and Main -- which is partly in the hon. member's constituency, and I live a block and a half from there -- Surrey or, previously, Commercial Drive.... We called it Italy town; it's now in Burnaby somewhere. They've moved, many of them, into different areas. When I go to places like that, and I walk across the streets and thoroughfares, in Vancouver particularly, all of that to me is not, as I said, a Filipino culture, an Indo-Canadian culture, a Korean culture, a Vietnamese culture, a Hispanic culture, a Chinese culture or an English culture -- the British Properties. It's not, for me, a bunch of separate things. In my own mind, I say, instantaneously: "That's British Columbia. That's Canada."
I think we have to bring everybody to that level, that state of thinking. When you see a person who looks different from you, maybe, a person who wears something different, a person who is eating something different, a person who is able to speak many other languages that you aren't able to speak, or a person who is an immigrant rather than a person who has been born here, you instantaneously say in your mind: "That's Canada. That's British Columbia." That's my concept of culture.
V. Anderson: I think this is basic and very important. It sets a tone for where the minister is going, and when we talk about some of the more formal things, it will be important. Partly what I hear the minister saying is that he would like to have -- and I would agree with him -- more accurate historical presentations of what Canada really has been and is. A lot of us within Canada grew up with biased presentations we got from a whole variety of points of view which were not accurate and need to be revised and rewritten.
I find from my own children's generation, which has had a different experience than mine, that there's a whole different understanding of the realities that are here at the moment, because they're different in each generation as they come.
I think it's important that we enable ourselves to go back and see where we as a country have come from, more realistically than we have in the past. I don't think part of the multicultural program has been to get a truer perspective, if you like, of what Canada really is. I would be curious to know if the minister sees an additional thrust of the multicultural program to be getting that clarity and understanding of what we really are out there in the manner in which he expressed it. Would he write the book himself or find others to write it, and does he plan to get that new presentation out there?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: You know, being a lawyer, I'm very conscious of money. I understand there's no money in books in Canada. Just a joke. I love books; I have a huge library at home of over a thousand volumes on India.
I'm somewhat reluctant to discuss the issue of bias in schools or in our educational institutions or a curriculum that one may speak of. I'm somewhat reluctant, because I think that when we talk about that in a very strident fashion, we are seen to be laying blame on those who have gone before, and it is never my intention to do that. There is, nevertheless, the need to do that, and I know that the Vancouver School Board is one of the pioneer school boards in trying to change the outlook of the students as they go through the school, by having an antiracism program they've had for a long time, by having home school workers they've had for a long time and by trying to reflect in their teaching workforce the makeup of the population in Vancouver, in particular. All of these things happen gradually. I'm not a gradualist, but I have come to realize that no matter how much you may want to change the reality overnight, it is not going to change.
In the next few months that I may have at my disposal, I want to do a campaign in British Columbia, if possible, and talk about what culture is all about. I want to talk about how we as British Columbians are not being fair to ourselves as a province if we do not appreciate the rich diversity of British Columbia that is British Columbian. There is no longer Chinese; there is no longer Filipino; there is no longer Korean. There is British Columbian. I want to talk about what dividends we can reap if we're able to tap into the energies of that diversity to the fullest possible extent. You will have a province that's happy, that's at peace with itself and that could become a model to the rest of the world.
[4:45]
That's in the back of my mind. I want to do that once I'm able to get out of here at the end of the session. As the hon. member can appreciate, I've had this ministry for only for a month and a half or two months, and I haven't had much time to deal with it. I have been thinking in my own mind about the golden opportunity at my disposal, one which rarely comes a person's way, to perhaps make a difference in the way we view ourselves and the way we perceive our identity as Canadians and as British Columbians.
V. Anderson: I appreciate very much the minister sharing this. Often in estimates we look at the technical things that have been done. Then we assume that the technical things that have happened are also the technical things that are going to
[ Page 16466 ]
happen. I hear the minister saying that there may be technical things, but the results of them are expected to be different in the future than they were in the past as part of their evolution. It seems to be the right time and the right place for that kind of opportunity.
One other issue I would raise in this particular discussion has to do with the minister mentioning about us all being Canadian. One of the realities of any country is citizenship, which eventually most people will have one way or the other. It's been my experience that the newcomers to Canada who take out their Canadian citizenship and go through the citizenship courses, as they have more recently, think clearly and quite consistently about what Canadian citizenship means. In the process of taking their vows of allegiance, they're reminded about rights and responsibilities. Every time I hear the citizenship court judge, he stresses responsibilities along with rights -- the responsibility to vote, to be part of a community by participating in it.
One of the things I have become more aware of is that those who grew up within Canada never had the opportunity to make that kind of decision. Their awareness of citizenship is not as clear in their minds because they have never done that. It's the difference, if you like, between a common-law marriage and a wedding. In a common-law marriage you have open-endedness; it's never quite been defined.
As I say to couples when I talk to them about the transition from common-law to marriage, when they're married they put periods at the end of it; they define it. It makes a fundamental difference to their attitudes and expectations. The day after the wedding is different than the day before, because they have made a commitment, and they have closed a paragraph. It makes a fundamental difference.
It seems to me -- and I would suggest this to the minister -- that those who grow up in Canada might have the opportunity to go through the ceremony of coming of age, which every philosophical and religious group has in one way or another. At that point, they receive their voting card; there is a point in time when they are acknowledged as being the adult with responsibilities and rights, and they make a commitment to be part of this.
It seems to me that that would enable us to come together on a more common playing field as adults in our community, because we would have done at least one thing in common, which brings an allegiance. I would be interested if the minister might like to reflect on that. I'm not expecting an answer at this point, but I think those kinds of touchpoints or goals in our lives help to clarify who we are and how we participate in this community together.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the hon. member makes a very, very important suggestion, and perhaps he and I can discuss it at some other time and look at how we can facilitate the injection of an important event into the life of a student, for example, going through school in British Columbia at a particular stage, that might make the student more aware of the responsibilities and rights of a citizen, and might begin to make the student think more as a citizen of a nation than as a resident of a particular city or even a province.
It's interesting that the hon. member mentioned that people who take out Canadian citizenships when they immigrate to the country feel much more obliged to know what it means to be Canadian, legally and otherwise. They probably have more awareness of the existence of the Canadian flag, the Canadian boundaries and the Canadian passport.
I'm not suggesting that is an end in itself, but one of the reasons may be that most of us who come from other countries as immigrants -- and I'm not now talking about the second generation; I'm talking about the immigrants themselves, the first generation -- have come by and large from backgrounds where they have gone through a lot of disruption in their daily lives. They have gone through anxiety and insecurity and quite often violence, torture and persecution. When they come to Canada and they feel the security, the comfort and the peace that we all have in Canada, I think that for them that feeling of security and comfort and peace almost sanctifies the passport, the citizenship certificates, the Canadian flag and the Canadian anthem. For them, these are gifts that they otherwise would not have had.
That's not true of all immigrants; not all immigrants come from those kinds of backgrounds. But I think it's generally true of many immigrants who come because of the kinds of circumstances that I've described. I think it's important to inculcate in all British Columbians and, in fact, in all Canadians a sense of the importance of the Canadian flag, the Canadian boundaries and the international obligations and rights that we enjoy as Canadians -- the obligations we have toward the state and the rights we have.
That's a long-term project; it can't happen in a few months. I'm always interested in working on that, but the daily lives of individuals, including students, don't leave much time for this leisurely activity. Many of us have to make a living from nine to five, or six to two, look after our kids, then do the dishes and the laundry and all those kinds of things. In the comfort of this room I can philosophize and speechify, but in daily living I think it becomes difficult to bring that kind of aspiration into concrete reality. But I have no doubt in my mind that an effort should be made.
V. Anderson: I would move, then, over to the more everyday and mundane activities, because we have a base of some kind of common understanding of where we might be attempting to go in the future. For the moment, I would like to come back to the reality of the Multiculturalism Act, because the act itself gives a kind of framework for us to work with here. As of July 29, 1993, the Multiculturalism Act, which has been revised, gave the kind of mandate of which the government is appropriately proud.
The purpose of the act, in a sense, is to bring down into a more narrow scope the broader philosophical questions and ask: "What can we as a government do in this broader picture?" I wonder if the minister might highlight, from his perspective, the chief points of the act. I know he has already indicated three specific areas, but how he would see the Multiculturalism Act driving the work of the ministry within the community and the province at this point?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think it's important to recognize that the Multiculturalism Act represents a leadership role that this government decided to take on this issue. By bringing in the Multiculturalism Act with all its clauses in terms of the policy of the government, particularly section 3, it encapsulates the essence of what we are attempting to do.
This act, of course, imposes an obligation on all government bodies to provide all the services that government
[ Page 16467 ]
provides within its domain and jurisdiction in a culturally sensitive fashion. We have taken many steps in that direction. I remember some that have been taken more recently. For instance, we have initiated the multicultural health pilot project at Mount St. Joseph Hospital, where over 20 health agencies are participating in the formulation of a design, in practice, to ensure that we provide health services in a culturally sensitive fashion to all British Columbians.
Just the other day I announced, in concert with my colleague the Minister of Health, a fund of $100,000 from which individuals or organizations will be able to apply for grants in the range of $5,000 to $20,000. We are seeking input from those individuals or organizations that want the funding. We want them to provide proposals and schemes as to how we might deliver health care in British Columbia in a culturally sensitive fashion.
I talk about health care because one-third of the budget of the province is utilized in health care, and health care touches each and every one of us in a very deep fashion. I think those two examples show that this government is committed to see the objectives of this particular legislation reflected throughout government.
I will shortly be tabling, perhaps next week, the first report under the Multiculturalism Act. As to the gains we've made, as to the efforts the various ministries and the Crowns have made in trying to achieve the objectives established under this legislation, I have not looked at the report thoroughly. It may or may not come up to par in terms of our expectations, but it's a good beginning. I will be going through that report at length and getting my staff and officials to go through it to determine what we can do to make it better in the next year.
V. Anderson: I can appreciate the minister's responses. I come from some involvement with intercultural groups through interfaith activities and chaplaincy service.
I appreciate the comment about health. There was a great need for nurses and doctors to be able to respond to the appropriate faith practices of different groups in care and at funerals when that was the case -- a whole host of areas. There were different faiths, customs and requirements that many of the medical profession were not aware of.
In the same reality, when we were doing interfaith understanding programs, I found in some of the communities throughout British Columbia that the people who first wanted to attend were ESL teachers, because they were dealing with new people, from their point of view -- new cultures and new faith backgrounds -- and they needed an understanding of who these people were, how they thought, what was important and what their value systems were.
Within the whole professional field, there are different requirements in each field. This is an area that might well be looked at, if it hasn't already been done. In the legal field there was the same requirement with aboriginal peoples. The aboriginal legal system was not understood by many lawyers until they began to understand the aboriginal people as people who had different ways of thinking and acting. There's a whole area of activities to be explored.
[5:00]
The minister did comment on what I was going to ask him about. I was aware that the act required each of the ministries to now develop multicultural programs. As I've been going around to the ministries in different critic roles, I've been asking if I might get copies of their multicultural programs. So far the only one I've received is the one from Education, which I appreciate. Could the minister enlighten us as to whether most ministries have put in those programs? Is it the summary or the content of these that will be in the report that he's bringing forth next week?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, that is the essence of the report; it should be pursuant to the ad. I haven't looked at the details of it. There is an obligation under the statute to provide that information every year as to what they have done, what the multicultural policy within the ministry is and what they have done to enhance the objectives of the legislation. Hopefully, all of that information will be in for all the ministries and Crowns.
V. Anderson: I appreciate that. If I understand, the minister is saying that those reports have come in and have been collected, but the minister hasn't yet had the opportunity to go through them and say what the highlights, themes or lessons are that we're learning from them. Am I right? I understand that's where we are at this point.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I attempted to read it, but I didn't get past the first page. I'll be candid with you; I haven't been able to read it, and that's why it hasn't been filed. I'm going to look at it before I table it in the House. It would contain summaries of the reports from each ministry and each Crown. If the hon. member is interested, full reports, I understand, are also available from each ministry.
V. Anderson: I expect what I'll do in all reality is read the summary first and then go back and look at specifics...
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Maybe you'll let me know what you find out.
V. Anderson: ...of each of the areas afterwards, because I think it's fundamental.
One of the parts of the act was the multicultural advisory council. It's had a variety of different lives over the years. I was fortunate in my other life to be able to be related to people who were part of that. Enrico Diano was one of the earliest people involved in the predecessor of that development. Perhaps the minister might share with us the current stage of the multicultural advisory council. He indicated earlier there would be a new nomination process coming in, so he might let us know how many people are on it, when those new people will be part of the council and what the organizational future of that program is at the moment.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have looked at that issue not thoroughly but to the extent that I have been able to decide that the application process for being on the committee will be thrown open, in the sense that anyone would be able to apply from across British Columbia. For the first time I included in the press release the mention of the term "aboriginal," because I'm seeking representation from all across British Columbia, from people of all backgrounds and all different cultures to the extent that it's possible to accommodate that within a body of 24 individuals. That goes to the thrust of my view of British Columbia culture.
[ Page 16468 ]
Once the ads have been placed in various newspapers, including the Vancouver Sun and the Province, there will be a time line for the applications, and I would put in place a process to look at those applications and take.... Not 24 individuals; I haven't decided how many new ones will be appointed. The term of the old council expires June 30, tomorrow. The term has been extended to almost the end of September -- I don't recall the exact date -- so that I'm able to go through this application-nomination process and get applications and look at them. It would be my view that there should be some representation from the old council retained for the sake of continuity, but I would like to make as much change as possible to bring in new faces and new ideas.
One of the things that concerns me -- and I'll share my concern with the hon. member -- is that in the past the representation on the multicultural advisory council has come in significant numbers from those who have been involved in either employment situations or by way of being on the boards of bodies that work with grants from government in the area of multicultural endeavours. This is no reflection on the individuals who have been so associated in the past, but it is my view that what we want to do is have a multicultural advisory council that doesn't have significant representation from individuals who may be working for those agencies or boards or may be on the boards themselves. I think we want individuals who have no vested interest in either the present policies continuing or any future policies being drafted to assist them with grants or no grants. What I want to see is a forceful, unbiased, vigorous representation of the interests of British Columbians at that table.
V. Anderson: I would affirm that direction by the minister very much. Sharing my experience in developing a multicultural advisory committee, one of the realities I found is that people who came from groups brought the interest of their groups. They were very much wedded to that, partly because they felt they had always worked through the discussion, so they always started at a different place from anyone else who came into it. Whereas other people who were not part of groups started at a different place in the discussion and didn't have the same presuppositions. It was difficult to work among them. I also found that because it was called multicultural, it was more difficult to fit into the group people who had not themselves been immigrants into the country in the last five, ten, 15 or 20 years. It was hard to bring in non-first-generation immigrants, because they were not multicultural.
I particularly remember one Japanese lady who was part of our group. She was born in Canada, grew up in Canada and was evacuated from Vancouver and put into the camps. She thought of herself, as the minister has mentioned, as a Canadian, but everyone else thought of her as Japanese. She'd keep saying: "I'm not Japanese, I'm Canadian. I don't want your image put on me." And the other image was that they kept trying to treat her as if she was an immigrant. She was not an immigrant; she was born here and had grown up here. It was a very frustrating experience for her to be part of that group, who were mostly immigrants and persons who had not been born in Canada. It highlighted for me, as she struggled with that and as she brought it forth to us again and again, the different perspectives.
So I really appreciate the minister looking at that. I'm sure he'll have quite a different council because of it as well as a broader representation. The other reality is that those who are part of the multicultural groups are a very small minority of the people they represent. They get particular feelings even with their own groups, so I appreciate the minister moving in that direction.
Having said that about the number of people who are in that group, what are the functions of the multicultural council? What do they actually do, or what does the minister see them doing? I know the report talks about having committees and that kind of thing. But what have they done that's visible, or what might the minister expect them to be doing?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The council has provided input to the minister on various issues from time to time that they feel are of concern to the communities. They would, of course, continue doing that. They are a council that's advisory to the minister. However, my thrust and my intention would be to try and enlist their aid in the evolution or development of the direction I want to see us go in terms of our tackling the issues around multiculturalism. So my request to them would be much more of a direction-oriented request. They may have concerns that they might bring to me from time to time with specific issues that they may be aware of in various parts of the province, whether related to the direction we're going in or to specifics in terms of the programs we may have.
My overall concern is one of direction. I think it's important to look at the direction and then assist them in assisting us in the evolution of a new direction, if possible.
V. Anderson: I appreciate that, because that's exactly what my advisory committee has undertaken to do -- move in a new direction. A discussion paper in that regard, which I'll be happy to share with the minister, has created an interesting discussion. They decided that in order to get at the new direction they had to change their thinking.
In affirming multiculturalism, they decided to focus on interculturalism as one dimension of it in order to ask how people interact and live together in the community, recognizing one of the trends that was brought out in the Vancouver Sun some time ago. I don't have the exact figures in my head, but when they looked at the percentages of cultural backgrounds people reported they had within family units, the largest percentage of family units, about 35 percent, had two cultures. The husband and wife were of different cultures. The unicultural family, where the husband and wife were of the same culture, was about 25 percent. The mixed culture is a different kind of family.
[5:15]
One of the presenters of a program that we had at a study session the other day commented that she was having difficulty because she came from six cultures. She related to six different cultures in her own personal life. At any one point she could focus on one culture or the other, so that she was intercultural within herself.
I can affirm that, because our youngest daughter is Canadian-Japanese. She married a French Canadian, and they have a son who has Scottish and Irish grandparents, a mother who is Japanese and a father who is French....
Hon. U. Dosanjh: A true Canadian.
V. Anderson: She's a true Canadian. She's intercultural, multicultural, whatever. That's the future of where we are. In
[ Page 16469 ]
the past the cultures were not identified; they were forgotten and left behind. But now they're carried forward into the person, and they're a part of the person. I appreciate the forward-looking part of the ministry in that regard.
Another part of that -- and this begins to take us into the blue book itself -- is the area of giving grants under multiculturalism. Before we get into the grants, I think many people believe that the only purpose of a multicultural body is to give grants. Perhaps I should ask: what are the key things that the multiculturalism ministry does, apart from giving grants?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I will be candid with the hon. member. I haven't even had the time to read through all the stuff that this ministry has been doing for the last two years. But from my knowledge of the ministry, without really having gone into it, I can tell him that the ministry, in addition to administering grants for integration purposes, deals with issues of antiracist and antidiscrimination education. There is also mediation and conflict resolution arising out of the problems in the process of integration as faced by newer or older immigrants or even non-immigrants. I don't know what the criteria are, but I don't think that if somebody who is not an immigrant comes through the door, he or she would be turned away. So there is that function of the ministry.
I think that in the last year or couple of years the ministry has been proactive on the issues of various projects in various aspects of our lives, which it has undertaken with respect to law and health. For example, they have had court services, the Law Courts Education Society and a diversity awareness to action project. Then there is the PSERC employment development centre, which has to do with an anti-racial-arassment project. There was the Ministry of Health, with the Vietnamese community health project. B.C. Housing Management Commission had a cross-cultural understanding and antiracism program. These were all programs that were assisted by the department. There is also the Ministry of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services, which has a multilingual information line with respect to residential tenancy issues. In the Workers' Compensation Board, there was a culturally sensitive service project to assess the staff needs in developing a pilot cultural-awareness program. Those are cultural sensitization projects.
There are some areas in terms of the institutional change that we have been attempting to make under the statutory obligation of the Multiculturalism Act. I mentioned the Mount St. Joseph Hospital project already, earlier on. There was the Vancouver School Board-Queen's Harbour project that provided money to a program done with the assistance of the Ministry of Education, I believe. Then there's the United Way Partners in Organizational Development program, and also in the United Way, sustaining the momentum, there is an agency access development program.
These are just some of the areas. In addition to providing grants to the immigrant service agencies or agencies that serve communities that have different cultural needs or problems, it has been doing this effort of awareness in institutional change, which also complements our other work.
In addition to these issues, the hon. member is of course aware that there has been some emphasis on making people feel that they belong here, particularly by reflecting the makeup of new British Columbia. That is particularly reflected in the change that we brought about to the language policy, where we have three new languages added to the list of languages that one could take as a second language in grade 12 to complete the university entrance requirements.
You also know, hon. member, that part of that policy was the grades 5 to 8 mandatory instruction policy -- based on demand, need and availability of resources -- that government could teach different languages in the schools. There's no list; it could be any language, if resources and other factors would allow that to happen. Those are just some of the things that I'm aware of and I've been able to quickly compile for you.
V. Anderson: Partly related to budget and partly related to the question, how many FTEs do you have to do all this? It sounds like you have a cast of millions to do all these projects. I notice the budget for salaries and related expenses has gone up 33 percent. It's gone up a million dollars to just over $3 million. Could you indicate the extension of the number of FTEs and the numbers that have been added -- or are going to be added, one or the other -- to this budget?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There were 31 FTEs in 1994-95. As you know, there was an increase in the budget, because we believe this area has been underfunded. There needs to be more work in terms of cross-cultural understanding and the integration thrust, as well as the antidiscrimination thrust. We now have 46 FTEs within the 1995-96 budget. Of course, that involves multiculturalism and immigration. It includes business immigration as well. There is a lot of work going on in that part of the ministry, which has been useful to British Columbia over the last many years and has assisted us in maintaining our prosperity in terms of economic development and progress in this province.
V. Anderson: To help understand just how the ministry works, are there departments within the ministry that focus on areas that give us the essence of what the ministry is about?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The way that part of the ministry is presently structured, you have the policy area where multiculturalism analysts as well as immigration policy analysts work together. Then you have another section which deals with the settlement issues, which I would say are settlement-integration issues. Then you have the third large area of business immigration, which deals with investor immigrants, entrepreneur immigrants and generally with.... The section on the settlement grants and the integration section that I talked about are the sections that deal with the grants for agencies that serve the people of British Columbia in terms of integration and awareness projects. The fourth area, of course, is the communications part of the department. All of those individuals put together total 46, including support staff and everything.
V. Anderson: It's helpful to know that includes the support staff and everything, because none of us can operate without them. They're the ones that do the work, and the others get the credit, it seems to me.
[ Page 16470 ]
I have just a comment there that when you talk about integration, one of the terms that came out of our discussion in our group was interrelationships rather than integration, to get at some new types of interaction and working out. I appreciate that.
One of the other items I'll highlight in the budget, because it has to do with staff, is the professional advisory staff, STOB 20 in the blue book, which has gone up to $1 million. It's gone up $800,000 over what it was previously. It's gone from $213,000 to over $1 million, so it's gone up 500 percent. I'd be curious to know why it has gone up 500 percent under STOB 20, which I understand is professional and contracted services.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I seek some clarification from the hon. member. I believe the member is talking about the figure in STOB 20, which is just over $1 million.
V. Anderson: Yes.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That figure is erroneous, hon. member. I have these figures written in ink by the staff here, and that figure should be $484,278.
V. Anderson: So it has doubled, from $213,000 to $487,000, which makes a significant difference. Perhaps you could still indicate what it is used for and what its purpose is.
[5:30]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The fact is that this part of the ministry has become very active over the last couple of years. That is not to say that it didn't do very much before, except that it has had a very high public profile over the last year to two years. Part of that has been to raise public awareness of the issues of cultural understanding, antidiscrimination education and integration across British Columbia. The budget has gone up in that area because the department had to hire professional services of various kinds from time to time. I don't have the details here, but that's what it involves.
V. Anderson: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:31 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]