2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, JULY 4, 2000
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 20, Number 21
[ Page 17007 ]
The House met at 2:09 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery today are several members of B.C.'s Teen Tobacco Team, which is a group of young people from across the province who are very actively involved in the province's anti-tobacco campaign. They've done a terrific amount of work. They're here in the gallery today, and it's my opportunity at this time to introduce them. They are Carlene Bradshaw from Kelowna, Helena Chan from Vancouver, Harbir Deol from Surrey, Jassy Dhillon from Castlegar, Mikael Jensen from Terrace, Kirpal Hoon from Williams Lake and Jessie Hemphill from Port Hardy. Would the House please make them welcome.
[1410]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to introduce today a number of members of the Bingo Council of British Columbia. Wendy Thompson, who sits on the minister's advisory committee on gaming, is with us, as are Wendy Smitka of Literacy Nanaimo, Margaret Birrell of the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities and Mark Crofton, who is with the Coalition of People with Disabilities and a recipient of the Duke of Edinburgh's Award. Would the House please make them welcome.
L. Reid: I have two guests in the gallery today representing the Richmond Committee on Disability: Frances Clark and James Sullivan. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.
Hon. J. Doyle: Today I've two sets of introductions to make. All the way from Swansea in Wales are friends of my wife. Liz Gwynne and her husband Dave are here all the way from Swansea. My wife Judy went to physio school with Liz many, many years ago. I'd just like to say to the House that if you think I've got a brogue, you should hear Dave and Liz. Welcome them to Victoria.
Also in the gallery today we have Manfred Kasprzik. Manfred lives in Victoria -- originally from Germany. Manfred actually works with investors from Germany to bring many millions of dollars for investment in the recreation sector, especially in British Columbia. Welcome to Manfred too.
B. Penner: It's my pleasure -- and I'm sure every member of the House joins me -- to welcome back the member for Alberni, the government Whip. We're all pleased to see him making a great recovery.
G. Farrell-Collins: I too am glad to see the government Whip back, but probably not as happy as the Premier is. I wish him the best. It's a tough job, and I suspect he's happy that there isn't much time left in this session.
I also want to take the opportunity to welcome Margaret Birrell. She ran against me in Vancouver-Little Mountain for the New Democratic Party in the last election. She was a formidable candidate and I am eagerly awaiting a rematch.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have the pleasure of introducing my sister Hartirath Sahi, who's in the gallery -- this is her first time visiting me -- and her husband Harparthap, who is my brother-in-law, and his brother-in-law Upkar Sandhu from India and the rest of the extended family. There are too many to name. They're all here, and I want the House to please make them welcome.
Hon. J. MacPhail presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Gaming Control Act.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion approved.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm pleased today to introduce the Gaming Control Act. This bill will provide the much-needed legislative framework to bring stability to the gaming industry and ensure that it's carefully regulated. This bill incorporates recommendations from the Meekison report, the 1999 White Paper on gaming in B.C., a range of reviews and studies during recent years, and input from stakeholders and the public. All sectors of gaming will be brought together under one act.
The structure of gaming will also be consolidated by the creation of the B.C. Gaming Control Authority, which will be an independent office to oversee all major operational and day-to-day decisions in gaming and to protect the public interest. The gaming audit and investigation office will have a strengthened enforcement and registration role in all gaming sectors.
[1415]
This bill recognizes our commitment to municipalities and charities around decision-making and revenue sharing. As well, this act incorporates into legislation the government's commitment to gambling addiction treatment. This bill will not be debated in the Legislature this spring, allowing time for the public and stakeholders to consider the complex issues before the bill is passed.
Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 30 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
ICBC LETTER TO
AUTOBODY SHOP OWNER
G. Plant: On June 13 we raised the case of Mr. Penney King, a small autobody shop owner who had been harassed by ICBC's neat police because, among other things, the exterior of his buildings had been tagged with graffiti. Well, the very next day ICBC's neat police paid Mr. King a visit. They took a letter for Mr. King to sign, a letter conveniently typed
[ Page 17008 ]
up by ICBC, a letter saying that ICBC's c.a.r. shop program was wonderful. ICBC encouraged Mr. King to sign the letter, but he refused.
So my question is for the minister responsible for ICBC. Can she explain why, instead of answering the legitimate concerns raised by autobody shop owners, ICBC decided to intimidate a small business owner who had dared to speak out against it?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, the question that the member raises is legitimate, and I want to say that under no circumstances should anybody have to sign a letter if they don't wish. There is an indication, though, that the autobody shop owner had said to ICBC that he would be interested in making a public statement. ICBC engaged in presenting him with the letter, and he chose not to sign it, which I think is absolutely appropriate on the part of the autobody shop owner.
I will say, hon. Speaker, that the c.a.r. program will be reviewed. And the program will be reviewed in this context -- that the emphasis should be on quality workmanship and safety.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond-Steveston has a supplemental question.
G. Plant: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There was a time in British Columbia when ICBC sold car insurance. That was long before ICBC decided that its role in life was not only to intimidate small businesses, not only to make design suggestions to the operators of autobody shops, but apparently to draft their letters for them when they have the courage to speak out against its policies. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that ICBC wanted Mr. King's signature so they could silence those who dared to criticize a corporation that is totally out of control.
My question for the minister is this: could she tell us why it is that ICBC makes it a practice to intimidate small business owners who stand up against its oppressive bureaucratic regulations?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, it's unfortunate that the member is on script and that he just went to his second question, because I answered that question in the first
Every single insurance company in North America has a relationship with autobody shops. As we discussed in estimates, lots of insurance companies actually designate autobody shops and designate the work that can be done at various shops. The private insurance corporations that operate in this province do exactly that. ICBC has chosen to have an accreditation process that doesn't disallow anyone from getting work; every single autobody shop in this province can get work from ICBC. What the accreditation program does is ensure quality work and ensure that the health and safety of the workers is being taken care of. That's what the accreditation program is all about.
As to Mr. Penney
[1420]
M. de Jong: Only an NDPer could call attempts by a Crown corporation to intimidate a small business person irrelevant. What an astounding statement.
Let's make sure we understand the chronology. About two and a half weeks ago we asked this minister questions about ICBC's harassment of small autobody shop owners involved in the accreditation program. She took that question on notice so that she could "get the facts." Within 24 hours the spinners down at ICBC had not only drafted a letter but taken that letter to the individual who had the courage to speak out and suggested -- suggested -- that it might be wise if he considered signing it.
Will the minister answer this question? Will she tell us who it was that directed the letter be drafted in the first place and who's going to be held accountable for this blatant attempt to intimidate a British Columbia small business man?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll certainly get the answer to the first question. The letter-drafting came from within the corporation. I do understand, though, that it was on the basis of a conversation that occurred between the autobody shop owner and ICBC, with him indicating that the problems had been worked out and that he was willing to show his support.
I absolutely accept that the autobody shop owner ended up not wanting to sign the letter. As I understand it, he asked the corporation if they could draft something for him. But it's perfectly within his right to say no; it is perfectly within his right. And the corporation needs to concentrate, as I said, on making sure that the program offers quality work and that the health and safety of the workers is ensured as well. I'm absolutely firm on that with the corporation.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Matsqui has a supplemental question.
M. de Jong: Well, here's the letter. He didn't just not want to sign it; he was so concerned about how all this transpired that he went to his lawyer. He had to incur the expense associated with finding out from his lawyer what he should do.
The minister seems blind to the fact that loss of accreditation by this small businessman can mean the difference between his business succeeding and his business failing. He has the courage to speak out and articulate concerns about something that ICBC is doing, and the very next day he gets a call from one of the coordinators of the accreditation program, who is presenting him with a letter that he's suggesting it might be in his best interests to sign.
There's one letter that should be signed here, which this minister should direct to be drafted and sent to the individual, and that's a letter of apology. Let's see if this minister today, in light of all we've learned about this shameful transaction, has the courage to direct that ICBC apologize to this individual and any other small businesses in B.C. that have been subjected to the same intimidation tactics.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, if indeed the autobody shop owner felt coerced or intimidated in any way, I think the suggestion is absolutely appropriate.
[ Page 17009 ]
C. Clark: Sadly, this is becoming all too typical of this government. When a citizen complains, whether they're in the health care system or whether they're in the education system
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
C. Clark:
Does the minister think it is appropriate for a Crown corporation -- a monopoly Crown corporation -- to arrive at a citizen's doorstep, just because they have the gall, the moxie, to complain, and demand that they withdraw their complaint in order to keep the accreditation program they have?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I'm not quite sure what the opposition's doing here -- filling the space available perhaps. But let me just reiterate, if I may, that the contacts between ICBC and the autobody shop owner were mutual and that they were trying to resolve a problem.
Interjections.
Hon. J. MacPhail: No, you know
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Their questions are extremely repetitious, so I'm trying to give them some new information, hon. Speaker.
[1425]
The autobody shop owner and ICBC, both of whom declared their support for the accreditation program -- including the autobody shop owner, who was not under any threat of losing his accreditation -- were looking to find a response to this. If the nature of the way that response was asked for by either the autobody shop owner or ICBC was inappropriate, hon. Speaker, if the autobody shop owner decided not to want to sign the letter and if indeed, in the course of that, there was inappropriate action -- and I don't whether there was -- that made him feel intimidated or threatened or that in any way he was not going to continue to be accredited, then I will ask ICBC to respond to that with an apology.
The Speaker: The member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain has a supplemental question.
C. Clark: Hon. Speaker, some of the information the minister has presented to us today is wrong. It wasn't mutual; they called him. Within 24 hours of the question being raised in question period, they decided they'd show up on his doorstep with a letter that they've concocted refuting everything that he'd said and just politely encouraged him to sign it. And who showed up with the letter? The coordinator of the accreditation program that he'd complained about.
Now, surely the minister thinks that's inappropriate. Can the minister tell us if she thinks it's appropriate that ICBC -- a Crown corporation monopoly -- operates this way? And will she issue a written apology to this individual for the intimidation, the bullying tactics that ICBC has gotten up to?
Hon. J. MacPhail: To quote Vaughn Palmer, June 14, "
Hon. Speaker, I actually don't know whether what the Liberals are saying about how this autobody shop owner felt, who initiated the call
COASTAL FOREST INDUSTRY STRIKE
G. Abbott: I think what the people of British Columbia are most concerned about is this government's chronic inability to govern. It's now the second week of the IWA strike on the coast. We know that strike has been devastating to families and to communities, but we also know that it's had an effect on the revenues that come into the government's coffers from this region.
The coast forest sector contributes literally millions of dollars in fees, stumpage and income taxes to the government. It's estimated that last summer, for example, the coast forest sector produced nearly $8 million in stumpage revenue each week for the government. Will the Forests minister tell us today what the impact of the IWA strike has been on stumpage revenue to the province?
[1430]
Hon. J. Doyle: Isn't it interesting that it took one whole week for the opposition to discover this dispute? I would bet you that if the people in the forest sector wore white coats, they'd have been on their feet after one day.
Unlike the official opposition, this government believes in free collective bargaining. The parties at the table
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. J. Doyle:
An Hon. Member: Answer the question.
Hon. J. Doyle: You've raised
[ Page 17010 ]
Let's look back to 1996, when the hon. Forests critic was running for election. He said at that time that the minimum wage was too high in British Columbia, and that was why he was running for the opposition Liberals.
The would-be Labour minister over there -- we know what he thinks about labour negotiations. What did he say in this House? What did the hon. member for Kamloops-North Thompson say about working people in 1996? He said that if they don't work right, you whack them; and if they still don't, you whack them once again. And if they still don't come to their senses, you throw them right out. This official opposition does care one whit about average working men and women in this province, may they be minimum wage workers or union workers.
The Speaker: The bell ends question period.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, the members opposite are asking me what my colleague said. I would only note that every time they ask a question, they then keep talking and never want to listen to the answer. But that's their problem.
I have the honour to table the B.C. Hydro annual report for the year 2000.
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I'm pleased to table the annual report -- it's called "Sharing the Challenge" -- of the Ministry for Children and Families, 1998-99.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I have the honour of presenting the annual report of the B.C. Ferry Corporation for the period April 1, 1999, to March 31, 2000.
Hon. D. Lovick: In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 28, the Balanced Budget Act. In Committee A, the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of Supply to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Multiculturalism and the Public Service.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to advise you and members of this House that by agreement, on completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Multiculturalism and Public Service, we propose to go to committee stage of the following bills: Bill 24, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2000; Bill 26, Agri-Food Choice and Quality Act; and Bill 18, Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 2000.
BALANCED BUDGET ACT
(second reading)
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm very pleased to rise today on second reading of Bill 28, the Balanced Budget Act. This really is a concluding chapter of a process that began last fall. At that time, in the fall of 1999, I initiated a series of prebudget consultations with the people of British Columbia. For the first time, I think, in the province's history, the Ministry of Finance produced a formal consultation paper to accompany that work.
[1435]
That paper outlined the economy of the province and gave a forecast for where the ministry and private sector forecasters felt we were moving. It talked about the fiscal circumstances of the province, in terms of both debt and deficit, and did so quite explicitly. And it allowed for British Columbians from across the province to look at this paper, to assess where the government was getting money from and where it was spending it, and to talk about their own priorities for the direction of the province -- where they wanted to see more government attention, where they wanted to see less, what they thought of the current level of taxation or where they thought it should be changed, and any other issue.
They were able to respond to this consultation document in many ways, not just through the formal sessions that I convened in communities across British Columbia, but in faxes or e-mails or letters either to me or to MLAs. We really tried to do a very thorough sort of consultation -- what people out there were saying.
The responses, I would say, fit into three general categories -- three general priorities -- which I heard very clearly from the people of the province. The first was that they wanted their government to protect what they felt were core social programs essential to the well-being of the province. They wanted their health care and education systems not only protected but improved upon. Unlike other consultations, I think that what the people were asking for was not necessarily only increased funding, though that was clearly part of what was sought.
But in the area of health particularly, they wanted to see new ways of doing things. They wanted to see recognition that one size did not fit all across British Columbia. They wanted to see that we were attending both to what is happening in our hospitals and in doctors' offices and also to what is happening in communities and clinics right across British Columbia.
In education, I think what I heard from the people very clearly was not only that they felt that education was something that as individuals they needed access to in order to improve their circumstances individually, but that they saw that the role of education, particularly post-secondary education, was key to building a strong and vibrant economy that would provide opportunity to them and to their children.
In Budget 2000, tabled in March, we responded to that. We saw a real initiative in health care. We saw the necessity of doing things differently with physicians and nurses around the province. We saw a recognition that not everybody lives in downtown Vancouver. In education, we continued the commitment. Class sizes are going to be lower this fall than last fall. Fewer students will be going to school in portables. Every school in the province will be hooked up to Internet access by the fall of this year. The post-secondary education system expanded by some 5,000 spaces. And even though tuition is frozen now for the fifth year, we were able to increase student financial assistance opportunities to make sure that everybody had opportunity. As we know, that budget also saw the first steps towards a universal child care system.
[1440]
That was one clear theme that we saw -- that I heard -- across the province. The second theme was the call for per-
[ Page 17011 ]
sonal and small business tax relief. If there was one consistent theme out there, it was that while they recognized the that government had been taking steps to work with sectors of the economy, they wanted to see more. They recognized that the forest sector -- particularly in the forest communities they recognized this -- was in rebound. They recognized that this has been done by the industry working in consultation with government and that stumpage reduction of some $600 million over three years was part of that rebound, as was the streamlining of forest regulation.
They liked what they saw in this government's approach to targeted tax credits in the high-tech sector, in the film business, in the oil and gas patch, so that British Columbia got its fair share of oil and gas revenues in a time of expanding exploration and increased production.
Most of all -- and this came through very clearly -- the people of the province obviously recognized that the greatest creators of jobs in the province were small businesses. While they liked the movement that we'd made towards reducing small business taxes, they wanted to see it go faster and further. And in Budget 2000 we acted on that. We acted on that by lowering the small business tax rate again -- now to the second lowest in the country, the lowest west of Fredericton.
On the personal income tax side, they did want more relief. They wanted it targeted where they felt it would do good for their neighbours and their friends, but also for communities right across British Columbia, so we responded to that. Income taxes have been lowered again, by some $225 million this year and another $350 million next year. In fact, if you add it all up -- all the tax changes that have taken place since 1995 -- revenues to the province this year will be some $1.3 billion lower than if the tax rates and objects of taxation had been kept exactly as they were in 1995.
People wanted to see that happen, because they felt they deserved that tax relief and also because they saw that as a good way of stimulating economic recovery. We agree; we've acted. Budget 2000 contains that sort of relief.
But the third theme that British Columbians articulated in that consultation -- and this is where the current debate on the balanced-budget act comes in -- was that they wanted to ensure that the provincial government's fiscal house was in order, to ensure that their social programs and that tax relief were protected not just for one year but over the long run.
I must say that as you looked at the specifics of where you should spend and when you should tax, we heard few, if any, advocating the sort of slash-and-burn policies we've seen in other provinces and that I've surely heard advocated at times in this House, in the media in this province. In fact, I heard it in the prebudget consultation from the Fraser Institute, I believe, which had the fortitude to stand up and say: "You need to balance the budget immediately. The way to do that, obviously, is simply to reduce health spending to Alberta levels and reduce education spending to Ontario levels, and you can get there."
But I didn't hear that in the consultation. I did not hear that. Few, if any, advocated the sort of money-for-nothing approach that I sometimes do hear in this chamber on the tax side. In fact, the Business Council of British Columbia told me very explicitly in their consultation that while there are many good reasons for lowering taxes and while there was clearly a case for assisting targeted tax relief, they could not, having done the analysis, stand up and say that lowering taxes in an area would increase government revenues in that area. In fact, they said that most analyses suggest that over time, you might get back 40 percent of that revenue drop.
People of British Columbia understand that. Frankly, the idea of money for nothing, the sort of Reagan-style, Thatcher-style, Laffer-curve economy is one that the people of British Columbia simply know in their bones and their elbows, in their communities and their homes, does not work.
[1445]
What they wanted was a balanced approach -- a balance in which social programs are protected and expanded, which is what this government is delivering -- and they want it to address the concerns about ensuring a stable fiscal situation in the province. That's what this government, under the new leadership of our Premier, is delivering: a fiscal agenda that is quite new and different.
Since this session began just three months ago, this government has introduced three pieces of fiscal legislation that I think will be seen in retrospect -- once the political dust and heat settle -- as landmark legislation. The first of those is the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, building on a year of work by both the former auditor general, Mr. Morfitt, and then the panel chaired very ably by Mr. Doug Enns and the recommendations that they presented to government about how to move budget building, reporting and accounting to the forefront of provinces in the country.
The bill we debated and passed in this Legislature meets that test. Budgets are now the most open and transparent in Canada. We have moved to a system of accounting that's based on summary accounts, where the bottom line presents the results for all ministries as well as all Crown corporations of government -- one bottom line for all of government. You don't have to look in the back of the book. Everything's there in black and white; all the facts are there.
The second part of that was of course to reveal, as transparently as possible, what we know -- what the Ministry of Finance knows, what the private sector knows -- about the underlying assumptions about economic performance in the province -- assumptions about population growth, about the different sectors of the economy and also the risks to those assumptions.
Similarly, the spending side was to reveal fully what the basis was for the estimates we were presenting. How many school children are there? What's the expectation for the number of new nurses that are going to be hired? What do we think is going to happen to the number of kids -- to choose an example of some distress -- who may have to be taken into care? What are those numbers based on? And again, to have all of that attested to not just in a political way but by a senior public servant, the secretary to Treasury Board
We also enshrined in law what I informally undertook last fall: the prebudget consultation that involved a document that talked about the economic circumstances and fiscal forecasts of the province on which the people of the province were consulted broadly. And I'm very pleased that a standing committee of this Legislature will be undertaking that work in the fall of 2000 in preparation for Budget 2001.
Fourth, the act required that all ministries and all Crown corporations table annual performance plans outlining their goals and objectives. They have to report back on those goals
[ Page 17012 ]
and objectives at the end of the next year using the same measures, so that we and the people that have elected us can see clearly what has or has not been achieved in various areas. In this session, even absent that act, all ministries and Crown corporations did table such plans.
Finally, we sought to revamp the management of major capital projects to assure accountability and efficiency -- to ensure that best practices apply to government agencies that are building new schools, new hospitals, new transportation infrastructure for the people of the province and to ensure that British Columbians get the best value for their hard-earned tax dollars. I know that we will be debating some of the details of that later in this session when we consider Bill 18.
The second piece of legislation I've already talked about a little bit was the changes to the Income Tax Act. We do have the second-lowest tax burden of any province in the country; we do have that. But people want to see that we're moving forward, and more importantly, they want to see how many tax dollars they actually send to this government -- or any government.
[1450]
And now, with this act, with the tax-on-income approach, it is a historic move. For the first time we've been able to delink our personal income tax system from the federal government to set our own brackets, to set our own rates, to set our own deductions. And all those rates, all those brackets are fully indexed for inflation. We are moving forward and making sure that people can see in that act exactly how much they pay to the province. The answer is that they're paying less than many other provinces, and they're paying less this year than last and less next year than this.
Now the third piece: the Balanced Budget Act, 2000. I thought I'd just start by just reading the preamble to the act, which talks about why such an act is important to the people who have elected us to this chamber. It says:
And the rest of the bill follows."WHEREAS a fundamental role of government is to ensure adequate investments in health, education, social justice and the environment for the greater public good;
"AND WHEREAS the financial flexibility to make those investments is dependent on British Columbia continuing to maintain its position as one of the least indebted provinces in Canada;
"AND WHEREAS equity demands that future generations of British Columbians not be burdened with an unsustainable level of debt;
"AND WHEREAS the reduction and elimination of budgetary deficits must be carried out in such a manner as to protect the health and well-being of British Columbians and the environment;
"THEREFORE HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia, enacts as follows
. . . . "
That's the reason; that's the purpose. It's not because we simply want to see numbers add up at the bottom of a ledger sheet, but because we believe that ensuring our ability to sustain what I've talked about already -- health and education and social services that people value
This bill will make law the requirement to meet or exceed progressively lowered deficit targets and to balance the budget in the year 2004 and every year thereafter. If we can reach those targets quicker than the time outlined in the legislation, we will. But we will not do so at the expense of social programs that British Columbians have told us they want protected. Nor will we do so in a way that would compromise our position as having the second overall lowest personal tax burden in Canada.
As I said at first reading, this bill has teeth. There are consequences for failure to meet the targets set out in this bill. If the government's targets are not met, unless there's an emergency of unexpected circumstance that imperils the health or safety of British Columbians, or if revenue is declined by more than $500 million year over year
When does this occur? Pay cuts will take effect the first time there is a quarterly report or a public statement that indicates that the legal deficit requirement may not be met in a fiscal year. So in theory, a government could choose to table a budget that did not meet the target for that year, and the clock of the 12-month penalty would start immediately upon tabling that budget.
Obviously quarterly reports are another trigger. For example, the first quarterly report for the year 2000-01 is due mid-September this year. If the forecast in that report -- and now quarterly reports do contain a full-year forecast; they didn't in the past -- is that the target has not been met, pay cuts begin immediately.
[1455]
Or you could conceive of a situation where the fiscal year unfolds, the books close, and then at the end of the year in public accounts it's revealed that the deficit target was not met, in which case the penalty would begin then and go on for a full year. So there are teeth here.
There's also an incentive to get things back on track. If government, in the middle of the year, rectifies this projection of deficit, gets it back under control and meets the targets set in the bill, then the pay cuts are refundable.
So with these provisions, we have put in place a system where B.C. cabinet ministers are going to be the most accountable in Canada, where there is a personal incentive to make sure that these targets set in the act are met.
Like every other provincial balanced-budget law and the one that has been proposed in this chamber by the Leader of the Official Opposition, the Balanced Budget Act sets out conditions where the legal deficit requirements may be waived for a fiscal year if you have a drop in revenue year over year of $500 million. I've talked about those briefly.
Now, I did hear some comment in the press about that escape provision, which said it was too wide open. I can only say this: I have asked Finance officials how often that has actually occurred in the last quarter of a century. From a preliminary scan of budgets and public accounts, it appears that it occurred once -- it can't be identified -- in the last two decades, in the early eighties, when this province was going through a very severe economic downturn. Call it a major recession; call it a near depression for many of the forest communities -- once.
This is hardly carte blanche; this is a very narrow provision. It has to be an exceedingly serious circumstance that
[ Page 17013 ]
would result in a revenue drop of that magnitude. I point out, hon. Speaker, that that drop cannot be taken advantage of, cannot be used for tax relief. In other words, if the government of the day chooses to reduce incomes taxes or to reduce other taxes -- as we have chosen to do -- it can't say: "Oh my, next year my revenues are going to be down $350 million, because that's a tax break I'm giving to British Columbians. If there's another $150 million of reduction somewhere else, I can trigger this caveat." It doesn't work that way. The decisions that government takes on reducing taxes are not included in that total drop of half a billion dollars in revenue.
On the expense, this bill uses words that I think are clear on their face about what sort of a circumstance might apply in which the act might be waived. It says this: "If
Hon. Speaker, all bills across the country have similar provisions. The specific words that I just read to you are very similar to the provision contained in the private member's bill presented by the leader of the opposition for balanced-budget legislation. What we have said, though, is that this has to be an extraordinary emergency circumstance.
We have added one thing here in British Columbia that is quite different from any other bill across the country -- quite different. Unlike any other law, British Columbia's Balanced Budget Act requires that the government that's facing that sort of emergency recall the Legislature and allow for debate on the emergency or on the decline in revenue, before the government is released from its statutory duty to balance the budget. This is a unique provision in provincial laws, and it underlines our commitment to greater transparency and accountability to the people of British Columbia. It is entirely consistent with legislation that we have debated and approved earlier in this session.
[1500]
Finally, a couple of technical points that may arise in debate, though one expects we may have more politics than technical points in second reading debate: the fiscal bottom line is going to be calculated, as we set in the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, on the full summary account basis. That includes all the Crown corporations, and they are the most complete set of accounts in Canada. Any change in accounting's policies and their impact must be fully disclosed and cannot be used -- cannot be used -- to somehow escape meeting the legislated targets.
In closing, I want to reflect on the work of our new Premier. The new direction he has taken is reflected in the bills we have put before us: the new system of tax on income, delinking our system from Canada; the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, which sets out a very open and transparent way of informing the people of British Columbia where we're getting money from, what we're spending it on and what choices we're making so they can see fully and discuss fully what their government has done.
And finally this bill, the Balanced Budget Act: in conjunction with the rest of the fiscal initiatives undertaken in this session, it represents that new balance in British Columbia to protect and expand our social program, tax cuts for all -- not just for the few well-off -- and make sure the province's fiscal house is in order so that we will have a healthy and vibrant future for all British Columbians. I move second reading of Bill 28.
G. Farrell-Collins: It was interesting to listen to the Minister of Finance give the speech that he did in opening up this debate on the balanced-budget legislation. In fact, had this been the first year of an NDP government, I would probably be sitting on this side of the House cheering him, eagerly awaiting the opportunity to support the new change in tactics and the new change in strategy and the new change in direction of the government.
But this isn't the first year of their mandate. This is the ninth year of their mandate. This is a government that was elected on October 17, 1991. This is a government that has doubled the debt that British Columbians are saddled with in nine short years. This is a government that has raised taxes extensively and repeatedly during its mandate. This is a government that has raised and increased and expanded the purview of fees and licensing costs that individuals and businesses and others in British Columbia are required to comply with. This is a government that, despite its promise prior to the 1991 election that it was going to balance its budget over the business cycle, has now failed in nine consecutive years to balance its budget.
This is a government that came into this Legislature, into this House in 1996 -- not once, but twice -- to tell British Columbians that their 1995-96 budget was in fact balanced and had run a surplus and that the budget they were forecasting for the coming fiscal year, which was actually about three months old, would be balanced. They told British Columbians, as I said, not once in this House but on two separate occasions. Individuals opposite stood up in the Legislature at that time and repeatedly told British Columbians that that was the case and did so in all sincerity, much like we just saw from the Minister of Finance. In fact, the government knew -- cabinet members, as well as caucus members who had been briefed the previous fall, certainly knew -- that there wasn't a hope at all that the budget in the next fiscal year was going to be balanced unless there were some significant changes made by the government in the intervening period. They failed to do that.
If this had been the first year of an NDP government, the public would probably be enthusiastic about seeing this legislation come forward. They may have concerns about particular bits of it. They may have concerns about the way it came about, which I will speak about momentarily. But they probably would have been heartened to hear the words of a Minister of Finance such as what has just come out of the mouth of this Minister of Finance.
[1505]
Unfortunately, this isn't the first year of the NDP mandate. This is the ninth year of the NDP mandate. It may well end up being the last year, but that's up to the public to decide. If this had been in the first year of the mandate, I expect the public would have cheered this legislation instead of laughed with derision the day it was introduced in this chamber.
I'm sure the Minister of Finance has seen the polling numbers on this legislation -- not that that's the be-all and
[ Page 17014 ]
end-all. But it certainly gives a pretty strong indication of just how lacking in seriousness, I suppose, the public takes this issue coming from this government. The minister puts that out as though it's a new government, a new direction from a new government. Well, nobody's buying that. The public certainly isn't buying it. I know that none of the members on this side of the Legislature are buying it, and I would hazard a guess that there's a significant number on the opposite side, the government's side of the Legislature, who aren't buying it either.
You have to look a little bit at what the minister's opening comments were to understand, really, where this legislation came from. The minister stood up in the House earlier this spring and talked about the transparency of their budget -- that there was going to be a change in government, that they were going to be more transparent, that this was the most transparent government ever and that there was going to be another pillar of their financial management plan which was to deal with capital expenditures. That was the second pillar that came out earlier in this session.
All of a sudden there was a provincial council; the New Democratic Party had a provincial council. That's a meeting where all the riding presidents from around the province, the key officials within the party, members of caucus and the Premier show up and keep in touch. The legislative caucus can keep in touch with its party, and the party can do its day-to-day type of management in between conventions.
The Premier showed up at that convention, and out of nowhere -- dropped like a bomb from the sky into the provincial council -- the Premier stood up and promised balanced-budget legislation. None of the caucus had been told about it. The cabinet hadn't been told about it, as far as we can tell -- certainly given the reactions of some of the cabinet ministers at the time. I'd hazard a guess that the Minister of Finance hadn't even been told about it at that point in time. I may have been wrong; I may not be. The Minister of Finance can perhaps clarify that in his closing comments on second reading. But I don't think the Minister of Finance had even been told that that was coming down.
Certainly the New Democratic Party had not been told that the Premier was about to announce his wholehearted support for balanced-budget legislation. It was a surprise to everyone. It was certainly a surprise to members of the New Democratic Party, and it was certainly a surprise to members of the opposition, and it was definitely a surprise to the public. If it had been on April 1, I suspect people would have thought it was an April Fool's joke. But it occurred somewhat later than that.
The minister is correct when he itemizes for the public and for the members of this Legislature the process of consultation that he was engaged in, leading up to the transparency that results from the Enns report, which in turn resulted from the fudge-it budget scandal of 1995-96 that I talked about earlier. The government had consulted widely with this transparency process. There was a committee. Mr. Enns had his committee, and he went around the province and talked to people. He got feedback, as the Minister of Finance does on an ongoing basis, and made recommendations in the Enns report, which I think all sides of the House viewed as a valuable document and a good contribution to the debate.
Initially the Minister of Finance -- a different Minister of Finance, I might add; I believe it might have been a different Minister of Finance -- said that they weren't necessarily going to implement all of the recommendations. And then the government decided to implement all of the recommendations in one form or another. I think, yes, it was the current Minister of Finance's colleague who said that he was not going to introduce all of the recommendations. But that changed, and they did.
There was a wide consultative process. I know there was discussion within the caucus and government as to how that would work, what the legislation would look like. Would it require legislation? How would the budget look different this year than last year? I know the Minister of Finance struggled long and hard to put together a budget this year that would comply with the provisions that the government had decided they would adopt.
It was a year-long process -- maybe more -- from start to finish from the time Mr. Enns's report was commissioned. I think it was over a year, actually. Certainly the public consultation that went around the budget measures implementation out of the transparency act that came forward to this Legislature was long and exhaustive.
[1510]
It wasn't in any of the discussion; it wasn't in anything that happened during the leadership campaign that we watched for the New Democratic leadership: out of nowhere comes this commitment by the Premier for balanced-budget legislation. It was like he'd thrown down the gauntlet, because New Democratic Party caucus members went scrambling in all directions -- some running off in little groups to meet here and some running off in little groups to meet over there, some rallying behind the current Premier, some rallying behind the former Premier, the Whips doing different things, their House Leaders doing different things. Everybody was curious as to where the government was actually going to end up on this. So they struck a committee. In their wonderful way that the NDP do things, they struck a caucus committee which was sent away to draft the balanced-budget legislation that's before us today.
Mr. Speaker, you don't have to look very far to find examples of this bill being drafted by committee. It looks like a bill that was drafted by committee. I almost expected it to be tabled like one of those ransom notes that you see on television, where they've cut the letters and words out of different newspapers and sort of stuck them together on a bulletin board and then taped them down with glue to make it look like a piece of legislation. In fact, if you go to the preamble, just as a point of highlighting, one of the whereases that appears in this bill
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Well, then the minister can stand up and correct me, if he wants.
It says: "AND WHEREAS the reduction and elimination of budgetary deficits must be carried out in such a manner as to protect the health and well-being of British Columbians and the environment
[ Page 17015 ]
skit, somebody putting up their hand: "Oh, don't forget about the environment. We've got to put the environment on there." And that brought in another little group of the caucus to say: "Okay, I can support the bill as long as it says 'environment' somewhere." Then they go through, and somebody says: "Well, what about education? Oh yeah, we'd better put something in there about education to make sure that those people in our caucus who support education are on board. And we have to make sure that there are no limits on spending in this bill, because that would get the public sector unions upset. That would get the public sector employees upset, the unions upset, that there was actually going to be a limit on spending."
So there's no limit on spending in this bill. There's a definition of a maximum deficit, and they talk about revenue. But in no place is there any limit on the amount of spending.
So I expect that what will happen if this legislation goes forward -- if this coalition of New Democrat caucus members actually holds together and votes for it on second reading, in committee stage and in third reading -- is much like what happened in the last fiscal year. You'll recall, Mr. Speaker, that when the government introduced the budget this year, lo and behold, the economy had started to turn around and in fact the government had a windfall of over $1 billion in new revenue -- unexpected, unanticipated revenue. A billion dollars -- that's a lot in a $20 billion budget, about 5 percent. I think about 4 percent is what that the actual figure worked out to be. But it was a fairly significant, unexpected rise in revenues to government. You'd think: "Wow, that's great. Now we can balance the budget, or we can come close to balancing the budget." No, Mr. Speaker, because you know what happened? They spent it. Revenues went up; so did spending.
That's why, if you look back year over year, this government has never been able to meet one of its deficit targets. In the good times when revenues go up, the government just increases spending to go along with it, so they never actually reduce the deficit. And in bad years when revenue doesn't grow as fast as expected, the spending goes up anyway. So this government doesn't have a problem with its revenues; it has a problem with its spending.
As long as there is no restriction on this government -- on the NDP -- to control spending in some way whatsoever, they will continue to grow into whatever windfall this great province happens to produce for them. If we have a booming year in the forest sector, if the high-tech sector performs well beyond our wildest dreams, if every star in Hollywood is shooting movies in the lower mainland and the rest of Vancouver, if every new business that starts up succeeds instead of falling into bankruptcy, if everybody in this province is employed and is pouring dollars into the Minister of Finance's coffers, all they would do is increase the spending. They'd just spend it as fast as it came in.
[1515]
There was that great line from the 1991 election campaign, which most British Columbians will recall, of Mr. Harcourt -- who was running to be Premier of the province at that time -- with the little piggy bank and the penny. It was a nice close-up shot; it made everybody feel good. And he said: "If we don't have it, we won't spend it." What he didn't say was: "As soon as we get it, we'll spend it." He didn't say that in the campaign ad. It doesn't say that in the bill, but that's really what happens. As soon as they get they money, they'll spend it.
So, for example, last year, if the government had merely spent as much as it anticipated spending -- as much as it forecast in its budget to spend -- they would have been almost a billion dollars to the better. They would have come very close to balancing the budget last year, if all they had done was control their spending to what they had forecast.
The discipline problem the government has isn't one of trying to find enough revenues or forecasting the revenues perfectly; it's a question of whether or not this government can manage its budget and manage its spending priorities. That's what it is. I know that at the end of the fiscal year they'll always come in and say: "Well, yeah, but there was this thing we had to spend money on. And there was that too. And then there was something else we had to spend money on. And oh, don't forget that one, which the member for wherever wanted." You know, it's interesting to see the way the government's spending priorities have occurred.
Interjections.
G. Farrell-Collins: I seem to have gotten a bit of a rise out of the member for
I don't remember getting a rise out of that member when the fast ferries went over budget by $250 million. In fact, I haven't heard a peep from her on the fast ferries budget. I haven't heard a peep out of her on that. I would have thought that my colleagues who have ferry-dependent communities would have heard from that member about her dismay over the wasting of $250 million on the vastly overrun fast ferry project, because it probably would affect ferry service, one would think, in the long term. But I don't recall hearing a peep out of that member, so the indignation is interesting. I don't think it contributes to the debate.
If you look at the way this government has managed its finances over the last number of years, one has to question whether the political will is there to actually follow this legislation. At the end of the day, that's what it takes. It's going to take political will by members of the government -- this government or another government -- to balance the budget. This legislation isn't worth the paper it's written on if the government doesn't have the political will to follow it, because all the government needs to do is repeal it or change it. It can go out of this House as fast as it came into this House.
If anybody doubts for a minute that that couldn't possibly happen -- that a government wouldn't come in and vote in favour of balanced-budget legislation and then cynically come back a while later and throw it out -- if you can't imagine that ever happening, all you have to do is go back to 1991-92. In 1991 the Social Credit government of the time, in a very similar state to this government right now -- at the end of a mandate, having difficulty with the public, having lost credibility on fiscal issues after the Premier, Mr. Vander Zalm had raised spending dramatically in the last number of years of his mandate and was roundly criticized by members of the New Democratic caucus for doing so -- had a deathbed repentance.
They came in and they brought in the Taxpayer Protection Act. It was actually one of the first attempts at balanced-budget legislation of any province in the country. It did a
[ Page 17016 ]
couple of things that this budget doesn't actually do. It froze taxes. In fact, it listed 12 specific taxes that would be frozen. That's something this bill doesn't include. It talked about a balanced budget over a fixed cycle. It also had a rate of increase in forecast expenditures, so you couldn't spend more than a certain amount. This government merely deals with the deficit figures; they don't deal with spending whatsoever. And it had a debt reduction plan as part of it. It required the Minister of Finance to bring in a debt reduction plan.
[1520]
Now, Mr. Speaker, it may shock you to know -- because it shocked me when I went back and looked at this -- that the NDP, in opposition in 1991, unanimously supported that legislation. They all voted for it, including the current Government House Leader. The member who was just speaking so vocally earlier on voted in favour of it. I think there were something like
They all voted in favour of it. That was in the spring of 1991. Well, those of you that are history buffs will recall that in the fall of 1991, there was a provincial election. That was the election where Mike Harcourt had the little penny ad and the piggy bank thing that we were talking about earlier, just to reassure British Columbians that his government was going to balance the budget over the business cycle.
"Don't worry about finances. We'll be under control. We'll be responsible. We'll be accountable. We'll be as honest and hard-working as the people who pay for government." Anyone can remember that phrase from the 1991 election campaign: "
Who can forget the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, who was Premier until very recently, and his immortal quote about balancing the budget? He said, "It's absolutely the easiest thing I could ever imagine doing -- absolutely the easiest thing I could imagine doing," all of this prior to the 1991 election campaign.
British Columbians sitting there thinking, what kind of government are we likely to get from the NDP? had an opportunity to see it. They're in favour of freezing taxes. They're in favour of spending controls. They're in favour of deficit reduction. They're in favour of getting the fiscal house in order. They're in favour of all those things. And not only are they sort of in favour of it; they're unanimously in favour of it. There isn't any division within their caucus whatsoever. You know: "Mr. Harcourt has gone on television, and he's promised me that they're not going to spend money they don't have and that we're going to get a government as honest and hard-working as the public who are paying for it."
But, Mr. Speaker, you will be shocked, as I was, to find out one of the very first things this government did when it was elected and came into the Legislature in the spring of 1992. As you know, the first piece of legislation every parliament in the British Commonwealth introduces is Bill 1. It's a bill that never gets passed. It's an act to guarantee the supremacy of Parliament. What it does is say that Parliament has the right to do what it wants, etc. It's never passed, because -- the Crown has sort of allowed us to get away with it -- it's a piece of legislation that's really historical and pro forma. It sort of asserts the power of the people over the power of the sovereign. It never gets passed; it's never debated.
Generally, after that, the government's big priorities start to hit the order paper, one after the other, especially after an election. The real key things that the government wants to drive home spring out there to the public, and the government announces them.
Well, do you know what Bill 3 was, the third piece of legislation that the government introduced after being elected after 20-some years in opposition? After salivating for years and years, after electoral defeat after electoral defeat, the government finally wins the election. And what's the first thing they introduce? It's the Taxpayer Protection Repeal Act, which refers to the bill that they voted unanimously in favour of such a very short time before.
It's probably the shortest piece of legislation that this House has ever seen. It had two sentences -- two clauses and two sentences: "1. The Taxpayer Protection Act
[1525]
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
They didn't tell the public, didn't inform them. That never came up in the election. I don't remember the TV ads. Maybe my colleagues can remind me. The member for Peace River South might recall as well if, during that election campaign, there was any ad with Mike Harcourt saying: "One of our first orders of business is to get rid of the Taxpayer Protection Act. That will allow us to increase taxes, to not balance the budget, to have runaway spending and to ensure that we never, ever have a debt management plan that means anything."
I don't recall that ad. I think I had something to do in that election in 1991. I was running as a candidate, and I paid attention to the advertisements that the NDP were running. But I don't recall that advertisement. Maybe I missed it. Maybe it was on late at night during the infomercial channels around 3 a.m. to 4 a.m. But I don't remember them running that advertisement that told people that that was going to be one of the very first things they did.
So one has to question the government's sincerity in bringing forward this legislation now. I don't have to question their sincerity. I can use their own words to question their sincerity, because we have these wonderful, wonderful quotations from members of the New Democratic caucus while they were in opposition and then when they were in government. The member for Saanich South, who is now the attorney general, said in 1992
If he were to stand up today and say that, it would ring pretty familiar, wouldn't it? It would sound just like the current state of this current government. He goes on, and it was a wonderful speech, Mr. Speaker. I want to quote it at length, if I can. It was so prescient in putting forward what the future
[ Page 17017 ]
held for British Columbians. He went on and said: "It was a sham." This is referring to the Taxpayer Protection Act. "It was there to pretend to
This government has had nine years to show us its political will. It's had debt management plan after debt management plan. They brought in the debt management plan one year. When they didn't hit the targets, they had the modified debt management plan. When they didn't hit those targets, they had the revised debt management plan. Then they had the financial management plan, when they didn't hit those targets. Then they had the modified financial management plan. And the last time around, they got rid of that altogether and created the five-year fiscal planning framework.
They had an opportunity to show us their political will. They had every opportunity available to them in the last nine years to show British Columbians that they really meant it -- that they really, really, really, really meant it this time; that they really, really intended to balance the budget; that they really, really, really had a plan they were going to stick to.
Mr. Speaker, they never did. Every one of those debt management plans was a sham. It was a fake. It was a phony. They had no intention of ever living up to them -- not once. Not once in all those years. Budget after budget; debt management after modified debt management plan after fiscal framework after modified fiscal financial flimflam plan, whatever they were. Year after year they introduced them as part of the budget, and year after year they ignored them.
Why should any British Columbian -- any person in British Columbia who works hard, pays their taxes, does their job, tries to make a better life for themselves and their family -- believe that the government today has suddenly changed? All those people sitting opposite, the 40 members opposite, stood up year after year, for almost an entire decade, supporting the government's budgets. Why should we believe what they have to say today?
What's changed? What's so changed in the government that we should believe them this time? I think the only thing that's changed is that they're closer to an election period. They're closer to the point where they're finally going to have to call an election. They're trying to come up with something they can sell to the public so that they can get themselves re-elected, or at least not be devastated by the people who they've misled year after year for an entire decade around their fiscal policies.
I just have to go back one more time to quote the member for Saanich South, who did his own stint as Minister of Finance at a particularly sensitive period of time. I think he was once quoted as saying, "I don't expect you to believe me," when he tabled the budget, which I think has to go down in history as one of the most stunning comments by a Minister of Finance introducing a budget. "I don't expect you to believe me." Then go back to the drawing board, and do something the public will believe. It's absolutely astounding.
[1530]
I want to come back to this quote, because it talks about the government's political will to actually follow through on this legislation. It talks about the fact that they're getting very close to a period where there's going to be an election. I'll just throw it out here for you. This is, again, the illustrious member for Saanich South. This is prior to his glorious reign as Minister of Finance in the 1996-97 time frame, but it was still, I think, a wonderful speech that he gave in this House.
He wasn't just happy, he wasn't just very happy; he was very, very happy to support the repeal of that particular piece of legislation."
. . . we chose not to be cynical. We chose to be honest -- honest government -- and say to the people of British Columbia: 'This kind of phony legislation will not protect you. We will stand by our record. We will not hide behind a phony Taxpayer Protection Act.' That's the message we bring, a message of honesty and fiscal responsibility. I'm very, very happy to support the repeal of this particular piece of odious legislation."
So, come on, come on. I mean, what kind of morons does the Premier think the people of British Columbia are? Give me a break. We will never believe the Premier; the public won't believe the Premier.
How can those members go back to their constituency and talk to their constituents -- given what they've done for the last nine years -- and tell them that now, today, this time, after years and years and years, this time they really mean it? Not like the other time they came to the community event and said they really meant it, not after the 1995-96 budget
fiasco when they said they really meant it, not after the '97 budget when they said they really meant it, not after the 1993 budget or the '96 or '92 or '94
You name it, Mr. Speaker, they've been going back to their constituents year after year, month after month, having community town hall meetings and coffee parties, and telling everybody: "Well, we really, really mean it this time. We're very, very proud of our budget this year. Last year -- well, let's forget last year, but this year's budget's a great budget. Look at all the great things in it."
How gullible does the Premier think the people of British Columbia are? How much do they have to put up with? How often
Deputy Speaker: Just to interrupt you, are you the designated speaker, member?
G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am, thank you. I probably should have advised you earlier.
But I will continue. The question, though, is
I loved their budget speech -- I think it was this year. Maybe it was this year. "No megaprojects" was the chant for the budget this year. No reckless spending -- this after a government that
Interjections.
G. Farrell-Collins: That's true: the facts, all the facts and nothing but the facts, and the buck stops here. They've run out
[ Page 17018 ]
of ideas; they're going back half a century to come up with political campaign slogans. Actually, I think "the buck stops here" goes back to Teddy Roosevelt from the turn of the century -- the last century, that is.
Boy, I tell you, it's going to be really interesting to hear how many of those phrases are in the Premier's speech -- how many times he's going to tell us that they have to reconnect with the public, have to restore the public's confidence in the fiscal house that they're building, how they've really learned their lesson, how the public has a right to know that the budget's going to be balanced, how in fact now they believe that the way to protect health care and education is to balance the budget, whereas before they were saying that if you balanced the budget, you'd destroy health care and education. I'll be interested to see how he squares that circle, Mr. Speaker, because I'm not sure that the logic of that is going to sink into the rest of us people in British Columbia, who find it difficult sometimes to follow the government's political meanderings in the wilderness.
[1535]
I want to come back, if I can for a moment, to some of the other quotes that are there, because this government has never believed in balanced-budget legislation -- never. In fact, it's been anathema. In fact, I heard all sorts of terrible things about balanced-budget legislation, leading right up to including -- actually following -- the day the Premier announced he was all for balanced-budget legislation. Actually, some of the best comments against balanced-budget legislation have come from his caucus since he announced he was in favour of balanced-budget legislation.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: The Premier says: "Change is hard." I suspect he's yet to learn just how hard that change can be. I want to put forward some of the quotes from some of the speeches that have been put forward by members of the New Democratic Party over the last number of years. If nothing else, they're wildly entertaining.
There's this one from the former Premier, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway. He was the second Premier, the one after Harcourt, the one who left office last summer -- I'm trying to keep track of them. He's talking about the Taxpayer Protection Act, and he says: "It represents a deathbed repentance that will fool nobody. British Columbians no longer trust this Social Credit government. They know that it will say and do almost anything to get re-elected. British Columbians know that they've been in power long enough." Well, I mean, that fits today as well as it fit nine years ago. It was good then; it's really good now.
That kind of quote is true. It is a deathbed repentance; it's not going to fool anybody. Nobody believes
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: To any audience. The member says: "To a Liberal audience." Well, I would love to come and speak to the New Democratic provincial council; I suspect they'd erupt in laughter too. I suspect that they erupted in laughter when the Premier said that balanced-budget legislation is one of his key points. So it's amazing just how far we've come with that.
Here's another great one by the same former Premier, the illustrious member for Vancouver-Kingsway. He says -- this is 1991 -- "It is clear that now, on the eve of a general election, they're saying: 'We won't do it anymore.' Given the longstanding failure of this government to tell the truth, to distinguish between right and wrong, does anybody really believe that this promise will last more than the two or three weeks of the election campaign?" Mr. Speaker, it was good then; it's really good now, because it fits. It fits just like a tee.
All you have to do is look at what this government did before the 1991 election and what they did right after the election: they repealed it. I expect that if this legislation is passed, as we suspect it may be, and this government -- heaven forbid -- were to be re-elected, after the next election the next Bill 2 or Bill 3 or something like that will be the Balanced Budget and Debt Reduction Amendment Act or the Balanced Budget and Debt Reduction Elimination Act -- oh, it's called Balanced Budget Act, they don't have debt reduction -- or the Balanced Budget Amendment Act or the Balanced Budget Repeal Act. And the best thing, Mr. Speaker
So if we passed this legislation tomorrow or Thursday or next week or next whenever it is, if this legislation actually goes through
An Hon. Member: August.
G. Farrell-Collins: My colleague says August.
Then who knows? The legislation will probably have
[1540]
Mr. Speaker, come on. I mean, nobody believes this. Come on. I mean, you can't expect that the public is actually going to buy this at this stage in the government's mandate, that suddenly -- despite all the wonderful planning that this government has done, despite all the wonderful speeches that they've made, despite nine years of deficit budgets, despite a doubling in the taxpayer-supported debt, despite a doubling in the overall debt, despite repeatedly missed targets, despite five various debt management, debt reduction, modified plans over the last number of years -- somehow this time this Premier really means it. What about the three Premiers before him? What about the six Finance ministers who stood up in this House and said: "I'm proud of this budget. We're not going to cut our way to the bottom; we're not going to cut our way out. We're going to spend our way out"? I think was a quote by the member for Vancouver-Hastings when she was Finance minister.
[ Page 17019 ]
Mr. Speaker, are we supposed to just throw all that away and forget, like it never happened? Does the Premier have a fairy godmother who just comes in with a little wand and taps him on the forehead, and suddenly this is all gone, it's midnight, and the whole ball never happened?
Mr. Speaker, nobody's going to believe it. Nobody believes it. And the thing is, even his own caucus doesn't believe it. Even his members don't believe it. Members of his party don't believe it; they don't support it. The public doesn't believe it. So I just have no idea how it is that the government at this stage in its mandate has the nerve, has the gall, to come forward at this point and introduce balanced-budget legislation.
I want to use a couple of other quotes here before I finish up. These are a series of quotations that I find particularly interesting. These are from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, who started after the 1992 election as Leader of the Opposition and then became leader of the PDA, an independent party, and now is a government cabinet minister. He was briefly Minister of Finance. It's interesting, because while the government has just flopped, he has actually flipped and flopped. I just want to highlight for members exactly what happened. I know he's one of the most popular members on that side of the House.
I just want to use one of the quotes here. On April 8, 1992 -- I expect, looking at the timing of this, that it was right around the time this Taxpayer Protection Act was being repealed -- he said: "
Then he left; he became the leader of the PDA. In the last election campaign he said this: "Where we should be putting our energy is not into balanced-budget legislation -- which, frankly, is a crock
It's interesting what happened there. I want to get this straight for a second. He was for it, and then he was opposed it. Now we know, because last week he stood up and voted in favour of it, that he now supports it again.
So what are the voters in Powell River-Sunshine Coast supposed to think? Are they supposed to think, if the election is on an odd-numbered day, he'll support it; if they're on an even-numbered day, he won't? If it's sunny out, he'll support it; if it's rainy, he won't. If it's a Tuesday, he'll support it; if it's a Thursday, he won't. If it's the first week of the month as opposed to the last week of the month, he'll support it. If it's a month that starts with S, he'll support it; if it's a month that doesn't, he won't. I mean, how are they supposed to know where that member stands?
How are the voters in Powell River-Sunshine Coast supposed to know on election day, when they walk from their house down the front sidewalk, turn left or right and head off to the local school to mark their ballot? They'll walk past signs that will say the guy's name: "Powell River-Sunshine Coast. NDP. Re-elect." The little lawn sign will say that, or maybe it will be a big one. These people will be walking. They've had supper; it's almost 8 o'clock. They're deciding how they're going to vote as they are walking, walking, walking on the way there. They're thinking: gee, let me see. Was he for balanced-budget legislation, or was he opposed to it? What day is it today? Is it raining, or is it sunny? What month is it? How many s's are in this month? How are they supposed to know what that member thinks?
[1545]
If, heaven forbid, they actually decide that he thinks something, that he stands for something, and go into that booth and make an X for or against him, quite frankly, based on that information, if that's what they're banking on, heaven forbid! That member is not old enough for retirement yet. Heaven forbid if he got re-elected. We could have several other changes occur between now and then. Who knows what party he'll represent then? Who knows what position he'll take at that point in time?
Voters in Powell River-Sunshine Coast should ask their member what exactly it is that he does support, what exactly it is that he does think about balanced-budget legislation. We know he has stood up in the House and supported it. We also know that, in the background, he was one of those guys who wasn't too happy with it; he wasn't too happy with it.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: What's your position on the legislation?
G. Farrell-Collins: Oh, the Premier asked me what my position is on the legislation. This side of the House has always supported balanced-budget legislation; we continue to support balanced-budget legislation. But if this Premier asks members of the opposition or anyone in this province to vote on the confidence of this government, the answer will be a resounding no. If the Premier ever gets up the nerve to ask the voters of British Columbia the same question, it'll be a resounding no as well. I can't wait.
It was sort of interesting today, because earlier, before question period, Margaret Birrell a woman I have a great deal of respect for, ran against me in the last election. She's a member of the NDP caucus. She's one of the few New Democrats who actually stood up to this government over no-fault insurance. She stood up to this government over its gambling fiasco and the corruption that's taken place there. She's one of the few, I think, who participated -- I think she actually did participate -- in some court cases. I think she actually was part of the legal process around challenging the government on a number of those things. So I have some respect for that woman.
But I've got to tell you that I salivate at the thought of getting on a stage at an all-candidates meeting in my constituency to talk about balanced-budget legislation. I can tell you it'll be really interesting to hear what she has to say. If she's supporting the government on the balanced-budget legislation, I would find that very surprising, given her positions on fiscal matters prior to the last election. I can't wait for that debate. I can't wait to highlight that for the people in my constituency, which will then be Vancouver-Fairview, to discuss with them the government's position on balanced bud-
[ Page 17020 ]
get. I don't have to do that. I can just print up a brochure with the NDP quotes. I can just quote the members back to them. I can distribute it all around the riding and then let the voters decide what they support.
Here's another one; here's the member for Kootenay -- I can't remember; I think it's Kootenay: "Even to suggest
An Hon. Member: Cranbrook.
G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, she's from Cranbrook. This is May 3, 1999, so that's three months ago -- not quite. Yeah. Actually, it was just two months and a day ago, a long, long time ago, because that was before
It says -- here it is; I love this -- "Even to suggest putting balanced-budget legislation before people is a shame; that is a true shame. Especially at a time of economic downturn, putting forward balanced-budget legislation, budget suggestions is not only shameful, it is disgraceful." She says that balanced-budget legislation is not only shameful; it is disgraceful. That was two months and one day ago. That wasn't nine years ago; that wasn't 1991. I can almost think what I was doing on May 3. So it was comments like that, you know, that sounds to me like somebody who's pretty fired up about it; that sounds to me like somebody who feels pretty strongly against balanced-budget legislation.
Maybe my colleagues can remind me, and Mr. Speaker, you can help me. It seems to me that on Thursday, when we voted on the introduction of this bill, she showed up and supported balanced-budget legislation. Does she think that's shameful or disgraceful? Does she think that's shameful or disgraceful or dishonest or deceptive or misleading? What does she think that is? I ask her. Maybe she'll come in and speak to this legislation and explain herself, explain the sudden change in viewpoint on balanced-budget legislation, given the kinds of things that she said two months ago.
[1550]
Here's a good one; here is the member for Surrey-Whalley, who, we know, is an ardent fighter for British Columbians, according to her. This one's a little earlier, about three weeks earlier; this is April 11, 2000.
Mind you, both of these happened after the budget was introduced -- just so the Speaker understands. The budget had already been introduced before these comments came up. To hear what the Minister of Finance said, it looked like there was this whole consultation and debate process that had been going on for months about these three pillars of fiscal accountability and how the balanced-budget legislation was one you just had to have.
Obviously these two members weren't consulted. The member for Kootenay wasn't consulted, because she obviously had a much different viewpoint on that pillar. If that was the pillar on her three-legged stool, she would have kicked it over. But the member for Surrey-Whalley -- and we all know how strongly she feels about a whole range of issues -- said: "They talk about balanced-budget legislation, which is a euphemism for gutting the public service."
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if that member is scheduled to speak on the bill. Perhaps she'll come in later and speak to us. I don't see her at this point, but perhaps she'll come in and speak to us and explain those comments. That's two and a half months ago, and that's not that long. We'll look forward to seeing that -- how you reconcile the shameful and deceitful nature of balanced-budget legislation on May 3, and how now it's something that the government is proud to support, how on May 3 it was anathema to the public, and on April 11 it was anathema to the public service.
The public service still feels that way. The public service has looked at the government's legislation; they still feel that way. The member over there is talking about how it works. But the fact of the matter is that she hasn't convinced the public service that their balanced-budget legislation isn't a euphemism for gutting the public service, because they're still out there saying that they don't support it. They're still out there saying that they don't like it.
She tells me that her legislation won't do some of those terrible things that the member for Surrey-Whalley said. She hasn't convinced her supporters in the public sector yet. So she can tell us that this bill is benign and that there's no problem, and everything will be fine, but she hasn't convinced the public sector yet. I hope that both those members come in and rationalize for us, if they will, exactly how their positions have changed.
I would love to see the former Premier, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, come into this House and speak in favour of this balanced-budget legislation. I challenge him to come in, not just sneak in, stand up and vote and leave, but actually come in, stand up and speak in favour, wholeheartedly, of this legislation. I don't think he will. I'd be shocked if he did.
And I could name a few other -- half a dozen -- caucus members over there who've told many members of this House, on all sides, just how upset they are with the balanced-budget legislation. Maybe the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast will stand up and tell us about his latest change of heart on balanced-budget legislation, because I know that he was
I can't wait to hear the debate as it goes on. I can't wait to hear what the Premier has to say and how they're going to try and convince British Columbians that they've changed. I think we've heard it all before. You sort of run out of excuses eventually, and just nothing's there any more. There's no talk about reconnecting with the public and getting your fiscal house in order and the need to balance budgets and how you have to balance budgets, because that protects health care and education, as opposed to the other way around -- all of the things that the government's been saying for the last number of years.
[1555]
It's going to be interesting to hear how they try and convince British Columbians that they really mean it this time. I can't wait to hear what the Premier has to say. I don't think this balanced-budget legislation has the support of the government caucus. I think what has the support of the government caucus is that they want to continue to collect their
[ Page 17021 ]
paycheques for another year. If this was not a confidence motion, if this were just a motion that was out there, if the Premier were to free his caucus members up to vote the way they think on balanced-budget legislation
We know the Premier agrees. We know it, because he said it in the corridors; he said it elsewhere. He said it publicly that he agrees with members standing up and voting according to the wishes of their constituents.
If the Premier really believes that the constituents of the NDP support this government, here's what I would suggest the Premier do. I drop the challenge for the Premier to free up his caucus to vote their conscience. Give the members a few days to go back and consult with their constituents and their party supporters, then stand up and vote their conscience, vote with their constituents, vote with their party supporters, vote what they really believe. Give them the freedom to do that. If he thinks he's got the confidence of his members and got the confidence of the House, free them up. Let them have a free vote. Let's see what they really think.
The question before this House isn't balanced-budget legislation, because if it were, two-thirds, if not all, of the members of that caucus, with the exception of the Premier, would be voting against it. Every single one of them would be voting against it.
The question before this House is whether or not the New Democrats are ready to go to the polls. The Premier had to force his members to toe the line on this legislation, even though they don't believe in it -- even though they don't believe in it.
If he believed that his caucus really supported him on this legislation, he wouldn't have had to make it a confidence vote. In the nine years I've been here in opposition and the nine years the Premier's been in this chamber -- we got here the same day -- there has never been a motion before this House that the Premier has said was a confidence motion, not one. This is it; this is the one time. And it's because the Premier knows his caucus doesn't support it. He knows that after the election he has every intention, and his caucus has every intention, to stand up and get rid of this legislation if they are re-elected. If the Premier believes in his legislation, I challenge the Premier to stand up, free his caucus and actually vote. But I know he's up next.
An Hon. Member: It's going to keep us here for too long.
G. Farrell-Collins: Oh, I see. Okay.
I want to leave the Premier with this thought, and if not him, I really want to leave the Government House Leader, the member for Nanaimo, with this. It's a wonderful quote from him on March 22, 1991.
An Hon. Member: They always are.
G. Farrell-Collins: He's right; they always are. They may not be accurate, but they're always wonderful quotes. This one, I think, sort of sums it all up. I have this question for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, who spoke in this House on March 22, 1991. I hope he's on the speakers list, because I hope he gets up and speaks to this bill. He says: "All I want you to explain to me is how we can construe this change in policy, which directly contradicts past practices of your government
You know what's great? You know what's great about this debate that we're about to embark upon? It's going to refill the pages of Hansard over and over again with a whole other crew of New Democrats. We'll be able to look at what they say: how passionately they believe in balanced-budget legislation, and how important it is to balance the budget, how important it is to get the deficit under control, how it's the government's priority of connecting with the public. I can't wait for the pages of Hansard to be filled yet again with even more wonderful, more creative, more lucid quotes from members of the NDP, telling us all how supportive they are of balanced-budget legislation.
I'm going to save every single one of them for after the next election. Whether they're in office trying to repeal the act or we're in office trying to obey the act, I can't wait to quote back to the public of British Columbia and members of this House the contents, the comments, that these members opposite will be making in the hours and days to come on balanced-budget legislation.
So thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's been most enjoyable; I've enjoyed my time very much. I can't wait to hear how the Premier rationalizes the sudden change in tactics of this "new government."
[1600]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the opposition hasn't moved at all in the last four months. They obviously forget. They didn't pay much attention to the leadership campaign I was engaged in. They forget that I said one of the top four priorities for my government, if I become the leader of the NDP, would be to make sure that we put our fiscal house in order; they forgot that. It hasn't registered with them today that there is a new Premier in this province. And when you have a new Premier, it is important to survey the scene and look at all of the issues and determine the priorities of British Columbians.
I have been travelling the province for the last four months, ever since I became the Premier. Let me just name just a few of the places that I've been in. I've been to Kelowna; I've been to Campbell River; I've been to Courtenay; I've been to Quesnel, Williams Lake, Kamloops, Terrace, Trail, Castlegar, Nelson, Golden, Duncan, Ladysmith and Nanaimo. Those are just some of the places that I've been to.
I have talked to dozens of people, and I have spoken to dozens of people about many issues, including the balanced-budget legislation and the issue around balancing the budgets. I asked them one simple question many times, and that is: what would be the most important job for this government to do? They all told me they wanted the government to put its fiscal house in order.
An Hon. Member: You just heard that?
An Hon. Member: If you'd been around the province nine years ago, they would have told you the same thing.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'd be happy to wait until the hon. members opposite finish speaking from their seats, and then I will proceed.
Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'd be happy to wait; I don't have a problem. Thank you.
[ Page 17022 ]
I am always happy listening to the people of British Columbia and listening to the opposition when they take their turn. In listening to the people of British Columbia, it became very, very clear that putting the fiscal house in order was one of their top priorities, as it was for me during the leadership campaign. And it's very, very clear to me that when people think of our government, the first thing they often think of is spending, particularly spending on health and education programs. This is okay because these are our priorities and indeed the priorities of British Columbians.
However, British Columbians also want to think of their government as one that is committed to financial management. Many simply do not feel that the government has managed their tax dollars well. While we have created nation-leading social programs, we've not shown the financial leadership British Columbians expect and indeed deserve.
When I became Premier, I promised a change, and the change is happening. The difficulty with the opposition benches is that they refuse to acknowledge change, or they're so scared of the change, they don't know what to say.
An Hon. Member: They don't believe you.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the real test would be whether the people of British Columbia would believe me, and that would obviously be on E-day, and I think that that's coming. Don't worry. Wait -- it will come.
[1605]
I promised to put B.C.'s financial house in order. Since I've been Premier, this has been my number one priority. I have been very, very explicit about what my job is and what the government's job is. In fact, four months ago I told the Finance minister, Paul Ramsey, that at the end of the day, the buck stops here. I told the Finance minister that our job is to forge a new direction in the way our finances are managed. I understand this, and so does he.
It has been a busy four months. In March our government introduced the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. That puts in place virtually all of the recommendations of the auditor general and the Enns panel and makes our budget process the most open and transparent in Canada, setting the highest standard of any province in the country. The Budget Transparency and Accountability Act means the public and the Legislative Assembly can now participate in building the annual budget for the province through an all-party committee. It is just one of the examples of the continued commitment towards a credible, transparent and accountable budget process that listens and then responds to the input of British Columbians.
At the end of May we took the next step in our new direction by introducing the tax-on-income act, which makes government more responsible and accountable for the provincial income taxes that British Columbians pay.
We cut taxes for all British Columbians and freed 100,000 low-income British Columbians from paying any personal provincial income tax at all. By the end of next year, British Columbians will pay -- as I said earlier in the House -- nearly $750 million less in personal income tax each year than they did in 1995. Over the next two years, a single-income family earning $45,000 will see its provincial income tax bill cut nearly 12.4 percent.
Next we introduced amendments to the Financial Administration Act and Financial Information Act. That followed the recommendations of an independent study into how we spend money on capital projects. These amendments ensure that bungled megaprojects are a relic of the past.
To help the business community, we lowered machinery and equipment taxes to 3 percent. Beginning July 1, small business in British Columbia will pay the second-lowest tax rate in the country. These were the first steps in our new government's new direction under my premiership.
But if we are to win back British Columbians' faith in our ability to manage the public purse, we must go even further. People have been asking me: "When will your government balance the budget?" To most people a balanced budget is synonymous with good fiscal management. Balanced-budget legislation means this government will not spend money it doesn't have. It means that we will put the days of deficit financing behind us, and they too will become a relic of the past.
The new law will see us balance the budget progressively over a fixed period of time and continue to balance it in future years. This new law is very clear about penalties for not balancing the budget. Now, if going over budget hits taxpayers in their pocketbooks, it will also hit cabinet ministers in their pocketbooks as well. Balanced-budget legislation like ours is not new. The majority of Canadian provinces have similar laws that require them to balance their budgets. We have had the benefit of their experience in writing our legislation.
I can assure you that our law is every bit as tough as that of other jurisdictions. While we have modelled our law on similar laws, we will not model our approach to balancing the budget on what other provinces have done. Our commitment to a balanced budget will not come at the expense of British Columbia's health and education programs, nor will it come on the backs of British Columbians. We will not increase taxes to balance the budget. Rather than cutting vital services or increasing taxes to have a balanced budget next year, we will reduce the deficit progressively over five years, balancing it in fiscal year 2004-05 and each year after that.
[1610]
I was present for part of the Opposition House Leader's speech, and I have some questions to ask -- I will ask only one or two -- of the Opposition House Leader. One of the biggest criticisms that he makes of our positions in the past is that we have now changed and that people will not believe us. Well, that is for people to decide.
One of the difficulties the opposition is having is that they do believe, in fact, that we have changed. That is why they are having a great deal of difficulty on the other side in accepting that change. That is why you had the most mind-boggling experience in this Legislature the other day when this bill was introduced.
You have an opposition who says they will do things after thinking about them. They will do things out of deliberate thinking and thought processes, consulting, looking at the issues. They say that they would be very consultative, they would be very accountable, they would be very open. You have one of the most closed-minded oppositions on the other side in the history of this province. What do they do when that law is introduced? They don't even look at the law. They vote against even the first reading of that law without ever looking at that piece of legislation.
I say that because it really disappoints me. I say that more in sadness than in anger, because I believe that legislatures of
[ Page 17023 ]
our kind, governments of our kind, work better in our system of government if we have an opposition that is open to new ideas, that is not stuck in the past. You have a Premier in this province that people of British Columbia recognize is of an open mind, but you have an opposition that has a closed mind. I say to the opposition: if they thought that any balanced-budget legislation would be not a matter of confidence, they obviously are not well educated in the art of legislatures in British Columbia or anywhere else in this country.
This is balanced-budget legislation that fundamentally alters the direction of government under the new Premier. You have the opposition on the other side, hon. Speaker, who refuse to acknowledge that change and refuse to look at the piece of legislation and, in absolute and total ignorance of what's contained in the legislation, vote against it as a matter of principle. Then they go around British Columbia saying: "We want this House to work better. We want to reform the Legislature." Even on that score they have failed.
We have attempted to reform this Legislature so that it works better. We arrived at a substantial consensus on most issues; but on one issue -- the calendar of the sittings in the House -- the opposition got stuck on politics rather than on public interest. They decided that they will fetter the discretion of any government so that any legislation that you have to pass in the fall, you have to make public. Even though you may not have it, you have to make it public in the spring.
I say to you, hon. Speaker, here is an opposition that is stuck in the past, that is not open to new ideas, that refuses to acknowledge the reality that there is a new Premier in this province, that there is a new direction to this government. That is actually scaring the opposition. No matter what they say, that is actually scaring them. That's actually scaring them, because if it didn't scare them, they wouldn't be talking about the past. They'd be talking about the direction we're taking today. We're putting our pledge to balance the budget in law. I challenge the opposition. I challenge them in a good-humoured kind of a way to stand up and be counted on behalf of all British Columbians and not play politics.
I ask them
[1615]
Interjection.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am trying to talk, hon. Speaker. I am trying to speak my mind absolutely freely. You have the Opposition House Leader, who stood here for almost an hour and only talked about the balanced-budget law that's before the Legislature today for less than five minutes. Why is it that what's before the Legislature gets only five minutes out of one hour from the Opposition House Leader? Why is it? I'll tell you why it is: because they have not -- I said earlier -- confronted the reality that on this side there is a new Premier who's going to challenge them in the next election. And we're going to go into the next campaign and win the next election. And we will; we will go. There's no question about that. I am raring to go. I am ready to go.
An Hon. Member: Get your bus ready. Let's go now.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is a time for that too, and it shall come. Let me just say and conclude by saying
Interjections.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I thought that's what I was talking about. I was talking about the balanced-budget law. I talked about it; I talked about a whole series of steps that we have taken.
I now want to just conclude by saying that British Columbians rightly expect government and opposition to cooperate on issues of such fundamental importance, which are now before the House. They also expect government to manage their money well. We have introduced legislation, as I've indicated. We have taken many steps, and we will go on into the fall and let the agenda unfold under the new premiership, with a new direction.
Look, there's no question about that for the nine years. We have many
R. Thorpe: I remember the words of the Premier: "
[1620]
And that same gang did the same thing with the fudge-it budget. They are so interested in the facts. In fact, they talk about wanting to acknowledge change. In fact, nothing has changed over there; it's stonewall, stonewall, huddle in behind each other. The broken trust of all British Columbians
And let me just say, at 4:09 the Premier said what this bill was all about. He said it was about protecting health care and education. Well, let's read the purpose of this act. And I quote from page 2 of this bill: "The purpose of this Act is to require
[ Page 17024 ]
the government to bring revenues and expenses into balance and to do so in a manner that protects the health and safety of British Columbians from emergency or unexpected circumstances." Now we'll have the rest of the story; now we'll have the facts. It doesn't even mention the word "education," and the Premier just stood in this House and told us that's what this bill does -- more broken promises from this government that has built the record on breaking promises, nothing but broken promises.
Well, you know, unlike the Premier and the former Minister of Finance, who really had it summed up perfectly when she said, "Hon. Speaker, the reason we're not going to introduce a balanced budget is because no one would believe us
When the Premier said
You don't believe it, eh? You don't believe a decade of decline. Well, let's just see the very, very people that this government's so proud to represent -- working people. In the last ten years their take-home pay has gone down by over $1,500. In the years 1992 to 1999, we have the worst investment record of any province in Canada. In 1996 to 1999, we had the worst record of job creation; in fact, the province of British Columbia, one of the very richest provinces in Canada, is now dead last. They have lost the confidence of every British Columbian by breaking their promises. Quite frankly, there is no trust left in this government -- absolutely none.
They talk about being open; they talk about being new. Where were they when it came to the fast ferries? How many members of that government sat on Treasury Board and approved over $500 million on fast ferries? In fact, the Premier approved part of those moneys that were spent on that fiasco. He tells us that he's about newness, he's about change, he's about a new style of government, but it's not being bought. It's not being bought.
In fact, fast ferries
But, you know, some of the words we have now are, with sad faces and long faces and all the theatrics that go with it, "a sober second look" -- a sober second look, and that is after nine years. Well, the Finance minister two Finance ministers ago told us that he wasn't doing anything with his budget because "we don't expect people to believe us."
We've had promise after promise about debt management plans. How many debt management plans have we had in the province of British Columbia? The 1995 debt management plan -- listen to this, hon. Speaker -- promised to deliver budget surpluses in 1995-96 and 1996-97 and to pay down $10.2 billion over 20 years. That got thrown out with the bathwater.
[1625]
We were going to have the highest credit rating in Canada; that's gone by the way. In 1997 they brought in the financial management plan and promised to balance the budget in 1997-98; that didn't make it. In 1998 they came out with the modified financial plan which was going to balance the budget in the year 1999-2000. And in 1999 they came out with a five-year fiscal planning framework which promised to balance the budget in the year 2002-03.
So we've had one, two, three, four, five promises of balanced budgets from this government. We have yet to receive one. And this is a government that, up until this bill was tabled, was against balanced budgets. That's what they said after 1992.
Of course -- let me see here -- on September 20, 1991, the entire New Democratic caucus voted in favour of legislation called the Taxpayer Protection Act. What was that act going to do? That act set out three primary objectives -- firstly, to freeze taxes. Twelve specific taxes were frozen, and the government was barred from introducing new taxes for five years. The second thing they were going to do was balance budgets. The government was required to balance the budget over a five-year cycle. The rate of increase and forecast expenditures could not exceed the rate determined by a formula tied to the increase in B.C.'s GDP. Thirdly, there was debt reduction. The Minister of Finance was required to present a debt reduction plan.
The NDP caucus voted unanimously in favour of that taxpayer protection plan. But following the 1991 election, they brought in Bill 3, and they abolished the Taxpayer Protection Act with a bill called the Taxpayer Protection Repeal Act, almost one year to the date after they voted unanimously for the Taxpayer Protection Act. I'm led to believe that 25 current NDP MLAs voted to repeal that act, and now they expect British Columbians to endorse and believe that something new has happened. It's the same old movie.
There is absolutely no way that this government has any intention of following through with Bill 28. In fact, if you look at it, it says that the earliest we'll have a balanced budget is 2004-05. If you go through the detailed technical backgrounder, which I'm not sure that most members of this House have received, and you look at the ranges, and you read this bill carefully, as I said earlier, there is enough room to drive a Western Star truck through it.
[1630]
This government has no intention of balancing this budget or balancing a budget or seeing this legislation live through. They have absolutely no intention. This is nothing but a political ploy. As the member for Vancouver-Kingsway said in 1991, in a quote that is very applicable today
[ Page 17025 ]
Vancouver-Kingsway say about the Taxpayer Protection Act that was introduced in 1991? "This bill represents nothing more than an empty election ploy designed to convince British Columbians that the government has changed its ways. It represents a deathbed repentance, which will fool absolutely nobody in British Columbia." That's exactly who the NDP have fooled this time with the introduction of this bill: absolutely no one in the province of British Columbia.
If the Premier truly believed the words that he uttered in this House, he would call an election. He would have given his members a free vote on this bill. But no, what did he have to do? He had to say it was a confidence bill, so that they knew that if they didn't vote for it, they'd better be out on the hustings and ready for an election. For those who aren't going to run, their payday comes to an end. So that's what they had to do: they had to threaten to take their payday away from them to get them to vote.
This is nothing more than an instant replay of 1991, 1992. And if by chance British Columbians are fooled again and this government is ever re-elected, rest assured that they will repeal this bill. They will repeal the budget transparency act. They have no intention -- absolutely no intention -- of sharing with British Columbians the facts, sharing with British Columbians the truth and involving British Columbians in the budget-building process. They have no intention of meeting any of these objectives of this legislation.
This government has fiscally destroyed this province. They have taken our debt, which stood at around $16 billion when they formed government, up over $36 billion, incurring annual interest costs of over $2.8 billion a year. That's what this fiscally incompetent government has achieved in such a short period of time -- nine years.
This legislation says nothing about how we're going to manage the capital expenditures, although the document on going forward says that fiscal capital expenditures will be $2 billion, $1.4 billion, $1.1 billion, over $1.1 billion, $1.2 billion in the same period. There is nothing in this bill that talks about how they're going to hold themselves to account for these taxpayers' funds. They'll fall back on the Budget Transparency Act. As we said in that debate, and as I said in that debate, I do not believe that that bill is going to provide the safeguards that need to be in place to ensure that fast ferry projects don't happen again, to ensure that convention centres
You know, as we sit here, and as we talk about this bill and how this government has coerced its own members into voting for it, it's very interesting how the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has made some comments on balanced-budget legislation. I'd just like to put those into the record. This one was from July 11, 1996: "
[1635]
Also, the member for Kootenay, from the Cranbrook area, said in 1999 about balanced-budgets: "Even to suggest putting balanced-budget legislation before people is a shame; that is a true shame. Especially at a time of economic downturn, putting forward balanced-budget legislation suggestions is not only shameful, it is disgraceful." It'll be interesting to see if that member comes into the House now and defends this legislation. And the member for Surrey-Whalley said recently, just a couple of months ago: "They talk about balanced-budget legislation, which is a euphemism for gutting the public service."
Where are those members? Are they going to come into this House and tell British Columbians what they really think? Are they going to come in and defend these past positions? This Premier has said that it's about a new government. It's about change. Well, if that is the case -- which, quite frankly, I do not believe -- then those three members that I've talked about and quoted here should have the courage to come into this House and address those issues, so that their constituents know exactly where they stand, why they said this then and why they voted in favour of this government's bill now. They owe that to British Columbians.
Of course, I look forward to the former Minister of Finance, the member for Vancouver-Hastings standing up in this House and sharing her thoughts with us on why British Columbians wouldn't believe her two years ago, but why they should believe her today. This is a bill about confidence, as the Premier has declared.
If these members want British Columbians to have confidence in them or to have the opportunity to voice whether they have confidence in them, surely they have to come in this House and put forward their views now, so that British Columbians can compare what they said before and what they're saying today. Surely the members of this government believe that British Columbians are entitled to that bit of truth from this government.
I don't want to take a whole bunch more time here. I want to make sure this House knows that my constituents clearly believe this is a confidence vote. They do not believe a government that has said many times, five or six times, that it's going to balance budgets. In fact, in the last election they said they had two balanced budgets. But we know what happened there. It's in the courts; I don't want to talk too much about it. But this new government felt so strongly about having the facts out about that, that it closed down Public Accounts. That's how much this Premier and his caucus members want to share the facts, all of the facts and nothing but the facts with British Columbians. They closed down Public Accounts, which was having hearings on the fudge-it budget, similar to what they did with fast ferries. But we already discussed that.
This is not about a new government; this is not about a new Premier. This is about a government that has struggled -- and I'm being very kind here -- for nine years to tell British Columbians the truth. They are struggling again. They are trying to fool British Columbians again. If they truly believed that British Columbians believe them, they would call an election. This is a smokescreen, an attempt to fool British Columbians, and British Columbians will not be fooled again.
[1640]
This bill is a confidence vote. I will vote against this bill at every opportunity I have, because I have no confidence in this bill, as my constituents have no confidence in this government. I do want to say, though, that I support balanced bud-
[ Page 17026 ]
gets. I support competent management. I support protecting health care, education and providing for the truly needy. I know that if you have competent management, you can balance your budget. You can provide for education, health care and for those truly in need. But you must be committed to that. You must have a vision, and you must have the competency to do that. I'm very confident that when British Columbians have the opportunity to see who they have confidence in, whether it's going to be that side of the House or this side of the House, then we'll have the opportunity for an election. If we all work hard on this side, we will form the government.
Thank you very much, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this in second reading. I encourage some of those members of the government side that I quoted to come into this House and to defend their various positions on this bill.
Hon. C. McGregor: It's my pleasure to rise to speak in favour of second reading of the bill that's before the House today. It's maybe a rare occasion that I can agree with the comments of the member opposite, the member for Okanagan-Penticton. He did end his remarks by talking about the need for competent management and saying that he believed in competent management, as does this side of the House. You must be committed to the principles of fiscal management, and on this side of the House we too believe in that goal and value. You must have a vision. In fact, the bill makes quite clear what the vision of this side of the House is and spells it out very clearly. You must have your values in the right place in order to be able to balance a budget and deliver on the important priorities of British Columbians.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
With the member opposite having ended his remarks in that way, I'd like to begin my remarks with those comments, because I believe that they are true for those of us on this side of the House.
I'm going to try very hard to speak to the principles of the bill and to make sure that I'm speaking in the kind of tone and demeanour that the members of my community want their MLAs to speak in. In fact, I think sometimes they're saddened by the debate in this House, because we don't take a very mature approach from time to time. We're more interested in looking back and slinging mud than we are in looking forward and trying to plan for the future. So I would like to take a different tack, if I could, and speak to the principles behind this bill and about why I'm fully committed to the bill that's before the House at this time.
You know, the Premier, in his remarks only a few moments ago, spoke about his goal to ensure that we put B.C.'s fiscal house in order. He has, in fact, spent considerable time touring the province, meeting with individuals in my community and in many large and small communities across the province, and heard that message repeatedly. So the task was given to the Finance minister, and earlier today he spent considerable time noting a number of the significant ways in which we have taken that message and applied it to our legislative agenda in this session of the Legislature.
I think it's fair to acknowledge that there's absolutely no doubt in my mind -- nor in the minds of my colleagues, I'm sure -- that we do need to rebuild British Columbians' faith in our ability to manage taxpayers' dollars wisely. But when we do so through a bill such as the one we're debating here today, we're going to do it in such a way as to continue to make our priorities and values clear, so that we don't undermine the efforts to make sure we're supporting all of the citizens of the province.
In this session we've worked hard to live up to the Premier's commitment to put our fiscal house in order by bringing forward this bill, the Balanced Budget Act, as well as the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act and the tax-on-income tax act. These legislative pieces have fundamentally altered the way in which we develop budgets and how we can make sure that everyone in British Columbia can see, in absolutely the most transparent way possible, the budget facts and assumptions that are used.
We've also, through the tax-on-income act, made sure that our tax system is equally transparent and accountable, so British Columbians can know for certain how much provincial tax is payable on a year-by-year basis. There is clearly a theme in these bills, and that theme speaks to the values of openness, accountability and a need to make sure we're engaged in good fiscal management practices. Those are the priorities that our new Premier spoke of earlier today.
[1645]
But we've always, as a New Democratic government, talked about the importance of the services that British Columbians count on and how those services must not just be maintained but enhanced. British Columbians' priorities include things like a continued investment in education and health care, a clean environment and a strong social safety net. They want investments in these services that will help enhance B.C.'s growing economy. They want our budget priorities and actions as a government to support these goals, so that we can continue to enjoy the high quality of life we've come to expect here in British Columbia. But they also want to make sure that while we're doing that, we have good fiscal management.
The Premier was recently in Kamloops -- it was around the end of May -- and had the opportunity to speak with a large number of Kamloops citizens at a community dinner. At that time he spoke of his eight-point plan. He talked about the need for continued investments in health care, the high priority that we place -- and need to continue to place -- on education and, in particular, post-secondary education. He talked about the needs of B.C.'s new economy and the kind of investments we're making in areas like tourism, film and the growth in the oil and gas sector. He talked about environmental priorities and the need to make sure that we protect that high quality of life, the need to continue to protect and create protected areas across the province and the need to focus on communities and give them the tools through which they can make decisions that are clearly focused within their priorities. He talked about a focus on children and their families and, in particular, on a new program related to day care. Finally, he spoke of his commitment to better financial management.
I had the chance to debrief, if you will, with a number of the people from the business community who had attended that dinner. They were incredibly impressed with the vision that was put forward by the Premier. Almost immediately they brought up the issues related to fiscal management. Fundamentally, they felt we hadn't done a good job over the past nine years, and I certainly couldn't disagree with that sentiment. But they were strongly encouraged by the priorities the Premier had set out, particularly in the area of balanced-budget legislation.
[ Page 17027 ]
There's no doubt we all have a wish to make B.C. a better place in which to live. The members at that dinner want to work with us on a progressive agenda that will see British Columbians move forward -- everyone move forward -- and enjoy a better quality of life. Part of making that happen has to be through good fiscal management. This bill and the other two companion pieces, of which I spoke earlier and which we've done in this session to date, will create the climate and give us the legislative tools we need to make sure we can achieve these goals and create a brighter future in British Columbia.
Hon. Speaker, much has been said about this bill already, but I would like to speak to some of its features in particular. First, I'll speak to the schedule that's attached to the bill. The schedule makes clear that the budget will be balanced by fiscal 2004 and 2005. Each year the deficit will be reduced in order to ensure that the budget will be balanced by that date. Once this has been achieved, the budget will then have to be balanced each and every year following.
Despite the fact that I've heard members opposite speak against the bill, I understand that it largely represents the plan they have when they talk about balanced-budget legislation and that they too see the budget being balanced over a number of years. I think it's the same number of years that's proposed in this bill. So despite the fact that they're opposing it, they actually have contained that very similar clause within the bill that they've tabled in this House as well.
[1650]
Let me speak to another feature. This bill contains tough penalties like the ones that exist in Ontario and Manitoba, and it makes sure that cabinet ministers and the Premier will be held financially accountable should they miss their fiscal targets -- not just at year-end, either, but at any point in the year when it becomes apparent that those fiscal targets are not going to be met. Despite the fact that I heard the members opposite speak against this bill, as I understand the bill that they tabled earlier, it contains that very same feature: that they would expect those similar financial penalties to be attached to cabinet ministers if the budget's not balanced. So far there are two features that are identical or at least very similar in principle. But they're opposed to it now. That is a bit puzzling.
Let's speak to another feature. It has full coverage, in that the law covers all government expenditures, including Crown corporations like B.C. Hydro, ICBC and B.C. Ferries. Again, as I understand it, those are the kinds of accounting principles that we've heard through public accounts, and the members opposite who sit on that committee support that kind of inclusion as a part of the overall budgetary system in government. So again, it's another feature that I believe the members opposite do support, but we still hear them say that they're opposed to the bill.
Like other provinces, it also makes exceptions for emergencies such as natural disasters or significant revenue downturns that are beyond the control of the provincial government. Perhaps that would be the clause we would expect the Liberals to be opposed to. But again, as I understand it, they include a very similar feature in the bill that they've tabled in the House. Clearly they've recognized that from time to time there might be very serious emergencies, that government would need to take another look at a budget in that kind of natural, emergency-type of situation. Again, I'm puzzled by their continued opposition to the bill.
I think there is one way in which the differences become very apparent when you examine the bill. That's when you take a look at the preamble to the bill. In our bill, we make clear that it is a fundamental role of government to ensure that there continue to be adequate investments in health care, education, social justice and the environment, because there's a greater good.
We also acknowledge that the financial flexibility to make those investments depends on British Columbia continuing to maintain its position as one of the least indebted provinces in Canada. Now, I know I haven't heard the members opposite talk about that, despite the fact that B.C. continues to be one of the least indebted provinces in Canada. The bill acknowledges that. In fact, I think the member opposite, who I'm engaging in a little head nodding with, acknowledges that that's the case as well.
Equity demands that future generations of British Columbians not be burdened with unsustainable levels of debt. Certainly that's a theme I've heard from constituent members in my own community -- the need for us to be planning investments in a sustainable way, not only in education, and ensuring that we balance our budgets so we can spend dollars on areas that we all consider to be high priorities. The reduction and elimination of budget-area deficits must be carried out in such a manner as to protect the health and well-being of British Columbians and the environment.
That, in a nutshell, speaks to the difference between the balanced-budget legislation that's supported on this side of the House versus the kind of balanced-budget legislation they used to support on that side of the House. It makes clear our values around core services like health care and education and that environmental protection won't be arbitrarily cut in order to achieve a balanced budget.
I think that's a lesson all of us have learned in the situation of Walkerton in Ontario. We as legislators all need, in fact, to pay attention to that, to make sure we don't make similar mistakes in the future. It can't be about balancing the budget for the budget's sake. You must put into context the importance of core services, including the protection of our natural environment. As the members opposite know, once that environment is lost to pollution or degradation in some way, it's very difficult, if not impossible, to get it back.
As the Premier noted, it's very difficult to engage in the debate on these questions with the members opposite. It's very difficult, because they choose to engage in a very negative approach on how to deal with this question. Instead of engaging us on the components of the bill, instead of talking to the principles that they know British Columbians share -- just as we do on this side of the House -- it's very difficult and disappointing to continue to hear the same kind of carbon-copy speech that goes from one end of the House down to the other, where we hear constant references to the past instead of looking forward.
[1655]
I think it's too bad that members choose to put politics before the best interests of British Columbians. I'm certainly proud to support this bill. I would urge every member of this House, as well, to take the time to think through what they know and understand to be the principles of this bill and to stand with us and support it as we move forward and address the important fiscal concerns that British Columbians have in the context of maintaining those important core services in health care, education, environment and the social safety net.
[ Page 17028 ]
Thank you for this opportunity to speak in favour of the bill.
J. Weisgerber: I rise to speak against this legislation.
Interjection.
J. Weisgerber: The member across the way starts to natter five seconds into his time in the House. We certainly will look forward to the member for Burnaby North giving us his profound thoughts on this piece of legislation.
I was the only member on the opposition side to vote, in first reading, to hear this bill. I like balanced budgets, and I believe in balanced-budget legislation. And I am profoundly disappointed in the bill that I voted to see. I can tell you that whether or not this bill was a confidence motion, I would vote against it. I'd vote against it because I have absolutely no confidence in the government. I have absolutely no confidence in their ability to manage the affairs of this province and, most particularly, the financial and fiscal affairs of this province.
I would vote against the bill in any event, because I don't think this is a balanced budget in anything but name. I have the feeling that the government played a huge joke on us. When I read the bill, I could almost hear the minister saying: "Aha, I gotcha -- you read it." You thought it was a balanced budget. And what did you get? Well, you got a bill that was so full of holes, so full of outs, so full of loopholes, that it would never result in a balanced budget under this government.
I also supported the Taxpayer Protection Act in 1991, because it was genuine balanced-budget legislation. It limited taxation. It dealt with the thorny issue of capitalization. It prevented government finding ways to circumvent the requirement for balanced-budget legislation. My only criticism of it is that it didn't go far enough; it didn't make it more difficult to amend. It should have been more difficult to amend. It should have, in fact, been a requirement that in order to amend the legislation, there was more than a simple majority requirement.
There is some great similarity in this bill and the Taxpayer Protection Act. As has been said in this House before, both represent deathbed repentances of governments that are about to be voted out of office. I say that from a position of experience; I know of what I speak. This is the kind of legislation that governments, desperate in their last year in office, bring in, in a futile attempt to hang onto power.
[1700]
I would challenge anyone who disputes that to go out into the street and survey as many people as you want to survey. Survey one, survey ten, survey 100 or 100,000, and you will find overwhelmingly that nobody believes the government is serious. Nobody believes the government is sincere. Nobody believes that this government would actually follow a path to a balanced budget if indeed it were to be re-elected. More importantly, perhaps, most people that you would survey would dismiss even the chance of the government being re-elected and therefore believe, rightfully so, that any other questions about what they might do after the next election are irrelevant.
The government promised balanced-budget legislation in the last election. They said they'd balanced their budget and were going to balance another. When Mr. Stockell brought his case before the courts, I don't think anybody expected he would get past first base. But the evidence was so overwhelming that the courts are now actually considering a decision in that matter.
So we know how desperate they were in 1996. They were desperate enough to deliberately mislead British Columbians about the state of finances in this province, both for the 1995-96 fiscal year and for the fiscal year that they saw in the election year. So what is the purpose? What is the reasoning? What's the faint hope that causes a government to be so desperate as to bring in this kind of legislation?
I listened with great care to the Minister of Finance when he introduced the bill. He talked about how balanced this legislation was, how it moved toward a balanced budget at some faraway date in the future but didn't embrace the slash-and-burn provisions other provinces had enacted. We know that's a very thinly veiled criticism of our neighbours immediately to the east, the hated Albertans, the hated Klein government.
I'm thinking: what is the slash and burn to health care in Alberta that has been so devastating? Is it the slash and burn to the health care system that sees us regularly and often air-evac'ing people to Alberta for treatment? Is the result what we saw in the Cariboo last week, where a person in a critical car accident couldn't get into an emergency room anywhere in Vancouver? When our health care system threw up its hands and said, "We've got to send this person to Alberta," then we couldn't find an ambulance. We needed to go to Alberta for the ambulance so they could take this Cariboo resident back to Alberta for health care.
Is that the kind of slash and burn that the Finance minister's afraid of? Or was it the situation with my constituent who had to be air-evac'd out of the Yukon to Vancouver, only to be billed by our system for the air ambulance? I had to point out to the Minister of Health that in exactly the same situation, the Alberta government had happily paid for the ambulance to get one of their residents from British Columbia back to Alberta for health care.
I don't buy for one minute the Minister of Finance's argument that in fact they are somehow doing things for health care that provinces like Alberta aren't doing for their system. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I think we should look very carefully. The fact of the matter is that our health care system, despite the money that's being thrown at it, is in chaos. And it's in chaos because of the actions of this government. It's in chaos because of things like the health care accord signed by this government that has in fact caused the money to be badly spent in our province.
[1705]
I'm not worried about the slash and burn that's going on in other provinces. I'm worried about the damage that's being done in our province. This legislation is pitiful in its attempt to portray the government as somehow being fiscally responsible or serious.
This bill, in addition to putting the so-called balanced-budget date so far down the road that a government could get elected and re-elected without ever having to face the reality, deals not at all with taxes. I heard the minister talk about British Columbians being relatively in the lower tax brackets.
An Hon. Member: Since when?
[ Page 17029 ]
J. Weisgerber: Again, let's go out and survey taxpayers. Let's not use the selective kinds of statistical information that Finance ministers are famous for. Let's go and ask people how they feel about their taxes. Let's go and ask them if they think that in fact they're getting a pretty easy ride out of these New Democrats on the taxation front.
This bill, this so-called balanced-budget thing, does absolutely nothing about capitalization. In the old days when this province was actually balancing its budget, it was also paying for all of the major highway work out of annual budgets. That includes the Coquihalla and the Coquihalla connector, paid for out of operating budgets.
Now, if you put a culvert in and put two yards of gravel over top, you capitalize it for 20 years and don't show it as part of the operating debt off the deficit. So one would assume that these fiscal conservatives across the way would continue with that practice.
We know that they're musing about how they would go about capitalizing little seedling trees when you plant them in the ground and that somehow you would project their value over the 80- or 90- or 100-year life of the tree. You start to wonder: how far could you go with capitalization? Would you capitalize your automobiles? Yeah. I've actually seen government cars that are 15 or 20 years old. So I guess you could argue that government automobiles last a long time, therefore you would capitalize that expenditure over perhaps 20 budgets. What about computers? We know they only last two or three years, but with the optimism that has been shown and with a little wriggle room, you could capitalize computers for a very long time.
Let's get to the bill, and let's do something a little bit different. Let's start at the back of the bill and move forward. I want to look at the schedule for moving toward a balanced budget. If this bill were to pass, the government that was to inherit this bill would, in the fiscal year 2000-01, be able to run a deficit of $1.278 billion and comply with the balanced-budget legislation -- that is, if they didn't avail themselves of the multitude of whereases and if-in-cases that the bill has in it. So you know you're going to get a minimum $1.2 billion deficit -- and heaven knows where the ceiling is.
Then the year after that, the budget would have to come down to $950 million. The year after that, the government would cut the deficit to $700 million. In the year 2003-04 the government could run a deficit of $400 million, plus whatever it thought it needed for health, education, social services or the environment, which make up about 70 percent of the budget. But if they didn't use any of the whereases or what-ifs, the government would run a $3.328 billion additional debt on the voters of British Columbia and call it balanced-budget legislation.
That's why I had the sort of sick feeling, having voted in first reading to see what the bill said, that the Finance minister and the Premier were saying: "Ha, ha! I got you. I got you to read this piece of junk, thinking it was a piece of balanced-budget legislation." Mr. Speaker, it is anything but balanced-budget legislation.
[1710]
I'm not going to go through the whereases, except to say that I think the Finance minister has got incredible cheek to include a whereas that says those investments are dependent on British Columbia continuing to maintain its position as one of the least indebted provinces in Canada. I've been here long enough to know that there is only one reason that this government has a relatively low debt compared with the rest of Canada. That is because they inherited the lowest debt in the country, and they've been working diligently over the last decade to make us among the highest-indebted Canadians in this country. Indeed, it's a time when other governments are either paying down their debt or eliminating the debt entirely. That little bit of cheek, I guess, is another "Ha, ha! I got you."
Also, the notion of reducing cabinet ministers' pay by 20 percent for 12 months on the stipend doesn't seem like the harshest penalty one could imagine. First of all, it's not going to do anything with their MLAs' pay. They're going to get paid the same as all the rest of the caucus members. What they're going to lose is 20 percent of the additional money they get for being in cabinet -- again, of course, unless they can prove they're going to mend their ways, and then they get a refund. You know, I would suggest that if the government was at all serious, the very minimum would be to reduce the cabinet pay to $1 for the entire bunch -- if, in fact, you wanted to have some serious deterrents.
I believe that the section that deals with significant reductions in revenue is probably reasonably legitimate. If, in fact, government revenues fell below $500 million in a year, then I think there is an argument to be made for adjusting the budget. But I would suggest to you that you would have to go a long way back in the history of Canada and the history of British Columbia particularly to find a time when the government actually got less revenue in a year than it did the year before. So I think it's a point and an interesting possibility, but that's about all it is.
With respect to the section that deals with adjustment for emergency expenses, I will acknowledge that there might, in fact, be a set of circumstances that would require emergency consideration by the government. But I think that would be so unlikely -- and so seldom if we're talking about real emergencies, real catastrophes -- that the government should have two ways in which it's able to overspend its budget or deal with an emergency situation.
One would be to do it by way of referendum or, more expediently, to come back and get the unanimous approval of the House. If there's a war, if there's a major flood, if there's a public catastrophe, then bring it back to the House for unanimous consent by all members. I don't think any member would dare to vote against a budget appropriation for a legitimate emergency. That is considerably different than a minister deciding that there is an emergency in their ministry.
[1715]
So when you put all of these things together, this unrealistic horizon for balancing the budget
This is designed for electoral consumption. This isn't designed for people to examine and think about. As I said in
[ Page 17030 ]
my opening remarks, most people aren't thinking about it anyway. Most people aren't going to consider it, because they know the government has got one foot out the door and the other one on a banana peel. In fact, they know that if indeed the government were to be re-elected, it would never live up even to the very low horizon, low standard, low threshold that it's set for itself. In closing I can only say to the Minister of Finance: thank you for making my decision on how I'll vote on this bill an easy one.
Hon. D. Miller: I listened with some interest to some of the remarks made by my hon. friend from Peace River South, who I noted recently recanted his own history during the last election.
J. Weisgerber: If only you all could.
Hon. D. Miller: The member says: "If only we all could." Perhaps there are some elements with respect to this bill.
The fundamental notion of having legislation that governs governments' actions with respect to budget-making is a relatively new phenomenon in North America, and in Canada particularly. Really, prior to
As I said, the notion of governments, both federal and provincial, bringing in legislation in effect to govern their own actions in terms of budget-making is a relatively new phenomenon. In fact, let's go back to the post-war period, where Canada borrowed or accepted the way of governing that generally prevailed in most of the industrialized European countries. There was quite a post-war period where governments played a very significant role.
I think it was a natural evolution coming out, quite frankly, of the Second World War. The harnessing of the private sector and public sector in a joint effort to deal with an external enemy at that time, the need to ramp up our industries very quickly, the war production that was required as part of that effort, the public expenditures that were required as part of that effort -- these were indeed critical to the success of that effort. And there was a natural post-war spillover in the mid- and late forties. Many of the people who had been key figures -- public policy figures -- continued their work into government.
Canada, as I said, accepted what's been described generally -- or used to be described generally -- as the welfare state: in other words, the fundamental view that the state had a responsibility to try to protect the interests of people, citizens, who found themselves disadvantaged. In my view the great leap forward in terms of our society was made primarily in that post-war period. Who would argue that there has not been a relative degree of success in our nation as a result of that approach? Although there's always a continuing debate about our relative standing in Canada, we are described by some United Nations reports and others as being one of the most desirable countries in the world in which to live.
[1720]
There continues to be a debate about our fiscal performance, but on balance I think most Canadians would agree. Certainly the sense of pride that I saw evidenced on Canada Day is proof positive. I was delighted when my little grandson yelled out joyously when the fireworks were going off here on Canada Day: "Grandpa," he said, "I'm a Canadian!" So we have that sense of pride in ourselves and our country. Our country was built -- perversely, I guess, according to some today -- using government spending and, quite often, government debt and deficits to develop this great nation.
We are certainly aware in British Columbia -- given the relative size and small population, four million people, and the huge area of land that British Columbia encompasses -- that it requires significant spending on infrastructure in order to have some kind of regional equity. I have never heard a single member of this House complain -- not one member of this House have I ever heard complain -- when an announcement is made that a new school is going to be built in his or her constituency. I have never heard a single member of this House complain when the government announces that they are going to spend, sometimes in the hundreds of millions of dollars, on new highway infrastructure. Quite frankly, what I do hear being complained about in this House is the lack of government spending.
Interjections.
Hon. D. Miller: The members opposite are giving me lots of questions, which I'm quite happy to answer. But one at a time, please. Let me talk about municipal in a moment.
So going back and trying to capsulize that, historically, the country has been built
Provincial governments, as well as federal governments, are also responsible for the vagaries -- or, in other words, the economic cycles -- that are beyond our control. This government is not the only government in British Columbia that has ever had to deal with those economic cycles. I recall when we came to office; my party came to office in 1991. The party that preceded us in power had been in power for how many years? Somebody give me a number -- about 30 years?
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: A long time. The Social Credit government that had been in power in British Columbia for quite a number of years routinely ran, towards the end of the term more than the beginning
[1725]
The year-end results were much better than the projection. But notwithstanding that, I'm only citing that -- not to pick on Bill Bennett, not to pick on anybody particularly
[ Page 17031 ]
I'm trying to pick a few relevant facts from our history and tie them in to what's happening now with this bill. Provincial governments are responsible when those cataclysmic events -- those downturns in the economy that are unanticipated -- hit.
I recall my own personal experience. I was a forest worker during 1981, '82 and '83. We suffered a terrible decline in the forest industry in those years; it's true. There were massive layoffs and mill closures right around this province. I recall it vividly, because I was affected by it. As someone who had always worked, I was shocked to be told by my boss: "You're going to be laid off."
Those were the realities of the day. To compound matters and make them worse, the interest rates in 1982-83 hit a ceiling of about 20 percent.
An Hon. Member: 1981.
Hon. D. Miller: In 1981. I stand corrected.
Those were real events impacting real British Columbians. In the face of that, the government of the day didn't say to ordinary British Columbians: "Well, too bad you're suffering. It's just too bad you're suffering. There's nothing we can do about it." Bill Bennett, who is pretty far removed from the politics on this side of the House now, ran a deficit budget. He did it because the revenues simply evaporated.
This province has changed significantly since that time. The economy of this province is much more diversified than it was in 1981 and 1982. Other sectors of the economy have grown and matured. In fact, the resource sector continues -- and will continue, not in a negative way -- to be a smaller percentage of the GDP, because these other sectors are growing. However, there has been a new phenomenon, really, in the nineties. There's been a pendulum swing, really, with respect to both public policy and public thinking in terms of government's responsibility.
More and more you see, and as we've talked and as no doubt my colleagues have talked, other governments in Canada have now brought in balanced-budget legislation. Quite frankly, through that post-war period up to the eighties, it was anathema. You never saw right-wing governments in Canada -- and I use that term not in a pejorative sense but to describe their position on the political spectrum -- advocate that. You never saw the conservative government of Ontario in the sixties, seventies and eighties advocating balanced-budget legislation, nor conservative governments or right-wing governments in other provinces advocating balanced-budget legislation. Really, it has been a nineties phenomenon.
Any political party, it seems to me, has to be responsive to what the public is saying. Quite frankly, the bill is really as a result of our leadership convention and the election of a new Premier to head our party: a new Premier who is determined to try to deal with the problems of the past and chart a new course for the government; a Premier who has said, "It's not good enough to simply promise you're going to do something when it comes to this particular issue" -- and that is balancing the budget.
Previous leaders of our party have always said -- and have said this publicly -- that they accept the premise of balancing the budget. No one has ever, to my recollection
[1730]
The problem we face on this side of the House, quite frankly, is that we've talked about it too much, and we've not delivered. As I say, we have a new Premier who is determined to say: "Enough talk. I want to bring it in, so it is a law in British Columbia." That's why we have this legislation here before us today: a new Premier who has said: "I'm tired of talking about it. I don't want to go out there and promise I'll do something. I want to make it a law." That's why our caucus accepted this, and that's why we have this bill in front of us today.
It's a much more solid statement to the public. It's not just standing up and saying: "Oh, trust me. I'll do it." It's saying: "I'm going to put it into law." By the way, this law will cover it if there is a change in government -- and I know members on the opposite side seem to be getting more and more arrogant, more and more cocky. There's a danger in that. If we use a sports analogy, I've noticed -- and I'm not a great sports fan myself, but I have occasionally noticed -- that one of the things that major sports figures never, ever do is claim that they're going to go win the game. In fact, there's a bit of a hex or a jinx associated with that. There's always the approach which I kind of favour. What they say is this: "We're going to work hard as a team, and we're going to do our best. And if we do it right, we've got a chance of winning." That's the kind of approach I favour.
I've noticed that, more and more, there seems to be a tendency on the opposition benches to get quite arrogant and quite cocky. I venture to say that some of them on the other side have already determined that they've won the next election. I'm sure that they maybe have poked their heads in the odd minister's office to see whether they like the furnishings. I'm sure they're going around talking about which portfolio they're going to get -- in fact, I know they're doing that. They're much too arrogant for their own good. Just a word of caution: politics is indeed sometimes like a sporting event; you really can never tell who is going to be the winner of any particular contest.
If I can offer some words of wisdom to the opposition: tone down the arrogance, tone down the cockiness. Stop presuming that you've won already. By the way, if I could offer you some really good advice, my best advice is that I would start very, very soon -- if you haven't already -- to go back and start to re-read Hansard and some of your speeches, and what you've promised you will do, because you will find
When this bill passes
[1735]
[ Page 17032 ]
Now we come to what I think are the real politics, the real issues. The member for Saanich North and the Islands was, I believe, in his former life a municipal councillor and a mayor. Mayors generally point with pride to the fact that they don't run deficit budgets. In fact, they are not allowed to run deficit budgets by virtue of legislation; the Municipal Act forbids them to run deficit budgets.
They do have debt. I know it comes as a shock to most British Columbians to understand that, but municipal governments do have debt. Why do they have debt? Did Saanich? The hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands was the mayor of Saanich. Does Saanich have a debt? The member nods his head. Shocking, isn't it? Here we have a member of the Liberal opposition who decries, every day in this House, debt as being the devil incarnate, the most evil thing that can ever happen. He nods his head and says: "Yes, Saanich has a debt."
Why do they have debt? Why does any
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: No, referendum doesn't cut it; I'm sorry, referendum doesn't cut it. Twenty years ago I'd accept your argument; today I don't, because I was also a councillor in Prince Rupert, and we had a debt in Prince Rupert. You know what our debt was? It was the civic centre; it was the swimming pool; it was the performing arts centre in our community.
You know why we did that? Because we knew we couldn't afford in one budget year to build those facilities. We didn't do them all in one year; we built them over a succession of years. But we knew we couldn't afford to build a swimming pool and pay for it in one year. So we financed it through the MFA, the Municipal Finance Authority, over probably 20 years, I imagine. That's the normal term of debentures. We financed it over 20 years. In each and every year, the taxpayers who contributed to the revenue of the community of Prince Rupert or Saanich or any other municipality
It's like a homeowner who buys a house. Have you heard anybody lately in your circle that paid cash for their house? No. They finance it over a period of years. And the real question
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: The young member for -- what is it? -- Chilliwack may learn if he listens more than he speaks, but I doubt it.
They finance it over a number of years. And the only real question is affordability. With the revenue that you have in any given fiscal year, how much of that revenue can you allocate to service or pay for that debt, to pay for that mortgage, to pay for that swimming pool or performing arts centre? How much is a reasonable amount of your income to service your debt? I do believe it is the case in British Columbia that the revenue allocated to pay down, to service, that debt is the second-lowest in Canada. In other words, if you look at the size of our gross domestic product, the size of our economy relative to the size of the debt, we're in about the 22, 23, 24 percent range, which most economists -- in fact, virtually any economist in the world -- would argue is a very comfortable position to be in, in terms of the cost of servicing your debt relative to the size of your economy. The real question is affordability. It used to be that around 7 cents of every dollar in tax revenue went to pay for debt. I think it's still in that range, 7 or 8 cents, which is very, very low.
This bill doesn't deal with that; it deals with operating deficits. The reason why I think it's important to bring your budget into balance and try to keep it there is that part of your debt, and part of the debt we have today, is accumulated deficits. In other words, overspending year by year becomes debt at the end of that fiscal year. That takes away your room and your ability in this province, which is critical, to finance the kinds of infrastructure that we need to make this province grow.
[1740]
One thing about W.A.C. Bennett is that he believed in growth. He believed in spending money on infrastructure to create growth opportunities. I know when we were in the Peace River not long ago
Interjections.
Hon. D. Miller: Gee, I'm being harassed, Mr. Speaker.
The reason we're doing it
There are very good and compelling public reasons why debt is not the evil spectre that the members opposite sometimes talk about. Again I say with all sincerity that what you ought to watch over there on that side of the House is what you're saying now, because if you're that confident you're going to be the government, it might not be too long before you're eating your own words. If you do that, the very issue that I think the opposition
Interjections.
Hon. D. Miller: I'm being heckled. Mr. Speaker, I generally view, when I'm trying to make a sober, rational speech about a very important topic
Hon. J. MacPhail: And thoughtful.
Hon. D. Miller: And thoughtful -- thank you, my colleague. When I'm being heckled unmercifully, it means I'm touching a nerve.
So really, just a bit of a caution for members on the other side; you know what I'm saying. The member for Saanich North and the Islands knows exactly what I'm saying. He knows the problem that is being created by the expectations you people over there are raising and the problem you think you're going to have if you ever form government.
[ Page 17033 ]
Now, municipal governments can't incur deficits because municipal governments are not responsible for social policy. They never have been. They say they're a third order of government -- fair enough. They're a third order of government. They are a creature of provincial statute, not just in British Columbia but in every province in Canada. Provincial statute created municipal and regional governments so that there would be some orderly planning, whether that be within a municipality or indeed a regional district. They are not responsible for social policy.
About 20 years ago municipal governments bore a share, about 12.5 percent, of the cost of welfare. They don't anymore. In fact, it was Dave Barrett's administration -- it was NDP administration -- that removed that obligation from municipal government. So they are not responsible for social policy. Nor are they -- again, except where there's been a cataclysmic event -- responsible for the downturns in their economy. They are not. They have to deal with it; you're absolutely right. I'm not dismissing that for a moment. They have to deal with it. If there's been a downturn, and there have been in several municipalities in B.C., it becomes very, very difficult for that municipal government to continue to provide services when there's been a major loss of an industrial plant or something like that.
But they are not responsible for dealing with the social costs that follow. They don't pay welfare. That's the big difference, and that's the compelling reason why municipal governments are really an administrative government as opposed to a government at the provincial and federal level responsible for the broader issues in the economy.
We're bringing in a piece of legislation that requires the budget to be balanced. It requires it to be balanced as per the schedule attached to the bill. That's a reasonable estimate by the Minister of Finance about what is practical in British Columbia, given what we know about the economy now and given what we project the economy to be like in the future. This is a schedule that provides ceilings, or caps, if you like, on the amount of deficit that can be run in any fiscal year named in the schedule, leading to a balance in the fiscal year 2004-05.
[1745]
It seems to me that this particular area is where the valid political debate really ought to take place. I did hear the member for Peace River South say in his concluding remarks that this schedule is not ambitious enough. It's not fast enough; it doesn't get us to a balanced budget quickly enough; we ought to do it more quickly. Now, I've not had the opportunity to listen to members of the Liberal opposition speak on this, but I assume that they agree with the sentiment expressed by the member for Peace River South that this schedule is too slow and that we ought to get there faster.
Well, I'm also aware that members opposite have made a number of claims. They've publicly stated a number of things that they would do if they formed the government.
The Speaker: Minister, your time has expired.
Hon. D. Miller: I'll just conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying their numbers don't add up. And when it comes to credibility, you're just as much in the spotlight as we are.
B. Penner: I appreciate the opportunity to get into this debate, but I note the hour. So momentarily I will move that the House recess and come back at 6:35 p.m.
Just before the minister leaves, I would like to note that of all people, he has had the most experience of having to eat his own words. The NDP Party said they were going to balance the budget and then didn't, clearly having deceived voters throughout the province. Now he has to eat his own words. I'll have much more to say about that once we've come back from dinner. Accordingly, I move that the House now recess until 6:35 p.m., by agreement.
Motion approved.
The House recessed from 5:48 p.m. to 6:34 p.m.
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to present the annual report of the information and privacy commissioner, 1999-2000.
BALANCED BUDGET ACT
(second reading continued)
[1835]
B. Penner: It's, again, an opportunity that I cherish to be able to speak to Bill 28, the so-called Balanced Budget Act presented by this government for our consideration. Shortly before we recessed for dinner, an NDP member of the government, the member for North Coast, gave us I think the best reason we could possibly ask for about why we should be skeptical about this government's intentions behind this bill.
The member for North Coast spent more than 20 minutes of his 30-minute speech talking about how good it is to run deficits. He spent 20 minutes out of a 30-minute speech justifying public debt, when he was supposed to be speaking about balanced budgets; after all, that's what this act is intituled. I submit that, really, the member for North Coast gave away the real intention of the NDP government when he was here in the Legislature a few minutes ago speaking about his bill, because he spent almost two-thirds of his time trying to justify spending more money than the government takes in on an annual basis. So if people were worried before about the government's true intentions when they tabled this bill, and wondered whether or not it was misleading or an act of deception, I think they don't have to think any further. The member for North Coast confirmed our worst fears when he stood up in the House for 20 minutes and justified the government running deeper and deeper into red ink.
Hon. Speaker, the member for North Coast tried to draw an analogy. He said: "Well, public debt is like when an individual goes out and gets a mortgage in order to buy a house." I bought a house a couple of years ago, and I can tell you I'm marking the day when I'm debt-free. Every single month I'm making progress towards paying off the debt. That's what's important to me: getting rid of that albatross, so that I don't have to shoulder the interest cost every single day.
The member for North Coast spent 20 minutes talking about how good it was for governments to go deeper into debt. Then for one fleeting moment, for a single minute -- I looked at the clock -- he talked about why maybe they should balance the budget. He said that the risk that the government
[ Page 17034 ]
faces if they keep on going deeper into debt is that the servicing costs of that debt drive out or preclude the government from funding other programs, things like health care, education, transportation, public safety. Well, that is exactly the point.
But out of a 30-minute speech, the member for North Coast spent exactly one minute talking about the downside to debt. The majority of the time he spoke about justifying increased debt. I think that demonstrates the government's true lack of sincerity when it comes to the Balanced Budget Act that they want British Columbians to think they really support.
The member for Peace River South made the point that the schedule to this bill shows the public, if they have the opportunity to look at it, that really this government is trying to justify more debt, not less. That's because the schedule attached to the bill projects that the government is trying to justify going at least another $3.3 billion deeper into debt. That's before considering all the wriggle room that's built into the act. So at a very minimum the government seems to be paving the way to going deeper into debt by at least $3.3 billion.
What is the purpose of Bill 28? What is the purpose of this piece of paper that's entitled balanced-budget legislation, if it's just to drive up the debt and not really balance the budget? The government -- that is, the NDP -- would like the public to believe that somehow they've experienced a deathbed conversion on the road to the polls; it's simply not true.
I think it's just another cynical attempt to fool voters. Why do I say another? Well, we've had that here in British Columbia. Go back to the last election. The NDP ran on a promise not just to balance the budget in the future, but they claimed to have actually balanced one in the past. They claimed that the 1995-96 budget was balanced, when in fact it wasn't. They stated it as a fact -- not as a promise, but as a fact. And it was not true.
That matter is now before the courts of British Columbia, where an individual originally from Kelowna, David Stockell, is seeking to have the results of that election overturned on the basis of electoral fraud. He says that voters were denied a real opportunity to choose a government, when they made up their minds about who to vote for, because the government of the day lied about a substantial fact that was put before them. Well, that wasn't good enough for the NDP. They didn't just lie about a previous budget. They had to go out and say that the upcoming budget -- the '96-97 fiscal year -- would also be balanced, and of course that wasn't true.
The truth of the matter is that this government, the NDP government, has never, ever balanced the budget. They simply don't know how to. I think it is inherently contrary to their instincts, to their inner core, to actually make sure that expenditures match revenues. I don't think they are capable of doing it -- physically, emotionally or mentally. They simply are not geared, in British Columbia at least, to being able to square the equation.
[1840]
We saw what the NDP did in Ontario. They ballooned the debt. I think in one year, in just one 12-month period, they rang it up by $10 billion. But we see a different experience in Saskatchewan. There the NDP government seems to have no difficulty making sure that the two sides of the equation balance out. Here in British Columbia, as the member for New Westminster says, it's as though they have a genetic predisposition to being unable to do so.
When we're talking about considering
But guess what they did. Almost the first thing they did after they were elected in 1991 by the voters of British Columbia was repeal that bill that they had voted for. They did away with a legislative requirement to balance the budget. They did away with a requirement not to raise taxes, because if there's anything the NDP loves to do, other than borrow money, it's tax taxpayers and grab more money for themselves and the government.
We have a couple of different situations to examine and consider when we analyze the true intentions behind this bill, because there is history; there is history that we ignore at our peril and, I submit, that voters would ignore at their peril. In 1991 the NDP claimed to be in favour of balanced budgets. They went so far as voting in favour, only to repeal that law within months so they would not have to balance the budget. Then in '96 they said it was not necessary to have balanced-budget legislation, because they'd already balanced the budget, when in fact that wasn't true either. And here we are a third time with the NDP suddenly claiming to be in favour of balanced budgets in British Columbia. I submit that just like those other two times, this one is no more the truth than any other.
This blatant attempt to fool voters would be funny if it wasn't so sad. For the NDP to claim to believe in balanced budgets is a little like an arsonist pretending to care about fire prevention. It's the NDP that doubled British Columbia's debt. The member for North Coast said: "Well, it's the debt that built Canada. It's the debt that built British Columbia. It's the debt that made everything so great."
Oh, yeah? I don't think so. It took British Columbia 120 years to accumulate a total of $17 billion in debt. It took the NDP only nine years to double that, and now we're at $36 billion and rising fast. What do we have to show for that increase in debt in British Columbia from 1991 to the present? Not a heck of a lot. We've got three fast ferries that hardly float and certainly don't work properly. We've got -- I don't know -- increased bureaucracy; we've got people working at FRBC that are justifying their existence on the basis of superstumpage that is making our forest industries less competitive vis-à-vis other provinces and states. There is precious little to show for this huge increase in debt that the government ran up.
Again the member for North Coast pointed to a situation in British Columbia's history where there was a massive economic downturn. He said the government of that day, in one year, decided to run a deficit. Well, that's probably correct. That was in the early eighties during a horrible recession. That
[ Page 17035 ]
was one year, according to the member for North Coast. Yet in British Columbia, when the NDP got the chance, even though the economy was booming, they failed to make sure that the budget was balanced. They failed to make sure that revenues and expenditures were equal. The result was that in good times we went deeper into debt so that when bad times come, we have less room to manoeuvre. In that fleeting moment that the member for North Coast acknowledged the real reason why balanced budgets are necessary, he admitted that that debt and those interest costs are hindering our ability to fund important social programs.
[1845]
I've already mentioned that under the NDP our total provincial debt has doubled, and since the NDP came to office, our debt servicing costs have increased by more than 60 percent. That's the interest that we pay on our debt. It's not paying back the principal, like I am with my mortgage and every other person is doing when they have a mortgage. We're paying back at least a portion of the principal along with our interest payments every month. But in British Columbia we're now paying $2.812 billion every year just on interest, and that's up from $1.757 billion when the NDP took office. I point out that during that period of time interest rates have actually gone down dramatically. Imagine if interest rates shoot up again to where they were in the 1980s. I shudder to think of the impact on important social programs such as health care, education and transportation.
There are many, many reasons to be skeptical about the NDP's intentions when they claim to suddenly have seen the light on the road to electoral defeat, when they purport to support balanced-budget legislation.
Just last week I had the opportunity in Employment and Investment estimates debate to explore the government's overspending when it comes to its international travel budget. Do you know that last year this government overspent its international travel budget by more than 42 percent? That's 42 percent over budget. The previous year it was 47 percent over its stated budget. How can the NDP expect anyone to take them seriously when they can't live within something as small, compared to the overall cost of government, as their international travel budget?
Clearly international travel is not as important as health care; it's not as important as providing education for our young people; it's probably not even as important as maintaining important infrastructure for transportation. Yet when this government had an opportunity to show its true colours and to demonstrate that it can balance a budget, it failed. It failed by 42 percent, not just in one year but in other years as well.
So there's plenty of reason to be skeptical. As I was getting ready last night to come to Victoria, and I was driving off my driveway, my neighbour stopped me and said: "I see you're going back to Victoria." I said yes. And he said: "What do you think about that balanced-budget legislation?" He was laughing, and before I could say anything, he says: "I hope you're going to vote against it, because it's an absolute joke." I then had the opportunity to explain to him that I already had voted against it on first reading. But he didn't even want to get into the details. He just said: "It's such a joke; nobody takes it seriously." This is my neighbour Bill, an older gentleman who's retired and does a great job of looking after his yard and keeping an eye on the neighbourhood.
But I submit that that's the reaction of the majority of British Columbians. In fact, a Marktrend poll that became available last week shows that a majority of British Columbians said that this bill would make absolutely no difference to who they support in the next provincial election; 72 percent of British Columbians said that. Even more interesting, actually, was that 24 percent of those few British Columbians who still say they would support the NDP. Of that small group of people -- I think it was 17 percent in that poll -- almost one-quarter said that they think this is nothing more than a pre-election gimmick. The NDP's own supporters, a quarter of them, are saying that this is nothing more than a pre-election gimmick.
Do you know why that is, hon. Speaker? Do you know why even NDP supporters are saying that? It's because there's a track record of this government saying one thing in order to get re-elected and then doing another thing as soon as the election is over, and they fool the voters. They go back on their word.
So this piece of paper called the Balanced Budget Act -- well, you can see it's already got three holes in it. But it's hardly worth anything. I submit there are many more holes than the three that the hole-punch has put in here.
[1850]
We've talked about the schedule at the back that allows for at least a minimum of $3.3 billion in extra deficits. Then there's section 7; this is the Mack truck clause. This is the loophole that's so big you could drive a semitrailer truck through it. It says that in addition to that minimum $3.3 billion in extra deficits the government would be allowed to run if they pass this bill, they can run deficits any old time they feel like it, as long as the minister issues a public statement saying that it is necessary because of some unexpected circumstances. Well, my goodness, talk about a blank cheque.
For the minister to only have to get up and issue a public statement -- well, how often does that happen? Is it rare for a minister to make a public statement? Certainly not in British Columbia. I check my in-basket on a daily basis, and it's filled with government press releases containing so-called statements from ministers of various ministries.
So this is the supposed protection that taxpayers have against increased debt and increased interest payments on that debt, which, of course, are funded from tax dollars. It's hardly any assurance, even if the government was sincere and hadn't had the checkered track record that it already has. But it does have a checkered track record.
We know what their true intentions are. It is to drive up the debt, as the member for North Coast defended. This bill does nothing to change those attitudes that are entrenched in those members. Those 40 NDP members of the Legislature can't think of anything else than running deficits. It's simply not within their realm of existence to think of making sure that the various revenues and expenditures match; that's just too much to ask.
I've been provided -- and a number of other members have already referred to it -- a number of quotes that members opposite have made when it comes to the topic of balanced budgets and the entire concept.
This is what the former Premier, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, had to say about a previous government that tried to introduce balanced-budget legislation just
[ Page 17036 ]
before they had to go and have a date with the voters at the polling booths in British Columbia. "It is clear that now, on the eve of a general election, they're saying: 'We won't do it anymore.' Given the longstanding failure of this government to tell the truth, to distinguish between right and wrong, does anybody really believe that this promise will last more than two or three weeks of the election campaign?" That statement was made on March 21, 1991.
Even more to the point, the same member again, the former Premier, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, who's seldom seen in these parts anymore, had this to say: "This bill represents nothing more than an empty election ploy designed to convince British Columbians that the government has changed its ways. It represents a deathbed repentance, which will fool absolutely nobody in British Columbia." That was the former NDP Premier on a previous government's bill.
The NDP then turned around and voted for that bill and, at the first opportunity after winning the election by convincing British Columbians they would be fiscally responsible, repealed it and then promptly set about doubling British Columbians' debt and increasing interest payments by 60 percent annually.
There are members of the current NDP cabinet who also vehemently disagree with the concept of balanced budgets. For example, the Employment and Investment minister had this to say in the Legislature: "
Well, hon. Speaker, this balanced-budget legislation that the NDP has tabled is a crock; that's one of the few things I'll agree with the Minister of Employment and Investment about -- the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. It's one of the few things he was right about; the NDP's version of balanced-budget legislation is a crock.
Almost every year that the Legislature has sat, the B.C. Liberal opposition, through our leader Gordon Campbell, has put forward meaningful balanced-budget legislation that doesn't contain the kind of wriggle room that would make a king cobra comfortable. The official opposition believes in really official balanced-budget legislation, meaningful balanced-budget legislation, not the kind of stuff that would let the NDP off the hook if they feel like it.
[1855]
Whereas the NDP legislation proposes to fine cabinet ministers only 20 percent of their stipend, B.C. Liberals have proposed in the past that the full 20 percent of a minister's pay, not just the stipend, be penalized. And if a minister fails in two consecutive years to balance his or her budget, that cabinet minister would be out of a cabinet post; they'd be gone. We don't see that in the NDP's legislation. That's because the NDP doesn't want to have to live by it; that's simply a sad fact.
The member for North Coast said that we'd better be careful on this side of the House because the day may come when we have to live by our words. Well, certainly he knows of what he speaks, because he's failed to do that. The NDP talked about being fiscally responsible, talked about balanced budgets, voted in favour of balanced budgets in 1991, only to do the exact opposite thing after they formed government.
On this side of the House, I can say that this member truly believes that we will enact meaningful balanced-budget legislation. We will live up to our promises and keep our commitments to the people of British Columbia and not act in a cynical effort to defraud voters. It's one thing to legitimately disagree on a topic of public policy, but we need to give British Columbians the right to make a decision.
When the government goes out and misleads the public about the true state of the public finances, they're taking away the opportunity the public has to make a meaningful decision. They're changing the playing field of the debate; they're altering the facts that the public has to decide with. It's in that way that this government stole an election from the citizens of British Columbia. They did not provide them with adequate facts so that they could make a proper decision. They cooked the books, and they cooked the outcome of the election.
There has been some progress made here in British Columbia about proper accounting practices. There's still a ways to go. The government has left themselves lots of wriggle room in their so-called Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, most notably at the tail end of the act where the government reserves, through order-in-council, the right to change the definition of any single word in the bill, so that up could be down, balance could be a deficit, and on and on.
That's clearly inappropriate. I have never seen that kind of a clause in any other piece of legislation brought before this Legislature -- allowing the cabinet the ultimate right to change the meaning of any word in a piece of legislation that we in this chamber have debated and passed. That deprives us, as the people's representatives, of our right to control what the legislation means and does. This government, through its cynical attempt to fool voters, says, "We believe in transparency," but then: "By the way, we're hiding at the back of the bill the opportunity to change the meaning of any single word in that law without having to come here before the Legislature for approval or debate or public scrutiny."
You have to weigh this government's actions in total when you consider whether or not their intentions are genuine when they talk about balanced budgets. I submit that the track record is fraught with the pitfalls and downfalls and actions that certainly indicate that they are not sincere. If anything, they appear to be deliberately embarked on a course to fool voters before the next election.
This government knows that the public is fed up. This government knows that the public believes in balanced budgets, and that's the only reason -- the only reason whatsoever -- that they're here with this bill today. It's not because they really believe it; it's just because they believe that's what the public wants to hear. So they're saying it, but the bill itself is full of holes; it doesn't have much meaning. And if the people who are there to manage and administer the bill don't believe in it, then it's simply no good at all. So it's for that reason that I will not be voting in favour of this bill, and I look forward to showing my lack of confidence in this government at the earliest opportunity.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I have now sat this afternoon through several speakers from the opposition on this bill. I just listened to the member for Chilliwack for almost half an hour. I listened to the opposition Finance critic, who I think was also their designated speaker on this bill, speak for well over an hour.
[1900]
[ Page 17037 ]
What I found noteworthy was that neither of them -- and I assume this may have been the case for other opposition members who I didn't hear speak this afternoon -- had anything to say about what they would do in the alternative. This is a stunning thing to see, in view of the fact that they
The only conclusion I can reach as to why they haven't offered more of substance is because in the last election, they did that and it hurt them. When they presented clear policies to the people of British Columbia even before the election, it was used against them again and again and again. And I guess the lesson they learned was that the best thing to do was to avoid detail, avoid presenting clear policies to the people of British Columbia and hope that they could get by that way. I note that the member for Chilliwack mentioned that in the last election, he accused the government of presenting inadequate facts to allow an informed decision on the part of the voters of British Columbia. I would suggest that those very words could be turned on this opposition right now, because they are not presenting an alternative.
I believe it is time to pass this bill. I'm pleased to see this bill before this House. I note that the opposition members are gleefully reading out quotes from some members of the government. I've heard only about three or four members of the government's side that they've quoted; maybe they have a few more. Certainly there is a difference of opinion within this caucus on a whole range of issues, as I know there is on the other side, and there's nothing wrong with that in a democracy. In fact, I think the people of British Columbia would be horrified at the implication of the opposition, which is that somehow there should be uniformity of thought in any caucus. So I'm pleased to see this here, and I would suggest to the opposition that I've certainly always been a consistent voice in favour of balanced budgets anytime I've spoken in this House. I think it's time to pass
Interjection.
Deputy Speaker: Member, it's the minister's opportunity to speak. You'll have an opportunity in just a few moments.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: I think if they were to check the record in budget debates in previous years, throne speech debates or what have you, I've been a regular advocate of trying to balance the budget. I think that at this point in time this piece of legislation is necessary.
Since the Premier announced in Kamloops a number of weeks ago that we would have a balanced-budget law in British Columbia, we've heard an interesting debate take place in British Columbia on the left and the right. I found it interesting on the left, certainly because that's been part of what we've had to wrestle with as a caucus.
And I guess I would say this, from a left perspective and dealing with some of the criticism that comes from the left: the fact of the matter is that other NDP governments in this country have either passed their own balanced-budget legislation or they are living with balanced-budget legislation they inherited from a previous government. The Manitoba NDP government is living with the balanced-budget legislation introduced by the Conservatives in that province. In Saskatchewan the NDP government brought in their own balanced-budget legislation. If I'm not mistaken, the Yukon NDP government would have also lived with it. I'm quite sure that they would have lived within balanced-budget legislation. I'm not sure if it's of their own making or not. The point is that modern left governments can do this, and they can do it without sacrificing core values in terms of socially progressive policies.
[1905]
I support this bill because I think that balanced budgets are simply good sense. It's good sense; it's good government. Having said that, I accept that there may be times when modest deficits might be run, particularly in the case of severe economic downturn. But they shouldn't be run on a continual basis. That's not sustainable. I don't believe there really should be much debate around the desirability and necessity of balanced budgets. I'm saying that in the context of
I hope what this bill will do is help establish a new context within which we have the fiscal and then the broader political debate in British Columbia, where we can focus on what I would argue are more of the real points of political difference not just in this province but right across the country. I think we're seeing a move on the national level towards a post-deficit budget debate, where the debate is really
I think people can see consistently when they talk with people -- certainly in the polling -- that education and health care are important public values. Tax cuts are also a public value, but the polling consistently shows that they rank much, much lower than health care and education funding. I believe that that's probably where we're going to see more and more of the debate coalescing in this country and where it's inevitably going to happen in this province as well. I'll touch upon that again in a few moments.
I think it's disappointing that the opposition has decided to vote against this bill. I think that more objective observers of politics in this province have consistently seen that this opposition is a very, very negative opposition and will continually vote against and argue against things, rather than even looking for what it can support. This is a bill which they should be able to support. I know they've got a cute line that they're offering: "This is a confidence bill, and it's about confidence in the government." And that's very, very convenient. I would argue that it doesn't allow them to ultimately escape the fact that this is the type of legislation they've advocated for some time. As I say, I think the people of British Columbia would think it's a bit odd that we have to have this kind of debate about whether or not there should be a balanced-budget bill in this province. I would think they would expect some degree of consensus on this, and they'd be disappointed to see purely partisan posturing getting in the way of that.
[ Page 17038 ]
The opposition has also been critical of the fact that
Again, I think the opposition understands this. I really do. But I think they're under considerable strictures in terms of where they can go in this debate. I hear them all saying the same thing again and again, which suggests to me that they've all been given message sheets and they're in here parroting them very loyally. Nonetheless, it's not the highest level of debate that I've ever heard.
[1910]
I think they understand that the Premier has a great deal of authority in our system and has the ability to do this and to lead. That's what this Premier is doing. Certainly, you know, they've been laughing about the way he introduced this in Kamloops, but the fact is that for whatever problems there may have been in terms of process within a political party, the bottom line is that the Premier has decided to lead on this issue. I think he deserves credit for that. I think he is a leader who is well-respected by the people of British Columbia, and they'll be willing to hear him out on this issue.
As evidence of the leadership that he's showing, he has stated this as a confidence bill and has clearly put his stamp on this. This is a highly unusual move for a Premier to make. Again, it demonstrates the seriousness with which he approaches this as a new Premier. I think the opposition understands as well. They say: "Oh well, he's been there for nine years." I think they understand there's a slight difference between sitting on the back bench or even sitting as a member of a cabinet in government and then the role that one might play as a leader, a Premier. I think they understand that. But again, I understand they're confined by the message sheets they've been given by their political handlers. I understand that completely.
I think that one of the points that has been made, as well, is that
Again, what I was suggesting earlier is that I think what this bill might allow us to do now, if there is a sincere desire to have a debate in this province and in this House, is move on to where I think the real ground for debate is. It shouldn't really be about balancing a budget; it should be on the different priorities that different governments or political parties might have for different public values.
As I indicated earlier, the key public values are
That allows us to shift onto some other ground in terms of the debate. This is where I think it becomes very, very interesting. What we've got here is a balanced-budget bill with a schedule that spells out very clearly when, according to our law, the budget would have to be balanced in this province. Interestingly, it's the same time line as that offered by the official opposition.
But there's a key difference between what we're saying on the government side and what the opposition
I think the problem -- and this is where the debate will have to take place over the next year or so -- is this: the opposition Liberals are promising massive, massive tax cuts, on the order of $1.5 billion. Here's the obvious question: if they think that our schedule isn't good enough, how can you make that level of tax cuts?
K. Krueger: You grow the economy.
Deputy Speaker: Member, please.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: How can you have that level of tax cuts and say you're going to protect key spending areas or key public value areas -- I would call health care, education and environmental protection examples -- and at the same time balance the budget? Oh, and by the way, they said that they'll pay down the debt as well.
Now, the facile response from the other side is: "Well, you grow the economy." There's no evidence that you can make cuts of that magnitude to taxes and see those revenues replaced that quickly. There's no question that tax cuts can offer an economic stimulus, but the economic stimulus effect isn't enough to completely make up for forgone revenues. It is not enough.
[1915]
Ontario is constantly cited. Mike Harris took five years to balance the budget. Why is that? He took five years, in spite of incredibly strong economic growth, because of large-scale tax cuts. It took that long for them to make up the difference. What we've got here is really a debate about the scale of tax cuts -- what is affordable and what isn't.
As I said earlier, this is a debate which isn't unique to this province and which we'll be having increasingly in this province, I think. It's taking place on the federal level, as well, principally between the federal Liberals and the Canadian Alliance. I do find it interesting. I'm not sure where the opposition members fit into the national debate. I heard Stock-
[ Page 17039 ]
well Day refer repeatedly to his good friends in the B.C. Liberal Party. I wonder how some of the federal Liberal members, this tiny minority that are on that side, feel about that. But I'm not sure where they fit into that debate. I think that in terms of the positions they're taking, they're very comfortable with the Canadian Alliance position, rather than the federal Liberal position. That's clearly the position they're taking in this province, in the broader debate that we're having here.
So I argue that what we can do is respond to key public values like health care and education funding and environmental protection, and we can do very modest tax cuts. But we can't do large-scale tax cuts in addition to that and, at the same time, balance the budget. The stimulative effect of massive tax cuts is not enough to offset revenue loss; it clearly isn't. I think that's why the opposition, in their private member's bill that was introduced on balanced budgets, are saying they'll take three years. They know that to be a fact -- that they can't make tax cuts of that magnitude without it affecting the bottom line.
It would be nice to have a level of honesty in this House where they would stand up and admit that, but you know, I won't hold my breath on that. The only conclusion I can reach about how they would try to have a balanced-budget law, balance the budget, have massive tax cuts
The only way they'll be able to keep their promise is by doing this: by selling public assets. Again, what happened in 1996 was that this opposition had the courage to actually present to people what they were going to do, and they found that there was a backlash against what they said they were going to do. I see one of the members opposite shaking his head. But the fact is that they talked about selling off B.C. Rail. Now, they've completely flip-flopped on that issue, because they know that that isn't something the people in the north, in particular, were willing to accept. They weren't willing to accept that.
But all I ask is for enough honesty in this debate that they just stand up and tell us what they would do. Not me -- don't do it for my benefit. I spend enough time in this chamber that I can make an educated guess about what they're going to do. I just think the people of British Columbia deserve that. But they're not willing to offer that to them, and I think that's a real shame. That stifles democratic debate in this province.
If they're going to keep their balanced budget and tax cut promises and spending promises, the only conclusion I can reach is that they're going to have to sell major public assets. That means, for example, that perhaps they're going to have to be prepared to sell off B.C. Hydro. Why don't they just get up and say that? I saw an Angus Reid poll a few weeks ago which indicated that there's a certain level of public support for selling off certain Crowns. But why don't they just get up and say it? I mean, it would really add to the level of debate in this House, which is sadly lacking at this point in time.
You see, what I find wrong with this approach is that, clearly, I think they understand -- the smart members of the opposition understand -- that they have to do something like sell off assets in order to meet their promises. Their promises are very much ideological, and I have a problem with ideology dominating public policy too much. I think people in this chamber generally know
[1920]
Again, it may be okay to divest government of some public assets. Certainly we've done that in some cases, as a government. But all that I think has to happen is that we have to have a non-ideologically based debate that just looks at this in pragmatic terms. Is it good public policy or isn't it? That should be the bottom line. Again, we just haven't heard that at all. I just think that in the interests of a higher level of debate, we might hear that.
So as I say, I think the ideology is far too dominant in shaping the nature of the debate we're having in this province and in this country generally. I heard the opposition saying earlier that part of the problem here is that this government has a spending problem. And implicit in that is: "Well, there's an ideological commitment to large-scale spending." Certainly I would say that to the extent that some left-wing governments have taken the approach that when the economy is down, you spend your way out of a recession
I think it's wrong to engage in that level of spending, to try and spend your way out of a recession, because it's far too ideological. It doesn't reflect the reality, and it doesn't reflect good public policy, in my view. But on the other side of the coin, the solutions being offered by the right are all too often far too ideologically based. I mean, if there's a spending problem on the left side of the spectrum, in terms of the approach ideologically, there is what might be called a revenue-reduction problem on the other side.
I don't think the massive tax cut agenda, again, is supported in terms of good public policy. If you're trying to do all the things the opposition says they would try and do -- maintain public spending on health care and education, balance the budget, pay down the debt and all of those good things -- it's not supported by the evidence. What it is, is another very ideologically driven agenda. And that isn't something that people in this province need, any more than an ideologically driven, hard-core agenda on the other side.
So that large-scale tax cut agenda isn't sustainable in terms of public policy. And the only way to meet the commitments that are being made by the opposition -- balancing the budget and reducing taxes in a very drastic way -- is to make even more ideologically driven decisions to sell public assets. If I were to draw an analogy -- albeit an imperfect analogy but an analogy nonetheless -- it's a little bit like having a full-time job to pay for all of your expenses -- pay all your bills and all your ongoing expenses -- and then deciding that maybe it's a good idea to go part-time and reduce your income by that much, and then having to sell your house to finance the ongoing shortfall from that full-time income that you had. That is essentially what could be being proposed by the opposition.
If they would actually stand up, if they are so confident that they're a government-in-waiting -- by God, the level of arrogance that we see day in and day out
[ Page 17040 ]
waiting and tell the people of this province what they really have in store for them and not be so deliberately vague. It's just another way of misleading people, to not say what you're going to do and instead leave a false impression about what you might do.
So I say let's try to move away from a debate which is all too often dominated too much by ideology, when it comes to balancing a budget, and focus more on other public values. Really, the debate about balanced budgets should be over, I would hope, now. Ultimately, the political question for this side of the House -- members on the other side have kindly raised it. They are saying, "It's too late; people will never believe you," etc., etc. Fine. Maybe that's the case. Maybe it's too late to regain public confidence when it comes to fiscal policy.
[1925]
K. Krueger: It is.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: But what I know
I hear the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, and by acknowledging him now, I know his comments will appear in Hansard. This is another example of the unbelievable level of arrogance of this opposition. You see, again, they may as well just stand up in their speeches and say, "It's in the bag. It's over. The next election has been won," because they're just so good -- what they have to offer the people of this province is so good.
Interjection.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: See -- it's really quite appalling. If they were to run a whole election campaign revealing that level of arrogance, they might find that it might be a little tougher slogging than they think.
Interjection.
Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member for Kamloops-North Thompson. Several times I have asked you to refrain. You're going to get your opportunity to speak in just a moment, after this member has completed his.
Hon. G. Bowbrick: What I know is this: whether the opposition is right -- whether it's too late or not -- is kind of beside the point as far as I'm concerned. At the end of the day, the types of values I'm talking about, I believe, are values that are held by a majority of British Columbians and in fact by a majority of Canadians. Ultimately, that's what matters. Those values, if they're held by that many people, will come to prevail, whether it's with this party and this government or not. Really, if we all step back for a moment, what matters is that the values prevail. That's what we're all trying to achieve on this side, I believe.
It reminds me a little bit of a
I'm saying this: I was pleasantly surprised to hear this coming from a senior executive in one of the most successful high-tech companies in this province. That's what heartens me and tells me that ultimately the values are out there. What people need are politicians who respond to those values. This bill, in my view, is a step toward offering that kind of pragmatic-left approach.
As I said earlier, I don't think it's ever too late to do the right thing. I think this is the right thing to do. I'd like to see more from the opposition than simple politicking in the remainder of this debate. I listened, as I said, to their Finance critic speak for well over an hour. I didn't hear one word, not one word, about what that opposition would do if they were in government. That's very, very disappointing. I think the people of British Columbia deserve a higher level of debate than that.
Having said that, I'm happy to support this bill, and I'll eagerly await further debate and listen to further debate on this bill.
K. Krueger: It is a pleasure to follow the member for New Westminster and to diverge a moment from the things I might otherwise have said to respond to some of the points he made.
The fact is it's hard for B.C. Liberals to vote against balanced-budget legislation, because we believe in balanced budgets. In fact, most of the world believes in balanced budgets. We've clearly seen the folly of not having balanced budgets in other provinces in Canada, and nowhere more so than in this great province of ours, where we've gone -- under the term of the member's government, the NDP government in British Columbia -- from the best-performing economy in Canada when they took power in the early 1990s, through the dark decade where we've been the worst-performing economy in Canada for years now. Everyone knows that things will never get better as long as these people are in power.
[1930]
Why are we voting against their balanced-budget legislation? Because the Premier, who is very fond of referring to himself as the new Premier
We know, and the public knows, that the NDP didn't set out to destroy the economy of B.C. They didn't mean to make B.C. go from first to worst. They didn't mean to drag us down to these depths where we're now paying almost $3 billion a year in interest just to service the debt that this government has run up. This is the third-largest expenditure of government. The government that always says that it's here to protect health care and education is now spending almost $3 billion a year just on interest -- at the lowest interest rates that I've ever seen in my lifetime.
[ Page 17041 ]
What would it be like if the interest rates were the way they were in 1981, for example? And we have this alarming prospect of a federal government responding to a North American economy that is red hot, continually talking about jacking up interest rates in order to cool that economy. Of course, if that happens, that will mean that British Columbia missed the whole cycle under the watch of the New Democratic Party and the care of the NDP government. So if that happens, we're going to go from the frying pan to the fire, from bad to worse.
We are already in terrible trouble in British Columbia. Individuals all over this province, businesses, taxpayers, people on social services -- everybody has experienced the hurting brought about by this government. So we have a wealth of experience to draw on now. To the horror of most British Columbians, we found ourselves with a second NDP government in 1996 -- back-to-back NDP governments. Who would have thought it possible? The short-lived Barrett government of 1972 to 1975 wrought enough damage. I don't think anybody seriously dreamed that we could end up with a second term of NDP government.
How did that happen? We all know how it happened. It happened through an act of dishonesty, an act of utter betrayal: a party that said it had balanced B.C.'s budget and, lo, it was balancing the budget for the next year -- back-to-back balanced budgets; the NDP Premier of the day, on the radio in Kamloops where I live and all around the province, proclaiming that it was so. And the member for New Westminster himself is one of those members being challenged through the citizens' action over those budget lies that happened in 1996: the fact that people were told that there were back-to-back balanced budgets. It flat wasn't true.
Then a Finance minister came in after 1996 and delivered this headline to the Province: "I don't expect you to believe me." They didn't believe him, and they never will. Nobody will ever believe that the NDP is capable of delivering balanced budgets in British Columbia, because we have the history to look at. Fools who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it. I don't think British Columbians are fools at all, and they will never, ever elect an NDP government in this province again.
Subsequent to that Finance minister, we had this one, who delivered what the people referred to as a MacFailure.
Deputy Speaker: Member, I'm sorry -- no props, please.
K. Krueger: Thank you, hon. Speaker -- no further props.
The member who just spoke, I believe, was the only member of that caucus who supported the now Deputy Premier in her bid to become the leader of the New Democratic Party -- the only one who supported her, the only member of caucus. Yet he just stood up and said that he doesn't cast his lot with these people in his caucus, or whoever, who say that it makes sense to try to spend your way out of recession. But that's exactly what that member, the current Deputy Premier, said during the term that she was Finance minister of this unfortunate province -- that they were going to spend their way out of recession. Look at the failure that flowed from that -- just an ongoing chapter in the never-ending saga of NDP incompetence and failure in this province.
[1935]
That's been devastating for everybody concerned -- for all British Columbians -- and for those who will follow us. It will probably be our children's children who will still be working on paying off the debt that this government has run up -- more than doubled the debt of British Columbia. A hundred and twenty-five years of B.C. governments reached a certain level of debt in this province, and a lot of it related to actually developing the infrastructure of this province -- putting it on a plane where it would be able to meet the challenges of the new millennium. Forward-thinking people getting British Columbia ready ran up a certain level of debt. Along comes the NDP, and in nine years it more than doubles that debt -- more than double in nine years what 125 years of previous governments building British Columbia had found themselves totalling in debt.
Is it any wonder that neither British Columbians at large nor certainly the official opposition have any confidence whatsoever in the New Democratic Party, the NDP government? Of course we don't have confidence. So what sort of hypocrites would we be if we voted that we had confidence in this government? These people opposite don't have confidence themselves, hon. Speaker. They must hold their noses. They must force themselves to come in here day after day and vote confidence in this government. Many of them, sadly, are just doing it, I believe, for the paycheque. It's just a paycheque -- just a way of hanging on to the perks and benefits of office and getting the paycheque, dragging it out to the last minute -- July 23, 2001, the last possible date for the next election.
[G. Robertson in the chair.]
Deputy Speaker: Member, member. I'd ask you to rephrase that, please. It's unparliamentary.
K. Krueger: Well, hon. Speaker, perhaps you could inform me as to what exactly you see as unparliamentary in my comments.
Deputy Speaker: Member, you suggested that members were coming in here just for a paycheque, and that is clearly unparliamentary and uncalled-for language. I'd ask you to retract that, please.
K. Krueger: Hon. Speaker, I'll retract that.
I wish to continue with my comments. My comments are that we do not have confidence in this government, so clearly we will not vote for their legislation. How could anybody have confidence in a government that chose to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into Skeena Cellulose, a defunct old rust bucket of a pulp mill?
Interjection.
K. Krueger: The Employment and Investment minister says that it's making money. Well, if any other pulp mill in British Columbia was given the kind of gifts that Skeena Cellulose has been given, didn't have to worry about raising capital and got to ride on the backs of the taxpayers of British Columbia, they would absolutely be sitting pretty as well.
Instead, those viable pulp mills around this province, those who actually know what they're doing and who aren't running old rust buckets, have to pay taxes to support a competitor which can sell at a loss because it just doesn't need
[ Page 17042 ]
to care. I have pulp mill workers from Kamloops seconded to work at Skeena Cellulose pulp mill, and they come back and tell me that it's like putting brand-new parts in a rusted-out, old washing machine that is never going to last. We know it has no future. The government just continues to pour money into it. The minister who is doing the heckling now, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, the chameleon man, the person who's changed more parties than I can keep track of
Interjection.
K. Krueger: The former Minister Responsible for B.C. Ferries proudly defending the fast cat ferry project, another half a billion dollars down the drain
And look at our Crown corporations. Look at the shameless way that they're allowed to run amok, executives raising their own salaries and saying: "We're worth it, and if we don't pay ourselves this much, we might lose us to the private sector." Well, we can stand the competition; they're welcome to go. But this government is so incompetent, this government is so out of control, that it allows its appointees to raise their salaries 34 percent -- numbers like that -- while the staff are told they've got to live within zero-zero-and-2.
There's no discipline. There's no termination of contracts. There's no consequence, no response, just a government that doesn't particularly feel like it's in control. The Minister of Labour, the Deputy Premier, told me at the beginning of WCB estimates: "I don't control these people. They don't really report to me. They aren't really accountable to me. I can't do anything about it. I don't want to be their spokesperson. I don't want to be their mouthpiece." She's out of control. She just reappointed the people who are running the WCB on June 2 -- this very month -- and that's her response: "I can't help it. Shucks, I'm just a former union gal. I don't know how to run the WCB. I don't know how to run a province." Deputy Premier, former Finance minister, a person who seriously considered herself a leadership candidate -- but shucks, no, she doesn't know how to deal with the WCB.
[1940]
So why in the world would anybody, let alone the official opposition, have any confidence whatsoever in this government? When this government tables balanced-budget legislation, this government is mutton dressed up like lamb. This government's not fooling anybody. This government has a track record -- a long track record -- and they've tried to blame it on all sorts of other persons and organizations and factors. But the fact is the results speak for themselves.
We have an economy in British Columbia where there's an island of despair in a sea of prosperity North America-wide. Employers are competing for employees throughout this continent -- not here in British Columbia. People are scrambling for the crumbs that fall from the table because of the failure of the NDP. And we're supposed to vote confidence. These members opposite are going to vote confidence in the government that has delivered those results -- unbelievable. Unbelievable that people would lower themselves to that level.
The track record also includes a flip-flop -- a major flip-flop -- on this very topic. People opposite -- ten of them -- voted for the Socreds' balanced-budget legislation, the taxpayer protection plan in 1991. Unanimously, in opposition these people voted for balanced-budget legislation. And then what did they do when they got to be government? What did they do, having unanimously voted for that bill? The very first substantive thing they did in office was to reverse that legislation, to repeal it. Suddenly they didn't believe in balanced budgets anymore. Oh, they were believers when it came to facing an election: "Oh yes, Mr. Public, Ms. Public, we will support balanced-budget legislation. We're all into fiscal accountability and responsibility." But shucks, as soon as the rubber hit the road, as soon as they were in the position of having to put their money where their mouth is, that party, those members, voted to repeal that act. And what a sorry record that is.
I happen to have in front of me the transcript of the first speech delivered by the first NDP Finance minister after that unfortunate election in 1991. This happened on March 26, 1992. Their Finance minister had this to say: "Hon. Speaker," he said, "it is my honour to present the first budget of this New Democrat administration." And he goes on to say: "Our task is to get our spending priorities right while bringing British Columbia's finances under control." Okay, hon. Speaker, if that was the task, how have they done? What's the report card? We all know what the report card is: nine consecutive deficit budgets, a doubling of the provincial debt, an absolutely pathetic, dismal, awful, unfortunate, reprehensible record. That's the record of this government.
[1945]
He went on to say that it's their duty to ensure the stability and investor confidence essential for creating wealth and realizing our economic potential. Well, how have they done there? They've done terribly. Investors have flocked out of this province in droves. Certainly new investors aren't coming in, and they would be stupid if they did while this government is in control. It would be absolutely dumb, because this government has shown time and time again and is showing right now that what it believes in is massive regulation, massive taxation, massive social engineering and interfering in the relationships between employers and employees. It's Big Brother government, laying out thus and so -- encyclopaedic detail on how you're supposed to get along with your people -- and making it impossible for people to compete in the world economy. This is a global village, and it is hopeless for people to try and compete in business in British Columbia under this government, absolutely hopeless.
So there was this government's Finance minister in 1992 laying out what the goalposts were going to be: "These are the standards you can measure us against. We're going to ensure stability and investor confidence." Well, how have they done? Everybody knows the answer. They've done terribly. So of course, nobody has any confidence in them.
People are laughing at this government throughout British Columbia, including the NDP's own traditional support, for being so pathetic as to try and convince people that they're suddenly something new -- that the Premier is a new Premier, as he persistently refers to himself. Well, the public is saying: "The emperor has no clothes. No, no. We know this man. We know he was in Treasury Board; we know he was in cabinet; we know he voted in support of everything that this government did all the way along. This is his track record. He is nothing new." The people know that.
So absolutely, they have no confidence, and they consider people who have confidence in this NDP administration as
[ Page 17043 ]
either selfish or somewhat touched in the head. It is unbelievable that anybody with any brains and any history of what's gone on in British Columbia would have confidence in this government.
Now the member for Kamloops I feel friendly toward. She's a nice enough person. She has the misfortune, I believe, of having run with a bad crowd, and I believe she's going to go down in flames in the next election as a result. But I remember very clearly her embarrassment in 1996 of having the then Finance minister admit: "Well, we don't expect you to believe us. Well, no, actually
She was interviewed by Dale Steeves of a newspaper in Kamloops known as Kamloops This Week. This was just last week, and the article quotes her as declaring that this legislation, this Balanced Budget Act, "proves her party can be fiscally responsible." Isn't that sad, hon. Speaker? The poor woman actually thinks that because they table an act that says they're going to balance a budget, it proves they can be fiscally responsible.
Well, it doesn't. It doesn't prove that at all. The proof, as everyone knows, is in the pudding, and the pudding has been on the shelf a long time in this province. And the pudding is this: deficit upon deficit; debt accumulating at triple the rates of the admitted deficit; the province's debt doubling in nine years; $3 billion a year in interest. That's the pudding. Those are the results of this NDP party -- pathetic results.
Now, she does go on to say this, and it's a quote: "Our credibility on fiscal issues has been badly eroded. We want to regain some credibility on those issues. We're going to balance the budget, but we're going to do that by protecting health care and education and other essential services." They're going to do that by doing those things. That's what they've been saying all along. Now, those are goals that everybody shares -- right? Of course everybody wants to protect health care and education.
How do you measure whether a party or a government has protected health care and education? Well, one measurement might be that the wait-lists in health care are way longer than I ever remember them being or than anybody remembers them being in our lifetime. One measurement might be that even though everybody has known we have an aging population in British Columbia and that more people are going to need extended care facilities, this government, in nine years, has failed to deliver one new extended care bed in our health region -- not one. So we have 363 people on the wait-list for extended care beds in our region, when the two huge facilities in Kamloops -- and they are big facilities by provincial standards -- barely house that many people. We have almost as many people on the wait-list as we can put in the facilities. How is that protecting health care?
[1950]
Education. What's being done for education? There's been continual cutback under this government. Why? Because they just can't seem to come up with the money. Why? Because they spend the money on the wrong things. They spend it on all their foolish little projects. Lately they've been throwing it away on so-called cooperatives, like $20,000 to start a cooperative laundromat in Victoria. What are all the taxpaying laundromat owners supposed to think of that? That's just one tiny little example in the big picture, compared to the billions that this government has squandered and squandered.
And now we have this so-called new Premier, who, as Shakespeare put it, "struts and frets his hour upon the stage." Shakespeare went on to say: "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." This government can't deliver. This government absolutely cannot deliver a balanced budget. It's proven that over and over again.
Just today, in committee-stage debate on the so-called Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, I asked the Attorney General: "Why didn't you bother to consult with business in British Columbia before you made these changes?" This government wants to have itself in the vanguard of social engineering, in the vanguard of social change, and it forgot -- or didn't bother -- to consult with businesses. So it once again reinforced its longstanding message to business in B.C. "We really don't care," says the NDP to business. "The NDP really doesn't care about what sorts of costs we impose on business. Those are just business expenses. You guys, you capitalists, you probably don't deserve the money anyway. You can afford it. We'll just go ahead and try and buy votes by jacking up the minimum wage, whether you can afford it or not, by jacking up benefits, by laying more rules on you through the Employment Standards Act and every which way. And somehow you're just supposed to absorb this. You're just supposed to roll with the punches."
That's even though this government has seen for nine years that business won't do that, that money is very portable in the world of the 1990s and now into the next millennium, that investors can walk, and they do. Their money can go at the click of a computer, and it does, and it has. And unemployment has resulted.
Every time this government jacks up minimum wage, it increases youth unemployment, and we see that correlation right across the country. But do these people learn anything from it? No. So do we have any confidence in the NDP? Absolutely not. And you'd have to be some kind of blind loyalist or somebody who doesn't pay any attention to what's happening or just a person who's touched in the head or maybe one of those people who's living off the system, to support the NDP. Those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it. Those who cannot learn from what has happened before are going to experience it again.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Interjection.
K. Krueger: It seems that the minister opposite is awakening from his slumber and is beginning to catch the fire of what I'm talking about. He realizes it's true that unless you apply some different approaches, you are not going to get some different results.
I'll answer the hon. member. The quote is: "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." And the answer to the minister opposite is Einstein, a very wise man.
An Hon. Member: I think you used that last week.
[ Page 17044 ]
K. Krueger: And the minister is right. I'm glad he's paying attention. I have used that repeatedly. They say if you repeat a message often enough, it will eventually sink in. It hasn't seemed to work. But there's some indication that the Aboriginal Affairs
That's another reason why nobody has any confidence in this government. They don't understand the massive disruption they brought about every time they reshuffled the deck chairs on the Titanic. The staff have to get used to having a new boss. The whole network has to get used to dealing with a new person, and the whole network knows that this new person doesn't have any competence anyway. They've all got a record of demonstrated incompetence in their positions as ministers. So what hope is there? That's the way it's gone for our poor economy and for the public of British Columbia.
[1955]
But let's read on a little bit from that prophetic statement of their Finance minister, the NDP Finance minister in 1992, as he called it fulfilling his "honour to present the first budget of this New Democrat administration." He said they were determined to take the leadership necessary to secure our long-term future. He said: "
He went on to say: "Second, we are committed to fairness. That means pursuing policies that don't play favourites
The NDP, it seems to me, always make their decisions based on what's politically expedient rather than on what's good for the province or good for the people. The NDP have been picking winners and losers in their entire time in office -- far from what the Finance minister of the day said in 1992, which was that they would be pursuing policies that don't play favourites.
And that Finance minister went on to say: "We are committed to fairness in the delivery of public services." What's been fair about the delivery of public services? We are presently, in this session of the Legislature, debating a bill about how to help children who are being victimized by the scum of our society, by drug dealers and pimps -- people who want to sell them into lives of prostitution and addict them to keep them hooked. We're debating that, and I want to see the government have the ability to help those kids. But you know what the problem is, of course. We have nowhere to take those kids, because this government hasn't provided any safe places for them, hasn't prepared the treatment facilities, can't get its act together in the Ministry for Children and Families, doesn't have a clue how to actually help them.
So what's this government going to do with them? Put them in jail, hon. Speaker. What are they going to learn in jail, when they're surrounded by other children with problems, other children that are washed up on the shores of this government's incompetence? That is so reprehensible. How was that fulfilling the first NDP Finance minister's commitment to fairness in the delivery of public services?
The Speaker: Excuse me, member. Perhaps the member could take his seat. I would ask the member to perhaps bring his remarks back to the bill in question. You're speaking on another bill before the House. Thank you, member.
K. Krueger: It was a mere example of what I'm talking about -- a very significant example, but an example of why it rings false with the public. It rings absolutely false when the Premier says and the member for New Westminster quotes him as saying: "It is never too late to do the right thing." That's what he's saying. "I'm the new Premier. These Liberals
This whole province is just groaning for the election, just crying out for the election. Everywhere I go on the street, the people say to me: "When is the election?" And they're just heartsick when they hear that it's not for another year. That's why we have absolutely no confidence in this government. We would never vote confidence in this government, and we will absolutely not vote for their so-called, phony, utterly undeliverable-by-them balanced-budget legislation.
[2000]
Hon. G. Wilson: You know, the last speaker, the member for Kamloops-North Thompson, made a comment. In fact, he quoted from an oft-used quote: "
This bill is about putting together a program that will bring the budget of this province to balance at zero by the year 2004-05. There will be
An Hon. Member: This is a crock.
Hon. G. Wilson: I would ask the members opposite to have patience; we'll get to crocks. Don't worry about that. There are many kinds of crocks, and believe me, I know how to distinguish between them.
Let me just say this. We are quickly entering into a very different time economically. It is a time when, quite frankly, the economy of the province of British Columbia -- indeed the economy of Canada -- can no longer view itself independent of the larger global context. It can no longer set policy that is so narrowly defined toward the economic direction set out by the provincial government that it doesn't take into account the fact that there are very rapidly changing marketplaces globally. We have to be prepared to move toward our competitive advantage, wherever we can find it.
I wanted, first of all, to make reference to the fact that the notion we are moving toward a fiscally determined position of
[ Page 17045 ]
balance is something that is now becoming more and more consistent worldwide. It is becoming more consistent worldwide within social democratic governments as well as governments of liberal stripe, even as well as governments of more conservative stripe. We are much more vulnerable today than ever before to the lending agencies that are determining, in large measure, whether or not we will be able to have success with respect to the positions of borrowing of government. Therefore, because we are so subject to those lending agencies, we are having to find ourselves much more prepared to take steps to make sure we deal with those issues.
So I think it is really important for the people of British Columbia that at some point in this debate
It is attempting to accomplish two things. Far be it from me not to get a little political at some point in my speech, but let me first of all deal with the facts. The fact of the matter is that what this bill attempts to do is to put in place a framework by which deficit retirement can occur or where we can reach balance. It does not address
I go back to a debate in 1996 that was made reference to by the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain when he was taking issue with some of the things I said. I'll quote from that speech -- not the same quote that the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain selectively chose but one that I think is appropriate to this point. I quote myself in '96: "Therefore if you want to move toward a balanced budget, inevitably there's going to be juggling within the delivery of those dollars throughout the fiscal year; there has to be."
And that's true. We are going to have to reference the fact that we have, by statutory authority, obliged delivery of health services and delivery of social services to people who are in need, and we have obliged services on the educational spending front. Those are things that government has to commit its money to.
It seems to me that what we're attempting to do in this bill is to recognize that the reality of the modern fiscal age has come upon us. We now must put in place something that signals to our lending agencies, something that signals to those agencies abroad that we are going to try to bring our fiscal house in order. At the same time, we are going to make sure that the priorities of expenditures on health and education and social services are not going to be unduly jeopardized. That is a principal difference between what is now before us as a bill and what was proposed to be before us back in the 1996 election.
[2005]
It seems to me that when people stand up and quote me
What the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain quoted in his speech
That didn't say that I was a huge fan of the Taxpayer Protection Act. It didn't say that I was a huge fan of balanced-budget legislation. And in fact, when I was leader of the Liberal Party, neither was the Liberal Party a huge fan. It is only subsequently that they've adopted a much more right-wing position, a right-wing position that's more commonly aligned with Stockwell Day and the Canadian Alliance Party, and that they in fact are touting this. The proof of that goes on. Had the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain actually read further, in my quote I said: "The Taxpayer Protection Act, while not entirely without flaws, had merit. It had merit because it did at least attempt to put some measure of protection in against the kind of increases, escalating increases and demands on the taxpayer that we find all too often in governments across the country."
What I was calling for in 1992, what I called for again in 1996, what I've called for in everything that I have written -- I believe I am one of the most published politicians in British Columbia, if not in Canada -- and what I have called for consistently is that there is an economic and fiscal plan put in place that allows us the opportunity to be able to put this forward.
It's interesting that I hear the laughter that comes from the members opposite -- the members whom I don't see putting anything in writing. You don't ever see their ideas put down and put out for public exposure. You don't ever have anybody that suggests that they in fact document their caseload. Instead, what they do -- and what they repeatedly do -- is come forward with a half-truth. They take a small portion of what is written. They put it out as though it is a factual documentation, and then they purport to all the world that that is indeed what has been written, even though it is factually incorrect.
A case in point, as referenced just recently in a heckle from the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, where he references, "I have a dream" -- he's talking about a reference of a 1963 speech by Martin Luther King. I defy any member of that Liberal opposition anywhere to find any time that I have written anything about the 1963 speech where I claim to have attended. It does not exist; it is a factual mistruth. If I was unparliamentary, I would even say it begins with an "l." It has been successfully spun by those members and the people who report upon it in the newspaper over and over until, like the straw man in philosophy where you set it up and then spend your time knocking it down
These members opposite are not going to get away
[ Page 17046 ]
tion that the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain talked about when he came to suggest that I didn't have a position, I suggest that my position has been consistent and remains consistent to date. I think there are many ways in which we can tackle the complexities of a budget. There are many ways.
[2010]
Interjections.
Hon. G. Wilson: Yeah, go get the book, and I challenge you to find 1963 written anywhere in it. If you can't, stand up and apologize.
Let me continue; let me stand up and take this position clearly. There are many ways in which we can address three principally important issues on the fiscal side: deficit, debt and taxpayer-supported debt-to-GDP. Those are three principal measures.
I have been consistent in everything I have put forward since 1991, arguing that we have to at some point grapple with the difficult task of assigning a percentage or cap upon which we will say that no higher will taxpayer-supported debt-to-GDP be allowed to grow. If we do that, I have been consistent in saying that government must in some way lock or tie borrowing to the percentage of GDP in any one given year. Those are two things that I personally believe we need to move toward.
I have also been consistent in saying that one of the ways in which we could get there is by putting forward multiple-year budgets. In a sense, that is what this bill does. It sets it out for four years. What is interesting is that the members opposite say: "Deficit for four years." Well, you know, what is really puzzling to me is that the members opposite seem to fail to recognize that that grid, that formula, is precisely the same formula that their own leader has put forward, saying that it will take him exactly the same length of time to balance the budget.
What I was referring to in the 1996 speech that the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain stood up and talked about was the fact that they were berating this side for not having a balanced budget. Here's the quote that he didn't read. I said:
That's the full context of the speech that the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain failed to say. They have absolutely no higher moral ground to stand upon to say that they were better at making those projections in '96 than the members of the government. In fact, we could have taken a number of different initiatives."What's ironic is that the only thing that saves the Liberal opposition from having to do the same thing" -- that is defend the fact there was a deficit -- "is that they didn't win. Their projections were equally wrong. I challenge anybody to go through it and look at those numbers, and I'd be happy to sit down and do it with you. I've done the analysis in detail. They" -- being the Liberals -- "used precisely the same levels of projections for forestry revenue coming into this province as the members of the government, and they were equally wrong."
The member for Richmond Centre over there will remember the days when we used to take the projections that came essentially from B.C. Central Credit Union, because we believed them to be the most fiscally conservative and the closest to reality. They abandoned those in the last election. So they have no more moral ground to stand on than the members on this side, because the projections that were being made were equally as wrong, and that's the fact of it. They can't stand up there and argue anything differently, because the facts of it are clearly in writing.
By selectively taking portions of the speech, as the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain did, and twisting it and throwing it out as fact -- much as they have done about many other things that I have written about -- they present half-truths or direct mistruths in order to deliberately mislead the people of British Columbia about the viability of our economy, about the viability of some of the programs we're putting forward and indeed about the veracity of the bill that's in front of them now, which essentially is a multi-year, fiscal budget plan to bring the government spending to balance.
How on earth could they vote against that? How could they possibly stand up and say that's the wrong thing to do? For the last year and a half they have been running around the province saying that is precisely what they would do. Today they stand up and vote against it. What a hypocritical stand for the opposition to make.
Interjections.
Hon. G. Wilson: "Voting against the government," says the member for Richmond Centre. "Good, bad or indifferent, we're voting against the government." That is really progressive, good opposition. Whatever the government says, whether it's a good bill or a bad bill, we'll stand up and oppose it.
The members opposite have become so closely aligned with the Stockwell Days of the world that people on that far right wing
Interjections.
Hon. G. Wilson: Oh, don't say "Come on," hon. members. You all know that's where you guys are coming from. They're stand-up-and-pretend-to-be Liberals. What a joke. What an absolute joke.
You know who I have to run against again in Powell River? It's a fellow I defeated back in 1991. His name is Harold Long. He's a Socred. And you know what? In Kamloops they're going to be running against Claude Richmond. Do you remember him? A Socred. And on the Island up-coast here they're going to be running against a guy by the name of Graham Bruce. Remember him? A Socred. And what do they all have in common? What they have in common is that they're all right-wing Stockwell Day-type politicians. That's where these guys are coming from. That's their problem, hon. Speaker. Their problem is that this so-called façade of liberalism they put out there is a sham, an absolute sham. And they have the nerve to call me the chameleon.
[2015]
The Speaker: Excuse me, minister; the member for Richmond Centre has a point of order.
D. Symons: I have been maligned by the member as he's speaking. I have no connection, nor ever will, with Stockwell Day, and I resent the comment and the implication that I have.
The Speaker: Member, that's not a point of order.
Hon. G. Wilson: I'm sorry, hon. Speaker. I should have given equal time to the Preston Manning supporters.
[ Page 17047 ]
Let me just say that they have the nerve to stand up and call me a chameleon. Here I am running against a bunch of Socreds pretending to be Liberals. You've got the member for Peace River North, I think, who's been in more parties than I have.
Interjections.
Hon. G. Wilson: Oh yes, check out his federal alliances, hon. member. You better see.
You know what? It's a question here of these members opposite trying to paint the picture that best suits them. They have absolutely no credibility to stand up and suggest to this member on this side of the House that somehow I have changed my stripes. If you look at what I have written, if you look at what I have said, if you read the full context of what is in these debates, you will see that my position has been consistent.
It is true that I think that we should focus more on the percentage of taxpayer-supported debt to GDP. I think that's a measure we need to spend some time on. I think that British Columbians generally want to know that we have some measure of debt management that is going to be able to keep them in a balance so that when we have the growth of the economy, we don't see that growth caught up by the cost of servicing debt.
Now, the member for Okanagan-Penticton made a valid point. He made a valid point when he talked about the cost of debt servicing. It's true. That is an issue that we have got to address. Nobody knows it better than when you sit on this side and look at your budget options and you recognize that with an escalating debt, you have to pull such a high percentage of dollars in a debt-servicing category. There has to be a way to cap it. There has to be a way in any one fiscal year to say that we have to put a measure to the amount of debt that you're allowed to incur relative to the growth of the economy, relative to the GDP. I've consistently argued that since 1987, and, hon. Speaker, I stand up and I'm consistent in my argument today.
I've talked about multi-year budgets. I've talked about single spending authorities. None of that has changed. And in the multi-year budget facet, something that I believe very strongly in, this bill moves to address it. It says that we will now say over the next fiscal years, through the year 2004-05, we will move to balance. Surely nobody opposite can find an objection to that.
If they can't find an objection to the concept to moving to balance, one has to say that they find an objection to the fact that we have left latitude within that bill to protect health, to protect education, to protect the social service delivery programs, which most small-l liberal-thinking people would want to protect -- which further underscores my argument that there isn't a liberal thinker among them. They are people on the extreme Right who would argue that government has to get out of the marketplace in order to be able to fully maximize the development of the marketplace from foreign investment to allow the opportunity for those people to take on British Columbia without being fettered by government policy.
We saw that in the last election with their efforts to try to package up the sale of B.C. Rail. I don't believe for a second that we aren't going to see the same kind of programs come forward in the next election, where they'll talk about divesting themselves of the Crown corporations -- ICBC, B.C. Hydro, B.C. Rail on the block again. These are strong public policy positions that we need to have a strong and full and solid debate about, because I don't think British Columbians, frankly, want to take their public assets and simply allow those assets to be sold off to the highest bidder. Yet that's the mumblings and rumblings we're hearing from the likes of the people opposite and those people who support them.
[2020]
If we start to look also at some of the commentary that's coming with respect to their priorities and investment, we will see that much of what they're arguing in terms of health investment is a hollow promise indeed.
If we take at face value what they say they're going to do, if we take, as we have been able to do, and add up all of the costs that we have associated with the demands that they've made through the estimates, the demands that they're making every time they get up in question period and suggest that we have to put more money into health care, we have to put more money into education, we have got to do more in the ridings in terms of highway construction, bridge construction and school construction, we've got to make sure that non-profits are given more money, we have to do more with respect to the implementation of core funding -- when all of these things are added up, the increase that they are asking for is in access of $2 billion.
Where are they going to get that money from? That's $2 billion. Now, where are they going to get $2 billion from?
At the same time, these members opposite say that they're going to cut our taxes. They say that they're going to bring us the lowest rates with respect to the capital tax, if not eliminate corporate capital tax -- something that, frankly, I wouldn't be opposed to. When they say that if we get rid of machinery and equipment tax
And I think the real reason that they're opposed to this legislation, the real reason that they're not going to stand up and support it, isn't because they are philosophically opposed to getting to zero within a four-year frame or a multi-year budgeting process. That isn't the real reason. The real reason is because there may be constraints within that budget that do not allow them to do what they want to do with the Crown assets that they want to dispose of -- something in there says that they won't be able to simply expend the money as they see fit.
If you take a look at the people who are running for them, if you take a look at the members opposite, and you say, "Who's running with them, who are their companions, who's going to be standing on the hustings next to them running as Liberals?" wow, they're the same people that this province had through the 1980s, who ran the deficit in this province up to $2.7 billion in a single year. They're the same people who couldn't stand the fact that when in fact there was a middle-of-the-road opposition, they couldn't have it. And they took appropriate action to drift that party back to where they're more comfortable, which is on the extreme right wing of the political landscape.
There are two other points that I want to make before closing. It is suggested that somehow, by moving forward and
[ Page 17048 ]
putting in place this legislation and by voting for it, I have -- I think he used the words -- not only flipped but flopped. Let me say that he suggested also that we should free up the vote, and he said that this is a divided caucus.
The members haven't got a clue when it comes to caucus solidarity and support of a leader. They don't understand that when you have your differences, you fight your opinions and you put out your position as forcefully as you can. A decision is taken within a caucus to move forward, a majority view is determined, the leader makes his position clear, and then people move forward in unison, because that is the position that best reflects the majority will. That is the position that is coming forward.
Within those walls, within that time, amendments are fought for. Some are gained; some are not. Each individual position with respect to what in the bill is going to be problematic is fought to be removed. Some are removed; some are not. But when the final analysis is down and the bill is introduced, it is the time that people will stand and support it. And in supporting it, we will support the leader.
That is something the members opposite know nothing about, and I'll tell you, I have the scars on my back to prove it. Those members opposite know nothing about supporting a leader, no matter how successful that leader may have been at the polls. Those members opposite are simple opportunists that wanted to take a party that was at one time a middle-of-the-road, small-l Liberal Party and move it back to the right, and they have done so.
[2025]
And they have done so with a passion, because what their view is, and what their vision is, is to take this province and to slowly dismantle it, to sell it off to the highest bidder, to remove the legislative impediments to those who would come in and simply pillage our resource base -- those people who would rather have privatized forestry than have a forestry where the public has a base and community has input.
These are the people opposite who wouldn't put a balanced budget forward if it meant fairness and equality for first nations people. They are people who would take a treaty, after hundreds of years and the last 30 years of hard negotiation, and move it into the courts to try and shut it down rather than taking it forward, which is the honourable thing to do. That's who these members opposite are. These are the members opposite who would go to their doctor friends and would say it's not a problem to pump another $11 million into the wages and pockets of the Prince George doctors. These are the ones who would advocate it, who would try to get the rest of their friends all politically agitated to try and cause confrontation before the next election, because that's where their priority is.
These members opposite are a danger to the people of British Columbia because they do not have the vested interests of average British Columbians at heart -- they have those who finance them, those who foot the bill, those who come forward in a small, tiny private group who finance them to do their will. That is why they are not free enterprise thinkers. They are private enterprise thinkers who fill the will of their private club and those backers who will take -- if they should ever, God forbid, get onto this side of the House -- the treasury of this province and will pillage it to the benefit of their friends at the expense of the average British Columbian.
Mark my words, these members opposite should never be allowed to cross the benches to this side, because no matter what you may think, we are better than that alternative.
R. Coleman: You know, when we listened to the start of the diatribe by the Minister of Employment and Investment a few minutes ago -- actually, about 28 minutes ago -- he derided the member for Kamloops-North Thompson for his speech and said it was the worst thing he had heard in the Legislature, etc. Then he went on to have a discussion at some point in time relative to balanced-budget legislation. Then he went on, frankly, to show a great deal of lack of respect and tolerance for members on both sides of this House.
It's easy for someone to sit in this House and speak like they're some kind of an angel or above it and talk about how, when as a Leader of the Opposition, they were stabbed in the back, etc., and say how terrible that was. But then to go on a diatribe and paint a group of people to be related to one political party or one political philosophy or whatever, just because he feels it's convenient
We're here to talk about the balanced-budget legislation before this House. The reason we're talking about it and the reason we're debating it is because the Premier of this province said, when he introduced the legislation and in his comments today, that this was a vote of confidence -- a vote of confidence in his government and a vote of confidence on behalf of his caucus.
Well, he got the vote of confidence from his caucus, because they obviously supported the bill on first reading. But he does not have the vote of confidence of me as a member of the official opposition. He doesn't have that vote of confidence because of the type of attitude that keeps coming out of that side of the House -- to paint people on the basis of intolerance and on the basis of not being able to accept people as human beings and accepting the fact that people can have differing opinions and can express them and need not be painted all the time.
It also comes from the fact that you talk to the people in your constituencies. I know that where I come from, in my constituency, there is not confidence in this government. They are frustrated with this government, and they're frustrated for a number of reasons.
[2030]
First of all, this is a government that more than doubled the provincial debt in nine years. This is a government that has run nine consecutive deficit budgets.
All of a sudden they're going to have some form of deathbed repentance, and they think they can bring a piece of legislation that repaints them to the people of British Columbia.
Well, hon. Speaker, I was at Canada Day on Saturday, and I'm sure that most everybody else in this House was too. There wasn't a person that came up to me that bought that. People came up to me and said: "Good on you for standing up and voting against the government on a vote of non-confidence, because I don't have any." People came up to me and said: "You've got to be kidding. Do they actually expect us to believe it? Do they actually expect that they're going to bring in a piece of legislation that's going to bring along this massive change in their attitude towards how they spend our tax dollars?"
They're not buying it out there. They made it clear that they don't have confidence in this government and that any opportunity that should exist for the official opposition to bring this government down should be exercised. The Pre-
[ Page 17049 ]
mier said this was a vote of confidence on this particular piece of legislation, and as a result of that, there is no way anyone who believes in this province and believes that type of rhetoric, that type of personal attack, that type of painting of people which took place on that side of the House a few minutes ago should be accepted
The NDP government in 1991 supported a piece of legislation in this House. It was called the Taxpayer Protection Act, and it had some objectives. The objective was, first of all, to freeze taxes. Twelve specific taxes were frozen, and the government was barred from introducing new taxes for five years.
Secondly, there were balanced budgets. The government was required to balance the budget over a five-year cycle. The rate of increase of forecast expenditures could not exceed the rate determined by a formula tied to increases in B.C.'s GDP.
Thirdly, the debt reduction. The Minister of Finance was required to present a debt reduction plan. The NDP opposition of the day voted unanimously in favour of that particular piece of legislation, including ten current members of this present government. Ten members of this present government voted in favour of that legislation in 1991. Now, what's significant about that to me is that if they voted back in 1991 in favour of this piece of legislation, they obviously either had confidence in the government or it wasn't a confidence vote at that particular time. But the interesting thing is that following the 1991 election, one of the first actions the NDP government took was to abolish the Taxpayer Protection Act that they had voted for the year before. And the Finance minister, the former Premier, introduced Bill 3, the Taxpayer Protection Repeal Act, almost one year to the day after they had all voted for the Taxpayer Protection Act that became law.
What that tells me is that this government would be very happy to pass balanced-budget legislation tomorrow and call it a vote of confidence in the government. And if they were given the opportunity, which is highly unlikely, to form the government after the next election, they will repeal the legislation within a year, because they have no interest in it whatsoever.
Hon. Speaker, 25 current NDP MLAs voted to repeal the act, including 14 members of the current cabinet. They include the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Finance voted to repeal the Taxpayer Protection Act. Then in the year 2000 he comes back, nine years later, after nine consecutive budgets, and presents balanced-budget legislation in the Legislature. The former Finance minister, the now Minister of Labour, did the same thing. The Minister of Energy and Mines and Northern Development, a former Premier himself, also voted to repeal the act, along with the Attorney General of today, who was the Finance minister who dealt with the budget after the 1996 election and asked for some room. The present House Leader, the present Minister of Health, the present Minister of Agriculture, the present Minister for Children and Families, along with the present Minister of Forests, the present Minister of Education and the present Minister of Women's Equality, along with the government Whip and another ancillary group of people have all at one time, for the most part, been in one cabinet or another, with the exception of a couple -- oh, and also the former Premier.
[2035]
The only person absent from the vote to repeal that particular piece of legislation was the current Premier. I find that interesting, because when you get into a discussion about some of the things that went on at Treasury Board in this province, including the fast ferries, there also seems to be the ability for this chameleon not to be present when certain votes are taken. That is so clear. That hypocrisy is so absolutely clear. This group of people will do exactly the same thing with this balanced-budget law, given the opportunity, as they did in 1991. Twenty-five members of the government today voted to repeal the legislation. Fourteen members of cabinet -- people in cabinet today, who had to be in legislative counsel and discuss at some point in time this piece of legislation coming to the Legislature -- voted to repeal the last piece of budget legislation. It was the first, by the way, ever presented in a Legislature in Canada.
That just tells you one thing, what the people are telling you out there right now: you cannot have confidence in a vote on this particular piece of legislation by this NDP government, because they will -- they've shown it in the past, and they will do it again -- turn their backs on this legislation at the first opportunity, once the political opportunism has disappeared.
This is the government that has created the ministry of $2.8 billion, which is the interest we pay annually on our debt. Earlier in the remarks of the minister, in a previous discussion, he talked about obliged services of government -- health care, education, social services. What he didn't say was that if you drop $2.8 billion a year on interest, you put those at risk. By building deficit budget upon deficit budget and over doubling the provincial debt, you put it all at risk.
We should put this in perspective. Fourteen ministries of government today, ironically, the same number of ministers of the Crown that voted in 1992 to repeal the former legislation, which was the act that I mentioned a minute ago
The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries
[2040]
The Ministry of Employment and Investment, the previous speaker's own ministry, has a $37 million budget. The Ministry of Energy and Mines, $41.669 million -- a ministry where an average job in the mining sector is worth over $77,000 a year, a ministry that's looking for an opportunity to grow the economy -- could be put at risk. The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks -- the importance of our green space, our fisheries, our streamside setbacks
[ Page 17050 ]
The Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations
The Ministry of Social Development and Economic Security is not included in there because it's almost, but not quite
Now, isn't it interesting that nine years after doubling the provincial debt, a government comes along and says: "We've got to bring in balanced-budget legislation, even though we voted to repeal it in 1992 after we got our hands on power. But we've read the polls, and our Premier says it's a vote of confidence, so we'd better do the vote of confidence, and we'd better bring in something called balanced-budget legislation so that we can maybe convince these people again that they have to vote for us."
But the track record is this. First of all, you have them voting against and repealing legislation that they voted for. We have 14 ministers of the Crown voting to repeal it. You have the same group of people going to an election in 1996 and telling the province of British Columbia that they balanced the budget when they hadn't done that. And then they repeated that they had balanced the budget. The fact of the matter is they went on a spending spree after 1996. They hadn't balanced the budget, and they went out and wasted the money of the people of the province of British Columbia.
The fact of the matter is that they will not follow the legislation; they would simply repeal it. That's the hypocrisy of anybody that could go out and pass it, defeat it, sit in cabinet, tell us that they balanced it once and that they balanced it twice. And then what did they do? They spent like drunken sailors. It's absolutely incredible what they did.
On one project, the fast ferries, it was almost $500 million -- done without a business plan, done without any forethought and done without any measurement of outcomes. But that's not all they blew. They spent $1.2 billion through FRBC before they had a business plan. They dropped $73 million on a trade and convention centre. They dropped another billion dollars on excess Forest Practices Code costs to industry. They dropped $100 million on the Carrier Lumber suit. And there are a number of others. But I want to go back to the fast ferries for a second, because in the same explanation that the $2.8 billion ministry of interest would have covered or could cover -- which would put more money into health care, education and social programs -- $500 million was spent on ferries.
Now let's tell you what could have happened if you'd not spent that money and you'd put it into the province. First of all, let's understand something. This is all of these things for the price of the fast ferries. You could have constructed seven new rural hospitals. Now, that's okay except for the fact that you have a doctor shortage. And you don't just have it in rural British Columbia; you even have it in communities like White Rock in the lower mainland of British Columbia, because we're having difficulty attracting doctors. But you could have constructed seven new hospitals.
[2045]
Four hundred nurses could have been paid for a year. You could have brought 200 foster children into care. You could have eliminated the cardiac and hip surgery wait-lists. You could have hired 200 teachers for a year. Six hundred kidney transplants and 400 liver transplants could have been completed. Two hundred and fifty Prince George-to-Vancouver air ambulance trips could have been handled and might have solved some of the problems in the north, except that we need the beds in the south to handle that particular situation. You could have bought six MRI scanners. Nine hundred long term care beds could have been funded for a year. Imagine the pressure that would have been taken off acute care if you had the 900 long term care beds. Two hundred RCMP officers for a year, ten mobile mammography units, 12 CT scanners and text books for 10,000 students
Anybody that would go out and blow close to half a billion dollars on ferries and would double the amount of debt in the province and then go to the point of having a $2.8 billion ministry of interest doesn't have my confidence.
That's why we have to oppose this legislation: because it is a confidence call by the Premier. Any group of people that would vote for balanced-budget legislation in 1991, vote to repeal it in 1992, have 14 members of its caucus and 25 members of the government still sitting in this Legislature to bring balanced-budget legislation to this Legislature and say it's a confidence vote, "Show me your confidence
I don't have any confidence. I know what you'll do. Given the opportunity, you'll do exactly what happened in 1991 and 1992. This is it: you'll pass it, and then you'll repeal it if you get a chance at power again. And that, frankly, will not happen for two reasons. One, you're not going to get that chance, because we are going to work to ensure that British Columbians understand what competency and integrity in government is.
Interjection.
R. Coleman: Oh, the minister says it's not 1996, but it's 1991, it's 1992, it's 1996. It doesn't matter; it's the same group. Twenty-five members of the government today voted to repeal the legislation. Fourteen members of the cabinet, the seats of power that dictate to the back bench
I listen with interest to this stuff, because I find it rather curious how members of the government, members on that side of the House, perceive things. We're going to get close to the end of time here, and I really want to try and put this flip-flop, flip-flop situation, relative to, "We like it. We repeal it. We balanced it. We balanced it. Oops, no we didn't balance it. Now we're for it. Maybe we'll repeal it again
Let me read you this quote. "It is clear that now, on the eve of a general election, they're saying: 'We won't do it anymore.' Given the longstanding failure of this government to tell the truth, to distinguish between right and wrong, does anybody really believe that this promise will last more than the two or three weeks of the election campaign?" That's the former Premier of this province, who ran on balanced budgets in 1996.
[ Page 17051 ]
It is unbelievable for me to sit in a debate and listen to somebody that wants to debate and take the shots about what people's beliefs are rather than to actually talk about what the record is. The record is this, and I'll repeat it again. We supported it; they repealed it. Now they sit in cabinet. After nine consecutive deficit budgets, $2.8 billion annually in interest, a devastation on the economy of British Columbia, the fast ferry project, the trade and convention study -- because there was never a business plan -- and $1 billion without a strategic plan for Forest Renewal B.C., they sit there and tell us that they've changed their spots. I don't believe it. I don't have that kind of confidence. That's why, when the Premier laid down the gauntlet and said, "This is a matter of confidence. This is going to be an issue of confidence," hon. Speaker, I didn't buy it. I can't buy it. I can't buy it because I've seen the devastation that's been caused by nine years of NDP.
[2050]
I sit and listen to the Minister of Employment and Investment deride people on this side of the House that he hardly knows. I sit and listen to him deride political thinking that he doesn't even know. But that's his answer -- to defend a piece of legislation that this government's brought to this Legislature, rather than talk about the legislation. That's his answer: rather than talk about the record, personally attack the people on this side of the House.
Interjection.
R. Coleman: The ironic thing is
This piece of legislation does not deserve the support of the official opposition. It does not deserve the support of the people of British Columbia, not because of the legislation but because the Premier of this province said it was a vote of confidence. There is no confidence. We have no confidence in this government. We have no confidence in his ability to perform. It has been proven out, time and time again, that we cannot have that confidence.
And with that, I would move adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply A, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress on Bill 24, Bill 26 complete without amendment and Bill 18 complete with amendment, was granted leave to sit again.
The Speaker: In regard to Bill 26, when shall we have third reading?
Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to ask for your clarification. Bill 26, I understand, was completed without amendment. Is that correct?
The Speaker: Yes, that is correct.
Hon. D. Lovick: If that is correct, I would suggest now, Mr. Speaker.
Bill 26, Agri-Food Choice and Quality Act, read a third time and passed.
Bill 18, Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 2000, reported complete with amendment, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. D. Lovick moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 8:54 p.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The committee met at 2:38 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
MULTICULTURALISM AND IMMIGRATION
AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE
(continued)
On vote 39: ministry operations, $12,225,000 (continued).
C. Clark: I want to go back to talking about PSERC just briefly this afternoon. The question that I'd like to start with is one about order-in-council appointees moving into the public service. I understand that the government is reconsidering its policy of not allowing OICs to enter the public service as in-service employees. Could the minister confirm whether or not that's the case?
Hon. S. Hammell: It is not the case.
C. Clark: So the minister doesn't foresee any change at all in that policy in her term as minister. That's reassuring. Has the ministry given that any consideration? The word has been out there. It's been reported on that OICs will be allowed to apply as in-service employees. I guess my curiosity would be: well, where did that rumour come from if it wasn't under consideration by this ministry at some point?
[1440]
Hon. S. Hammell: I don't know where the rumour came from.
C. Clark: Can the minister just confirm that it was never under consideration by her ministry?
Hon. S. Hammell: No, we have not considered that.
[ Page 17052 ]
C. Clark: That's interesting, because the
I also want to touch very briefly on some other issues with respect to the BCGEU contract, which we talked about the last time we canvassed these estimates before we broke for Canada Day weekend. My curiosity about that agreement is particularly
Hon. S. Hammell: Yes. The amount it will cost over the life of the agreement is $8,466,912.
C. Clark: Were all of those costs accounted for, by the way, in the document that the Ministry of Finance produced two or three months ago?
Hon. S. Hammell: Yes.
C. Clark: I also understand that with
Hon. S. Hammell: Are you asking about management level 6 or grid level 6?
C. Clark: Grid level.
[1445]
Hon. S. Hammell: I don't have the numbers here, but the genesis of any movement from level 6 is pay equity. Pay equity was started in the early nineties, and '91-92-93 had the major movement of pay equity impacting on grid level 6.
C. Clark: I wasn't asking what the cause of it was; I was asking about whether there's anybody even classified at those levels anymore. It's a pretty significant change in the way we pay people when we have classifications that we don't even consider at the bottom level anymore. So level 6 is now level 1, after a decade of this government in power.
What I'm asking the government to confirm is whether, in the last collective agreement, they really did away with level 5, level 4, level 3, level 2 and level 1, for all practical purposes.
Hon. S. Hammell: The answer is no. Pay equity did have an impact. The biggest impact on the levels has been pay equity. There have been changes during bargaining that have benefited all levels indiscriminately, and there are organizational changes day in and day out that are mindless of any bargaining procedure. So the answer is no.
C. Clark: Can the minister get me, if she doesn't have it here, the information about how many employees are at each grid level on the government pay scale? I would be interested to know how many of them are being paid at grid level 5 and under, if indeed that's the case.
Hon. S. Hammell: Yes.
C. Clark: The minister has put a number on the cost of grid creep, if you will. My understanding, though, is that within the grid, as well, there are different steps. Can the minister put a cost on the increase that the members of the BCGEU have enjoyed as a result of increases in their steps within the grid system?
Hon. S. Hammell: What you're asking is regarding the increment within each step, I assume. There are 30 grid levels, and within each grid level there is a three-step process. The difference between each step on the way up is about 6.9 percent.
C. Clark: Right. And how much of an increased cost did that accumulate to, as a result of the most recently negotiated collective agreement?
Hon. S. Hammell: There were savings accrued.
C. Clark: How much?
Hon. S. Hammell: Approximately $11 million.
[1450]
C. Clark: How does the minister account for those savings?
Hon. S. Hammell: First off, to put it in context, about 80 percent of the current employees sit at the top increment within the grid. The practice had been to bring people in at level 2. In the agreement it was confirmed that we would be bringing people in at level 1 to ensure that there were the three steps available to be used throughout the agreement.
C. Clark: I want to make sure that I'm interpreting this correctly. The result of this agreement was that practice changed so that individuals were more likely to jump to the next grid increment at the bottom step of that increment, as opposed to move up a step within their increment. Is that right?
Hon. S. Hammell: Prior to these negotiations, many steps did not have the three levels. What we did was reintroduce step 1 for many of the levels.
[ Page 17053 ]
C. Clark: The minister talked about their negotiating, and my guess is that she reflected that there was some strategy for these negotiations with the BCGEU. What's the status of the negotiating strategy for the next round of negotiations, which is imminent?
The Chair: I'm going to caution the minister and the member before we proceed much further on this. This is future policy; it's completely out of order under standing order 61. If the minister would be so advised; if the member could form a question within the rules of order, otherwise we're going to have to move on to something that's not future policy.
Hon. S. Hammell: I was going to say precisely what the Chair has said -- that it is a matter for future policy.
C. Clark: Well, there's more than one way to skin a cat. Let me put that another way. What is the minister's current strategy for negotiating the next collective agreement? That's not future policy; that's something she should be thinking about today if she's doing her job.
Hon. S. Hammell: I may be thinking about it, but the decision is future policy.
C. Clark: Has the minister formed any kind of group that she discusses the strategy with? Is there anyone working on it within the ministry?
Hon. S. Hammell: Cabinet.
C. Clark: Does cabinet do that without any advice from this minister or her staff?
Hon. S. Hammell: The approach around the future negotiations is the mandate of cabinet.
C. Clark: I understand that. Well, I guess I understand that now. But if that's the way the government wants to go about doing it, I have to express some concern -- and I'm not alone -- in the fact that this government doesn't appear to have any strategy in place for negotiating its collective agreements that are going to be coming up next March. We are going to have hundreds of thousands of civil servants, some of whom this ministry is responsible for negotiating with and many of whom this ministry is directly responsible for negotiating with, with a collective agreement that comes up in March 31 of next year
[1455]
The public was led to believe -- some would say misled into believing -- that the government had a strategy in place, that they were thinking about it in advance. But what the minister is saying today is that her ministry doesn't have any plan in place, any plan to present, any people working on a plan. Presumably these are the people that are going to be supplying the briefing notes for cabinet; these are the people that are going to be putting together the strategy.
Cabinet is not going to get together at a retreat. Well, maybe it is. It probably used to do that. Or it used to do that over a cup of coffee and on the back of an envelope at a local Starbucks -- sit down and figure out the negotiating strategy for the entire civil service of government. Presumably any responsible government vests its civil servants -- the people with the corporate memory, with the responsibility for doing that, with the expertise for doing that -- with the responsibility to do it.
Is the minister saying that no one in her ministry is currently organized to think about or to plan the negotiations that her ministry is going to be conducting with the employees that her ministry and her staff are paid to conduct? Is that what she's saying today?
Hon. S. Hammell: We will be a long, long time in these estimates if the member insists on putting words into my mouth. Let me be very clear: this policy is future policy, and its genesis comes from cabinet.
C. Clark: Well, the minister can try and use the rules to get around answering the question, but I framed the question very carefully so that it is within the rules. The question is: is anyone currently
The last time the government approached this issue, they started planning at least in June of the year before. We're now past June. We're going to be coming up to a lot of very, very difficult negotiations on March 31 next year. I have to guess that the government is going to be thinking about this, that staff at the government level are going to be thinking about it. Otherwise, it is grossly irresponsible and a neglect of this minister's duty to sit there and say: "Oh well, we're going to think about it at the cabinet table." I mean, the people that have responsibility to do this are the people that are serving this minister, who are being paid in the civil service.
If she's taking away their responsibility for doing this, goodness knows, she should tell the public. She should tell the public that the cabinet is going to be cooking up the strategy without any input from the people who are paid and qualified to think about these kinds of issues. I frame my question very carefully. In the current fiscal and policy environment, is there anyone -- is there a committee? is there a group of people? -- that has been tasked in this ministry with thinking about how they are going to go about conducting the negotiations and preparing the information that cabinet's going to need, I suppose, or that the government's going to need to decide how they want to conduct those negotiations?
I'll take that as a no. Unbelievable that this minister
[ Page 17054 ]
and negotiate with the union that they are mandated to negotiate with, and it's less than a year before those agreements expire.
It is just so unbelievable that this minister can neglect her duty in that way, that she will sit there and say: "It's not my responsibility. I'm going to let the big boys at the cabinet table figure it out." Well, I've got news for the minister. It is her responsibility. She should be thinking about it. It's irresponsible for her not to be thinking about it, because come March 31, 2001, those collective agreements are going to expire, and we have a duty to the people of British Columbia to make sure that government keeps working. And the only way we'll do that is if government takes its responsibility seriously, plans for its negotiations and puts together a plan that it can act on and make sure that we get in and out of those negotiations safely; that we get in and out of those negotiations with the best possible advice, the best possible background; and that hopefully we can get out of those negotiations without any problems, without any disruption of service.
But if this minister sits there and thinks that she can just fly by the seat of her pants and hope that someone at the cabinet table is going to do her job for her, she's got it wrong. And if there is no one in this ministry doing that, or preparing those documents for cabinet or for the minister, or thinking about how they are going to negotiate, all of British Columbia is going to be in big trouble, because this is the thin edge of the wedge in negotiations. This is one set of negotiations, but I've got news for the minister: there's a whole lot of collective agreements that are going to be expiring. This minister has a direct responsibility to make sure that the negotiations with the BCGEU are conducted well on our behalf. It's our tax money, and it's her responsibility to make sure it's spent properly. And if she's not going to do that, she's not doing her job.
[1500]
So I'll ask her again: is there anyone in her ministry who is working on a strategy at the moment -- not future policy -- to conduct negotiations with the BCGEU and the public service of British Columbia?
Hon. S. Hammell: Hon. Chair, through you to the member, I hope you've finished.
Cabinet sets the mandate; PSEC scopes out the broad conditions of the mandate and deals with the broad sector. From there it goes to the ministry or to our shop, who deals with our union. The policy is at the cabinet level, and you give direction from cabinet down. And it is future policy.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. Member, we're getting a bit repetitious on this point. It's been asked and answered about four or five times. Do you have a new question, member?
C. Clark: Actually, I do have a new question. And the question wasn't answered, but I do have a new question.
The step that the minister misses out is the step before something goes to cabinet. Now, presumably cabinet makes its decisions about how it's going to set its negotiating policy in the context of some information. Presumably they don't just do it on the back of an envelope in the absence of any supporting documents, in the absence of any plan, in the absence of any kind of suggestions from the civil service. God forbid that that's the way this cabinet and this government work. That's how we ended up with the fast ferries and all the rest of the goofy projects in the last decade of this government.
My question, then, is: if cabinet comes out with the guidelines and they present them to PSEC, and then PSEC presents them to PSERC, and the government goes on its merry way, how does cabinet make a decision
Hon. S. Hammell: You know, you're always operating in a context, and you operate in the context of the economy, the budget, your projections for the budget. PSEC is the committee or the organization that has the broad public sector at the table. Ministries provide information to PSERC; PSERC makes recommendations to cabinet; cabinet considers the information and passes it back down as a mandate. So there is an ebb and flow through each sector -- to PSEC, back to the cabinet -- and that mandate is future policy.
[1505]
The Chair: Member, do you have a new topic? Does the member have a new topic?
C. Clark: Absolutely, because I feel like we're getting somewhere here. The minister has indicated, for the first time, that indeed PSERC does provide information about the context in which PSEC makes its decisions and then passes it on to cabinet. If that's the case, then how can she stand and say that no one is doing any thinking about these issues, if they're supposed to be providing this information for cabinet?
Hon. S. Hammell: This is what I said at the beginning of this conversation: we will be here a long time if you put words in my mouth. I did not say that.
C. Clark: Maybe the minister can clarify for us what indeed she meant to say, then.
Hon. S. Hammell: I said -- and let me repeat -- that the mandate for negotiations in the next term of our next round of bargaining belongs with cabinet, and it is future policy.
C. Clark: You know, I keep asking different questions, and the minister makes the same statement every time.
The Chair: Just for clarification, member, in the Chair's view, the questions in the last 40 minutes have been exactly the same. They've been asked and answered. It's becoming very repetitious. The Chair would ask the member to come on to a new topic, or I'll call the vote.
C. Clark: If PSEC is preparing information
[ Page 17055 ]
I don't want to put words in the minister's mouth, but that's what I heard her say. What I'd ask her to do is clarify her comments in a way that reconciles those two statements or corrects the one of them that's wrong, because they can't both be correct.
The Chair: Asked and answered, hon. member.
Shall vote 39 pass?
C. Clark: Oh, come on.
The Chair: We can say to vote it down.
C. Clark: All right. So the minister's not doing any planning about negotiations. She's going to leave it all up to somebody else and just cross her fingers and hope that everything works out, that taxpayers are taken care of -- and what the heck, you know. She's only paid to do this job; she doesn't actually have to do it -- right? I suppose that's the minister's answer today. She doesn't have to do this. She can just cross her fingers and hope that they get past an election and that by the time they get past it, they'll either have, gee, won the election
I know what they're planning -- that if they wait until the election, then maybe their workers will go out and work extra hard, because they'll know that they've got to get that contract in place. Maybe if they'd just hold out until after the election, it won't be so much of a problem facing them anymore. Or maybe they don't want to settle any more agreements because they're embarrassed about their record with the public sector. Maybe they don't want to get into any negotiations because they know they can't conclude them.
[1510]
Maybe this minister is embarrassed to go out and actually do her job publicly, because it might not work out. She doesn't want to take the hit before an election, so they're holding it off as long as they can. It's the only way that I can explain the fact that this ministry isn't doing its job and that this minister isn't asking her staff to do the preparations that will be required to make sure that negotiations are conducted in a way that's responsible and fair to taxpayers. That is the only possible explanation I can think of. You know, this minister isn't doing her job. She's not living up to her responsibility, and she's admitted that today.
Anyway, if the Chair doesn't want me to pursue these questions anymore, I won't. I'll move on to another topic, which is sort of related but entirely different. It's about the government's disclosure about its costs for the collective agreements that the government signed. The government finally admitted that the zero-zero-and-2 guidelines were just a phony, cooked-up, public ploy
The Chair: Temper the language. The member would temper the language.
C. Clark:
Sorry?
The Chair: The Chair has asked the member to temper the language.
C. Clark: One of the things that happened after the new Premier was elected was an admission from him that he didn't actually know how much all these agreements cost -- which was an astonishing admission from the Premier, given that he was on Treasury Board and that he'd been in cabinet and sits three seats down from the Finance minister who said that he knew all along.
Nonetheless, he said he didn't know. He asked the Finance ministry to come up with some numbers, and then he gave us a date that he would provide those numbers to the public. Of course, that date was delayed. He missed his deadline and didn't keep his promise yet again. I wondered at the time -- and I think most people wondered -- why the Finance ministry or the Premier's Office didn't have all the information they needed to be able to release that information to the Premier when he took office, surely, or at least in a timely manner after the Premier had promised the public that it would be released.
I would like to find out from this minister -- because this ministry played a big role in providing information, I assume, to the Finance ministry about what the total costs of all those agreements would be -- what exactly PSERC's role was in collecting that information and why it wasn't available in the timely way that the Premier had promised.
Hon. S. Hammell: We knew our costs all the way through the piece. There were numerous sectors involved in this operation, and it was overseen by Treasury Board. So the questions outside of PSERC's role should be directed to the Minister of Finance.
C. Clark: Did this ministry provide the information to the Ministry of Finance well within the time that the government would have needed in order to provide the zero-zero-and-2 disclosure to the public in the time frame that the Premier had originally promised?
Hon. S. Hammell: Yes, and it was provided to PSEC, where it was ultimately ratified by Treasury Board.
C. Clark: When was that?
[1515]
Hon. S. Hammell: May I please ask the member to ask her question again? We're in disagreement with what we heard.
C. Clark: I was asking when PSERC provided the information about the total costs of the most recently negotiated collective agreement to the Ministry of Finance.
Hon. S. Hammell: It was provided within 30 days of reaching a tentative agreement.
C. Clark: How much information did PSEC have about the ongoing tally of costs as the agreements were being negotiated? What I'm trying to get at is whether PSERC was regularly relied upon by PSEC for information about the growing tally of the costs of the collective agreement as it was being negotiated. Is that something that was happening on an ongoing basis, or was it something that happened just at the end of the agreement?
Hon. S. Hammell: There was an exhaustive costing at the end of negotiations provided to PSEC, and we knew our mandate and knew what the costs had to be contained at.
[ Page 17056 ]
C. Clark: If the ministry knew that the mandate was zero-zero-and-2, how did they interpret the total cost? What was the cost that they determined the collective agreement needed to be contained at? What was the total number that they walked in with, then, if they were working toward a goal, as the minister has indicated?
[1520]
Hon. S. Hammell: I'm going to come back, so I have the
C. Clark: I don't know what the minister means by "come back." I don't if you mean come back in the next question or
Hon. S. Hammell: In a few minutes.
C. Clark: Okay -- come back in a few minutes with the answer. Because my question is
Hon. S. Hammell: The net cost of the agreement was zero-zero-and-2. There were costs that were over in particular parts of it that were offset by savings, so the sum
C. Clark: What I'm really talking about when I talk about cost is money. What's the additional money that it's going to cost us? And what does that work out to as a percentage, as a total increase for the cost of the agreement? Zero-zero-and-2 is the really narrow parameter that the government used to talk about one aspect of the collective agreements that it negotiated and one part of the cost, but it's far from the total cost. We've already discussed the increases in the grids and all those additional costs. There's all the additional costs that are associated with early retirement benefits or changes to retirement benefits -- all those other costs that are built into the agreement that aren't necessarily reflected in zero-zero-and-2. And I guess low-wage redress would be another one of those costs that's not contained in zero-zero-and-2.
So what I'm asking the minister to quantify for me is the total cost, in dollars or as a percentage change, of the negotiations. And what was the ministry's strategy when they said that they wanted to contain those costs at a certain level? I don't think they said: "Well, we want to contain them at zero-zero-and-2." They said: "We want to contain them at an additional cost of however many hundred million dollars, or however many millions of dollars every year." That's the way I'm hoping the minister can frame the information for me in her answer today.
[1525]
Hon. S. Hammell: I know it's really hard at some point in time to acknowledge some of the things that are going on. Let's try one more time. We went in with a zero-zero-and-2 mandate. There were trade-offs within the collective bargaining process. Let me give you an example. We've talked about it. Part of that process was lower-hiring salary rates for half the jobs in government, ensuring that the grid contained three increments -- the first being step one, which was lower than step two -- and that people would proceed through three grids. We bargained that there would be less frequent dental checkups and cleaning coverage and that vacation days would no longer be earned by employees during short-term illness periods. So all that is part of the bargaining process that came up that we were within the zero-zero-and-2 mandate -- everything in.
C. Clark: I get how collective agreement negotiations work. The minister has given me an answer, and maybe I can ask her to expand it by framing the question a little bit differently. Is the minister saying, then, that this agreement is going to cost the government -- taxpayers -- 2 percent more over the three years that it covered than the previous agreement?
Hon. S. Hammell: We're trying to move so that we understand completely. After the document that was released showed that we had a cost of zero-zero-and-2, and it was costed, then it netted out at zero, because the ministries absorbed the cost of the 2 percent. So in fact the dollars that it cost were nothing.
C. Clark: Okay, I want to be really clear about this, because I hope I'm not misunderstanding the minister. She is saying that this latest collective agreement that her ministry has signed with the BCGEU is going to represent no new net costs to government over the previous agreement. So in fact it's not even zero-zero-and-2, when you look at the total dollar cost to government for the entire agreement. It's actually going to cost us nothing. Is that correct?
[1530]
Hon. S. Hammell: The 2 percent increase in salaries that was negotiated by the union had to be absorbed within the ministries. So there is a cost in the sense that they cost in terms of other items, such as whatever -- right? But they had to be absorbed within the ministries. You will see that as you look through Estimates.
C. Clark: What about all the other costs outside of zero-zero-and-2? What about all the other costs outside of the direct wage increases that the government or the ministry defines as in the zero-zero-and-2 guidelines? What about the other costs that are attributable to reclassifications, low-wage redress, changes in retirement benefits -- what else have you got? You've got
Hon. S. Hammell: The issue of pay equity, as I mentioned earlier, had been addressed in years previously. So in fact there was no low-wage redress within our public service. In fact, you're correct. None of those are counted.
C. Clark: Am I correct that none of them represent an added cost to the ministry? Or is it just
[ Page 17057 ]
redress
Hon. S. Hammell: If you recall, one of the issues around classification was the issue of pay equity. I mentioned it prior because I wanted to be absolutely clear that you understood that that was part of much earlier negotiations. In fact, pay equity was started prior to our mandate and finished somewhere within the third or fourth year of our mandate.
The classification agreements within this collective agreement were absorbed within the costs of the agreement. That does not include the daily reclassification of just generally doing the business of government, but the classifications that were done in terms of this agreement were absorbed. This is in fact a good agreement.
[1535]
C. Clark: Well, I'm trying to determine whether that's the case. That's why I'm asking these questions, so that we can have enough information out there in the public domain so that people can make that decision for themselves.
The minister has said -- and she'll correct me, I'm sure, if I'm misinterpreting this -- that in zero-zero-and-2, the 2 percent increase that was awarded, in the very strict way the government defined wage increases, was eaten up in other trade-offs in this agreement, so that represented no added cost to the taxpayer; that the costs of reclassification also were offset elsewhere in the agreement, so that represents no added cost to the taxpayer; and that the added costs of early retirement, or the changes to early retirement benefits, were offset elsewhere in the agreement, so that represents no added cost to the taxpayer. Can the minister confirm those three things?
Hon. S. Hammell: Let me go through them very carefully. The civil servants under the collective agreement with the BCGEU received a negotiated increase of 2 percent -- zero-zero-and-2. That 2 percent was absorbed within ministry budgets through the budget process. There were trade-offs within the collective agreement, and some of them I've mentioned to you. One of them was the dental, where the dental plan was extended from six to nine months and we had the coming-in at step 1 on the grid, rather than making sure that each grid level had one to three steps in it. The pension agreement is something entirely different. It was not negotiated within these negotiations. It was an accord and is a side issue.
C. Clark: All right. I think the minister's getting me there now, but I do want her to just confirm, then, that the total cost of this agreement for everything, outside of the accords, is 2 percent -- that's it. It represents a 2 percent increase in the cost over the last agreement, and that adds in reclassification and all the rest of those other extras that were outside the zero-zero-and-2 guidelines. Is that correct?
Hon. S. Hammell: The answer is yes. But because we are being very precise, and we want to be, this does not include the daily activity of reclassification that goes on within government.
C. Clark: With respect to the early retirement accord, can the minister give us some understanding of how that transpired within her ministry?
Hon. S. Hammell: The pension accord was negotiated by Tony Penikett, so we did not negotiate the accord process. My understanding is that the pension was paid out of surpluses from the pension plan.
C. Clark: Did the ministry have any input at all into the negotiation of the accord? And what was it, if they did?
Hon. S. Hammell: We provided technical support and advice.
C. Clark: Did the ministry also provide a costing on an ongoing basis of the accord's impact on government?
[1540]
Hon. S. Hammell: We knew the cost in a general way, but a strict accounting and the formula involved came out of the Ministry of Finance.
C. Clark: Just before we leave this topic altogether, I should ask the minister if she can give me a quick rundown of where
Hon. S. Hammell: The steps alone, if you recall, saved $11 million. So you can reclassify, but the steps
C. Clark: I need a little more explanation of how that math works, because unless people got a pay cut
Hon. S. Hammell: Let me give you an example. There were 13,361 people in step 1 and 904 in step 2, for a total of 14,265 people.
Sorry, it'll just take me a minute to make sure I get the figures right. Let me give you some very concrete examples. If you have a clerk 3 or a clerk-steno 3, the current hiring rate would be $16.92. The new hiring rate would be $15.94; that is for new people being hired. So in fact, there are real savings, because yesterday you would have had to pay $16.92, and this year you pay $15.94 for new employees on the same base. If you have a corrections officer, the current hiring at that time was $19.66 at step 2. The hiring rate would be $18.51. That's for new hirees, people coming in. The current research officer 4 would be $26.78, and the new hiring rate is $25.15. So if you
[ Page 17058 ]
took the impact and stretched it out over the time that we have, if you had those figures that I gave you to begin with, you have made significant savings.
C. Clark: And those savings will all be in this year or in the life of this agreement. I just want to be clear that we're using the same time frame for both of these. So when we talk about this and about all these costs, increases and savings, that's over the life of the agreement. Is that correct?
[1545]
Hon. S. Hammell: That's correct.
C. Clark: The government's always hiring people, and people are always leaving. That leads me to the topic of the size of government. I think the minister has often said that this is the leanest civil service in the country -- not something that the Premier agrees with apparently. Maybe the minister could advise where we stand with respect to the size of our civil service and how much it's grown over the last decade.
Hon. S. Hammell: My understanding is that if we take a look at the public sector rather than the public service, we are the second-lowest per capita in the country, according to what comparisons can be made. It's very difficult to compare province to province, because in different provinces they include different pieces in it. An example given was in, I think, one of the maritime provinces -- that they include nurses within their public service versus our
Again it is difficult to compare over time, because sometimes sectors move out or public service people move into what is the broader public sector. A fairly good measure is the public sector, and we're at the second lowest per capita.
C. Clark: How many more people in this union are employed than were employed the last time we negotiated a collective agreement?
Hon. S. Hammell: I don't have that information handy, but I'll get it to you.
C. Clark: I remember that Jo Surich did a report that was published in 1994, and he talked about the growth of BCGEU members directly employed by the government -- being close to 10 percent, I think. Mr. Surich has done a report more recently. I wonder if the minister can advise what he concluded about the size and growth of the civil service in that report.
Hon. S. Hammell: No, I can't. I don't know whether you mean it's 10 percent per year, but I can give you the figure for April '98, which is 38,314. April '99 is 38,235, and April 2000 is 38,870. We are staying pretty much around 38,300 to 38,800 -- somewhere in there. So the change isn't very much.
C. Clark: I appreciate the minister's answer, but I'd like to go back to a question about Mr. Surich's report. Can the minister advise what he concluded? Or did he draw any conclusions about the size of the civil service or the increases in the cost of the civil service in that report?
Hon. S. Hammell: I'm very loath to say this, but we are not aware of a report. We think that what you may be referring to is an address or a speech made by Mr. Surich. I'm not actually privy to that speech, so I can't answer your question.
[1550]
C. Clark: All right. If the minister can't answer the question, she can't answer the question.
Another area I want to touch on is the issue of something I'm very interested in, which is whistle-blower legislation. I wonder if the minister has any plans to try and improve morale in the public service by providing them with some kind of beefed-up form of protection.
Hon. S. Hammell: I'd like to go back to the previous question, where I gave you some numbers. That is the total civil service, so that includes management. Again, as I said before, we will get you those numbers around the union.
The Chair: Minister, keeping in mind standing order 61 -- future policy, legislation, debate or the need for legislation. Thank you.
Hon. S. Hammell: We currently have policy as well as language within the collective agreement that is very progressive around protection in terms of the civil servant.
C. Clark: Does the minister share my view, though, that it may be time to beef it up and provide whistle-blowers with more explicit protection than they currently enjoy? Or does she disagree with me and think that what's there is enough?
Hon. S. Hammell: Normally, when you're dealing with a specific group within a larger group and you can deal with that group with a code of conduct and their collective agreement, then you have managed that issue within a process. There is a whole process around allegations of wrongdoing, and I can make sure that you do have all the details and the background on it. Or I can read it to you. But if you're talking about whistle-blowing legislation that affects the broad public, then that's a different issue.
C. Clark: Well, I think that's probably wise too, but I don't want to go outside this minister's mandate. I'm interested in whether explicit whistle-blower protection would be introduced or if the minister agrees with me that it might be a good idea to consider that in British Columbia for members of the civil service. The danger that civil servants always face when they blow the whistle is that politicians are the people who they are normally blowing the whistle on. They're the people who can ultimately influence, in the end, their mobility within the public service -- whether or not they get raises, their working conditions to some extent.
That kind of thing does happen. It's been known to happen even in British Columbia and in other jurisdictions. It seems to me that it may be time for the government to consider protecting people quite explicitly, because that's one of the methods by which the public can hold the political level in government accountable. Maybe I'll ask the minister to respond to that.
Hon. S. Hammell: I think the member raises a very important issue, and people should feel free to do their duty
[ Page 17059 ]
regardless of the politician or the bureaucrat involved. Employees under the code of conduct and under the collective agreement have a duty to report any situation they believe contravenes the law, misuses public funds or assets or represents a danger to public health and safety or a significant danger to the environment.
[1555]
Employees can expect such matters to be treated in confidence, unless disclosure of information is authorized or required by law such as in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Employees will not be subject to discipline or reprisal for bringing forward in good faith allegations of wrongdoing to a deputy minister, in accordance with this policy directive.
Employees must report their allegations or concerns as follows: members of the BCGEU must report in accordance with article 32.13. PEA members must report in accordance with article 36.12. Other employees must report in writing to their deputy ministers, who will acknowledge the receipt of the submission, investigate the matter and respond in writing within 30 days after receiving the employee's submission. Where an allegation involves the deputy minister, the employee must forward the allegation to the Premier. When an employee believes the matter has not been resolved by the deputy, the employee may then refer the allegation to the appropriate authority.
If the employee decides to pursue the matter further, then allegations of illegal activity must be referred to the police. Allegations of misuse of public funds must be referred to the auditor general. Allegations of a danger to public health must be brought to the attention of health authorities, and allegations of significant danger to the environment must be brought to the attention of the deputy minister, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.
C. Clark: There is one more issue I just want to touch on before we vote on these estimates. That's the issue of severance for order-in-council appointees. It's something I think we touched on last year in the estimates that we did. I just wonder what the minister's view is about severance for order-in-council appointees. Does she think that severance packages for people who are appointed under order-in-council should always conform to the severance guidelines the government lays out for employees who are hired under the regular hiring process?
Hon. S. Hammell: The reason I am struggling here is that there's more than one
C. Clark: So we can compare, perhaps the minister will tell us what the guidelines are for regular civil servants.
[1600]
Hon. S. Hammell: Employment termination provisions for non-bargaining unit employees are in accordance with common-law principles. In May 1989 the Hon. Nathan Nemetz conducted a review of the public service severance policy. Based on his recommendations, the government developed a policy for excluded employees. The policy takes into account court-ordered awards, public accountability and common-law principles such as employee's age, service, job level and the nature of the employment.
C. Clark: So the big difference is that there are no limits. The thing that struck me about the first explanation the minister gave is that it was up to six months. Is there an "up to" clause, if you will, that applies generally to civil servants? I must say that I would be surprised to learn that civil servants who are hired based on the hiring process do better out of severance packages than do employees appointed by order-in-council -- particularly given the recently public increases that lots of OICs have awarded themselves.
Hon. S. Hammell: The answer is yes.
C. Clark: What about contract employees? Are there guidelines for severance of contracted employees?
Hon. S. Hammell: They're not actually employees. They're contractors, and whatever is in their contract is the contract. They don't have severance over and above that.
C. Clark: Does the ministry track those potential costs? Those are looming liabilities, obviously -- contract employees and their ongoing costs. Does the ministry have any way of tracking not just potential severance -- because I imagine the ministry wouldn't be anticipating that all of them would be severed at the same time -- but the total costs of contract employees as a category in the ministry's pay scales, if you will?
Hon. S. Hammell: Contract employees are not centrally managed; they're managed within each ministry. Therefore they're not employees in the same sense as public servants are, because their contract is contained within the agreement that they have. An example of a contract employee might be the doctors.
C. Clark: Or another example might be Tom Gunton. Those are other kinds of contract employees out there that fit into kind of a different category than, say, the doctors.
Hon. S. Hammell: I take back the doctors.
C. Clark: Oh, the minister takes back the doctors. She doesn't consider them contract employees. I'll let her answer her own questions before I start getting into doing that.
The Chair: That would be appropriate. I thank you for the help, hon. member.
C. Clark: My question, though, with contract employees I hope is relevant to this ministry, given that this ministry is undertaking, I think, a review process of contracted employees.
[1605]
Hon. S. Hammell: Under the Korbin commission we did do an exhaustive review of the relationships of contract
[ Page 17060 ]
employees. We terminated some and moved some into the regular civil service, but not others. We are not doing an ongoing review of contract employees right now.
C. Clark: Then maybe the minister can clarify for me what the labour relations contract review process that is referred to in the annual report is actually referring to.
Hon. S. Hammell: We don't review the contracts in an ongoing way, but each ministry does it. It's done through article 29 of the collective agreement, and that is continually reviewed by ministries.
C. Clark: Is the ministry thinking of putting in place any mechanism? The minister, two ministers ago -- I don't know how many ministers ago; there's been so many -- referred to this, I think, in the estimates that we did last time -- that there should be some thought given to a centralized process by which we can track contracted employees that are working in the government overall. Is this minister planning to pursue that plan?
Hon. S. Hammell: Not at this point in time.
C. Clark: It seems to me that the ministry certainly should. You know, the government side of the House, when they were in opposition, complained a lot about what they called the phantom civil service, saying that because they don't show up as FTEs, they don't show up in the same kind of way in the budget that regular employees do. Not to mention the fact that it's probably pretty disruptive of morale in the civil service, when you say to them: "Well, we're going to find someone else from outside to do the jobs that we need done within this ministry, because we don't think" -- the implication is that you don't think -- "that someone within the ministry can do the work that we ask of them." It seems to me that that's an issue that the government needs to face up to.
The Korbin report was done eight years ago -- something like that. That was a long time ago in government terms. My suspicion is that the contracted sector, the phantom civil service, has grown dramatically since then. I wonder why the minister has decided that she doesn't have an interest in finding out how many contracted employees there are.
Hon. S. Hammell: The reason is that the article 29 committee is a union-management committee, and part of their mandate is to review contracts and see if they should be folded in or they could have been folded in. They look at the contracts as part of that committee's work. So there is an ongoing process of review around contracted services.
[1610]
C. Clark: Yes, I understand that. It seems to me, though, that it is a different but related issue about getting a big picture of how many contracts are out there -- not necessarily even to review them, but to have the information available at the ready for government. I mean, if the government talks about balancing its budget and getting costs under control, it seems to me one of the ways to do that would be to at least have an understanding of how big this phantom civil service is. It seems to me rather dangerous that the government doesn't have a grasp on that.
And if there's any place where that information should be located, it should be in PSERC, I would imagine. PSERC is probably in the best position to collect it, anyway. So it's a different issue from this ongoing review process. My question is: why doesn't the minister see any value in collecting that information on an ongoing basis and doing what the Korbin commission did one year -- but on an ongoing basis?
Hon. S. Hammell: I guess I'll repeat myself. I do acknowledge that this is an important issue and one that is worth canvassing and discussing. It was important enough to me at one point to have a commission. The article 29 committee, though, is a joint union-management committee. Part of their mandate is to review the contracted services within that ministry, and that is where this discussion largely takes place. That committee reports out to the deputy, or the information goes to the deputy, and it's the deputy's responsibility to manage reasonably the contracted-out services.
C. Clark: It seems to me, though, that the most efficient way for government to control these kinds of costs is to collect that information centrally and be able to look at it as a global figure and a global number, rather than doing it piecemeal. Not only is it currently being managed ministry by ministry, but the way the minister is characterizing it, anyway, it seems to indicate that they're doing it contract by contract. And it is very difficult to get your costs of government under control when you're looking at the picture in such small pieces as opposed to a large global picture. It just seems to me that the government should have a global picture of it, and that's the best place to start, as opposed to managing it piecemeal through the collective agreement on a contract-by-contract basis.
Hon. S. Hammell: Again, I'd like to acknowledge that this is an issue that is important. But I also want to reiterate that the article 29 committee
C. Clark: Does that group or that mechanism have a time line that they're working from? Will they say: "Well, we want to have 100 percent of the contracts reviewed in every ministry by next year"? Or are they just working on an ad hoc basis whenever they see a contract that catches their eye as something that might offend them?
Hon. S. Hammell: No, member. It's ongoing.
I'd just like to come back to a question that you asked before. You asked how many BCGEU members there were before the last collective agreement. The agreement was signed August 19, 1998, and there were 31,889 members. Today there are 31,875 members -- 14 fewer.
C. Clark: I didn't quite get the minister's answer correct before we started the second answer. The first answer was that there is no deadline for this review. Maybe I can add to that another question, which is: is there any framework -- any time line at all -- that they're working from? Is there any order in which they're working from? Or are they doing all the
[ Page 17061 ]
ministries all at once, and these committees will work at their own pace depending on which ministry they're working from? Is that a fair characterization?
Hon. S. Hammell: The review of contracting is ongoing. You can imagine that some ministries may have more contracting out than others. For example, under forestry, the tree-planting issue is a contracted-out service. It has a beginning and an end. It would be subject to review. There would be activity based on the activity within the ministry of the article 29 committee.
[1615]
C. Clark: The minister talked a question or two ago about the numbers. She gave me the update on the number of employees. Did that include the number
Hon. S. Hammell: That is more difficult. Again, as I said before
You actually want the numbers between the last contract and this one -- right?
C. Clark: Yeah.
Hon. S. Hammell: Okay. Well, let me see if we can get back to you with that.
I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
A Voice: No, I'm sorry. I was just mumbling.
Hon. S. Hammell: I assume you want the numbers from the last contract up to this one. We'll see if we can get those for you.
C. Clark: Okay.
Vote 39 approved.
Vote 40: Public Service Employee Relations Commission, $11,962,000 -- approved.
Hon. S. Hammell: I resolve that the committee at its rising report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The Chair: We'll be moving the committee to debate on bills. I believe the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2000, is up fairly soon. We're going to call a short recess, maybe 15 minutes, so we'll be back at 25 to five.
The committee recessed from 4:19 p.m. to 4:35 p.m.
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2000
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section A) on Bill 24; D. Streifel in the chair.
Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.
On section 4.
G. Plant: The section in front of us amends the Crown Counsel Act by adding a new section entitled British Columbia Crown Counsel Association Agreement. I have something called a memorandum of settlement between the government of the province of British Columbia and the British Columbia Crown Counsel Association, which is dated March 31, 2000. It's a two-page memorandum that I think probably, in its original form, has a couple of appendices. Is that the agreement that this section is made in relation to?
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, it is.
G. Plant: The first numbered clause of the agreement says: "The government will, in the current session of the Legislative Assembly, enact amendments to the Crown Counsel Act as described in the document entitled 'Amendments to the Crown Counsel Act' attached hereto as appendix A." I should have asked to see appendix A; I didn't. The question is pretty simple. Do the amendments which are before us in Bill 24 conform in substance to the amendments that were attached as appendix A to the memorandum of settlement?
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, they do.
G. Plant: One of the things the amendments will do is make the British Columbia Crown Counsel Association the exclusive bargaining agent for all Crown counsel. As a result of the implementation of this provision, will membership in the B.C. Crown Counsel Association become mandatory for all Crown counsel?
Hon. A. Petter: No, it will not.
G. Plant: The memorandum of settlement, which includes the provision I read in substance, also contains reference to a process to resolve the issues that were outstanding between Crown counsel and their employer as of March 31, 2000. My understanding is that the process is still underway in that there are recommendations that have been made to government, and government has yet to take or seek a formal position in respect of those recommendations. If I'm right in that, could the minister remind me of how much longer the government has to make up its mind?
Hon. A. Petter: The arbitrator's report was forwarded to us on June 23. We have 21 working days to respond to that report. That report is being viewed right now, and it will be considered by government within that time frame. The options under the agreement are then to accept the report or to not accept it and table a different position. That process, as the member indicates, is ongoing, and there has not yet been a full review and decision made on the report from Mr. Munroe.
[ Page 17062 ]
G. Plant: And what is that process precisely if the government decides not to accept the Munroe recommendations? The minister spoke of tabling a response. Where is that to be tabled, and when?
Hon. A. Petter: I'm sure staff will correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection is that the process is one in which if government disagrees in any respect with the recommendations, then the option available to government is to state that disagreement in the form of a reasoned response stating reasons for the disagreement. That reasoned response must be tabled in the Legislature at the time if the Legislature is sitting, or at the earliest opportunity if it is not sitting. But whether it is sitting or not, the reasoned response must be made within the 21-day time frame I referred to earlier.
[1640]
G. Plant: My concern is that the Legislature may in fact not be sitting, and I'm not sure if the process that's been described by the minister will result in the government's position becoming public upon it being tabled. Can the minister confirm that it will indeed become public even if the Legislature is not sitting? Of course, for the sake of clarity, I think we are talking about a situation where the government chooses, in some respect or all, not to accept the recommendations.
Hon. A. Petter: Let me answer the question more broadly. Whatever response the government takes, we will make sure that that response is made publicly. If the decision is made that we intend to live by the recommendations of the report, I can assure the member that that will be communicated publicly. Should we decide to avail ourselves of the option that is open to us and to table a reasoned response, that will be done publicly and then followed up with a tabling in the Legislature at the earliest opportunity. If the Legislature is not sitting, then the reasoned response will definitely be made public should that become necessary. I think we're all hopeful that that won't become necessary, but should it become necessary
G. Plant: I want to go back to section 1 of the agreement, which I read earlier, and read it again so far as it is material for the question I now wish to ask. "The government will, in the current session of the Legislative Assembly, enact amendments to the Crown Counsel Act
I could point out, hon. Chair, for your benefit, although I'm sure you don't need to be reminded, that there is a difference between a government that says it will introduce amendments and then seek to persuade the Legislature to pass them, on the one hand, and a contractual obligation on the part of a government to in fact enact those amendments. Perhaps the minister can help me out. But I do find it truly astonishing that anyone, on behalf of a government, can sit down in a negotiation, particularly with its employees, and say: "To achieve a result, to settle a dispute, we will change the law." Perhaps the minister has some comment about that.
Hon. A. Petter: I think the wording reflects the negotiators' efforts to communicate the determination with which government would try to follow up on the commitments that have been entered into. But let me say I agree with the member. It isn't the wording I would have chosen, frankly. I think the wording, as I would interpret it, should probably have said that government will introduce legislation and will undertake all best efforts to gain the support of the Legislature for enacting that legislation. I would read this as a "best efforts" kind of clause, because obviously it is subject to parliamentary sovereignty. I agree with the member.
I think the negotiators worked long and hard on this agreement. I don't want to in any way be critical of them, but I think the language that was chosen probably was not chosen with a view to Erskine May or parliamentary practice to the extent that, with hindsight, the member or I would like it to be.
G. Plant: I appreciate those comments. It's nice when we can all stand here and think that we should have done something differently. It never seems to actually result in anything being done differently. At any rate, I'm sure that all the private members who, from time to time, vote in support of the government as members of the NDP caucus are grateful that their own individual freedom of thought was constrained in this way on their behalf.
[1645]
The next question is this. Let me deal again with the agreement. I have to say that another quite remarkable thing is to try to figure out what's in this agreement and what's in the statute. What's the statute going to look like after we amend it, and to what extent will the government's ability to act continue to be constrained by contract as opposed to defined by law?
In that regard I want to look at paragraph 4 of the agreement, which says: "In the absence of any agreement between the employer and the association to the contrary, it is agreed that the association shall have the right to withdraw prosecutorial services, and the employer shall have the right to apply to obtain essential service designations, under the provisions of the Labour Relations Code
Hon. A. Petter: It was a slightly more complicated agreement than I recalled.
The way the agreement works, is that should the government accept the recommendations of the arbitration, the agreement would extend for five years with a two-year carryover or renegotiation period. In that entire seven-year period there'd be no withdrawal of services. Should the government not accept the recommendations and proceed through the process we discussed earlier, the agreement would be four years in duration.
The question that the member's referring to, about withdrawal of services, only applies at the expiry of either of those two periods of duration. And what it provides is essentially, as the member indicates, that pursuant to contract arrangements, members of the association who are outside of that four- or seven-year term would be able to withdraw their services as a matter of contract but would be subject to government being
[ Page 17063 ]
able to seek essential service designation, based upon the principles of essential service -- remembering that this is not creating a union-bargaining arrangement. It's creating a relationship through contract and legislation that is unique -- similar to ones in Ontario and one other province, I believe -- in terms of labour relations regime in this province.
G. Plant: Well, let me ask this. During the four- or seven-year regime, would I be correct in assuming that the thing that precludes the ability of the association to withdraw prosecutorial services is contract?
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, that's correct, hon. Chair.
G. Plant: Under what statute would the association have the right, but for our agreement, to withdraw services?
Hon. A. Petter: There would be no statutory right for them to withdraw services. They would exercise
[1650]
G. Plant: I suppose one way you could look at it is from the perspective of what, if anything, the association has given up here. If the association doesn't have the right to strike or withdraw services, then contractually promising not to do so has quite different significance than if the association would have the right to strike. And in the latter case, they might be giving up something quite significant. So am I right that it really is the former situation -- that they wouldn't have the right statutorily to withdraw services. I have a second question after that, but if I've got that right, then I'll ask the next question.
Hon. A. Petter: I'll answer the question in my own way. If it's not responsive, I apologize.
Upon the expiry of these agreements, be they four years or seven years -- pursuant to the contractual arrangements that will be entered into as part of this agreement, not the statutory elements we're looking at now -- the association and its members will have the right to withdraw their services. That is something that they do not have under their contractual arrangements right now. The government argues, at least, that they don't have that right. But they'll have that new right recognized within the contractual arrangements that they have with government subject to the right of government to seek essential service designation. So that is a new relationship that gives them greater scope to withdraw their services when the expiry of these contracts takes place, subject to the ongoing contractual relationship that's being entered into, but subject also to the constraints of essential service designation that they have agreed to within that contractual regime.
G. Plant: That answer was helpful, but I want to come at it this way. It's been a long time since I studied this, and my memory is, I'm sure, perfectly imperfect.
I don't know how you can get the right to strike by contract. I thought you had to get it by statute law. I thought that the withdrawal of services would conventionally be a conspiracy in restraint of trade. That's 20 years ago, trying to remember labour law. I thought that the whole reason we had a Labour Relations Code and why we had statute law in the first place was that people in the position of the Crown Counsel Association would not have had the right to strike. In fact -- my memory of some things is a little clearer -- my memory of one thing is that on the eve of the planned or threatened job withdrawal, the government actually was suing the Crown Counsel Association, arguing that in fact they didn't have the right to strike. Maybe that problem is solved by the expedient of recognizing them as the bargaining agent.
But perhaps the minister could explain how it is that for some people, I think, it's pretty important that they get a right to strike recognized in statute law, but it's good enough, apparently, for Crown -- and it's good enough for the public interests of British Columbia -- that the Crown have it essentially as a part of a contractual relationship that's not enshrined in legislation.
Hon. A. Petter: Well, I think the member is misconceiving the situation. In contractual relationships, one can provide in that employment contract any number of provisions that allow workers to take vacation or not work as part of the contractual relationship. Here, there was discussion as to whether or not to have the Crown Counsel Association assume the status of a full bargaining agent under legislation. That was a choice that was not taken for a range of different reasons.
On the other hand, Crown counsels sought and through the agreement gained recognition that they could, as a matter of their contractual relationship, withdraw their services not in breach of contract but pursuant to contract, subject to government gaining the right to use essential service
G. Plant: That's helpful, and I understand that. The implication of that, just to make sure I understand that, is that the government could, without legislating, say to any group within the public service -- say, all members of the BCGEU -- that in this round of collective bargaining we will, as a term of the agreement with you, define your right collectively to withdraw services without having to worry about the Public Service Labour Relations Act or anything like that. It's always open to government to do a deal contractually to define the terms and conditions of employment with a group of employees of the government in a way in which the terms and conditions would include defining when and in what circumstances employment services could be withdrawn.
[1655]
Hon. A. Petter: Yes. But I would say this -- and I think this is an important distinguishing feature
The right to withdraw services
[ Page 17064 ]
G. Plant: Don't blame him.
Hon. A. Petter: No, no, I'm not blaming. All the mistakes are my own, as always.
The right to withdraw service here is an individual right. In other words, the association cannot, by majority vote, force a minority of the association to withdraw services, which might well be the case under a collective bargaining regime. What's happening here is that a new contractual relationship is being put in place that does indeed recognize the ability of these particular workers to withdraw their services, subject to essential service designation. But it's done so without compromising the individual nature of their employment contracts, which I think does distinguish it from the situation of the BCGEU and collective bargaining, where a majority vote would be binding on the minority -- just to clarify that. I think it would be more problematic to try to do through contract a regime in which the rights of the minority were compromised or affected by a majority vote. That's why this is not a unionized-type situation in the traditional sense.
G. Plant: The protection the minister refers to -- or minority rights, if you will -- is presumably a part of the agreement that will be the result of the Munroe recommendations.
Hon. A. Petter: That is correct.
G. Plant: One of the things that the minister has said several times is that the BCCCA won't be a union. Let me just ask one question about subsection (2), which makes the Crown Counsel Association the bargaining agent for all Crown counsel "authorized to enter into agreements with the employer which must include all matters affecting wages or salary, hours of work and other working conditions," except some items that are listed.
Could the minister walk through this situation or scenario? The idea is of a grievance that results because the parties have negotiated hours of work from, say, 8:30 to 4:30, and, well, it's the eve of a big murder trial. Crown counsel says: "I know I'm not ready, but it's 4:30; it's time to go home." The manager says: "Well, I really think you should stay here and prepare for the murder trial." And Crown counsel says: "No, my hours of work are 8:30 to 4:30." I'm sure the minister would agree that that's not a terribly desirable situation. Could he explain to me whether we are likely to be creating that situation or not?
Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, there is work going on to try to define and draft a grievance process that would apply here. Presumably, it would be based on the fact that there was a breach of the contractual rights set out pursuant to the negotiation of the statute. As I understand it, a grievance procedure is being worked on between the parties that would govern the settlement of disputes arising from that relationship.
[1700]
G. Plant: The minister hasn't answered my specific example, I take it, because the process for resolving those kinds of issues is as yet undetermined.
I want to ask, really, one more question or set of questions. The provisions in front of us do not in fact make the memorandum of settlement law. At least, I don't see them doing that. I'm confused, I guess, about the relationship between what is permitted by statute versus what might exist in some contract. It seems to me that at some point, we as legislators ought to be much more concerned about what we're permitting by statute and almost completely unconcerned with the private contractual deal that the government may be striking with the Crown Counsel Association. So I guess I want to be sure about how the statute will work.
The minister says, for example, that the Crown Counsel Association won't be a union. I look at the section, and it says that the Crown Counsel Association will be the exclusive bargaining agent for all Crown counsel, authorized to enter into agreements with the employer, which must include all matters affecting wages or salary, hours of work and other working conditions. That looks like a pretty all-encompassing set of negotiations.
I don't see anything in the statute that protects minority rights, for example, in the way that the minister is talking about. I don't see anything in the statute that repeats some of the safeguards that the minister has offered along the way during the course of the discussion, because I think all of those safeguards are built into the contract. The contract, you know, is a contract; contracts are wonderful things. But we're actually being asked to create some law here, and I want to know how far the law goes in relation to the issues that we've been talking about.
Hon. A. Petter: I think we have to remember that the relationship to which this applies is a relationship which currently, dealing with excluded employees, involves the government establishing terms of employment and individuals attaching themselves to that. This legislative regime then recognizes the BCCCA as the bargaining agent for the purposes of negotiating and trying to influence what those terms of employment that government would then stipulate would be. And individuals -- the members -- would then attach themselves to that or not as individuals, as they do now, except that the terms of employment would have been shaped by the association that represents, hopefully, their interests.
Individuals would not be subject to disciplinary proceedings by the BCCCA; there's no provision for that. I already spoke about the issues around withdrawal of work. There could be no way that the organization could impose a withdrawal of work on members who didn't wish to withdraw from work. So the contractual relationship remains an individual one, but the offer of employment that the government puts on the table is one that's now influenced by the bargaining process in which the organization representing the members, or most of the members, who will be affected is at the table and having input.
G. Plant: But just to be clear, there's not going to be anybody else at the bargaining table with the government. Crown counsel who are not members of the BCCCA will have a choice whether or not to work on the terms and conditions that have been negotiated on their behalf -- whether to work on those terms and conditions or not work at all.
Hon. A. Petter: That's true. But right now the status quo is that other than informally and outside of any framework, no one has
[ Page 17065 ]
work in which this association has recognized status in terms of bargaining the terms of those contractual relationships that individual members can then attach themselves to. So in that sense, it's an advance over unilateralism. It does not go on to then recognize subgroups or minority rights beyond that. But remember: at the end of the day, hon. Chair, these remain individual contracts of employment that would occur under the agreement that has been reached through this process.
[1705]
G. Plant: The last answer really gets to the public policy issue, which is
Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.
On section 7.
K. Krueger: The minister might need a moment for Ms. Rossley to join him.
Hon. A. Petter: Oh, go right ahead.
K. Krueger: Section 7 changes the pregnancy leave term from 18 weeks -- in the existing legislation -- to 17 weeks. I wonder if the minister would explain that to the House, please.
Hon. A. Petter: For very complicated reasons that mystify me -- unless the member wants me to get into more detail -- although the current drafting uses 18 weeks as a benchmark in the legislation, apparently the way it actually became interpreted and applied, the actual benefit ended up being 17 weeks. All this does is make it more transparent and clear that in fact the benefit period is 17 weeks, as it was previously. There's no change in that respect except that the bill is now making that clearer, more obvious to those who choose to raise it, than the previous version, for the very complicated reasons that I haven't penetrated myself.
K. Krueger: So as I understand it then, the legislation said 18 weeks previously because of clumsy drafting. There was a little bit of shoddy workmanship. In fact, nobody ever got the eighteenth week of benefits; that is the week of birth. Is that correct?
Hon. A. Petter: Well, I wouldn't put it the way the member does. The fact is that the legislation was drafted with the intention of providing 17 weeks of benefit. But in the tortuous process of drafting, 18 weeks was used as the benchmark to describe a period of time that, when you worked it all out, ended up as 17 weeks of benefit. This just makes it much clearer. A lay person reading this will see 17 weeks, and indeed that happens to be the period that was previously and continues to be the intended period of benefit.
Section 7 approved.
On section 8.
K. Krueger: This is a section that has caused some consternation in the employer community -- consternation to the wealth-generators in this province who feel as though, yet again, a major change has come upon them where they had precious little involvement. And they, struggling to continue to employ people in the province which has the worst economy in Canada, now find themselves confronted with legislation that will provide some of the richest benefits of any province in Canada. Perhaps the minister would answer that question first. As I understand it, only Quebec has longer parental leave provisions than what this legislation will provide to British Columbians. Is that correct?
Hon. A. Petter: Since we are getting into a lengthier discussion here, let me just point out that I'm assisted here by Jan Rossley, who is the director of policy for the Ministry of Labour.
Yes, the member is correct that Quebec, I believe, does have a more extensive period. Once this is enacted, we will be second to Quebec. But I think it's worth noting -- and I know the member knows this, but it's still worth noting for the record -- that this is in response to recent federal changes. All provinces are reviewing their provisions in light of those changes. What B.C. is doing here is bringing its legislation into line with the benchmarks that were set within that federal legislative framework.
K. Krueger: But we will be in the vanguard of provinces responding to federal legislation -- which isn't yet complete -- which at the end of the day will provide British Columbians with 17 weeks pregnancy leave plus 35 weeks parental leave plus six weeks and five weeks of additional possible leaves, for a total of 63 weeks maximum leave when a child is born, as I understand it. And that will in fact be the most generous provisions, with the possible exception of Quebec.
[1710]
Hon. A. Petter: I would agree that we are in the vanguard in terms of responding to the federal legislation, but I think -- credit where credit is due -- the federal legislation did move in this area. I am very proud of the fact that our province has responded quickly to provide these additional benefits to parents, but I suspect other provinces are going to be acting as well.
Just to correct the member, the federal legislation did in fact receive royal assent last Thursday, so it has been completed in that sense. It did receive royal assent. I'm not sure about proclamation, but it received royal assent last week.
K. Krueger: It drives me crazy when the federal government tells the Attorney General things before they tell the Labour critic those things. I'll certainly take his word for that.
One of the reasons that consternation has been expressed by the employer community in British Columbia is that they say there was pretty well a total lack of consultation by the provincial government before this legislation was introduced, with the wealth generators, with the employer community of British Columbia. How does the minister answer that?
Hon. A. Petter: The federal government, as the member is aware, undertook an extensive consultation process around
[ Page 17066 ]
its initiative. Those who participated in that consultation, I think, were aware that the federal government was hoping that provinces would follow its lead. We in fact responded to the federal initiative and, as the member has indicated, responded positively as a province. But there has been extensive consultation, to which the province was certainly privy, which we benefited from at the federal level and which enabled us to then move forward without going through a huge duplicative exercise.
K. Krueger: And yet this government and this Premier -- who continually refers to himself as the new Premier -- always talk about consultation and assure people that there'll be consultation and that a business lens will be applied to anticipate the effects on businesses of regulatory and legislative changes. In fact, to business, this feels as though someone's stepping on their head when they're already drowning. Even the timing of things could have been a matter of consultation. But they feel as though, once again, the NDP is throwing up legislation in the hope of attracting votes. Bringing on something like this so early, compared to other provinces, when British Columbia is the only province that is struggling, having gone from the best-performing economy to the worst-performing economy in Canada in the term of this government
Business has voiced to me, in my hurried consultations since this legislation was tabled, that they just don't believe that the provincial government has really thought this thing through as far as where it will work and where it will not and what the effects will be on them. For example, a small business with perhaps five employees losing someone for 63 weeks has lost 20 percent of its workforce. It's a long time to be in penalty-kill mode. Or a business with two employees, even worse, obviously -- 50 percent of its workforce
[1715]
Many employees who take these leaves fail to give notice that they actually don't intend to return when the parental leave is over, which of course obliges their employer to carry on as if they're coming back until they find out -- in this case, after 63 weeks, potentially -- that the employee is not coming back.
And work changes very quickly in modern times; 63 weeks is a very long time. The job may be dramatically dissimilar to what it was by the time the employee does come back from leave, if they do. Section 54 of the existing legislation provides that an employer must not change a condition of employment without the employee's written consent while they're gone on their maternity leave or their parental leave and that as soon as the leave ends, the employer must place the employee (a) in the position the employee held before taking leave under this part or (b) in a comparable position.
Was there any consideration by this government to modify those requirements to make this aspect more livable for the employers, who have somehow had to soldier on without this employee for a very extended period of time and then are faced with that problem of the work potentially having changed completely by the time the employee comes back?
Hon. A. Petter: Well, I find it hard to believe that the member is reflecting what he's hearing from the business community. I suspect he's reflecting what he sees in the mirror in the morning, when he speaks to himself and tries to convince himself of something or other, because I can't imagine the business community would take such a one-sided, partisan or regressive view of parental leave at a time when there are many single parents in the workforce. We have seen two-income families
All this provision does is bring the provincial requirements into line and benefits into line with the outcome of that federal process. It was understood when the federal government undertook its process that it might well set a standard that provinces would follow.
With respect to the notice requirements, that's a completely different issue. If we are now to put the obligations on employees for notice requirements, that's a different issue that presumably would have to be raised elsewhere in the act with respect to perhaps all manner of things. If the member has a policy proposal in that regard, perhaps you'd like to share it, so we can communicate it to all the employees in the province as to what new burdensome requirements the member would propose to put on them.
K. Krueger: Well, clearly the minister has no idea what business in British Columbia has to say about this, since he didn't talk to any of them. And he's relied on a federal process which, I submit, he's had no education in either. He hasn't, obviously, even read the second reading debate on this matter.
The fact is that there are dramatic effects on business when government makes changes like this. Business has a right to be consulted, and when they aren't, it's just a message to them that it's business as usual in B.C. -- that is, as long as they have an NDP government. Businesses' needs and the ramifications and consequences to business of legislative and regulatory change will not be considered by this government, which doesn't care about them as job creators and wealth creators.
Indeed, businesses are supportive of people having parental leave, and in second reading remarks I made it very clear; so has the official opposition. That doesn't mean that a government should simply trample all over business and do what it feels like and then say: "Well, any of these concerns that business is raising through the opposition, since we didn't bother to consult them, are just costs of business. And business must bear the cost of business regardless of the fact that government creates those costs through legislative changes."
So clearly the message to employers and job creators, wealth creators, throughout this province from the minister is that it is business as usual. The NDP didn't consult you, doesn't care, thinks it did you a favour by not consulting you, even though you've expressed in public and through the media your chagrin at not being consulted. So there we go again. The NDP will impose costs on your business. They'll try to buy votes by moving quickest in the country on this legislation, even though they've stuck the economy in the worst economic situation in the country, and that's just too bad for business. Apparently that's the minister's answer. That being said, people know that this government continues
[ Page 17067 ]
to operate, as a former Forests minister put it, in a manner that it believes it can do anything it wants. Clearly that's what it has done here.
So the minister, then, is answering my previous question -- that he did not contemplate any changes to the provisions of section 54 and doesn't intend to. Is that correct?
[1720]
Hon. A. Petter: You know, hon. Chair, sometimes the member should get outside of the message box and think about what's real out there. I appreciate that this kind of psycho-babble maybe goes down well in the Liberal caucus, but it really doesn't speak to the issues here.
There's an extensive consultation process that was done by the federal government. I heard the debate in second reading; I was there to hear the members' representations at that time. They struck me as unresponsive to the real concerns then, as they do now. The fact is that there was an extensive consultation process; based upon that, the federal government made decisions. And now the province has made decisions; they reflect some changing realities in the marketplace. Maybe the member isn't aware that there are single parents and two-income families out there who are struggling and who can benefit from these changes. And there are progressive employers who want in fact to provide these guarantees and will benefit from the changes in employment insurance, because they will have a much more productive and content workforce as a result.
But I guess, if you're mired back in nineteenth-century views on things, you have difficulty with this. If you just parrot the sound bites that are given to you by your communications assistants and turn everything into a partisan attack, you lose sight of what's really happening to workers in this province. So I apologize if the member can't understand what I'm saying. I've tried to say it a few times.
There was an extensive consultation process by the federal government. The province monitored that, participated and has now taken action that will be beneficial, I'm sure, not only to employees but to many employers, many of whom -- if not most of whom -- will support this very progressive initiative that will improve the workplace. God forbid what will happen if this member comes in and starts imposing all sorts of regressive measures to undo this very positive action, should he ever have that opportunity.
K. Krueger: The minister has carefully avoided discussing his government's so-called business lens. The fact is that if he bothered to address that aspect of all this, he would have been informed by the people who tell him what to say that a regulatory impact statement was prepared. The fact is that apparently it was done without talking to the obvious organizations in British Columbia that could have raised, and would have raised, the types of concerns that I've raised to the minister.
Far from being negative to the interests of parents, it's positive to the interests of everyone in the economy if a government shows some brains when it implements change and does what it can to soften the effects -- does what it can to ameliorate the situation when business expresses concerns such as those around section 54. That's what a responsible government does to protect the economy. This is an irresponsible government, and nothing has changed. It's business as usual.
The opposition will be supporting the change but, on the record, reproaching the government for once again failing to do any of the appropriate things to protect the economy and persuade potential and current investors in British Columbia that this government is actually starting to think about the cost to them when government makes changes and to do what it can to soften those.
Unless the minister cares to make further comment, we'll take the vote. We'll support it. Once again, wealth creators in this province have had their interests and their input flouted by an NDP cabinet minister.
Hon. A. Petter: And by an opposition, I assume, that was going to support the government in the progressive initiative, hon. Chair.
Section 8 approved.
On section 9.
G. Abbott: The impact of section 9 is clear enough. It authorizes cabinet to make regulations relating to the licensing and duties of silviculture contractors. I'm assuming that the licensing and duties of silviculture contractors will not be identical to those other agencies listed in section 127. Is there a process contemplated to identify those with the Western Silvicultural Contractors Association or others?
Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, this provision is very much the product of a consultation process that has been successful to date. Indeed, that consultation process will continue in terms of identifying appropriate conditions for licensing. The expectation is that the spirit of cooperation will indeed produce an acceptable agreement on that as well.
[1725]
Section 9 approved.
On section 10.
G. Plant: For the information of the minister, I've just been told that his official will not be required for the Petroleum And Natural Gas Act amendments, which are sections 33 through 42 inclusive.
Section 10
Section 10 approved.
On section 11.
G. Plant: Section 11 creates something which will be called the aquaculture research and development trust fund. The minister, who will be the trustee of this trust fund, will be able to make payments out of it for one or more of the following purposes, and I only want to refer to one of them. One of them is "to initiate, support or conduct research into and development of finfish aquaculture technologies, methods and practices." Perhaps the minister could give us laypeople just a bit of a sense of what that might mean in concrete terms or practical terms.
The Chair: Minister, just pretend we're in the other chamber, and all will be well.
[ Page 17068 ]
Hon. C. Evans: Sure. For example, the hon. member will know that there is some concern all over the world about the escapes of finfish in containment and the possibility that they might intermix with wild genetics and change the biology of natural stocks. So research would include research to mark finfish in containment, to assure that we could track them and come to some scientific resolution of this question of whether or not there's any possibility of intermixing of stocks. That would be simply one example.
I'll give you just one other quick one. It is generally assumed that the chance of escapes would be reduced if there was a closed-containment system instead of a net pen system. However, moving to that kind of technological evolution, while practical and existing just a few miles from here, hasn't quite reached the technological stage of development that it is profitable. So the fund might assist R and D, leading to a closed-containment system more quickly. That's just two examples.
G. Plant: So there would be proposals generated, either inside or outside government, to study some of these issues? Experts would come forth with the ability, presumably, to do the kind of work that the minister's talking about, and there'd be a funding proposal. If there was money in the trust fund, subject to the terms and conditions of the trust fund, there'd be a grant made for the purpose of carrying out that kind of research. Is that a fair statement?
Hon. C. Evans: That's correct, hon. Chair.
G. Plant: Can I move down a little bit further
[1730]
Hon. C. Evans: It is up to the minister, but I will give you some examples of existing trust funds. There are trust funds in agriculture, say, for the Cattlemen's Association, and there are people who understand the industry or, say, academics who work with the industry, who are appointed to act as trustees. There are various funds that are either region-based or commodity-based, and there's a group of trustees chosen by the minister. They give advice, and we pay their travel costs to get to meetings to hear proposals.
G. Plant: Would it be fair to describe that as an ad hoc payment as opposed to something that's going to be in place on a kind of permanent, structured basis? As-and-when-needed, I guess, would be better than ad hoc as a description.
Hon. C. Evans: That would be up to the minister to decide. Some trust funds meet on a periodic basis, and it's established by regulation that they would meet every six months. It's not ad hoc at all; it's every six months. Others that have less demand meet simply when there is the need for them to gather.
G. Plant: Recognizing that there is that range of possibilities, we're now dealing with the aquaculture research and development trust fund. Does the minister have an expectation as to how he intends to obtain advice on matters relating to that trust fund, in respect of the issues we're talking about? Is he going to get advice? That's what it appears to be. And those people are going to have travel costs. I guess the question is: is he going to structure that advice so that he has a group of four or five people who on a regular basis he calls upon to give him advice, or is it going to be less structured than that?
Hon. C. Evans: It is my intention that it would be that structured and that there be consultation. I would think of three groups right off the bat that the consultation should be with, and that would be first nations, who have a territorial interest; people in the environmental community, who have helped us structure the regulatory regime; and the Salmon Farmers Association themselves. I would also suggest perhaps the federal government and UBC. But there'll be a consultation process to answer the question of how many and precisely who they will represent.
G. Plant: Moving further down, if I may, the section provides for amounts to be paid into the trust fund. Subparagraph (4)(d) refers to money received as contributions. One of the sources of contributions is described as "an appropriation or requisition." Could the minister explain what is meant by that? I assume an appropriation is a consolidated revenue fund appropriation, but I'm not sure what a requisition is.
Hon. C. Evans: For reasons I don't understand, it appears to be two words meaning the same thing -- different ways of getting money out of CRF.
G. Plant: The second part of this section includes a provision that allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations to require operators to pay a levy. Let me just ask this question, though, going back to the minister's last answer: is there currently appropriation in the budget estimates which are still before the House for the current fiscal year, in respect of this trust fund as an anticipated contribution from government?
[1735]
Hon. C. Evans: No, hon. Chair.
G. Plant: On to the levies
Interjections.
Hon. C. Evans: Sometimes it's a dance.
G. Plant: A levee is sometimes a dance. That's right. A Levi is sometimes the surname of a former NDP cabinet minister, isn't it? [Laughter.]
On a slightly more serious note, I suspect that there may be a potential for some concern out there in the world of people who are operators in the business of finfish aquaculture when they see that their friends in the cabinet will have a regulation-making power to require them to pay a levy, to establish its amount, to designate somebody as the collector
[ Page 17069 ]
and then to impose penalties to enforce payment. Can the minister indicate what he envisages as a process that will ensure that those levies will be nothing more than reasonable, fair and appropriate for the circumstances?
Hon. C. Evans: Yes. The fees will be set by regulation, and the regulation will be determined in consultation with the industry. Obviously there have been extensive consultations, because we didn't get to the drafting stage without discussions -- more than a year, I think, of discussions about this section of the act.
I think the industry is more concerned that, whatever the fees are, they not be flowed into consolidated revenue and become a tax. They are somewhat assured, I believe, that their friends in the government, as the hon. member suggests, desire that their industry thrive and that R and D happen. And they're somewhat, I think, satisfied that the fees would be set at a level that would allow them to thrive. But there is some concern that over time some future government might lose its head and take that money into consolidated revenue, and it would become like a tax. That's why the thing is set up as a trust account rather than some other form of government bank account, in order to carry on the consultations with some comfort all around the table that the money will be spent on the industry that generates the money.
G. Plant: That's helpful. I have to admit I missed the press release that no doubt accompanied the introduction of this provision, and I'm not an expert in the subject. So if this question doesn't sound like a very intelligent question, I'm sure the minister will take advantage of the opportunity to inform me of that.
But it looks to me like although the scheme provides for a bunch of ways to put money into the trust fund, including appropriations from the CRF, the scheme is also set up to be essentially self-funding -- that the industry will essentially contribute through levies to the creation of this trust fund. That will then be used for the research purposes that the minister talks about. You could say it will be an industry-financed form of research and development into the issues that the minister talked about. Does the minister see that as his intention for the fund or not?
[1740]
Hon. C. Evans: Hon. Chair, that's one of the most intelligent questions I've ever heard, actually, and I just thought I'd put that on the record.
The minister sees all possibilities. I want to return to agriculture, because we don't at present have such a fund in the fishery. However, in agriculture there are federal-provincial cost-shared activities that take place, and sometimes there is a change. For example, the ending of the Crow resulted in a great deal of federal money flowing to the agriculture sector. In some provinces they just paid that out on a per-acreage basis. We in British Columbia created a trust fund for grain with the payment that came from the federal government to end the Crow.
In history, similar activities have taken place with potatoes and other commodities. I see in finfish aquaculture a great deal of interest in the federal government and also in universities and institutions in technological advance. So I think there might be quite a few different ways that this fund might receive funding that isn't just self-funding by industry.
Lastly, I think it's no secret that what we are attempting to do is create the strictest regulatory regime in the world -- to respond to the most extensive scientific review in the world about aquaculture. In order to accomplish that, it may require that the government of the day put money into the trust fund in order to drive research and development towards a more benign technology. I can see the Ministry of Fisheries wanting to do that, but I could also see the Ministry of Agriculture wanting to do that, or I could see ministries charged with technological development wanting to do that. So I think there are lots of opportunities for the provincial government also to flow money into the fund.
G. Plant: Over time, I suppose, the people who will watch the development of this fund with interest will be interested to see whether the minister's hopes are realized. They may, I suppose, ask themselves the question whether, in that larger context, it's appropriate that there be a sole trustee in the form of the minister as opposed to some other form of trusteeship. But the government's proposal is to make the minister the trustee of the trust fund. The minister will be the decision-maker as to how the amounts get spent, and the minister will obviously be accountable over time for the wisdom of those expenditures.
That's all the questions I have in relation to those provisions.
Sections 11 to 13 inclusive approved.
On section 14.
G. Abbott: The intent of section 14 is to add a representative of the Ministry of Energy and Mines to the list of authorities to whom the ministers may delegate issues around establishment, variation or cancellation of resource management zones or objectives. I have just a couple of questions on that.
I think what we have in the previous section, which we've just passed, is at least a modest example of regulatory streamlining. What we have in section 14 would appear, at least on the surface, to move in the other direction -- that is, adding perhaps a little bit more red tape to the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia -- in that in some instances, at least, there will now have to be reference to the Ministry of Energy and Mines through the director of the petroleum lands branch or a regional manager of Energy and Mines.
My first question is -- and the minister can craft his answer around the public policy objective of this section: is this reference to the designated official of Energy and Mines going to come into play in every instance or only where the interests of Energy and Mines are affected in the resource management zone?
Hon. A. Petter: I think the purpose of the amendment is to facilitate the participation of the Ministry of Energy and Mines in decisions that might directly or indirectly affect subsurface tenure holders -- so where there is an effect. I suppose that in the way it's drafted, it is broader than that, but that's certainly the intention -- to facilitate participation when those interests in which Energy and Mines have particular interest and responsibility for our effect.
[1745]
G. Abbott: I'm understanding from the minister that if it was abundantly clear to the designated officials in the Minis-
[ Page 17070 ]
try of Forests and/or the Ministry of Environment that the interests of the Ministry of Energy and Mines would be unaffected by the establishment, variation or cancellation of a resource management zone or objective, would the sign-off of Energy and Mines still be required? Or is that going to be required in every instance?
Hon. A. Petter: Based on the advice I'm receiving, I think the expectation is that the ministry would have to sign off on the plans. But obviously, where there is a very limited or no impact upon interest that the ministry represents, then that sign-off would be perfunctory and wouldn't require a lot of staff time and wouldn't entail the kind of resources that might require this kind of delegation. That isn't to say that the delegation wouldn't take place, but the purpose of the delegation is to try to enable the ministry to participate in those circumstances where it does have a more substantial interest.
G. Abbott: Does the government contemplate undertaking any steps to ensure that section 14 won't in fact become another cause of delay in the processing of issues under the Forest Practices Code?
Hon. A. Petter: I am informed that certainly the potential for delay is something that those who are responsible for this section are well aware of -- and every effort we make to try to avoid any delay, certainly an unnecessary delay, as a result of these provisions.
Sections 14 and 15 approved.
The Chair: Noting the hour, it would be appropriate to have a motion to recess the House until 6:45.
Hon. A. Petter: I would so move.
Motion approved.
The committee recessed from 5:49 p.m. to 6:45 p.m.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
On section 16.
Hon. A. Petter: I move the amendment to section 16 standing in my name on Orders of the Day.
On the amendment.[SECTION 16, by deleting the proposed section 68 (1) (a) of the Law and Equity Act and substituting the following:
(a) providing to parties to a court proceeding in the Supreme Court the ability to require the other parties to the proceeding to engage in mediation and setting out when and how that ability may be exercised,
(a.1) providing to parties to a court proceeding in the Provincial Court the ability to require the other parties to the proceeding to engage in mediation and setting out when and how that ability may be exercised or requiring those parties to engage in mediation,
(a.2) setting out the rights and duties that accrue to the parties to a court proceeding, the court and the mediator if mediation is required in relation to that court proceeding, and]
Hon. A. Petter: I'd like to speak to that for a second. This amendment, if passed, would give effect to a suggestion, actually, that the Attorney General critic, the member for Richmond-Steveston, made in second reading debate and that I concur with -- that is, to simply clarify that the intention of this provision is not to provide an opportunity to impose mediation on parties other than in the context of Provincial Court.
The member suggested, I think, a helpful amendment that would clarify that intention was limited to Provincial Court. In the case of the superior courts, the idea was to proceed only by way of the notice-to-mediate procedure. It also, I think, has succeeded in better paragraphing and laying out the intention of the section than its predecessor.
But in substance, the one change that's here, and I want to give full credit to the member opposite for having made the suggestion, is to clarify what in fact was the government's intention -- namely, that the notice-to-mediate procedure would be extended to new causes of action in the Supreme Court but that the opportunity to pursue mandatory mediation would be limited just to the Provincial Court.
G. Plant: The amendment does exactly what the minister says it does. I think it improves the bill by ensuring that the regulation-making power that government will acquire is consistent with its existing initiatives on the mediation front and doesn't, either inadvertently or otherwise, open up the possibility for cabinet to expand that project without either some pretty extensive consultation or, even better, coming back to the Legislature. I think that the experiments in mediation that are underway at the Provincial Court and the Supreme Court are examples of good regulatory reform in that they're undertaken with a pretty extensive consultation.
I said in second reading debate that the preliminary indications were that these projects were succeeding. I'm hoping that over time we'll get better than a preliminary indication. I think that there's a significant project underway at the University of British Columbia law faculty, under the leadership of John Hogarth, to examine mediation as a form of dispute resolution and I look forward, in the fullness of time, to the outcome of that.
I should say that when I first saw this section in its unamended form, I undertook to try and solicit the views of some friends and colleagues in the bar about mediation and about this particular provision. I won't claim that it was a particularly widespread or formal consultation. But it included a couple of people who mediate on a full-time or part-time basis, and it included at least two or three lawyers who practice civil litigation.
I was intrigued by the responses that I received, because -- notwithstanding the sense I have that the mediation projects that are made more regular, I suppose, by these amendments are generally successful -- the pretty well universal view that I got back was that it's wrong to legislate a requirement to mediate even in the limited sense of a notice to mediate, which gives one party to civil proceedings the right to trigger a mediation requirement.
[1850]
I think that in my second reading speech I probably touched on some of the principles at play here. It perhaps is inelegantly and superficially encompassed by the idea that the phrase "compulsory mediation" is an oxymoron, because the essence of mediation is voluntariness, and once you make it compulsory, then you're taking away that element of volun-
[ Page 17071 ]
tariness. I've heard some suggestion that in contexts where mediation is a requirement, it can sometimes turn into just one more hurdle you have to cross in order to finally get your day in court. In that respect, it reminded me of my own experience in the early days of practice with pretrial conferences and pretrial settlement attempts by superior court judges. But I think that the initiative here may be like those other ideas in this further respect: over time they may be tools that grow from their use, and as the bar hopefully learns to use them responsibly, they may actually improve the quality of justice and the equality of access to affordable dispute resolution for citizens. Time will tell.
I think that in each of the instances -- it's my view, anyway -- these ought to be regarded as experiments. If they don't work, we ought to have the courage to admit that in the fullness of time and either abandon them or try something else. But for now I think that it's perfectly appropriate to allow a government to have these regulation-making powers, particularly as they have been somewhat narrowed and, I think, improved by the amendment that the minister has put forward. That's an amendment that I'm happy to support.
Amendment approved.
Section 16 as amended approved.
Sections 17 and 18 approved.
G. Plant: Could we stand down sections 19 through and including 24 for a minute or so and -- while waiting for one of my colleagues to arrive, in the hope that he does arrive -- move to section 25, which is a Local Government Act provision?
Hon. A. Petter: I'd be fine with that.
On section 25.
T. Nebbeling: I have a few questions on this particular section. First of all, can the minister give me a bit of background on why, up to now, cemeteries have had tax exemptions on these particular uses of cemetery grounds? Has the minister any background and any reasons why it has been that way up to now and why today a change is justified?
[1855]
Hon. A. Petter: I think the exemption for cemeteries goes back so far and has its antecedents in such ancient history that no one here can be quite certain why. Presumably, it was bound up with the exemptions for churches and other institutions. The particular amendment here is to deal with an unintended consequence of that exemption. That is, certain profit-making institutions that happened to locate on cemetery land were adjudged by the courts to enjoy the benefit of that tax exemption, and that created an unlevel playing field between those operations and other similar operations that were not located on cemetery land.
It was never the intention to create a tax haven for non-cemetery uses on cemetery land. These amendments are designed to correct that situation without removing the exemption for cemeteries themselves, to make it clear that that exemption does not extend to some of these other purposes that have snuck into the exemption that were not intended to sneak in.
T. Nebbeling: I think the minister found out half of the reasons for it. Indeed, churches were exempt, and so were municipalities. The reason, I believe, in the past was that the cost of maintaining cemeteries was quite extensive, obviously. Private operators who just used the grounds did not have to participate in that cost. Would the minister consider that cemeteries that are run by churches and municipalities would still be exempt from this particular tax?
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, cemeteries remain exempt. If there is other basis for an exemption, as is the case of municipalities, that other basis for exemption remains intact; it isn't displaced by this. This simply makes it clear that improvements on cemeteries don't enjoy the exemption simply by virtue of the fact that they're located on the cemetery. But they may enjoy it for other reasons.
T. Nebbeling: I think one of the things that becomes clear is that the minister has done very little homework on this particular issue. Having talked to some of the organizations that are involved in running cemeteries
I would suggest to the minister that rather than moving on this bill, he should consult first with the industry so that he gets the true picture of what the financial consequences are of running a cemetery. It may well change his mind, or he may find factors that justify this particular section.
Hon. A. Petter: Believe it or not, one doesn't have to examine the ancient history of cemeteries in order to understand the need for this piece of legislation. The member may not be aware that there was a recent court ruling that held that a profit-making crematorium or the like that was located on cemetery lands would be exempt from taxation. That excited a lot of concern from municipalities and others, because it meant that improvements they had assumed were taxable -- and I think the public would assume were taxable -- were not taxable. In fact, they enjoyed a competitive advantage over similar businesses. In the case of Saanich, for example, there was one that was located not very far away, just outside of cemetery land. I believe a similar situation arose in Burnaby.
This was never intended, and the government acted with dispatch to bring this corrective amendment before the Legislature to maintain the expectation, based on the understanding of what was the status quo. It turned out not to be the status quo because of a court ruling.
So this is not something that necessitates a major consultation around a new policy -- quite the opposite. This is to prevent a new policy that has come about through court interpretation from being visited upon municipalities and creating an inequity and an unlevel playing field -- which will now be corrected, if we agree to this amendment.
[1900]
T. Nebbeling: The focus of my last question was on the lack of consultation, considering that the government is constantly claiming that they do consult with business when new
[ Page 17072 ]
sections or new amendments are made to any act that has an impact on the businesses. The minister has not given me an answer on that one.
Maybe the minister can then answer me: has there been any consultation at all? If there has been, can he tell me with which groups, which organizations and which municipalities has that consultation taken place?
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, there are three industry associations which I understand represent the industry here, and they were advised of the intention to counter the effect of the court decision and to correct the inequity that would result from it in the process of bringing it forward. I must say that I also personally had representations from municipalities, including the mayor of Saanich, that expressed grave concern. In fact, Saanich council generally expressed grave concern about the inequity that this would create not only for the municipality but for other businesses in the area that were asked to compete. So the government acted with dispatch, and thank goodness we're doing that, and we're not sitting idly by, as perhaps the opposition would, to allow this inequity to grow worse.
T. Nebbeling: The opposition is very much committed to do business together in partnership with business, and that clearly is not the case here. The minister pointed out that he had advised certain groups. Can the minister tell me which groups they were?
Hon. A. Petter: In preparing for these amendments, staff discussed the amendments with the Funeral Service Association, the Associated Independent Family Funeral Homes and Cemetery and Crematorium Association, and I understand in some cases received very favourable feedback from those organizations.
T. Nebbeling: That's actually going to be my next question then. If staff consulted, did you get in writing any feedback with the suggestions that are being made now in this amendment, and if so, would the minister share that with us?
Hon. A. Petter: Well, I understand that one of the associations did not raise concerns, having been advised. The other was supportive of the legislation; I think that was expressed verbally. The third had concerns that related to the scope of the legislation, and staff are advising that association that the legislation does not provide basis for those concerns and that in fact the scope of the legislation is narrow enough so as to guard against the broader concerns that they raised.
T. Nebbeling: My last question is: could I get the names of the associations that expressed support and the name of the organization that expressed concerns about this bill?
Hon. A. Petter: The information I have is that the Associated Independent Family Funeral Homes were verbally supportive of the legislation. The Cemetery and Crematorium Association had written concerns on the perceived scope of the legislation. Those concerns have been addressed in terms of reassuring them that the scope of the legislation does not extend into areas about which they were concerned.
T. Nebbeling: So the association of family funeral services showed support. Now this is also telling that these are the people that traditionally do not run cemeteries. They take advantage of cemeteries and by using cemeteries add cost, as well, to the operation of those who do run the cemetery grounds themselves. So I can understand why the family funeral service association is supportive, but the people that actually have to pick up the bill and pay the traditional tax clearly are opposing this or expressing concerns. I would have expected at least consideration for these concerns based on the fact that there are two different groups working in that field that have different interests, and it seems that the interest of the people that pay the bill is really not being very well served.
[1905]
Hon. A. Petter: As I say, the Cemetery and Crematorium Association's concerns were regarding the scope of the legislation, and indeed the legislation scope is such that it does not enter into areas that they were worried about. I would simply ask the member
T. Nebbeling: Well, I've noticed that in many of the answers that the minister gives to questions from this side, he always throws in this line: "I hope the member is not suggesting
The Chair: Is this on section 25?
G. Plant: Yes.
The Chair: The member for Richmond-Steveston on section 25.
G. Plant: Hon. Chair, I wanted to ask some questions to see if I can understand a bit more what's happening here. The minister talked about the changes being required because of a court decision that
I gather, if I follow the minister's logic, that it has been the pattern, for example, for years to tax these improvements. For instance, in the case of the property that was in fact the subject matter of the case that the minister refers to, if the minister's logic is right -- and I'm sure it is -- then for years and years the government has been taxing the improvements that were the subject of that proceeding. So it came as a surprise, for the first time in these proceedings, that government discovered that in fact these improvements were not taxable. Can the minister confirm that in the case of the Burnaby properties, the improvements in question have actually been taxed for years and years prior to this court decision?
[ Page 17073 ]
Hon. A. Petter: I think historically the practice has been variable. In the case of the Saanich properties certainly, particularly given the proximity of crematoria, the practice has been to tax. I think in the case of Burnaby the practice prior to the mid-nineties was not to tax, but as of the mid-nineties the practice was to impose a tax. From that point on, the expectation and understanding was that they would be taxable.
But I think the member makes a good point that in the case of Burnaby at least, the historical practice has been variable. In the case of Saanich, which I must confess I'm more familiar with, the historical practice has been, as I understand it, to tax. The expectation was that they were taxable. Indeed, the issue was, I guess, brought into relief because of the proximity of crematoria that were on and off cemetery property. So Burnaby's history is a bit more variable.
G. Plant: So we've now established that the minister's universal proposition that the improvements in question were taxable is apparently not borne out in practice by the actual experience, which I find troubling, because I'm trying to actually see if the logic of the minister's explanation of this is correct. So that gives me some concern.
[1910]
I'm actually further troubled by the fact that this doesn't appear to me to be an issue that just sprung out of nowhere. I actually think that for 30 years this issue has been very clearly established, contrary to the government, by the Court of Appeal -- a decision that was rendered in October of 1968.
Certainly I don't want to have a political debate. I saw the minister somewhere taking credit for closing a loophole in something that's been around for 30 years. It doesn't look like a loophole to me; it looks like something that's been established practice for 30 years. The assessor had another go at it in this Burnaby case and lost again. Now the government seems to be so desperate for revenue that it's prepared to overturn what looks to me
A Voice: Municipal revenue.
G. Plant: Well, I'm getting municipal whatever. It's desperate to help its municipal friends. The minister may be in fact desperate to secure his re-election in Saanich; maybe that's what this is all about. I don't know. I wasn't the one who referred to Saanich. It's curious, isn't it, that it was the minister who referred to Saanich; it happens to be his community.
A Voice: Who is the mayor of Saanich?
G. Plant: Who is that minister? Where is he representing? Why is it that he comes here amending this bill, which apparently has been the law and reflecting practice for over 30 years? What's so new about all this, when I see a Court of Appeal decision that threw the assessor out on the same point in 1968 that the Court of Appeal threw the assessor out on just a few months ago?
Hon. A. Petter: This is all very entertaining, hon. Chair. The fact is that since the mid-nineties in the case of Burnaby, and of longer-standing practice prior to that, the view was both that cemetery lands should be taxed in respect of these kinds of improvements and that, in fact, that was the legal situation. It turns out that the assumption around the legal situation was in error, as the Court of Appeal indicated, and that created a problem and a loophole. The member may not
G. Plant: It's not a loophole.
Hon. A. Petter: Well, I think it's a loophole. The member says it's not a loophole. It seems to me a loophole if you can go in and locate your crematorium on cemetery land and enjoy a tax exemption that you couldn't enjoy if you were two blocks down the road. That strikes me as a loophole, and one that doesn't make a lot of sense in policy.
Now, the court's role is not to determine whether it makes sense in policy. Their role is to determine whether it makes sense in terms of the literal and purposive reading of the section. They determine that the legislative drafters drafted it in a way that allowed for that loophole. What we're now doing is closing that loophole. The fact that I took advice from the mayor of Saanich on this is something that I think is altogether supportive of the non-partisan and constructive approach that I and other members of this government have taken to this issue.
G. Plant: Let me ask a question, which I don't know the answer to, that also relates to, I guess
It seems to me that property zoned for cemetery purposes is probably property zoned for cemetery purposes, even if it has a crematorium on part of the property. And if I were right about that, then I'd be interested in the minister's argument about the equality point. It seems to me that a person who is the private owner and operator of a cemetery that has a crematorium on it is not in fact in the same position as the person who operates a funeral parlour on Kingsway or Broadway in Vancouver. They don't have the same ability to change the use they make of the land. If that were so, it would seem to me, then, that there'd be
[1915]
Hon. A. Petter: Before I answer the member's question
The way the tax system works, you tax improvements. You don't tax based on zoning. If someone builds something and it's a non-conforming use on the property, you don't get untaxed for it or taxed down for it because the zoning that underlies it happens to be a different zoning than the one that
[ Page 17074 ]
contemplated that use. So the equity of the tax system is based upon an assessment of the improvements and the value of those improvements. The underlying zoning is really not the issue, and to the extent that the underlying designation of the land is cemetery became the issue, it in fact did create an inequity and, I would argue, a loophole. And that indeed is why we are now taking the step of correcting that loophole, which was created by the legislation as interpreted by the courts.
G. Plant: I'm confused about something. If I owned a piece of commercial property that was zoned commercially and had no improvements on it, I gather I wouldn't pay any tax because there were no improvements; taxation is totally based on improvements. Surely the land has some relevance.
Hon. A. Petter: No, the member would be taxed on his property. Here we're talking about the improvement. The cemetery here is not being taxed; it's the improvement that's being taxed. The level playing field that is being created is for those who have improvements that are analogous and profitable and for which there is not -- at least in the judgment of the government and many who have looked at this issue -- a rationale for providing a differential treatment for like improvements.
G. Plant: That's helpful. So in the case of the person who owns the commercial property and is paying tax, they'll have that burden in addition to whatever burden they had for the improvements. But in the case of the cemetery with the crematorium on it, which is the target of this amendment, the underlying land will still be protected by the cemetery exemption. It's just the improvement sitting on it that will be subject to tax.
Hon. A. Petter: That is correct.
G. Plant: I think it's going to be interesting to see how this works.
There was a discussion that happened between my colleague the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi and the minister on some concerns that had been identified with respect to the scope of the proposed amendments. I don't think we ever actually identified what those concerns were. Is this what I'll call, for want of a better term, the water fountain problem? The concern that people have expressed is that it's not going to be very easy to figure out what buildings and improvements are in fact caught by this and what aren't. But the intention is to limit the extension to the improvements that are really part of the sort of profit-making business side of the activity.
The question was raised to me: "Well, what happens if you've got a shack sitting out there in the middle of the cemetery that's a few hundred yards away from the apparently offending buildings?" but it's just a garden shack. It has a water fountain attached to it and all of that good stuff. Isn't there a risk that it might get accidentally caught by this? I wonder if that's what the minister had in mind when he talked about questions around the scope of this provision.
[1920]
Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I think one of the concerns raised was: would this mean that any building attached to a cemetery that was not directly used to provide services of the cemetery would become taxable? The answer is no. Buildings that are incidental to the cemetery but are not primarily related to funeral homes or crematoriums would not be taxable and remain not taxable.
I think the key words in the paragraph are "used primarily for the sale of cemetery services." This would capture only those facilities and premises that are incidental in a primary way to the funeral homes and crematoriums, not other facilities that are incidental to the cemetery itself. I think that clarification showed that the scope of the bill was very tightly structured around these particular facilities that are now going to be taxable, and it's not designed to capture the fountains or the shacks or whatever that are simply there and part of cemetery land.
G. Plant: One last subject I wanted to pursue has to do with the impact that this might have on cemetery-based funeral operations. The impact relates to the way in which businesses operate, usually in an integrated fashion, so that there may be a cemetery-based funeral operation that is able to provide a higher standard of maintenance and upgrade than some other facilities might be because they are in fact in a position to sell services on site. In that respect, I suppose there's a distinction between some municipally owned cemeteries, where they just aren't of the same kind and nature as some privately owned cemeteries that have been conducted as these integrated operations.
It has been suggested to me that the operators of these facilities are going to be hard-hit by this amendment, because it changes the practice and their expectations around the way their business operations work, and that in the long run it may be the people who have paid for cemetery services who suffer because of this new approach taken by the government. The minister may have an answer to that concern which will alleviate it.
Hon. A. Petter: The intention of the section and of the way it's drafted is to try to limit taxability to services that are primarily and closely related to the sale of cemetery services or funeral services. So if you have services that are add-ons to the activities of the funerals
Just a second. I'm just looking at a note here. I apologize, hon. Chair. Let me just read the note: "It is important to note that the funeral services or cemetery services do not include the sale of lots. That means, for example, that premises -- such as an office -- that are primarily used for the sale of lots and that, as add-ons, sell interment or other cemetery services would not be affected by the amendment." So what I'm trying to say is that there may be value-added activities that go on in these cemeteries, but if they're not primarily related, they do not become subject to taxation. And I think the associations that have raised these concerns have been reassured in that regard.
[1925]
G. Plant: I suppose a concern might be that an office is used for more than one purpose. So what is it that happens in that case? Is the operator going to be required to build another office?
Hon. A. Petter: No. If the office is not primarily used for these services, then it would not be taxable.
[ Page 17075 ]
G. Plant: Well, I can just see the assessors now, undertaking close and careful cross-examination of administrators sitting in those offices and asking the family members: "So what are you doing here? Are you buying a lot, or are you doing something else?" But I'm sure that's just part of the happy job of being an assessor.
The minister did say that the practice had been to tax in Burnaby, starting in the mid-nineties. But surely that's not quite right. Surely the very first time the assessor ever attempted to remove the exemption for the facilities in Burnaby, it was challenged, and it was that very challenge which created the litigation. So there's no history of taxing these facilities in Burnaby at all, is there?
Hon. A. Petter: The practice, as I understand it, as of the mid-nineties was changed in Burnaby to seek taxation. And yes, that indeed gave rise to the challenge. But from that point forward, the policy that was pursued was one that viewed these improvements as taxable. But the member is correct to say that that policy was challenged and was the subject matter of the litigation and the appeal that he and I have both referred to.
G. Plant: So in Burnaby the policy changed, and the result of the policy change was to seek to remove the exemption from the facilities. That would have happened in the 1997 roll year, because prior to the 1997 roll year 100 percent of both properties was exempted from taxation. It was something that Burnaby tried to do for the 1997 roll year, and it was that that led directly to the litigation that has caused the government to change the statute.
Hon. A. Petter: Yes. I believe the policy was changed in '96 and was then made to apply, as the member indicates, for the '97 year.
G. Plant: I just want to be clear about this. So Burnaby was different from Saanich? In Saanich, all along, the city was taxing the privately owned facility. Presumably it was taxing only the improvements that were regarded as the offending activities on the land. Is that right?
Hon. A. Petter: That's my understanding, yes, hon. Chair.
Sections 25 and 26 approved.
The Chair: Back to 19 and 19 to 24.
G. Plant: I think we can go back to 19.
The Chair: We had stood down 19 to 24 inclusive.
On section 19.
B. Penner: I wonder if the minister can tell us what the purpose is behind section 19.
[1930]
Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, last year in Bill 80 there was provision for the imposition of fees, but it was bound up in a larger scheme that has not yet been proclaimed. As part of the Surich process and the reforms coming out of it, it has been the intention to allow this power to reside with local government to impose fees in order to raise funds for the purposes of liquor licensing and the like -- liquor control licensing. This provision simply provides what Bill 80 was intended to provide but hasn't yet done so.
B. Penner: I see the minister is rather choked up -- and so are we. [Laughter.]
Time and time again we see that the government rushes legislation through the House only to come back the next year seeking amendments because they hadn't properly thought about the bills they had put before us for approval. We seem to have encountered another example here. The minister says that there's a problem in Bill 80, and certain parts of that have not been proclaimed. I wonder if the minister can explain to me what the problem is in Bill 80 that necessitates it coming before us again in this bill, particularly in section 19.
Hon. A. Petter: I think the member is aware -- at least I know it's been discussed in estimates debates, including my own -- that changes coming out of the Surich report are being phased in over a three-year time frame in order to allow for an orderly transition to a new and better regulatory regime, one which I think has been well received.
This particular change is one that is necessitated now in that rollout, but the way Bill 80 was structured it's difficult to proceed with this without proceeding with other elements. What this legislation does is it simply separate this out and allow us to proceed with it at this time.
B. Penner: It seems to me that that should have been contemplated before Bill 80 was drafted.
Nevertheless, I wonder if the minister can tell me if the municipal fees contemplated in this section would be an addition to provincial fees levied by the liquor control and licensing branch. Stated differently, will the LCLB stop levying fees for these types of applications when this section comes into force, if it comes into force?
Hon. A. Petter: No, this is a separate fee designed to offset local governments' costs in assessing applications.
B. Penner: So I have it correctly, then, from the minister that the intention is to continue collecting the existing fees by the LCLB for the licensing process?
Hon. A. Petter: This does not affect the fees collected by the LCLB. This is to enable municipal government to do the evaluation process that's expected of it and to cost-recover for that function.
Section 19 approved on division.
Section 20 approved.
On section 21.
B. Penner: What section 21 purports to do is prohibit somebody from holding both a U-Brew licence and any other specified licence pursuant to our liquor statutes in British
[ Page 17076 ]
Columbia. I wonder if the minister can tell us what problem we're attempting to solve with section 21. Is the ministry experiencing some difficulty with people holding dual licences?
Hon. A. Petter: It's designed to guard against a tied relationship between U-Brews and breweries that could give an advantage to breweries by having an ownership structure that included U-Brews or, conversely, to in any way compromise the operation of U-Brews by having them influenced by the interests of breweries. These are distinct operations, and the feeling was the U-Brews should not be run in a way that would be influenced by or given advantage to breweries.
[1935]
B. Penner: The amendment put forward in section 21 states that those people who have dual licences issued to them prior to April 1, 2000, will be allowed to continue to have those licences. But I guess what the Legislature is being asked to do here is to close the barn door for those people after April 1. Can the minister tell us if he's aware of any applications that are currently in process after April 1, 2000, which will be cut off by this provision if it's approved and proclaimed?
Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed that there's been one inquiry recently from an individual who was interested in establishing a brewery in association with a U-brew. But that's the only one that I'm aware of.
B. Penner: I wonder if the minister could tell us, in the event someone has been acting in good faith and has spent thousands of dollars of their own money pursuing this type of licensing, if there is any form of grandfathering contemplated by the ministry. In other words, if a person has been acting in good faith under the existing regulations in pursuing another licence, will they be treated outside of this provision? Will they be allowed to proceed with their application and have it weighed on the merits?
Hon. A. Petter: Well, this recommendation comes out of the Surich process. It's been made public and communicated to the industry associations for over a year, that we intended to implement Surich and, in particular, the tied house prohibitions. The kind of prejudice the member is referring to is not one that could arise, because of the information that has been well known for some time.
B. Penner: So I take that as the minister saying: "No, there won't be any grandfathering treatment for applications currently in the pipeline."
Hon. A. Petter: What the minister is saying is that from the moment that we were aware of this recommendation, we have made no secret of our intention to proceed on it. We communicated that to industry associations. And therefore no one could have been prejudiced, except for the fact that they may have not done adequate research. Certainly the government would have given no one any encouragement to proceed in this regard, because of the clear policy. So there is no basis on which compensation could be provided, given the clarity of the government's position and the recommendations from the Surich process.
B. Penner: If the minister thinks the public should have been aware, would he also agree that his own staff should have been aware and not been discussing this form of licensing arrangement with private sector individuals right up to the end of March of this year?
Hon. A. Petter: Well, I expect staff to talk to anyone who contacts the branch and wants to explore opportunities. But I think the policy is one that this individual and the ministry have been well aware of.
B. Penner: Well, we'll see. I'm led to believe that at least one business in British Columbia feels that they were led down the garden path by staff in the LCLB and encouraged to submit an application, and spent thousands of dollars getting themselves in a position to be approved, only to be told that they should have known better than to take the ministry's staff at their word. We'll see where this goes. I suspect that this is not the end of the matter.
[1940]
Sections 21 and 22 approved.
Section 23 approved on division.
Section 24 approved.
On section 26.
G. Plant: Section 26 of Bill 24 makes some changes to the Local Government Act. In particular, these changes will provide "local governments with the authority to seize, impound and apply for the destruction of dangerous dogs." Later in this bill, in section 68, similar changes will be made to the Vancouver Charter. I'd just like to take this opportunity on behalf of the official opposition to publicly record our support for these provisions.
The Chair: Does section 26 pass?
Sections 26 and 27 approved.
The Chair: Hon. member for Richmond-Steveston on section 28?
G. Plant: No. But, hon. Chair, we can proceed to section 43.
Sections 28 to 42 inclusive approved.
On section 43.
G. Plant: Sections 43 through to section 55 make changes to the Residential Tenancy Act. To borrow a phrase that my colleague the member for Shuswap often uses, these provisions appear to be largely beneficent in their character.
But when is the government going to keep its promise and revise the whole act? Why do we have to come back every year for little bits and pieces of a statute
[ Page 17077 ]
wholesale rewrite of the Residential Tenancy Act, and every year the government, the Attorney General, stands up and says: "Oh. It's right there. It's on the corner of my desk. I've got it in hand. We're going to do it. It's a really important thing. I recognize that the landlords want it; the tenants want it; everyone wants it." Yet it never seems to happen.
Before I decide whether or not I personally can support any one of these individual little changes, some of which are probably going to be pretty important, I wonder if the minister is able to put this little bit of nickel-and-diming into the larger context and explain why it is that the government seems to lack a political will to do what everybody in the landlord and tenant community wants it to do and what the government itself has said it will do.
Hon. A. Petter: Apparently the member hasn't given up. I thought he said he'd give it up; but he hasn't given up. Never give up.
I've only been in this portfolio for about four months, and I haven't quite finished my wholesale redrafting of the act. I hope the member gives me a few more weeks to work on it.
A Voice: What did the other guy do?
Hon. A. Petter: I should ask him about that.
I think the fact is that there have been some major changes made to the act in recent years. I take it that the focus has been on trying to deal with some of the particular outstanding issues that could be addressed, and there are some important ones here again. The effort of trying to bring it all together into a new comprehensive legislative package is one that obviously entails a lot of time and resources.
In a matter of assigning priority, the priority has been given to try and resolve some of the outstanding issues in better protecting the rights and interests of landlords and tenants rather than doing the comprehensive rewrite. However, I agree with the member that it would be desirable. I will certainly follow up on his suggestion, now that I'm more aware of it.
[1945]
Sections 43 to 68 inclusive approved.
On section 69.
Hon. A. Petter: I would like to suggest -- and I can get some help from the Chair as to how to do this procedurally -- to stand down section 69, and if that's okay, then to move that the committee rise, report progress.
A Voice: You do the rest.
Hon. A. Petter: Oh, there's more to do. I see. I've got you. Well, should we do the title? Maybe we should do the title.
A Voice: No, no.
Hon. A. Petter: No? Okay.
I think I've got this right now, hon. Chair. I would then move that, when the committee rises, it report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee recessed from 7:48 p.m. to 7:55 p.m.
AGRI-FOOD CHOICE AND QUALITY ACT
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section A) on Bill 26; D. Streifel in the chair.
On section 1.
B. Barisoff: Where the word "food" is stated, does this mean wine, beer and spirits?
Hon. C. Evans: Yes.
B. Barisoff: That's fine.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
B. Barisoff: If I could beg the indulgence of the minister, some of this I'm going to
But in section 2, have regulatory impact policies or studies been done on this section at all?
Hon. C. Evans: Yes.
B. Barisoff: The legislation appears to expand the current production practices provisions of the current Food Choice and Disclosure Act to also include non-food items and content to the end product. The minister, however, states in the new legislation: "
Hon. C. Evans: Sure. Suppose that some segment of the orchard industry -- say, people who produce plums -- decided to produce them in a pesticide-free fashion and wish to be certified as having done so. Then they might apply, go through a process, see if it's all real and see if they can effect the certification in an honest way, in an efficient way. Then they might be certified to that effect.
B. Barisoff: Could the minister give assurances that the federal and provincial legislation and regulations, specifically the Natural Products Marketing (BC) Act, take precedence over the legislation and that producers cannot use the process of certification to avoid producer outside regulated marketing requirements, where they apply?
Hon. C. Evans: Yes. The concern, that the hon. member's question might be the case, was, I think, the focal point of industry concerns expressed in 1999. I'm happy to say that consultation with producer groups and also legal consultations in the meantime have given us full assurance, and I think that all of the industry thinks so too.
B. Barisoff: Can the minister give confirmation that certification will not be provided to anybody in contravention of marketing regulations?
Hon. C. Evans: Yes, but I would like the hon. member to keep in mind that those regulations are pretty much the government's purview and are subject to change over time.
[ Page 17078 ]
B. Barisoff: There are some concerns about the proliferation of certification that may lead to confusion and negative advertising. Can the minister explain whether that would happen or how he could see avoiding that situation?
Hon. C. Evans: Yes, I've heard that concern too. Some people say that in a marketplace in Europe there are too many different kinds of organic, natural, wonderful, friendly, bio, blah blah -- different kinds of products. They're all labeled that way, and consumers are confused. I guess I would like the hon. member to accept that part of what we're trying to do is to avoid confusion in the marketplace. What we are aiming for is a limited number of certifiable labels that the public can trust. Of course, people can call their product anything they want. But a few products in the marketplace will be certified that they are what they say they are, and I hope that it reduces the opportunity for confusion.
[2000]
Also, that level of confusion already exists to some extent. We all know that all different kinds of marketing take place out there. People call food pretty much anything they want. Only one kind of food is certifiable in British Columbia, so there's only one kind of food that we actually back up that it is what it says it is.
Lastly, the hon. member suggests that there is some possibility that this would lead to negative advertising. We have had certified organic food in the marketplace for -- I don't know how long
A Voice: Nine years.
Hon. C. Evans:
B. Barisoff: That would lead me to the question, then: we already have existing legislation that provides for certification, so what is the need for this new legislation? What are the gaps and shortcomings that were there in the existing legislation that required you to introduce the new legislation?
Hon. C. Evans: The present legislation says that there will be certification of organic food and how that certification will take place. It's proscriptive; I think it's the word. In other words, we just say one kind of food that you can label.
There are lots of people who produce all kinds of wonderful products that aren't organic and don't aspire to be organic. For example, what if beef producers said: "We would like to produce hormone-free beef"? What if milk producers wanted to say: "We'll produce rBST-free milk"? What if milk producers or lamb producers wanted to say: "We'll produce grass-fed milk or lamb"? The numbers of options are almost limitless. And none of those people, right now, have the capacity to say what they are and to have it be certified.
B. Barisoff: I understand that the minister is going to be establishing an advisory body for this process. Could the minister comment on his view of the mandate of that group? What will be the role of the industry in continued development of regulations and the infrastructure to support this legislative initiative?
Hon. C. Evans: Really, it's to advise myself or the ministry or future ministers how we do the certifications. We want to make sure that none of the issues that the hon. member raises, which are bang on in terms of people's fears, ever come to take place. Ergo, nothing that is certified results in negative information about somebody else's product.
We don't create confusion in the marketplace. The people that come to us and ask for some kind of certification are what they say they are. They have a regulatory regime that can prove that they are what they are, and they have a way to do inspections. So there's some assurance that the minister is not just sitting and having an industry group with a vested interest coming to the minister making a case, and the minister accepts their word without a group of advisers assisting him to filter out the wheat from the chaff, as it were.
B. Barisoff: I've got a note from the FarmFolk/CityFolk that they are concerned in the total implementation of this bill and how it is going to be implemented. Their concerns are more almost like the truth in advertising kind of thing. Could the minister just elaborate on how he plans to implement this entire bill?
Hon. C. Evans: I think that I too have heard the FarmFolk/CityFolk concerns. They're a real credible group, in that they are, as their name implies, farm folk and city folk. In other words, they have a membership that has food consumers and food producers in it, and I appreciate their input. I don't know of any other group that brings together people with a food interest, whether they be farming or feeding their families.
Having said that, their concern, it seems to me, is mostly on the confusion side. They like the present situation where there is only one kind of food that can be certified in British Columbia, and that's organic food. I think they think that having any other food certified in the marketplace might water down that one certification.
[2005]
I don't have that fear, and neither does the COABC, the Certified Organic Associations of B.C. I even feel that it's the tiniest bit -- and I don't want to say this about FarmFolk/CityFolk -- the idea is, a little bit elitist: there are some people who have really good stuff, and nobody else should be certified. So we are trying to work through their concerns with FarmFolk/CityFolk. I certainly think they're a good, credible bunch of people who are doing good work, and I don't want to denigrate their point of view. I don't agree with it.
B. Barisoff: With the minister's comment about people being elitist, I guess that's where the fear of the negative advertising comes in. The B.C. Agriculture Council is concerned about the fact that if we get into this, are we creating more regulations that
Hon. C. Evans: How can we be creating regulations if government isn't regulating? Government here isn't regulating. We aren't saying what somebody has to do to produce food. We are saying that if you choose to produce food all on your own, in a way chosen by yourself and certifiable by yourself, and auditable by the government, we'll simply put the government's stamp of approval on it. The hon. member's question makes no sense to me.
[ Page 17079 ]
B. Barisoff: If we move through the sections, and when we get to the "Appointment of inspectors," that, to me, is the part where I feel that we're creating more regulation, because the minister is able to appoint. It says right there on the second line: "The minister may appoint persons, or persons within a class, to be inspectors." So on one side the minister is saying this is voluntary, and on the other side we're saying in the bill that the minister may appoint inspectors. So, to me, that creates more regulation.
Hon. C. Evans: That's a really good question. Here's how it works. We don't have any inspectors. We certify organics right now. Go to the store at Thrifty's; they've got it right there on the shelf. We have zero inspectors. What we do is that we have a regime of what organics are that we agree upon with the organic association, and they have a series of inspectors -- inspecting themselves -- to make sure that everybody who calls themselves that are doing what they say.
We have just an audit function to see to it that the process is honest. There are no government inspectors who are going to go on anybody's farm and check up on what they do to see if it's real -- unless someday there is an organization that has become certified, and their own inspectors are thought to be not behaving in an honest way. Then we'll audit the process. But there is no regulatory regime, and there are no regulators that will come with this legislation.
The Chair: Just a clarification, hon. member, for the Chair. Are we doing section 4? Did we pass 2 and 3?
B. Barisoff: I thought that by agreement we were going to kind of just do the entire bill. Then when we're done, we'll just pass the entire sections. Do you want to do two? We can just do them section by section.
The Chair: No, the Chair's in the hands of the committee. It appears a bit unusual and maybe difficult to manage, but if the committee wishes to do the whole bill and then pass all 13 sections, then we'll see how it works.
Hon. C. Evans: You're right. We didn't have an agreement. However, the hon. member and I did, and you didn't know because I just nodded. But what I would like to suggest is that we try it for 15 minutes. The hon. member is correct in that his questions tend to hit on different sections, and the philosophical intent and stuff like that are wrapped all through the bill. So maybe this way he can just ask all his questions. Then we'll be done, and we'll pass the whole bill. If it doesn't work in 15 minutes, then I would suggest we try something else.
The Chair: The hon. member for Okanagan-Boundary in 15 minutes, or something, on whatever section you choose.
B. Barisoff: If you listen, it will work in 15 minutes. Actually, in section 11, where it has the power to make regulations
Hon. C. Evans: We haven't done a regulatory impact on any individual section, but we have on the entire bill.
[2010]
V. Roddick: I was wondering if I could have come clarification. B.C. certified -- is this to be applied just like Canada No. 1 or Canada fancy? And is it on imported food, or are we dealing only with B.C.-produced food?
Hon. C. Evans: There are two parts to the question, and as I understand the hon. member, the first part of the question -- is it going to be like Canada's grade No. 1 or something
I want to repeat the example that I have. At present we have only one certifiable product in the marketplace, and that is the Certified Organic Associations of British Columbia. However, the ten provinces all have some kind of organics, but they have yet to have a unified Canadian position. So each province says, at present, what is organic in its own province. I hope that they're going to move to a national position, but they haven't yet.
With one of the examples I was using with the hon. member
In terms of your second question on whether or not this would apply only to product produced in British Columbia, it is true that we are intending to grow the industry in British Columbia, and I really don't care about something produced in the state of Washington. However, suppose you were growing herbs for the Vancouver market and you wished to certify them, and in January and February you couldn't supply the market. You might import a certifiable product to mix in with your own production in order to service the restaurant industry in Vancouver in January and February. But we are not passing this legislation with the intent that it certify products from any other province or country; nor can I imagine a situation where any producers except British Columbia producers would come to the government and ask to be certified.
V. Roddick: All right. So the ministry will allow international imports to come in under the B.C. certified label. Is that what you're actually saying? It's filling a niche -- i.e., they've run out. But still, that needs to be clarified.
Hon. C. Evans: It's a question which I have to admit I have never turned my mind to. It's difficult for me to imagine how we would certify a product produced in another country, since there would be no inspection regime. However, I can imagine that someday there might be some reason, which I can't fathom at present, why somebody might wish to mix in an imported food product with their own -- say, in a processed product like
All I'm saying is that I don't see where the regulation precludes it, but it would require some solution to the inspection question, which I cannot imagine at present how it would work.
V. Roddick: Well, that brings me to my next question: is this inspection that you're referring to
[ Page 17080 ]
tioned the fact that this is going to be a voluntary inspection. Is it going to be possible to use the inspectors that the Ministry of Agriculture already has on staff?
[2015]
Hon. C. Evans: It is only intended that ministry staff be used in an oversight role or an auditing role. It is not intended that ministry staff be the inspection body.
As I was referring to the earlier question
V. Roddick: In other words, there will be some method of utilizing the inspectors that are attached to the ministry. They will be involved? Even at a minimal amount, they still will be involved; there will be some control.
Hon. C. Evans: The act allows for the use of third parties. The act allows for the use of ministry staff. As the hon. member I think correctly discerned, that would be in a case of it being necessary to inspect and see that the process is working as we certify.
B. Barisoff: In section 11, it has the power to make regulations. Of course that comes to my whole argument about the regulatory impacts. In subsection 2(a) it says "prescribing quality standards
Hon. C. Evans: Yes, I will. But I'm going to have to go back to the example of organics again. We did not invent the regulations of what defines organic production in British Columbia. In fact, if we did -- if I did -- some of them might be different. They are brought to us by the Certified Organic Associations of British Columbia. They decide what their rules are. If they have a national standard across Canada, they will probably change, and the industry itself will decide what defines organic. Then they come to me and say: "Our organization has defined that these are the rules for what defines our product." Then we adopt their rules solely for their use, labelling their product, and it becomes a regulation called certified organic.
Now if the plum industry was to come, in the example I used earlier, and say: "Here are the rules for growing plums without use of pesticides
There's no intention in this legislation that the government invent regulations other than the health and safety regulations we presently have. There is no intent that a regulatory regime be created by the government -- only adopted if the industry voluntarily, all on its own, comes forward and says: "This is good for our markets."
B. Barisoff: Then I can make the assumption that (b) and (c) would be the same, that practice standards and setting fees would fall under the same guidelines.
I've got a couple more questions. Could the minister indicate what he would envision the costs would be for someone to get certification label type of thing?
Hon. C. Evans: No, I don't. The reason I don't is that it is possible to fathom very large, very expensive systems to set up and very inexpensive systems to set up. It is our hope that if anybody wanted to set up a very large system, since they will be absorbing most of the cost they would decide not to, or it would be to create a product that had a great value. Going back to the organics case, people pay a registration fee and an inspection fee to be organic. We don't pay to register them or to inspect them.
B. Barisoff: The minister has indicated or the B.C. Ag Council has indicated that there is a memorandum of understanding that's going to come together with the ministry and the Ag Council over this bill. Could the minister indicate what's in that memorandum of understanding and when that will be done?
[2020]
Hon. C. Evans: The memorandum of understanding is essentially agreed upon. They are considering a few items, and I expect the memorandum to be signed shortly after this bill is passed, which I hope happens soon. So that would be in the next few weeks.
What is in the agreement
B. Barisoff: Thank you to the minister. The reason I ask that question is that I just don't want to be coming back here six months from now, or the fall sitting, and have to ask the same question of the minister. I'm getting the impression that the minister says this will be done in
The Chair: Do sections 2 through 13 pass?
Sections 2 to 13 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. C. Evans: I move that when we rise, we report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The Chair: Just a five-minute recess till I wait for the minister to come.
The committee recessed from 8:24 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2000
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section A) on Bill 18; D. Streifel in the chair.
[ Page 17081 ]
On section 1.
G. Farrell-Collins: Sections 1 through 7 are the sections that create the formula for the calculation of corporate capital tax to a foreign bank. Can the minister tell us why this legislation was required? What was in place prior to this, and what is the demand?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Prior to the June '99 federal enactment to the Canadian Bank Act, the only way that foreign banks could offer specified services in Canada, as I understand it, was through setting up a separate Canadian subsidiary. What the federal act did
The June '99 amendments to the Bank Act of Canada therefore allowed foreign banks to offer specified services through branches of the foreign entity rather than setting up a separate Canadian subsidiary. That had implications, then, for how the province administered corporation capital tax on banks. As the member says, what sections 1 through 7 do is establish the treatment of such branches under corporation capital tax.
Sections 1 through 7 inclusive approved.
On section 8.
G. Farrell-Collins: Sections 8, 9 and 10 deal with the way the government is going to monitor capital projects. This is, I think, one of the ongoing creations of the pillars of
A Voice: The seven pillars of Hercules.
G. Farrell-Collins: The seven pillars of wisdom. We'll wait and see what the minister has to say.
But these two sections, as I mentioned in second reading, create some provisions. Section 8 creates a new 4.1 under the Financial Administration Act, which requires "government and government bodies to have the approval of Treasury Board or its delegate before making commitments to capital expenditures" and establishes requirements, etc., etc. Can the minister tell us why those provisions were not in place before? It seems to me something that one would just assume was what Treasury Board did. I always thought, when we heard that a project had gone to Treasury Board, that this is exactly what was happening at that time. Perhaps the minister can tell us what was happening.
Hon. P. Ramsey: What the Deloitte study said to us was that these provisions to the Financial Administration Act and the Financial Information Act should be enacted to ensure consistency of application of Treasury Board policy and information across the broad public sector, which is now captured by summary accounts.
[2035]
What the Deloitte study found was that while many of these provisions -- I would say almost all of them -- are in place with consistency across social capital ministries within government, the lines of authority were not as clear as Deloitte wished them to be or thought government would wish them to be because of separate legislation that some Crown corporations operate under, given that under summary accounts we're now responsible on that basis for all operating expenses of Crowns. Furthermore, we are binding Crowns to do things like table in advance business cases for a $50 million capital project at the time a commitment is made, and do these other things.
So the proposed amendments, far from saying that none of this was apparent anywhere in Treasury Board operations or government operations, was saying -- I think, with some force -- that given that we now had a summary account and given that we are now capturing entities that had separate legislation and boards of directors, it would be wise to ensure that Treasury Board directives and requests for information are applicable across the broad public sector by amending these pieces of legislation and ensuring that these provisions have paramountcy over other legislation.
G. Farrell-Collins: If I can have the indulgence of the Chair. Sections 8, 9 and 10 all sort of deal with this same issue, so if the minister is amenable, I would just like to ask a couple of questions that deal with them all together.
One is the Financial Administration Act; one is the Financial Information Act. If you peek ahead -- and I don't know why it's in section 13 of the bill -- section 13 of this bill is the one that adds this section 4.1 of the Financial Administration Act -- which we're talking about right now -- which is section 8, and requires B.C. Hydro to comply with this new section.
Now, my understanding is that the Financial Administration Act and the Financial Information Act are required to comply with them as set out in a schedule and that Hydro is part of those schedules. I don't have the Financial Administration Act in front of me, but I do have the Financial Information Act. And on the schedule, B.C. Hydro is certainly there as part of the schedule -- schedule 1. I'm wondering why we require the separate section in this bill to make section 8 or 4.1 apply to Hydro. Why specifically Hydro and not all the rest of them? Was it omitted from the schedule previously?
Hon. P. Ramsey: You're on exactly the right track. This is consequential to the earlier sections that we were discussing -- 8 and 9. The reason is this: section 32(1) of the Hydro and Power Authority Act states that that authority is not bound by the provisions of any other act unless expressly provided for in the act -- meaning the Hydro and Power Authority Act. Therefore section 13 inserts the material we've been talking about in sections 8 and 9 into the Hydro act.
Sections 8 to 13 inclusive approved.
On section 14.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I move the amendment to section 14 that I believe is in the possession of the Clerk.
[SECTION 14, by adding the following to the proposed Part 7 of the Income Tax Act:
No credit available for year in which section 17 deduction made
108.1 A corporation that has made a deduction in accordance with section 17 for a taxation year may not add any amount under section 105 (2) (a) to (e) in respect of that taxation year.]
[ Page 17082 ]
On the amendment.
The Chair: Does the amendment pass?
G. Farrell-Collins: Dare I ask what it's for?
Hon. P. Ramsey: If you want to.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm almost afraid to, but I'll ask the minister what the purpose of the amendment is.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The House amendment ensures that corporations that claim the small business tax holiday of, I believe, two years cannot also claim the M and P tax credit. This is consistent, then. It is trying to make that consistent with the treatment of other B.C. tax credits, including the mining exploration tax credit and so on. It simply makes this consistent with those other tax credits.
G. Farrell-Collins: That's the end of my questions. I want to thank the minister and particularly his staff for the
Amendment approved.
Section 14 as amended approved.
The Chair: Does the title pass? Is that it? I think that's
[2040]
Hon. P. Ramsey: No, no. We've got one more section, I'm sure. I think we have a section 15 at the back there. Yeah.
The Chair: My apologies, committee. Does section 15 pass?
Section 15 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 8:42 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada