2001 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 2001
Morning Sitting
Volume 22, Number 11
[ Page 17511 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
Introduction of Bills
B.C. HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY
ANTI DEREGULATION AND
REFERENDUM ACT
R. Kasper presented a bill intituled B.C. Hydro and Power Authority Anti Deregulation and Referendum Act.
[1005]
R. Kasper: Whereas the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority has been a fundamental part of the economic development of British Columbia over the past 40 years, and whereas B.C. citizens do not want to end up like their California neighbours as victims of a deregulated electrical marketplace, this bill sets out that it will formally acknowledge that the corporation is owned by shareholders, qualified electors, and that as such, shareholders have direct input on matters of privatization and deregulation of the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority.
Before the privatization and deregulation of power generation and transmission and distribution components of B.C. Hydro and Power Authority be considered by government, at least 10 percent of the B.C. Hydro shareholders must initiate a request for privatization and/or deregulation of said components of the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority. Once a successful initiative has been accomplished, a referendum must then be held under the Referendum Act.
Bill M205 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.
Orders of the Day
Hon. G. Janssen: I call second reading of Bill 3.
INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 2001
(second reading)
Hon. P. Ramsey: I move that Bill 3 be read a second time.
Bill 3 reflects our ongoing commitment to small business and families. It amends the Income Tax Act to implement two previously announced measures. First, as announced last August, effective January 1, 2001, the small business corporate income tax rate is cut to 4.5 percent. This is the fourth cut in the last two years; it lowers the small business rate by 50 percent since July 1998. The latest cut fulfils a promise the Premier made to have the lowest small business tax rate in Canada. It also recognizes the need to encourage small businesses to ensure their continued contribution to economic growth and job creation in our province.
The second measure addresses the high energy prices that have both contributed to government revenues and helped us make major new commitments in health care and education. But those same high energy costs have also been difficult for many British Columbia families. That's why, in February of this year, the Premier and I announced a five-point energy rebate and conservation package, including an energy rebate for low- and modest-income B.C. families, a $200 credit on the electricity bills of all B.C. residential customers, enhancements to B.C. Hydro's Power Smart program, the continuation of the green buildings B.C. program and grants to British Columbia's public schools, hospitals, colleges and universities.
Hon. Speaker, Bill 3 implements the income-tested energy rebate for those British Columbia families that are least able to cope with high energy costs. The amendments in Bill 3 will allow the rebate to be administered through the federal income tax system. In this way the rebate can be delivered quickly and at a low cost. There's no need for families to apply. Families that meet the eligibility requirements as outlined in the amendments will automatically receive the energy rebate at the end of April. For example, a single parent with an income of $30,000 will receive $100.
Some have criticized the design and administration of the program, because they believe it provides rebates to certain people who shouldn't be eligible. While I agree it is not perfect, and while we are also making efforts to ensure that as few cheques as possible go to people who -- I think most of you agree -- shouldn't get them, I remain convinced that using the CCRA to administer the rebate program is the best way to ensure that people get the money into their hands quickly and efficiently. Any of the alternatives that were contemplated for delivering the program were slow and far more expensive.
[1010]
G. Farrell-Collins: I don't intend to take more than just a minute or so on this bill. We're supportive of the two provisions, both the targeted low-income rebate for energy costs in this fiscal year and the income tax rate reduction for small businesses, which is a marginal change but does keep B.C. at the lowest end of the income tax rate. We support that as well. I will have some questions about the implementation of the low-income rebate for energy as contained in this one section of the bill, and I'll do that in committee stage.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the member for his comments. I move second reading of Bill 3.
Motion approved.
Bill 3, Income Tax Amendment Act, 2001, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I call second reading of Bill 4.
BUDGET MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2001
(second reading)
Hon. P. Ramsey: I move that Bill 4 be now read a second time.
Bill 4 amends 12 provincial statutes to implement the measures contained in Budget 2001. The amendments to provincial taxation statutes reflect our commitment to continuously streamlining and improving the administration of the provincial tax system.
[ Page 17512 ]
The Income Tax Act is amended to, first, maintain administrative and legislative consistency with the federal Income Tax Act; second, clarify various provisions related to the introduction of tax-on-income approach which we introduced last year for calculating personal income tax; third, allow early payment of income tax refunds for certain corporate tax credits; fourth, introduce technical changes to improve the administration of B.C.'s film tax credit.
The Income Tax Act is also amended to define taxpayer information and clarify under what circumstances the government may release taxpayer information to allow the collection and sharing of certain information between government ministries to assist in administering various provincial tax credit programs.
It is important to all of us that we ensure that taxpayer information is collected and used only when absolutely necessary. That is why I insisted that consultations take place with the office of the information and privacy commissioner before these amendments were drafted and introduced. The office of the commissioner has received and supports the proposed changes.
There are also three minor changes to the Social Service Tax Act which are designed to streamline administrative requirements and to help businesses compete.
Next, the Taxation (Rural Area) Act and the Home Owner Grant Act are amended to allow the government to offer two new services, early homeowner grant application and rural area property tax instalment plans, perhaps as early as the 2002 tax year.
The balance of Bill 4 measures are relatively minor technical amendments to improve the clarity, certainty and enforcement of various tax statutes. I would anticipate discussing these matters during committee debate.
There are also two non-tax measures in Bill 4. First, the Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act is amended to add $2 million to the First Citizens Fund special account effective April 1, 2001. This special account provides financial assistance through loan guarantees and government transfers to members of first nations who are resident in British Columbia.
Bill 4 also includes a technical amendment to the Financial Administration Act to clarify language with respect to amortization of prepaid capital advances.
[1015]
G. Farrell-Collins: I, again, don't have a great deal to say about this piece of legislation that's before us. Normally, budget measures implementation acts sit on the order paper for a period of time to give people the opportunity to comment on them. They're generally brought up later, introduced in the beginning of the session, and debated and passed towards the end of the session. That's generally to try and head off any concerns they may raise in the general public. That obviously won't be the case with this legislation, because the Legislature is probably only sitting for a few weeks, although it may only sit for a few more days. Who knows?
In keeping with the comments of the Leader of the Opposition earlier in the session, the opposition, given in particular the speed with which this legislation will go through the House, reserves the right to amend, suspend or repeal in the event that there's a change in government after the next election. I do have questions in committee stage that I'll be asking the minister. We'll have some comments on that as well.
I also want to draw attention to the fact that there are no personal income tax reductions in this year's budget. They would normally be contained in either a separate act or a budget measures implementation act such as this. That is certainly something that British Columbians are looking for. It's not contained in this legislation; it's not part of the government's agenda. If I recall correctly, the Premier's new motto is: "If you're looking for personal income tax reductions, I'm not your man." Certainly this legislation reflects that, and I expect that the public is now fully aware of the government's position on that issue. So without taking things too much further, there will be some questions that I hope to ask in committee stage to clarify a number of the sections; but other than that, I'm comfortable with the legislation.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the member opposite for his comments. I look forward to discussing with him some of the technicalities of the measures contained here. As with much taxation legislation, there are details that are at times complex. I look forward to discussing them with him, with the assistance of staff. I would say the member is quite right in his observation that this bill does not contain dramatic tax cuts. The Premier has made it clear. I think that was his word -- "dramatic" tax cuts. He is not the man. This bill reflects government's priorities to put its focus elsewhere in Budget 2001.
Hon. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 4.
Motion approved.
Bill 4, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2001, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
DEBATE ON SUPPLEMENTARY
BUDGET ESTIMATES
Hon. P. Ramsey presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act, 2000-2001 (Supplementary No. 3).
Hon. P. Ramsey moved that the said message and the supplementary estimates No. 3 accompanying the same be referred to Committee of Supply.
Motion approved.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I call for Committee of Supply.
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps we could recess for a few moments and have the bill circulated, as members of the opposition haven't seen it.
The Speaker: That's agreed. We'll have a short recess while the bill is circulated.
The House recessed from 10:20 a.m. to 10:52 a.m.
The House in Committee of Supply; D. Streifel in the chair.
[ Page 17513 ]
The Chair: I call the committee to order. I recognize the Government House Leader.
Hon. G. Janssen: A little procedural glitch this morning. I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Interjections.
The Chair: Actually, members, we shouldn't debate in the middle of a motion where the progress was back and forth from office to table here. The motion before you is to rise and report progress.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
D. Streifel: The committee rises, reports progress and asks leave to sit again.
The Speaker: When shall the committee sit again?
Hon. G. Janssen: Later today -- when we find the paper.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Janssen: I call committee on Bill 2.
CHILD CARE BC ACT
The House in committee on Bill 2; D. Streifel in the chair.
R. Kasper: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
R. Kasper: Visiting us today from my constituency are grades 4, 5 and 6 students from Bench Elementary in Cobble Hill. They're studying government in their classroom and have travelled down here to Victoria to see how government works. As they probably noted, for the past 20 minutes not very much happened. They're joined by a number of parents accompanying them today, and their teachers' names are Ms. Koers and Ms. Dale. Could the House please make them all welcome.
The Chair: I hope the member sets the young folks straight on the workings.
Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.
On section 4.
[1055]
K. Whittred: Section 4 covers six different enactments of this program, and we will be voting against this section. However, I want it on the record that we are in support of subsection (a), which is the funding for the current program that was enacted in January 2001.
M. Sihota: I want to make sure that I understand what section 4 is about. I want to ask the minister this question: does section 4 relate to the allocation for funding for all of the different elements in items (a) through to (f)?
Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, it does.
M. Sihota: And could the minister tell me what the anticipated cost is of dealing with the items from (a) to (f)?
Hon. M. Farnworth: About $400 million, hon. member.
M. Sihota: Just another question to the minister. Before I ask my question, I want to make a statement here. In many ways this section is the guts of the bill, if I can put it that way. It's the component of the bill that actually makes the fiscal commitment to provide for child care services in this province for young people that may need them before and after school. Therefore, because it's a fiscal component, it's a reflection of the depth of our commitment to make sure that child care is available on a universal basis to young people from one end of this province to another.
I think it's important to point out in the course of this discussion that it's this section that distinguishes us from the members opposite. It's this section that outlines our commitment to child care and really puts money behind the commitments that we're prepared to make as we move into the upcoming provincial election campaign. In my view, it's this section that also differentiates us from the opposition, which does not believe in the concept of universal child care as it's founded in this legislation and as it's funded through the provisions of this legislation.
It's this section, I think, that really is one which
I think it's important that the public know what provisions the opposition is opposed to.
Interjection.
M. Sihota: I heard the member opposite, and I'm delighted that the Opposition House Leader has taken a moment to even heckle. I was wondering whether they even existed on that side of the House or if they were just cardboard cutouts over there in the opposition, given the degree to which they've been unprepared to speak.
But given that opportunity, I'd like the member opposite, as the critic responsible, to perhaps go through and explain to us, to the House and to all British Columbians which provisions -- from (a) to (f) -- they're opposed to and why. I'll give her those liberties first, hon. Chair, and if not, I may have to explain why they're opposed to them.
[1100]
The Chair: Does section 4 pass?
M. Sihota: Well, isn't this amazing? Here we have the opposition in this Legislature not prepared to stand up and outline the reasons for their opposition to the particular provisions of this legislation.
Interjection.
M. Sihota: No, they haven't already done it. The approach that the opposition takes is a duck-and-cover
[ Page 17514 ]
approach: to come in, make one quick statement in this House expressing their concerns about a particular provision, but not have the fortitude to stand up here and amplify their reasons. I think that's dead wrong.
On a bill of this nature, which is clearly definitive of the kind of view that we have for child care in this province versus the kind of view they have on the other side, perhaps they should flesh out their case. This is their chance, going into an election campaign -- which I'm sure will be held in due course -- to stand up on the record and explain why it is that they're opposed to creating up to 21,000 spaces for children under provision (a), up to about 12,000 spaces for children in provision (b) and, in provision (c), another 17,000 spaces for children, under item (e) another 560, and so on under the provisions of the legislation. It amazes me that the opposition will not segregate out which provisions they're opposed to and which ones they support and the reasons why. Again, before I pose my question to the minister, I'll take my place in debate and ask the members opposite to outline the reasons for their objections to those provisions.
Here we are engaged in this debate -- or lack of one, actually, if I may say so -- where the opposition is afraid to speak out. Honestly, when you think about it, the reasons are fairly evident. We're moving towards an election campaign in this province. In the last election campaign the opposition spent some time outlining their platform and the reasons thereof, and they lost. This time around they're taking the view that they should not say anything with the hope that somehow they'll stumble their way into victory. And that is outrageous not just in the context of the legislation before us but in the context of the broader democratic principles that govern the societies that we live in.
In my view -- and I've certainly had the opportunity to make the transition from opposition to government -- we didn't do it by succumbing to silence. We didn't say: "Well, the Vander Zalm government is about to fall. Let's just keep our mouth shut and let it happen." We staked out our position. We made a series of commitments to the taxpayers of the province, and when there was legislation before the House that we thought was unworthy of our support, we were prepared to stand up and say why. In this instance the opposition isn't prepared to do that, and it's fairly clear: they're afraid to make a mistake. They're afraid to say something that may cause them to lose the political advantage that they think they currently have with the public at large.
I remember that going into the last election campaign, we were having another debate on another issue. And during the course of that debate the member for -- I can't remember the name of the riding -- North Vancouver-Seymour, I believe, stood up and made a commitment to mine in parks in British Columbia, a comment that clearly came back to haunt them during the course of the ensuing election campaign. So they knew. They learned from that experience that they have to be careful about what they say, and they're being so careful that they've sort of taken the approach of silence. In my view that is cowardly behaviour on the part of those who are not prepared to stand up and speak for why it is that they oppose a universal day care program.
[1105]
I'd like to know from the opposition: what is their problem? What is the problem with having a universal day care program available for children with these kinds of fiscal commitments being provided in the provisions of legislation? Why do they oppose a program that says to every young person in this province that on a before- and after-school basis, they can have care ultimately, I believe, for about $14 a day? What is it within the value system they adhere to that would cause them to oppose a provision of that nature? It's long overdue, in terms of this province, to have this kind of legislation and this kind of social policy in place -- long, long overdue.
And it's not that it's unprecedented. Other jurisdictions have embraced models similar to this. The province of Quebec has a model that is similar to this. Now, we have the benefit on this side of the House, believing in these elements of social policy, to have learned from the experiences of other jurisdictions and have tried to craft those into the legislative and policy framework that we're proposing. So I think that at the end of the day, we will have a system that is superior to what is available elsewhere in this country.
On top of that, in terms of the commitments that are made in section 4, I think the other element of debate here -- and one thing, of course, the opposition will never say -- is that they aren't prepared, at the end of the day, to make the fiscal commitments to child care. That's what this whole debate is all about. We're saying on this side of the House that we're prepared to put the money into a budget that allows for this to occur. On the other side of the coin, they would argue during an election campaign that they are not prepared to allocate funding for universal child care.
And that, I think, goes to the heart of different priorities that we've got versus what they've got. They have other priorities, hon. Speaker. You know, their priority, if you believe them, is to run a deficit, provide a tax break and provide assistance to the wealthy and the powerful in society not only who funded the campaigns of those opposite but to whom the members opposite are beholden. We're not beholden to the same constituency, and that's fair enough. That's what politics is all about.
But on the other side of the coin, why don't they just stand up and say: "We think that the fiscal commitments that are being made under the provisions of section 4 are too rich for British Columbia to afford"? If that's the position, stand up and say it, hon. member -- as the critic responsible for child care. At least then, those that are involved in the advocacy for child care know where you stand.
The behaviour opposite is to sit there and engage in what I call cowardly
behaviour: unwilling to stand up, muzzle up the whole caucus, hope that somehow
you stumble into power. It's like deciding, in a ball game, if you're up after
seven innings, that you're not going to send your batters up for the rest of the
game because you think you're so far ahead, why bother. It's sort of trying to
secure victory by default. You know what? You'll be surprised; it doesn't work
that way. Politics is all about conviction. It's all
Interjection.
M. Sihota: I'm amazed, hon. Speaker. There's another person over there
that's not a cardboard cutout. I thought they were all cardboard cutouts. But
the moment I saw that
Interjection.
[ Page 17515 ]
M. Sihota: The member for Langley. I heard a peep. Oh, I see the
member for Delta North reaching back, so maybe there's just a string in that
cardboard cutout with a little mouthpiece that moves from time to time. I'm
waiting to
Interjection.
M. Sihota: Oh, there's another uttering over there. I mean, you have
to be amazed by this kind of rope-a-dope strategy of the members opposite,
sitting there and saying
But my question to the minister is: could he advise the House what the expenditure for item 4(a) is, alone?
[1110]
Hon. M. Farnworth: The expenditure is about $30 million, hon. member. That is $30 million to provide services, day care opportunities for kids who otherwise wouldn't get them, to allow working parents to have the security of knowledge that their children are in a quality, licensed day care facility and that they're able to pursue educational and employment opportunities that might otherwise be delayed for them. The member made some very valid points.
The Chair: Does section 4 pass?
Interjection.
An Hon. Member: You're voting against it?
M. Sihota: What? No, I'm not voting against it. It's the members
opposite. There's another cardboard cutout that can talk. Someone else pulled
the string in the back. It's amazing what's going on out there. A cardboard
cutout from Vancouver
I'm tempted to have the House vote on each item on a segregated basis so we
can have the opposition outline which items they're opposed to and which ones
they're in support of. The minister has outlined the cost associated with item
4(a), and perhaps the minister could now advise the House how these 21,000 new
spaces will be created. And for what purpose will the items under item (a)
Hon. M. Farnworth: I'd be delighted to tell the hon. member, because I think it really is a good question that should be answered fully. These spaces will be in-school and off-school in communities right across the province. They will allow parents to access quality child care in a way that they have not been able to before. It will, I think, be the second province in the country to go down this path of a universal child care program that provides a sense of hope to parents.
I think that you're making good use of existing facilities in the case of schools. You're giving security for long-term day care facilities that are licensed to be able to continue to provide the type of care that needs to be provided. With that security it will allow expansion to take place and more parents to participate in the program. What you're doing is adding a block, in essence. You're adding another grounding for parents who know that they have available to them child care options that did not exist before, and that is crucial. That is crucial for parents who want to be able to take advantage of educational opportunities, who want to be able to participate in the growing economy here in British Columbia, to be able to upgrade skills.
One of the biggest impediments to that if you're a single parent -- a single mother, for example -- is: how do you take care of your children? In a licensed day care facility, when you know your child's there, and you know you've got day care workers who have educational requirements and whose focus is on childhood development, that is a win-win for children. It's a win-win for parents, and most important, it is good for the province.
I am more than happy to be able to provide that answer to the hon. member, and I think that, you know, section (a) and sections (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) are all crucial to this bill. They are all crucial to long-term development of child care in British Columbia.
M. Sihota: I want to say a couple of things about what the minister
had to say. I say this in part as a parent of two children in a family where
both of us work -- and work strange hours in the sense that my wife is a
registered nurse. I think that as a parent, and certainly just dealing with the
experiences of constituents, the capacity to deal with children ongoing and day
to day, when both my kids are at home
[1115]
It is important to have adequate care. It's also important that that care be provided to young people -- our kids have gotten older -- in their formative years, particularly while they're at school, where they can get quality, affordable services to help children achieve their potential as human beings. To assist them in their intellectual development as young people in a properly supervised and properly staffed and properly operated child care setting is important and critical to all families. I think that in this day and age, as we sort of move into the new millennium, it's a sad comment on this country that we have been unable to provide child care services to the degree that I think they should be. I think that this type of legislation is long overdue, as I said earlier on, and an essential element of social policy which has been lacking in this country, in my view.
I said this in second reading, and I say this again. I am enormously proud of
this legislation. I think it's important that British Columbians understand what
it is that government is trying to achieve. What we are trying to achieve here
[ Page 17516 ]
somewhere, obviously to watch the debate in the Legislature. It's important that we try to achieve the best possible environment for young people to be raised in and to be educated in. Part of that is through the education system, which is not covered directly by the provisions of this legislation, and part of it is through the provision of adequate child care, which is covered by the provisions of this legislation.
I talked earlier on about the need for child care to be affordable. Again, I
think this legislation paves the way for that to happen. One of the difficulties
of working families
I can't say that I've calculated this out, but I know that the members opposite have campaigned on a kind of a reckless across-the-board tax cut, and I know that their position has changed from time to time. At times it appears as if they are advocating a tax cut for the most wealthy in society, and other times they tend to try to bring about the focus on lower rates of taxation. Whatever the implications are, I would venture to say -- and I'd be interested to see if the minister has any comments on this -- that the fiscal relief that is provided to working families by moving to a $14-a-day child care program has got to be more beneficial to working families, particularly families going from paycheque to paycheque, than the kind of broad-based tax cut that the members opposite would advocate.
I think that that's an important distinction to make, because the position that they take would be that they would take equivalent tax dollars and do it on an across-the-board basis. We would take equivalent -- maybe even more -- tax dollars and provide direct targeted relief to working families for child care. I think that the approach that we're taking in terms of targeted relief in this regard is preferable to the approach that they take. I don't want to get into a broad debate with the members opposite about the voodoo effects of their tax breaks. But even if one were to say that their argument has got some merit, the fact is that this kind of relief provided to working families would have a far bigger economic balance than that which the members opposite would advocate -- to come from the policies that they outline.
[1120]
If they disagree, they should stand up and say so. They're not prepared to say so. They're not prepared to debate, and they, as I said earlier on, are engaged in this rather cowardly behaviour of not standing up and speaking for what it is that they believe in.
I've never known the member for Okanagan-Penticton, who I see in the House right now, to be reluctant to debate -- never seen him to be reluctant to debate in this House. I think that next to me, he's the only member who loves these microphones. And I would think that he would be inclined to get up in here, in this House, and explain the position of his political party. I don't think that he would like his behaviour to be characterized in the way that I've said -- generally cowardly, in terms of members opposite. I think that he as an individual has never been shy to express his opinions and views on these matters -- right?
I just saw him posture to stand up. He's pulling out his glasses, so we know this isn't a cardboard cutout on the other side. There's actually robotic movements occurring. So I'm sure that member would love to explain why it is that his party is opposed to item 4(a).
In case the member hasn't read it, I have to remind him that it's Bill 2 that we're on. I think he's sort of trying to search for the appropriate bill. I would challenge him to stand up. My question to the minister is this, of course, wanting to make way for the member for Okanagan-Penticton to speak: does the minister have any relative numbers as to what fiscal relief would be provided to working families as a result of moving to a model that ultimately will provide services at approximately $14 a day?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I'd be delighted to make those figures available to the hon. member. It's up to $1,100 per child for out-of-school care, which is an enormous amount of money for a family in British Columbia -- indeed, anywhere in Canada. To be able to save, in terms of child care costs, $1,100 a year per child will have a big and significant impact on a family in British Columbia.
In fact, it's so significant that I'd like to let the member know of an article that I read recently in the Boston Globe in the state of Massachusetts. That's in the United States, for some people who may not be familiar with that. They outlined what we're doing in British Columbia and what's taking place in Quebec, and they said that that is the type of model and program that should be implemented in the United States. They outlined what the situation is, for example, in Boston, Massachusetts, where parents can be paying as much as $1,000 (U.S.) a month for child care for one child.
What we're talking about is a program that will save $1,100 a year -- you know, $14 a day maximum per child. It's not rocket science that if you give parents the security and comfort of knowing that there are child care options available for them that will save $1,100 per year per child, they will take advantage of that. Having the comfort and security of this program available, they will take advantage of options that they haven't been able to take advantage of. They will be able to go out and upgrade educational skills. They will be able to take advantage of economic opportunities. They'll be able to participate more fully in B.C.'s economy. They'll have a better sense of stability as a family unit. That takes stress off the family. We all know that every dollar that's invested in early childhood development pays huge dividends down the road.
[1125]
So you're not just talking about saving $1,100 per child. I mean, that's the direct benefit to the family, but you're helping the family unit in so many other ways. What's the financial relief for parents in terms of reduced stress because you have a place for your child to go and get day care? That's incalculable. As we know, money invested in childhood development at an early age results in less contact, for example, with the judicial system down the road. What's the benefit to the family there? What's the benefit to society? Incalculable.
So it's not just a question of direct savings which we can measure -- in this case, at $1,100 a year -- but it's also the
[ Page 17517 ]
indirect savings to the family in terms of stress, the ability to take advantage of educational opportunities and employment opportunities, and also the benefit to society as a whole.
I hope that answers the member's question. The public needs to know that this is a significant amount of money, both directly and indirectly, that we're talking about in how they will benefit.
M. Sihota: Let's think about that for a moment. The benefit to the average working family in British Columbia, as I understood the minister, is $1,100 per child per family. So for two children it's $2,200. It's about $200 a month that's there on average across the province. Think about that. The members opposite are proposing some kind of across-the-board tax cut. Now, admittedly their position changes all the time in terms of the kind of tax cut that they're proposing, but they're proposing some kind of across-the-board tax cut with the hope that it may have some impact in terms of the economy.
On this side of the House we're proposing a benefit to working families of a different nature -- of $1,100 per year, per child, per household. For two children it's $2,200. If you want to provide real relief to working families in British Columbia, it seems to me that one ought to be proceeding with the implementation of this kind of program in preference to the kind of program they're advocating opposite.
I know there's an election coming, and I have to tell you that on this side of the House I'm quite prepared to work with people in my political party to make the case that the policy we're debating -- ironically enough, it's we on this side of the House, because the members opposite won't debate -- around child care will have a greater impact both financially and psychologically on working families than what they would propose opposite.
And the chance still remains. They have shifted their position so often from this to that. I remember the Opposition House Leader pounding me in this House -- or trying to, in his own wimpy way, if I can say that -- about replacement workers, saying that it was the worst policy we had brought in and that the worst thing we could do was bring in the ban on replacement workers and advocating opposite on behalf of scab labour over and over again in this House, saying how the sky was going to fall in if that happened.
I have to give him credit. He saw the merit of my ways. He saw the wisdom and the policy that our party put forward. He saw the light in terms of acknowledging that that kind of labour policy was well thought out and beneficial, in terms of both labour stability and economic investment in this province. And in his own way he sort of slithered quietly into advocating a policy that supports our position, recognizing that the value system we brought forward in that instance was superior to something that they had wrongfully advocated in the past. So the member has a redemptive quality. The Opposition House Leader can demonstrate from time to time that he is wrong.
I know it's hard for those words to come from his mouth. I know he kind of stutters when he gets that "w" coming out, "W-w-w-w-wrong" -- right? But he has to admit at the end of the day that he was wrong on that policy and that we are right on this side of the House. And the member knows that the value system we brought was preferable to what those opposite had said.
[1130]
My challenge is for the Opposition House Leader -- the member for the Liberal
Party who has avoided debate so far -- to stand up and admit in this chamber
that the fiscal benefits that flow to working families as a result of this child
care package we've brought forward are superior to what they're proposing in the
tax cuts that would only benefit the rich and the powerful. He should stand up
and admit that the kind of benefits, apart from the fiscal benefits, that accrue
to children because of the fact that they have affordable quality services being
provided for them in terms of child care from a developmental point of view,
from a psychological point of view
The kind of approach that we take, the combination of fiscal resources wedded to a long-overdue social policy, is a far preferable way for government to operate than this sort of broad-based voodoo kind of economics that they advocate on the other side of the House. These are real benefits to society, financially to working families -- in terms of, as the minister has said, about $1,100 per child per family on average. And they are real benefits to society in terms of ensuring that children are raised in a nurturing environment.
I wouldn't want to accuse the members opposite of being opposed to children
being raised in a nurturing environment. They do stand up from time to time and
show some interest in matters relating to children. But when the time comes to
put their money where their mouth is, they're opposed, sort of, to legislation
of this nature. And when I say "sort of
Well, that's why I'm up. I'm not up here to rag the puck. Lord knows I've spent enough time speaking in this chamber in the past. I'm here because I believe to my very core that this piece of legislation before the House right now is the most significant piece of social policy introduced by our government during the course of this term. And I believe that we ought to be providing a universal, accessible child care program for young people in this province. And I believe that the kind of fiscal relief, let alone emotional relief, that is provided under the provisions of this legislation is far superior to the kind of broad-based approach that the members opposite are taking. That's what I believe. And I also believe -- I've been a member of this House for some time, participating in the democratic process -- that others have a right to stand up and counter those beliefs and say that the things that I believe in are unfounded.
It amazes me that the muzzle is on those opposite, that not one member opposite is prepared to stand up and explain themselves, explain why they believe that their policies are superior, in terms of a tax cut, to the kind of benefits that would accrue. I say to the Opposition House Leader, who's sort of dozing away there: "Wake up, my friend. Get in the debate."
I'm inclined to move recess, hon. Chair.
Oops, there he is. He's waking up, hon. Chair. I wonder: if, in other times
in debate, I had engaged in that kind of characteristic of sort of sitting there
with my eyes closed, dozing
The Chair: Hon. member, refer your comments to section 4, please.
[ Page 17518 ]
M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, I was just so stunned by the fact that the
member opposite was sleeping, I digressed a bit there. But I see that the
Opposition House Leader has finally opened his
[1135]
In the city of Victoria the average cost for child care is $760 per month.
That's the average cost per month. So the implementation of this program at $14
a day
An Hon. Member: Their tax cuts won't pay it. They won't pay for it.
M. Sihota: Oh yeah, of course, their tax cuts
And even though they're prepared to argue -- and I accept their argument with some disbelief -- that they would not cut in other areas and would run a deficit to deal with health care and education, they're also inferentially saying that they would not go forward with this type of program. They would not support a child care program of this nature in this province, because they know their tax cuts and deficit spending will not pay for it. I see them nodding -- I assume, in agreement. So it really goes to the core of the differences in values.
I have another question.
Interjection.
M. Sihota: Well, of course. Someone said to me: "The member for Vancouver-Langara hasn't said anything." The member for Okanagan-Penticton hasn't said anything. The critic for child care hasn't said anything, other than making some comment, which I didn't quite catch, about tennis being more available now to working families because of this.
It's amazing, and it's a shameful silence from the members opposite around this critical piece of legislation. I mean, I understand the game they want to play, and I've outlined that I even understand why they want to play the game. But this business isn't entirely a game. I've been in it for a long time, much longer than just about anybody I look across at on the other side -- all the members opposite. It's about making a real difference and improving the quality of life that British Columbians enjoy in this great province of ours. That's not a game. It's all about trying to bring forward policy instruments that have a real, substantial impact on improving the quality of life of British Columbians.
And what does this legislation do? It does precisely that. It provides care to young people who deserve and need it, particularly during their formative years. It provides financial relief superior to what their tax cuts would provide to working families across this province. I don't understand, for the life of me, why they believe that the approach they take, in terms of a broad-base tax cut at the expense of a child care program like this, is superior policy to what we're proposing, which is a child care program like this while maintaining tax levels where they are -- amongst the lowest in this country.
[1140]
This is good social policy. My question to the minister is this: could he outline to the House, under item 4(b) -- because I'm inclined to segregate each one of these items for a recorded vote -- where and how the 7,000 spaces outlined in item (b)(i) and the 4,680 spaces outlined in item (ii) are to be provided, with particular emphasis with regards to spaces for children under 36 months of age?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I want to preface my remarks a little bit. The short answer is that they are provided in a number of locations. First off, they're provided across the province. They're provided in family homes, in the case of after-school care. They are provided in group settings, in the case of under 36 months of age -- right across British Columbia.
But I think there's an important point that needs to be made, and that is
what it is that we're trying to do, what it is that we're recognizing with this
program. It's a combination of things. It's a basic recognition that we as a
society value and place emphasis on
What is it that you're trying to accomplish in making sure that you have healthy families as the foundation of your society and as the foundation of your community -- that is, to address the needs of the family and the needs of individual families? There are a number of ways to do that. You could take a broad-brush approach, or you can recognize that there are specific focused initiatives you can undertake that will strengthen the family, strengthen communities, strengthen society and ultimately the province. That's what you're doing with this child care initiative. That's what you're doing with the parts that have already been implemented -- building on the programs that we already have in place but ensuring that children who require after-school care can get it in licensed facilities. And we've already announced that.
The second part of the program -- which comes into effect at the beginning of this next year, well within this fiscal year -- is what the member asked about: the specifics. The 7,000 take place in family home settings and, in the case of 36 months and under, take place in group settings. So you end up with a program that is focused on family and on what we believe is the basic unit of society -- that is the family, not the individual per se. And by doing that, you're able to ensure that we can get a program that not only saves financially and allows people to take advantage of opportunities available to them but results in the long-term benefit to society as a whole.
[1145]
Interjections.
M. Sihota: I hear the Opposition House Leader saying, "Do your job," as he's sort of blowing his short fuse over
[ Page 17519 ]
there. I'm challenging him to stand up and do his job: speak on this legislation and explain how his policies are superior to what we're producing here. If he's not prepared to do that, I'm going to move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again. I challenge him to walk outside this chamber with the TV cameras there, and let's debate this legislation versus his tax cuts -- out there.
So I move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
DEBATE ON SUPPLEMENTARY
BUDGET ESTIMATES
Hon. P. Ramsey: I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.
An Hon. Member: Are you sure?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Absolutely sure.
Hon. P. Ramsey presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: Supplementary Estimates No. 3, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001, recommending the same to the Legislative Assembly.
Hon. P. Ramsey moved that the said message and the supplementary estimates No. 3 accompanying the same be referred to Committee of Supply.
Motion approved.
The House in Committee of Supply; D. Streifel in the chair.
The committee met at 11:48 a.m.
Hon. G. Janssen: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
[1150]
Motion approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 37 | ||
| Zirnhelt | Doyle | Gillespie |
| Kwan | Waddell | Hammell |
| McGregor | Giesbrecht | Farnworth |
| Lovick | Petter | Mann Brewin |
| Pullinger | Randall | Sawicki |
| Priddy | Cashore | Orcherton |
| Lali | G. Clark | Boone |
| Walsh | Calendino | Sihota |
| Miller | G. Wilson | Smallwood |
| Ramsey | Evans | Janssen |
| Bowbrick | Dosanjh | MacPhail |
| Robertson | Stevenson | Kasper |
| Goodacre | ||
| NAYS -- 34 | ||
| Whittred | Hansen | C. Clark |
| Campbell | Farrell-Collins | de Jong |
| Plant | Abbott | L. Reid |
| Neufeld | Coell | Chong |
| Sanders | Jarvis | Anderson |
| Nettleton | Penner | Weisgerber |
| Weisbeck | Nebbeling | Hogg |
| Hawkins | Coleman | Stephens |
| J. Reid | Krueger | Thorpe |
| Symons | van Dongen | Barisoff |
| J. Wilson | Roddick | Masi |
| McKinnon | ||
The committee rose at 11:55 a.m.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Janssen: I move that the House do now adjourn.
[1200]
Motion approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 40 | ||
| Zirnhelt | Doyle | Gillespie |
| Kwan | Waddell | Hammell |
| McGregor | Giesbrecht | Farnworth |
| Lovick | Petter | Mann Brewin |
| Pullinger | Randall | Sawicki |
| Priddy | Cashore | Orcherton |
| Stevenson | Robertson | MacPhail |
| Dosanjh | Bowbrick | Janssen |
| Evans | Ramsey | Smallwood |
| G. Wilson | Streifel | Miller |
| Sihota | Calendino | Walsh |
| Boone | G. Clark | Lali |
| Kasper | Goodacre | Weisgerber |
| McKinnon | ||
| NAYS -- 32 | ||
| Whittred | Hansen | C. Clark |
| Campbell | Farrell-Collins | de Jong |
| Plant | Abbott | L. Reid |
| Neufeld | Coell | Chong |
| Sanders | Jarvis | Anderson |
| Nettleton | Penner | Weisbeck |
| Nebbeling | Hogg | Hawkins |
| Coleman | Stephens | J. Reid |
| Krueger | Thorpe | Symons |
| van Dongen | Barisoff | J. Wilson |
| Roddick | Masi | |
The House adjourned at 12:02 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright � 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada