1991 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 1991

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

12661 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Mailing of partisan material from minister's office. Mr. Rose –– 12661

Free trade with Mexico. Mr. Gabelmann –– 12661

James Tyhurst case. Mr. Vant –– 12662

Police communications system. Mr. Sihota –– 12662

Goods and services tax on books. Mrs. McCarthy –– 12663

Camosun College child care centre. Ms. Cull –– 12663

Government advertising. Mr. Blencoe –– 12663

Presenting Petitions –– 12664

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations estimates.

(Hon. J. Jansen)

On vote 31: minister's office –– 12664

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Clark

Ms. Smallwood

Ms. Cull

Mr. Reynolds

Hon. Mr. Bruce

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Kempf

Hon. Mrs. Gran

Mr. Smith

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Hon. Mr. Strachan

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's not very often that we get visitors

from the great riding of Prince George South in the Legislative

Assembly in Victoria, but today I'm pleased to announce that attending

today are recipients of an award that you began yourself, Mr. Speaker,

when you were Minister of Environment. As Members of the Legislative

Assembly are aware, this is the minister's environmental award. I'm

pleased to say that visiting us today is a group of students from

Dunster in the beautiful Robson Valley, who have won in the category of

youth group or organization. They are the Dunster Elementary School

environmental committee: Heather Howard, Kohen Mullen, Taylor Bachrach,

Shelly Cousineau. They're with teacher's aide Mrs. Karen Craigue and

teacher Mrs. Jill Howard. Would the House please give these students a

nice, warm Victoria welcome in congratulations for their winning of the

minister's environmental award in the youth group or organization

category.

Also, Mr. Speaker, you'll recall that last week was fitness week. As

Minister of Health I want to announce the awards for the government

employees' offices that won the fitness week award. I'm pleased to say

that in the category of 500 employees or more, the Ministry of Health

won the fitness week award, and in the category of 500 employees or

less, the Premier's office won the government fitness award.

MRS. BOONE: I'd like to add my greetings to those of the

member for Prince George South to the Dunster group. I am very pleased,

as I submitted their name for the award. This group of students has led

the region in terms of its commitment to the environment and has shamed

many adults in our community with regard to the recycling programs it

has set up. I'm very pleased to see that they have received this award,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. LOENEN: It's my pleasure today to make two introductions

from my constituency. First of all, there is a gentleman who is a great

volunteer and who serves on our Social Credit executive. He's here

today to observe the proceedings. Would the House please welcome Bob

Eakin.

Secondly, in the gallery there is a group of grade 7 students from

Garden City Elementary School. They are accompanied by their teacher

Mrs. Gilbert. They are here to observe the House and I would ask the

House to please bid them a warm welcome.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm sure all members of the House would agree with me

that British Columbia is blessed with young, capable and bright students. Joining

us in the Legislature today are a number of students from Esquimalt Senior Secondary

School who have volunteered to sit on the junior municipal council. I am sure

that that situation is replicated in communities throughout British Columbia.

I had the privilege today to have lunch with the members of the Esquimalt Senior

Secondary municipal council and I would like to introduce them to you. They

are: David Wellings, John Lee, Lisa Kwan, Cassandra Hillaird, Coretta Peets,

Allison Funnell, Glenn Barr and Alison Fitch. Would all members please join

me in giving them a warm welcome.

Oral Questions

MAILING OF PARTISAN MATERIAL

FROM MINISTER'S OFFICE

MR. ROSE: I have a question for the Minister of Government

Services. Can the minister confirm if her office has any policy

regarding the mailing of partisan leadership campaign material?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Are you talking about my constituency office or my ministry?

MR. ROSE: Ministry office.

HON. MRS. GRAN: We don't have a written policy. It would be highly unusual for me to send political mail from my ministry office.

MR. ROSE: Could I quote from something sent from your

ministry's office, obviously about the so-called Socred leadership

race: "During the leadership campaign, I urge the Social Credit Party

to seek a leadership that can.... Our party must choose leadership that

will return to the values and behaviour of...." Does the minister

consider it appropriate for her office to distribute this type of

material at public expense?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I'm sorry, I'm at a loss to understand how

that could have come from my office. Perhaps the member could have the

letter sent over so I could have a look at it.

MR. ROSE: I'd be pleased to do that. The minister's support

for the interim Premier's candidacy is well known, and one wonders why

she'd distribute a withdrawal statement of the first member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain. Can the minister explain why she would use

her office to circulate material relating to the party's leadership

campaign?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, so I know exactly what question

I'm answering, I would like to take it on notice and have a look at the

material the member has. I'll bring the answer back tomorrow.

FREE TRADE WITH MEXICO

MR. GABELMANN: I have a question for the Minister of

Development, Trade and Tourism. The free trade talks between Canada,

the United States and Mexico will begin tomorrow in Toronto. I'd like

to ask what position the B.C. government has taken concerning these

crucial discussions.

HON. MR. DIRKS: As I answered the other day, this House will be advised in the fullness of time.

[ Page 12662 ]

MR. GABELMANN: Another question to the same minister. I don't

know whether he realizes that these talks begin tomorrow. I wonder if

any advice has been given by the B.C. government to the federal

government concerning the impact in British Columbia of these

discussions and possible outcome.

HON. MR. DIRKS: We are aware that these talks will begin

tomorrow. We are very concerned about the impact of a possible free

trade agreement between Mexico and the United States on the various

sectors in British Columbia. We will be watching those discussions very

closely. We will also continue our dialogue with the various sectors of

our economy that will be affected, for their input on how those talks

are progressing.

MR. GABELMANN: I gather from that answer that no advice has been given to the federal government. Why not?

HON. MR. DIRKS: When you're starting these negotiations, I

think it's important that you first of all know what you're firing at

before you start shooting.

MR. GABELMANN: Last year or earlier this year the government

sought submissions from the public concerning the free trade

discussions, and the deadline for submissions was February. The

government has had more than three months now to evaluate those

submissions. Has the report been prepared as a result of these public

submissions?

HON. MR. DIRKS: No, a public report has not been prepared on

those submissions, but we're still looking at that. We're still

dialoguing with the various sectors.

MR. GABELMANN: A final supplementary. Would the government agree to table the submissions and reports it has in its possession?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I'm sure that they will be public in the fullness of time.

JAMES TYHURST CASE

MR. VANT: I have a question involving basic human rights for

the Minister of Women's Programs. The conviction of Dr. James Tyhurst

now has disclosed that a female UBC employee was forced to accompany

Tyhurst to non-work-related events, such as hockey games and New

Democratic Party business here in Victoria. In light of this further

revelation.... This serious allegation was apparently covered up

through a lateral transfer of the victim. Has the minister decided to

investigate this matter to find out the extent of this unusual

behaviour followed by some kind of cover-up?

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: The NDP are laughing. Why are you laughing? This is a serious question. What's so funny about this, guys?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I guess that's my first observation: why the

laughter? I appreciate the question. It tells all of us in this House

why we have a ministry that says that one gender in our society has

more difficulty in this society than the other.

Nothing demonstrates better how women are treated differently than

some of the stuff in the paper this morning. I read that

article in the

Vancouver Province , and regardless of whether it was a Social

Credit or an NDP convention, it's sad to know that in this society

women are still treated the way they obviously are. It's sad that we,

as legislators, can't seem to help our society make the changes that

need to be made.

[2:15]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We're way off the question again.

The question was quite specific: has the minister decided... ? I've

allowed you a little latitude, but I now ask you to answer the

question. Then we'll proceed on to the next order of business.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, I don't intend, as Minister of

Women's Programs, to investigate. I thank you for allowing me that

latitude; the graciousness is overwhelming.

POLICE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Premier

that deals with matters of law enforcement. Due to inadequate and

incompatible communication systems, police in Esquimalt, Victoria and

Oak Bay cannot communicate with police in Saanich and the RCMP. An

example of how that frustrates the law enforcement process is that

recently there was an incident at the Payless gas station at

Craigflower and Admirals right on the border between Esquimalt and

Saanich. An Esquimalt police officer close by could not attend to the

situation because he could not be radioed due to the inadequacies of

the communication system.

The policing report released to this government in August 1990

recommended that the government proceed with the provision of adequate

communication systems to solve this very problem. Could the minister

explain why, given her tough talk on law enforcement, no action has

been taken with respect to that recommendation?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the question should be put to the Solicitor-General.

HON. MR. MESSMER: Mr. Speaker, I don't know the type of

communication equipment the police forces have — those that are run by

the municipalities — but I'd be pleased to take that question on notice.

[ Page

12663 ]

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, both the Premier and the

Solicitor-General like to talk tough on crime, but they won't give

police the tools to fight crime. That's the problem here.

Recently a Victoria-area police officer was assaulted, and there was

a broken nose and a broken arm among the attending officers. Because of

the inadequacies of the communication system, they could not radio back

to their office for assistance.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Again, the minister has just

taken the question on notice, and the member is taking advantage of

question period to make a speech. If you have a question, please ask

the question. There are others who wish to ask questions.

MR. SIHOTA: As a consequence, the officer in question had to

pay 25 cents to make a phone call. Could the Premier advise the House

when the administration intends...?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, the minister has

clearly stated that he has taken the question on notice. Therefore it

is taken on notice and doesn't allow any further opportunity for

questions on the issue.

MR. SPEAKER: There is difficulty with the Chair being

clairvoyant, and until such time as the actual question is put, I

haven't the opportunity to.... I ask the member for Esquimalt–Port

Renfrew to put his question.

MR. SIHOTA: Despite the Premier's tough talk on crime, those

systems aren't being provided to the police. Could she provide the

House with some indication as to when the government intends to provide

the appropriate funding for the communication system?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order.

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ON BOOKS

MRS. McCARTHY: My question is for the Minister of Finance. At

the recent meeting with the federal Minister of Finance and other

ministers from across this country, did our minister have any

deliberations which would lead to the federal government's relief of

the GST on books? It has now been some months since the GST was put

into place. It would be a great message for the people of Canada, as

well as of British Columbia, if that were taken off.

HON. J. JANSEN: The GST remains a concern to this province. We have

fought that particular tax as being regressive since its inception; we intend

to continue with that fight. We have written the federal minister and advised

him that we find many aspects of the GST offensive. The aspect of levying GST

on books is a good issue, which I will include in my further representation

to the Minister of National Revenue.

CAMOSUN COLLEGE CHILD CARE CENTRE

MS. CULL: To the Minister of Advanced Education: last year

Camosun College took over the operation of two child care centres. Now

I'm told that because the college's budget hasn't been sufficiently

increased, one of those centres must close. Has the minister decided to

give Camosun College the money they have requested so that this centre

can remain open next year?

HON. MR. DUECK: The amount of money given to post-secondary

education is quite generous compared to that given in other provinces.

As a matter of fact, it is the most generous, other than in Ontario. I

do not have information on the specific question you're asking in

regard to the child care centres. I'd have to take that question on

notice and get back to you.

MS. CULL: I have a question to the Minister of Women's

Programs. As I recall, the minister officiated at the opening of one of

those centres. Since the minister is now responsible for the delivery

of child care initiatives, and given the government's newfound concern

about women and children, has the minister decided to do what is

necessary to keep this program open next year?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I'm aware of the situation, and as a matter

of fact, my staff are now working with the college, trying to find a

way to keep it open. I think, though, it's important for us to know

that often that particular centre only stays open for ten months out of

the year. But we are working on it, and with them.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Premier concerning

some statements she made when she became the interim Premier on April

15. This Premier said to the people of British Columbia that there

would be a difference, that changes were coming and that integrity may

return to the government. The Premier made some promises of no

government advertising, and clearly stated that government advertising

would be restricted to tender calls, legal requirements and public

information. Will the Premier tell the people of British Columbia why

she has returned to the old business of distorting facts and putting

out propaganda costing the taxpayers thousands of dollars? Why did you

break your promise to the people of this province?

MR. SPEAKER: I remind the member for Victoria again that the use of exhibits in the chamber is strictly prohibited.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It's unfortunate that exhibits are not

permitted, because that would be an excellent example of a very good

government initiative. The member opposite is correct. The statement

was made shortly after I was sworn in in April that we would be cutting

back very severely on media-type advertising. But if the member cared

to listen at all, the

[ Page 12664 ]

B.C. government news publication was exempt from

that statement, since I believe — as do other members of government —

that it provides a very valuable and useful service to the taxpayers of

the province.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. On the issue of exhibits, if

members wish to have the rules changed so that exhibits can be brought

to the House, there is a select standing committee of the House that

deals with these matters. I'm sure the committee would be able to do

it. If it's the wish of the House to make those arrangements, they

should make those arrangements privately. I might caution you, it is

fraught with problems.

Presenting Petitions

MR. REID: As a representative for the fine community of

Cloverdale, which has the finest rodeo in North America, I have been

petitioned....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Presentation of petitions.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I was taking a little latitude, like

the previous speaker. But I present, on behalf of a large number ––

800-plus — of residents from the community of Cloverdale, a petition to

the government of British Columbia to locate a general hospital in the

Cloverdale area. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to present this petition.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Ree in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

AND CORPORATE RELATIONS

On vote 31: minister's office, $317,593 (continued).

MS. MARZARI: When we terminated our debate this morning, the

minister had promised to bring back to this House the exact number of

women employees who ate direct beneficiaries of the pay equity plan. He

was also going to look for some material on any measurements done on

wage gaps between male and female employees of the provincial

government. We know from the minister's comments this morning that

there are presently 27,993 employees, and we will find out shortly what

percentage of those are female and what the exact number of female

workers is.

The third thing that was discussed was the contracting out of

government services over the last five years The contracting out of

government services, as my colleague from Nanaimo later this afternoon

will point out, has amounted to some substantial percentage of

government service in British Columbia's experience.

But this afternoon I want to come back to the minister's question about

why we should bother investigating our contracted-out services vis-à-vis

the moneys and wages paid to women workers in those contracts. I dare say that

this is the very nub of the difference between our side of the House and the

Social Credit side of the House. If we do not take a careful look at how we

contract out — to whom, how many jobs are created by our contracting out and

what the nature of those jobs are — we have no way of knowing if we are contributing

to actual put-in-your-pocket wages. We have no way of knowing whether women are

being properly treated by our contractors. We have no way of knowing whether

or not our contractors are buying their supplies inside B.C. or outside the

country. We have no way of monitoring whether we are contributing to the wealth

of this province by our contracting-out procedures. I would suggest that there

is evidence — and some of it will be presented this afternoon — that our contracting-out

procedures are highly questionable and that we are not in fact developing a

multiplier effect inside our province with contracting out — let alone the fact

that we have got rid of thousands upon thousands of public sector jobs where

we knew what we were paying and to whom we were paying it.

[2:30]

As we move along this line of questioning and try to solve the

minister's confusion over this issue, I would ask the minister if he or

his staff have started to contemplate an affirmative action program

which would involve surveying the number of female employees we have in

the total government service, including contracted-out positions, and

whether or not there is any thought of doing a study of the wage gap in

all those positions — privatized and public.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is not too sure whether all the

questions were in order. Some of the subject matter appears to involve

other ministries. We are discussing, as the minister well knows, the

Ministry of Finance and the administrative functions of the ministry

and would appreciate the minister staying within that confine.

HON. J. JANSEN: Thank you for that guidepost. That's

certainly what my intention is. My intention is to restrict my comments

to the areas of my budget purview. I would hope that the member for

Point Grey does repeat those questions when the appropriate minister is

on the floor to deal with those areas of concern.

What I really find puzzling is the inference that we should, as Big

Brother in Victoria, start to become involved in small business and

start to manage their affairs and tell them what to do respecting their

mode of operation — how they should do it and when they should do it. I

find that offensive.

Small business can run its affairs much better than a member from

Point Grey or a member from Burnaby or a member from Vancouver East —

or, indeed, a member from Chilliwack. I find that probably they are

quite fine: "Thank you. Leave us alone. We can manage our affairs and

we don't need members from Point Grey asking when the government is

going to insert

[ Page

12665 ]

itself into the operations of our business to find out if it's operating sufficiently." That is not what we're going to do.

I said earlier that I'd be pleased to give you a breakdown. As soon

as those figures are in hand, I will stand in my place and give you a

gender breakdown in terms of our FTE complement. We're committed to the

question of pay equity and will continue to be.

MS. MARZARI: At the very beginning of this debate the

minister pointed out that he was in constant contact with all the other

ministries so that they could bring forward some kind of a

comprehensive picture of women's wealth in this province and women's

wealth in our public employ. As if personnel is dissociated from

finance, is dissociated from employment equity, is dissociated from

contract employees.... The minister wants to now compartmentalize his

tiny piece of the budget without any overview of the connection between

women's wealth and what actually goes into women's pockets. Mr.

Minister, you have to be reminded that we are dealing with $16.15

billion of the taxpayers' money, the taxpayers' wealth, much of which

goes into the pockets of employees or contract employees. If the

minister is not prepared to be accountable, is not prepared to even

survey and is not prepared to stand up and speak to the amount of money

that's going into....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. The debate at the

moment is on the estimates of the Minister of Finance, not on the

entire government budget. There are appropriate ministers for questions

about women's affairs and contracting out; the Minister of Finance is

not responsible for those matters. He may be involved in some

discussions on them respect to cabinet, but cabinet is not being

debated here; the estimates of the Minister of Finance are being

debated.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if you were in the

chair this morning, and I obviously defer to your judgment. But the

government personnel services division is in the Ministry of Finance,

and it negotiates contracts for the 30,000 employees. That's relatively

recent. So the implementation of pay equity and affirmative action

programs now fall within the purview of the Minister of Finance, at

least in terms of....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair apologizes. Within that ambit it's acceptable.

MS. MARZARI: I'm glad we got it straightened around, because

it really does show that the Minister of Finance is responsible for the

payroll. Isn't it nice to be able to target who's responsible for the

payroll here?

MR. LOVICK: I feel better.

MS. MARZARI: In that targeting of the payroll, we must ask those questions

again. My colleague from Nanaimo feels much relieved at having been able to

find out where the buck stops on the payroll.

The question then comes again: is the minister prepared to do a

thorough survey of the number of women who are in contract positions

with the provincial government, given the number of contracts which

have been let in five years and the number of women who are now working

in contract, privatized businesses? This is not a question of

interference with the small business sector, Mr. Minister. Heaven knows

you've lost enough support there already. We are talking about

taxpayers' dollars, accountability for those dollars and a knowledge of

where the money goes vis-à-vis women employees now working on contract

who were previously in the public employ.

This is a program called contract compliance. Every other province

in the country has it, and in fact the federal government — a ripe

Conservative government — has this program in place. Contract

compliance means that a provincial or federal government is interested

in knowing where its money is going. It is interested in knowing that

the people it contracts to are going to protect their employees to

ensure that they are receiving and giving proper care and attention to

the hiring and promotion of women, disabled and minority groups and

that they are paying a decent wage to their employees. Doesn't it

behoove the Ministry of Finance to understand where its money is going

when it is delivering money to the small business community? Or is the

government only concerned with some kind of tendering process which may

or may not take place?

HON. J. JANSEN: No matter which way you put the question, it

remains the same, doesn't it? What the member for Vancouver–Point Grey

is saying, following the NDP ideology, is that government should insert

itself into the affairs of business, should be involved in day-to-day

operations, should be the managers — because we're going to tax them to

death anyway, according to their philosophy, so let's get in there and

try to manage their affairs the way we in Victoria see it. I really

find that offensive, and I think most people in the province would find

it offensive as well. It is my purview, as Minister of Finance, to

ensure that we get services for dollars contracted, that we get value

for those dollars, and that the work done is appropriate. Outside of

that, as I said before, perhaps one of the other ministers who is

responsible for affirmative action may want to answer that question.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I really find some of the remarks

from the Minister of Finance offensive. The minister says we shouldn't

interfere in private businesses. Governments interfere all the time. We

have employment standards legislation. Should we abolish that? Should

we have children working again? Should we have no rules governing the

private sector? Of course we have rules now.

What we're saying, and what the member for Vancouver–Point Grey is

saying, is that where there's public money, we should try to deal with

that historic inequity when it comes to dealing with women. Women get

paid less than men. The government has recognized the gender gap by

looking at pay equity in

[ Page 12666 ]

the public sector, but it's defined "public sector"

so narrowly as to only deal with their employees and the unions they

negotiate with, when in fact what's happened with this administration

and the previous one — but particularly this one — is a dramatic

increase in the number of contracts they've given out, a dramatic shift

in the workforce from paid employees to contract employees.

What we're suggesting is very reasonable: once you've recognized

that there's a gender gap problem, a pay problem for women, in the

public sector, when you give contracts out, you have some rules

governing the contracts. Those rules exist today when it comes to

dealing with employment standards. In many jurisdictions, there's

fair-wage legislation that says that if you give a contract out you

have to pay the prevailing wage rate. We're suggesting that when you

give a contract out now, you have to deal with this pay equity problem

the same way government deals with its own employees. It's not some

Draconian Big Brother measure; it's precisely the kind of thing that

governments do every day in terms of contract compliance. It simply

extends a legitimate public policy issue that the government has

recognized with its own employees to public money being used for

contract employees.

Mr. Chairman, I think that the minister should deal with that

seriously. He's said many times — rather piously, I might say — that

he's in favour of a pay equity program and that the government is

moving on this question. At the same time, the government and the

minister should recognize that pay equity, when it comes.... If it's

good enough for public employees, it's good enough for contract

employees, for private sector employees, for university employees and

for all women in British Columbia. That's the direction the government

should be taking the lead in, not just narrowly defining it as its own

employees on the public payroll today.

I wonder if the minister could address the concerns of women who

work in universities who aren't covered by this pay equity legislation

and of women who work for the government but who are on contract, and

are not employees; and whether or not it's his ministry's intention to

embark upon a broader pay equity program that includes more women than

just the 20,000 that exist on the payroll today.

HON. J. JANSEN: What we just heard is precisely the reason

that the Ontario business community is suffering so badly. It is the

ideology of that side over there that forces their views on the private

business sector. You can read the Globe and Mail , Mr. Chairman,

and you can see business after business denouncing that socialist

government for the way they are inserting themselves into the

operations of small business in their province and chasing businesses

away in droves.

The question of how much can government...? The member for Vancouver

East said: "It's not Big Brother. We just want to be there to help them

along. We think they need some help in running their business. We think

they need some help in saying how many engineers they should have. We

think they need some help in terms of how much they should pay those

engineers, those lawyers, those doctors and those dentists. We think we

have all the answers. Why would they, successful businessmen that they

are, have all the answers? I think that we should insert some of our

philosophy on them."

Well, that isn't going to happen, Mr. Chairman — not in this

province. I said earlier that we had a commitment to pay equity for the

people who work for the province of British Columbia — our employees —

because we have an employer-employee relationship with those employees.

We hope that by example it will extend to the rest of society. We don't

hold a big stick. We're not that kind of a government. We're not an NDP

government; we're much different.

I can tell you that as a result of our initiative, we have closed

the gap significantly in this province. The wage gap that existed has

been closed by almost 5 percent in one year. That was the first part of

our program. As I indicated earlier, we are in fact working with our

unions to put in place the main part of our program. We are already

having very significant success. I hope that the agencies that are run

by the boards throughout the province — whether they be universities or

the hospital sector — will, over time, also take an opportunity to look

at the success of that program and to be party to it.

I say again that the affirmative action initiative is one that I

know my colleague the minister responsible for women will be addressing

at length. My mandate as Minister of Finance is to ensure, first, that

we receive value for money, and to be concerned about our collective

agreements with our employees in the province of British Columbia.

[2:45]

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Chairman, when the pay equity program was

first announced by the minister responsible for women and the previous

Minster of Finance, the comment was made that no matter how much it

cost, fairness was the issue, and that this provincial government was

going to go all out to make sure that women employees of this

government were going to have the gap closed. They weren't going to

earn 60-cent dollars anymore; they were going to make a dollar for

every dollar a man made in an equivalent job. That was the promise put

forward by this government.

We didn't believe that promise. We thought it was a cheap election

ploy at the time. We did not begrudge the $40 million going to close

the gap for women who work for the provincial government. But we did

think — we conferred on this — that this promise would not be followed

through on. Sure enough, when B.C. Ferry Corporation employees put on

the table that they also wanted to buy into a pay equity program, they

were told by their management — B.C. Ferry Corporation — that there was

no more money. They were told that because the government — the

Minister of Finance — told the Ferry Corporation that there was no more

money. It was not a question of fairness anymore; it was a question of

one small program operating for a few thousand women. Now the proof of

the pudding is here.

[ Page

12667 ]

The minister has just stood up, and.... I can hear it and see it now

on a campaign brochure that you have closed the wage gap by 5 percent —

a half-truth, a one-hundredth truth, not a truth at all. The wage gap

for 20,000 women may have been closed by 5 percent, but 670,000 women

in this province want fairness and what was promised when the pay

equity program was first announced. Is the minister prepared to follow

through with the promises made by the Minister of Women's Programs and

the previous Minister of Finance by taking this program to the larger

public sector — to the hospitals, schools, municipalities and

libraries? Is the minister prepared now to say that this program — this

fairness-for-women program — will be expanded to the public sector,

which operates outside this House?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, let me again distinguish this

side of the House from that side of the House. What we like to do is

talk to our various unions and come up with a plan of action that they

find acceptable — not a one-sided plan of action that is not acceptable

to anybody else except the government side. It's our intention that we

sit down with the groups — such as we're doing with the B.C. Ferries

group and the BCGEU, as indicated earlier — and ensure that we find a

solution to this initiative that is beneficial both to them and the

employer. If the member asks whether we will take the big-stick

approach and force the issue on the unions from our perspective and how

we feel, the answer is no. We believe in consultation. I indicated

earlier that we have an approach underway whereby we have brought in

experts in this field to assist us with this issue, because it is

difficult. We should solve the matter fairly rather than do it in a

disjointed and one-sided way.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The issue of pay equity, when governments are

dealing with it, has everything to do with public policy. The

difficulty we have with your pay equity program is very much as you

describe it right now, in that all you are doing is living up to your

responsibility to your immediate employees. You are not taking on the

responsibility as a government to deliver a public policy that

recognizes the inequities and the injustices in this province.

Mr. Minister, I hope you are listening. This is important to women

in this province, and to taxpayers as well, because of the growing

number of women supporting children who have no alternative but to rely

on welfare and taxpayers' dollars to support those children. We're

looking at a comprehensive program, including pay equity, that will

begin to deal with some of those injustices, so that women in this

province can support themselves and their children in a dignified

manner.

I'd like to continue the questioning around contracts and the government's

responsibility to the people of this province, not only for public policy but

directly as an employer as well. The minister suggests that he is living up

to his responsibility as a direct employer of those employed with the government.

In this last session we saw a piece of legislation — Bill 82 — that

dealt with the broader public sector. That very clearly identified

government's responsibility in controlling wages on behalf of

taxpayers. The government can't have it both ways. Either, Mr.

Minister, you are responsible directly to your employees here in the

government; or, as I would agree, you are responsible for the delivery

of services and therefore have some responsibility to contracted

employees as well. So I’d like to ask the minister: would you agree

that, given the example of Bill 82, you do have some link to those

contracted employees and that, because of that, it would be only

logical that you extend your pay equity program to that sector as well

and put in place a pay equity regime for those several hundreds of

thousands of employees in the broader public sector?

HON. J. JANSEN: Well, that's an extremely interesting

question. The member for Surrey–Guildford Whalley has said that Bill 82

includes the private sector, our contractors; that's what she just

finished saying. It's that kind of thinking that happens over there. It

is continual insertion in the business community in terms of their

affairs and their operating mandate. It is the member's understanding

that Bill 82 applies to the private sector. That's not the case at all,

Madam Member. Spend some time reading it, instead of always attacking

it. Spend some time understanding Bill 82 and the reason for it. Why

don't you spend some time reading it? But do you know something else?

Maybe you should have a look at what happens when Bill 82 is not in

effect or what happens in a Bill 82 environment that is not enforced.

Because it's very clear: you just have to point across the border, a

few thousand miles, and see what happens. It's pretty devastating.

Let me reiterate, because obviously there is a concern that the

message is not being heard: we are committed to pay equity. My

colleague the minister continues to be a proponent and an advocate and

is very aggressive in bringing that issue forward in cabinet. And we

will continue to negotiate with employer groups to ensure that there is

progress on this particular initiative. But we will not, as a

government, go to our small business community and say to them: .You

shall pay this wage. You shall have these hours of work for your

employees for what they're doing. You shall do this in terms of your

management structure; you shall do that for this purpose. And you must

be a union organization." No, we won't tell them to do that, Mr.

Chairman, because that's not our business. Our business is running the

affairs of British Columbia, respecting our mandate as a fiscally

responsible government. That's the difference.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I found the minister's response fascinating. I

understand that Bill 82 was the minister's bill; it came from the

Ministry of Finance. I can’t quite remember whether it was this

minister or the minister before that or the minister before that who

actually brought it into the House. At any rate, it was from the

Ministry of Finance.

[ Page 12668 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair believed that both the

member and the minister were well aware of the rules that the need for

legislation is not part of the subject matter of the estimates debate

and therefore is out of order. The Chair didn't interrupt either of you

before but feels it should be brought to your attention at this time.

MS. SMALLWOOD: What we're talking about here is the

responsibility of government, not only for public policy. I'm prepared

to even restrict that — as the government seems to be digging in its

heels about its responsibility as an employer — to make the point that

this government has already set the precedent as to who they are

responsible for. As an example, I would point to that ministry's own

legislation; it very clearly and without exception laid out the areas

of legislation and contract compliance that they were responsible for.

In the legislation they talk about....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are debating the ministry's estimates and not legislation, hon. member.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The point is that the public sector employees

defined by this government are governed under the Public Service Act —

municipalities, regional districts and improvement districts. It goes

on to talk about employees governed by the School Act, the University

Act, the College and Institute Act and the Community Care Facility Act.

In all of those areas, the government contracts services on behalf of

the taxpayers of this province. My question once again to you, Mr.

Minister, is: are you going to take responsibility for the pay equity

programs for those employees?

HON. J. JANSEN: Do I have a contract? Does the ministry have

a contract with a municipality to run its municipal mandate? No. Does

the government have a contract with a local improvement district to run

that particular operation? No.

Fundamentally, we have a little different approach. When we put in

place a board or enable elections to take place, we expect that the

particular elected or appointed body should have some autonomy. What we

hear time and time again from that side of the house is that autonomy

is fine, but if it's not in accordance with their philosophy, then we

should insert ourselves. That is not our modus operandi. We believe

that there is a fundamental ability to run their own affairs by their

own government and boards. I have indicated that for wage negotiations

with our own employees we have pay equity as an important issue and

have it addressed in the context of that particular light.

[3:00]

MS. CULL: The minister seems to want to have it both ways.

When he's talking about holding the wages of women down, he sees the

authority of government, to move beyond its own direct employees into

all the other public sector employees that my colleague from Surrey has

just mentioned. When we want to talk about economic fairness for women

and ensure that women have that wage gap closed, then the minister

wants to pull back, with his blinders on, and say that we only look at

those people who are directly employed by this, government through the

unions that we deal with. I don't think you can have it both ways.

I want to come back and talk about the women who work directly for

this government in ministries. Over the last number of years we've seen

the systematic contracting out of many government jobs. When the FTE

allotment to ministries was cut, those people didn't actually leave the

employment of the government; they stayed there doing their jobs on

personal service contracts or were put into those positions through

various companies, like Kelly Girl, supplying workers to the government

to keep those jobs filled — primarily with women. But those people were

no longer on the direct payroll of the government.

I want to talk about fairness. That is the real issue here when it

comes to women's wages. I'd like to know why the minister has not

answered the questions that we have put to him with respect to those

employees working on contract in regular government jobs. Is he willing

to undertake an analysis of what they are paid to ensure that when we

have two women working side by side in a ministry and doing the same

job — one a member of a union and an FTE in that ministry, the other an

employee of an office service company — they take home the same

paycheque? That's what pay equity is all about in this sense. That's

what economic fairness is all about.

You can't talk about pay equity and your commitment to it, Mr.

Minister, if at the same time, through your hiring practices, you are

systematically reducing the number of women in those positions and

putting them on contract. That's the fairness issue I'd like to hear

you address. I'd like to know that when those women are working in

ministry offices, whether they're working directly on your payroll or

through a contractor, that they are in fact being treated equally and

receiving the same paycheque.

HON. J. JANSEN: I guess I have difficulty understanding. That

member has worked in government for a long time and has looked at

matters from a different perspective than others that have had some

exposure to the business environment. I don't write the cheques for

those particular contracts. I don't know what they get paid, nor do I

want to go through a process where I'd approve every single cheque that

is issued to their staff. I can tell you that the union is continuing

to represent those members, as you know. The BCGEU was successful, I

believe, in all of the cases that went to the privatized units.

My colleague in the Ministry of Women's Programs and Government

Services did a survey and found that of the employees that they

surveyed, 98 percent received wages equal to government or had

increased since being privatized. Again, it's a matter between the

employer and the employees.

Sometimes it's not appropriate for me to ask questions on this side

of the House, but once in a while it would be nice for that side of the

House to come clean

[ Page

12669 ]

with the people of British Columbia and tell us

what you would like to see us do. What kind of interventionist

legislation would you like to see in place, where we start to open and

close the doors of the business people in the province of British

Columbia? You can laugh, Madam Member, but go around and knock on your

doors in Oak Bay and ask them: "How would you like the government today

to help you? We're from the government and we're here to help you." I

think the answer would be very quick and very sudden and very direct

and very frank: "Thank you, leave us alone."

MR. REYNOLDS: I'm sure the other members on the opposite side

will have a lot more questions, but I have a few myself: a few things

that concern me when I listen to that side talk about contracts and pay

equity and what they're going to do. The minister points out very well

that in this House we never hear from the other side what they would do

if they were in power, so we can only assume they would do what their

friends are doing in Ontario, and increase the budget by $10 billion so

that the taxpayers could pay more money for programs that won't work.

In this House a couple of years ago we used to hear a lot about the

Premier's personal secretary, who left this government and got

$100,000; but we didn't hear very much about the former principal

secretary to the Leader of the Opposition, who was dismissed wrongfully

by the Leader of the Opposition and was paid $89,200. I would like to

ask the minister if he can assure me and the public of British Columbia

that none of that $89,200 came from the public purse. Or did it come

from the public purse? Because it certainly hasn't made....

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: Well, he is the Minister of Finance, and this would be out of his budget. He would certainly have the approval.

Could he tell this House whether that money came from government funds or was paid out of the NDP caucus?

HON. J. JANSEN: There's certainly a lot of sensitivity on that side of the House on this issue, and I'm sure there's a bona fide reason.

Employees of caucus are paid through caucus allocations, which are

through tax dollars that the people of the province send to Victoria,

and they expect that we will exercise responsibility in their

disbursement. I would think that in this particular case, given that

the employee was a caucus employee — if my understanding is correct —

obviously the expense would be part of the caucus expense, unless

somehow there was a private employee of the New Democratic Party

working in the Leader of the Opposition's office.

If that is the case, then perhaps the Leader of the Opposition could clarify,

because he has never come clean on this issue. He has never laid out anything

to the public. He's always sitting on the fence. He's concerned about

taking sides on any issue. But there's a day of reckoning when the Leader

of the Opposition is going to have to face the public of the province of British

Columbia and take sides on issues. He's going to have to make a commitment

for the first time in his life.

I'm sure that on this particular issue...

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

MR. LOVICK: On a point of order, we on this side of the House

quite enjoy the Minister of Finance's fulminations; indeed, we've all

heard this speech a number of times and we quite enjoy it. The problem

is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the measure before us. In

the name of order, I think he ought to be called to order, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On the same point of order, the first

member for Nanaimo may or may not have a good point with respect to the

Minister of Finance's contribution. However, it is not a point of

order, Mr. Chairman. If the member wishes to respond to comments made

about spending, caucus spending and money spent by the Crown on behalf

of our various caucuses, the member has every right to do so.

Nevertheless, he cannot obtain the floor fraudulently with a point of

order. If he wants to enter into the debate, let him do so honestly as

a member entering into the debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just to comment on the point of order, I

believe a certain amount of latitude is allowed in committee. At the

same time, I would want to advise all members that we try to stay close

to the item under debate, which is vote 31. The member for

Vancouver–Howe Sound has the floor.

MR. REYNOLDS: I appreciate your ruling. It always amazes me

that the first member for Nanaimo will get up on these points of order.

It's just wonderful when they want to talk about what doesn't fit in

with their program. The only difference between the principal secretary

to the Leader of the Opposition and the principal secretary to the

Premier of the province was that this government has a fair policy for

severance, which was handed to the former principal secretary. The

difference is no more generous than the courts give. They were both

about the same amount. The difference is, the NDP force their employees

to go to court and sue them and spend the money on lawyers. There must

be a lot of left-wingers graduating out of the law courts these days

who need some work.

Let me get back to the Minister of Finance and the talk we had from

the opposition about contracting out. I want to quote correctly from

the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head: "...systematically reducing the

number of women and fairness.... "

Let me give you one example of this government's policy. This

Minister of Finance, one of the greatest finance ministers in

Canada.... I'll talk later about some of the different programs.

Interjection.

[ Page 12670 ]

MR. REYNOLDS: In every week. This government's had a great

Minister of Finance in all the weeks of its mandate. It's unfortunate

you'll never get a chance to work with a Minister of Finance with the

genius that they've had in this government for managing the public's

affairs.

Let me talk about fairness and "systematically reducing women, " as

you say, in privatization. I can give you one of the best examples in

the province from my own constituency, Cypress Bowl, the ski area. That

was privatized. I hear from the other side: "Tell me something else."

You don't want to hear the good parts.

Every government has problems. We can all sit here bantering back

and forth about who did this and who did what. Let's talk about

something that is very good and positive. When Cypress Bowl was

privatized, it cost this government $500,000 a year to keep it open.

That was for a number of people to ski and cross-country ski. We

privatized it, and at the time we did it, there were 70 full and

part-time government employees working there. Since we privatized it,

there are now 450 full and part-time employees.

This shows that privatization has worked in this province.

MR. LOVICK: What is the positive relationship here?

MR. REYNOLDS: What I'm trying to relate for the first member

for Nanaimo, which he has a hard time understanding, is that it's just

straight common sense that you go from 70 employees to 450. There's a

benefit to the province — men, women, children and the voters of this

province. They've all got more jobs; they're making good money; and

people are happy with the ski resort. In fact, they've made so much

money, we now have lights in the ski hill and we can ski in the evening

now. It's a great example of privatization working in this province and

a reason why you should be up giving standing ovations to the Minister

of Finance.

MR. LOVICK: How about a standing ovation for the member for West Vancouver?

MR. REYNOLDS: I'll be in own constituency tonight, and I

usually get a couple when I speak there I've had some in Nanaimo too,

especially when I talked about some of our good privatization programs.

MR. LOVICK: Were you the guest speaker in Richmond the other day?

MR. REYNOLDS: No. If I announce that I'm not running, I'll get a standing ovation from my wife and children but not from others.

Can the Minister of Finance guarantee the people of British Columbia

that this very successful privatization program will continue until

it's working even better than it's working now? There are other things

that should be privatized in this province. Will he guarantee the

people that he won't be scared away by these socialists on the other

side insisting on government jobs in the BCGEU and by Shields telling

them that he wants everybody to vote NDP in the next election? Will he

assure us that he'll continue with this great program of privatization

in the province?

[3:15]

HON. J. JANSEN: That is indeed a good

summary of the

privatization success stories throughout this province. What the member

for West Vancouver–Howe Sound didn't say was that in fact Cypress Bowl

is now paying taxes, and taxes pay for our social programs, Mr. Member.

It's interesting to see the reflection of the socialist mentality in

other provinces. They've eliminated the word "competitiveness" in all

their policy manuals in Ontario. You see, that's a bad word. They live

on an island, they don't have to trade with anybody, they have their

own standards and beliefs and they can just run on deficits for now and

forever more. That's okay.

I can tell you about the success stories throughout all the

ministries, and savings to the taxpayers of the province have been

significant. Whether it's in Transportation and Highways — $22 million

to $105 million indirect; and $105 million is a lot of money. When $105

million is available for hospital, education and social programs, I

feel good at the end of the day and feel that we've done something

successful. I can listen to all your empty statements, ideology and so

on, but at the end of the day the people understand who is running this

province the correct way. We are a fiscally responsible government, and

we're going to stay here.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm not sure what I enjoy more: the Finance

minister's patronizing attitude or the previous minister et al for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound. Where we're talking about the lives that women

face in this province because of patently unjust.... When we are

talking in this House about how this minister decides to treat his

employees and how he deals with the broader public sector as far as pay

equity programs go, we get a patronizing response and/or a diatribe

about ski hills in West Vancouver.

Now quite seriously, when we are talking about women who have to

line up in food banks because they have no option and because they make

60-cent dollars in this province, and we have a minister who says that

he isn't going to intervene on their behalf, and that this government

would rather pay out in welfare cheques.... This minister talks about

being able to provide good social programs. Well, the women of this

province want decent, well-paying jobs; they don't want welfare. That,

Mr. Minister, is your responsibility beyond being an employer. It is

your responsibility to the taxpayers of this province to provide some

leadership around justice and around laws to make certain that people

can feed their children.

The fact is, Mr. Minister, that when you talk about cutting costs

for this government through your strategy of contracting out, what you

are doing is assuring the people of this province institutionalized

inequities and institutionalized injustices. It is on your back when

you are talking about those contracts. Let me talk about some specific

contracts, Mr. Minister. I'm glad

[ Page

12671 ]

you're amused. Let me talk about some of those contracts that you are responsible for.

The fact is that within the Ministry of Social Services — and that

is one of the areas dealt with in your previous legislation that we

were talking about here — there are group homes in this province where

the employees are so underpaid that they can no longer maintain the

continuity of care necessary for the people you are responsible for.

Those children — the disabled in this province who you are responsible

for — are not assured of the kind of care they deserve because of the

contracting-out policies of this government.

Mr. Member, when we are talking about pay equity programs, we're

talking about public policy. We're talking about dealing with a

systemic discrimination in this province. We're talking about women's

equality and the right of women to live in some dignity. So, Mr.

Member, when you talk about intervening in the marketplace and about

your philosophy of allowing the private sector to do as they will, then

you are saying that the women of this province have absolutely no hope

with your government of equity and justice or of being able to deal

with the growing poverty among women and children in this province.

Mr. Member, I'm asking you one more time: will you consider the

whole issue of the broader public sector? Will you consider taking on

your responsibility simply as an employer to ensure that those groups

are included in a pay equity package? Will you show some guidance for

the women of this province so they can get off the welfare rolls?

HON. MR. BRUCE: I have some very grave concerns with another

item, and particularly with what's happening in the province of

Ontario, which also has an NDP government at this point. What concerns

me is the effect of that $9.7 billion deficit that the NDP has run up

in Ontario on both the Canadian economy and our own economy.

Ontario, being the largest province in Canada and having that staggering $9.7

billion deficit, won't sit there as a province singularly unto itself. The

effect of that deficit is going to play throughout the country. The overall spending

in that province — it's up some 13.4 percent to $6.2 billion — is going to

have a tremendous impact on people and financing institutions beyond the borders

of Ontario. We in British Columbia are going to have to be very concerned about

the prospect of the opposition going to the ballot box shortly, trying to pretend

that they are the keeper of the taxpayer in looking after the taxpayers'

affairs, when their brethren in Ontario have just outspent the limit with the

highest deficit anywhere in this country It's important that we in this

province understand what they've done in Ontario. It's interesting to

note that the members of the opposition virtually fled the chamber once we started

talking about what's happening in Ontario. What has happened in Ontario

could certainly happen here, if the people of this province are not aware of

what they've done. There are 14 tax increases in that budget in Ontario,

which will actually cost some 4,000 jobs over the coming year.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUCE: I'm glad you're back and listening.

The future deficits are predicted to be in excess of $7 billion for

the next three years. What concerns me with those ongoing deficits in

Ontario continuing to increase is what effect that will have on our

ability and on our financial institutions' ability to borrow in this

province, and what it will do to the private sector in the availability

of dollars to be able to carry on commerce in this province and across

this country. Ontario's total debt will more than double to $70 billion

after four years of NDP government. I am concerned what the effect that

type of deficit in Ontario will have on our ability here to manage the

economy of British Columbia in an effective and responsible way I say

that not in jest but in all seriousness. I am certain that the

taxpayers of British Columbia are as concerned as I am as to what the

Minister of Finance is doing in his analysis of the situation in

Ontario. There's a great danger that this massive borrowing will

restrict even further the amount of capital available for the private

marketplace, thus driving up interest rates for business loans and

mortgages. That's going to affect not only businesses in Ontario....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUCE: It's fine to say that Ontario is another jurisdiction, but Ontario happens to be the largest province in Canada.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUCE: That's very good. It will have an effect.

Those increased borrowings are going to affect the national economy and

the economy in British Columbia. It troubles me what's happened in

Ontario. I'm interested to know what the Minister of Finance might be

able to tell me in regard to steps that the ministry is taking in

monitoring what's happening in Ontario, and what effect the actions of

the NDP Ontario government could have on the state of finances here in

the economy of British Columbia.

MR. GUNO: I would like to ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. GUNO: It's not often that I get an opportunity to

introduce guests from my riding of Atlin, but I'm very pleased today to

introduce a group of students from Nathan Barton Elementary School

located in the community of Kincolith at the mouth of the Nass River.

In the precincts today are 12 students from grades 3 to 5 accompanied

by an old friend, Mr. Rennie Brown, and Mrs. Rose Smythe. They left

Kincolith last Friday by ferry and boarded the Queen of Prince Rupert

on Saturday. Given the great distance they've had to travel, I would

ask the House to join me in giving them a very special welcome.

[ Page 12672 ]

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, may I also take the courtesy of making an introduction while we have this slight break?

Leave granted.

MR. REID: Our side of the House would also like to welcome

those students who have traveled so far; they are certainly welcome

here today.

We also have in the precincts 25 grade 5 students from South

Meridian Elementary School who have traveled from the South

Surrey–White Rock area today. I hope the House will show them a very

special welcome.

HON. J. JANSEN: In response to that last question about the

impact that the Ontario budget has on the country as well as our

province, I just returned from a Finance ministers' meeting in Prince

Edward Island where we discussed the impact of deficit financing and

how serious it is. It was quite amusing, actually. In my conversation

with the treasurer from Ontario I talked about the deficit and said:

"It must be quite a sensitive issue for you to deal with when you talk

to the investment community and your caucus." He said: "It's

interesting. We put all the radicals in cabinet to shut them up." Those

were his exact comments.

An economy the size of Ontario's is 40 percent of the national, so

whatever Ontario does has a significant impact on the rest of the

country Over the next little while, in four years, they are going to

double its outstanding debt, which took 123 years to accumulate. In

four short years under the socialist regime it will be doubled.

[3:30]

There's an interesting perspective of their budget by the Gordon

Capital Corp., a well-respected bond-rating agency and investment

dealer that has assessed the budget. I should read this into the

record, as some parts are extremely interesting. They first make the

point that: "The long Ontario budget document makes interesting, if

frightening, reading. The budget forecasts huge deficits in the coming

years, even when the economy is projected to grow at healthy rates." So

the projections of their deficits in each of the four years are based

on healthy growth rates in their economy, and in fact, the reverse is

true: the deficit will be much larger.

They went on: "The emphasis is on other things rather than building

an economy...that is so worrisome about the budget. Routinely in the

budget papers the Treasurer rejects the idea that wage costs and union

work rules have much to do with competitiveness...."

I think this should be repeated. The members opposite are not

listening to this, because this is painful for them; it's one of their

colleagues. One of their comrades in another province is putting in

place their ideology — Pink Floyd: "Routinely in the budget papers the

Treasurer rejects the idea that wage costs and union work rules have

much to do with competitiveness, while asserting that making everyone

in the province, employed and unemployed, feel full partners in its

riches is the basis for sound, fair growth."

"The Canadian recession is largely the product of high

real rates of interest and high exchange rates which are driven by

Ontario's selfishness. Whether Ontario's bonds will continue to be

provincial benchmarks is questionable, of course, but the near-term

impact is clearly negative and is resented from British Columbia to

Newfoundland."

That's in this document.

It says: "The kind of people who are running Ontario are honest,

politically correct and convinced they know far better than the market

how to allocate resources." The last statement is: "Their education" —

are you listening, members? — "will be an interesting and costly

experience for all Canadians."

I'll tell you what all those adjectives mean; I'll tell you what

that all means. That particular budget has today already cost the

people of Ontario $200 million in interest charges alone simply from

the philosophy contained in that budget document. And you can go on and

on about ideology, about the stuff you're talking about and about

pointless arguments. The fact of the matter is that in the final

analysis, it is going to cost the taxpayers dollars for translating

that philosophy into reality.

For the first time, the Ontario accumulated deficit will equal that

of the country of India. There's not much difference in population. I

think India has 800 million people, and Ontario has somewhat less. But

the question was: will there be a significant impact on the rest of the

country? And the answer to that is yes.

We are seeing that impact already. There has been concern by the

bond rating industry about the significant demands for capital that

Ontario is trying to achieve. In all those Atlantic provinces — you

wouldn't know a double A if it came flying out of the air, I think —

which are desperate in terms of their capital needs, what has happened

in Ontario has had a very severe and very devastating impact.

It's bound to have that continued impact; the province of British

Columbia shines in terms of the growth of our economy and our debt

loads. We're going to continue to ensure that our country is judged not

just on what Ontario's performance is doing in the negative side, but

what British Columbia's positive performance is doing on the positive

side.

MR. CLARK: I know that members opposite want members on this

side to rise to the bait. But you know what? I can't help doing it; I

must say, I have to do it. I have to talk about it because members on

the other side are practising for being in opposition. They're waiting

for two or three months, and they want to ask questions of members on

this side of the House. So I want to practice as well; we'll deal with

them from this side.

I want to deal first with the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound,

who said how terrible it was that the Leader of the Opposition fired a

staff person. I want to tell the members of the House and the member

for West Vancouver–Howe Sound that it's true. The Leader of the

Opposition fired an individual, and that individual sued and was

successful in court and got some money. That's unfortunate, but the

Leader of the Opposition had the courage to dismiss an employee.

[ Page

12673 ]

That's not what happened with the principal

secretary to the former Premier, Mr. David Poole. He wasn't fired. He

was given $100,000 in taxpayers' money to sneak away into the night to

work for a dog food plant in Ontario or whatever it was he was doing

for a while. Big difference, Mr. Chairman.

That side of the House has spent more money on severance than all

the governments in the history of British Columbia — giving money away.

Look at Mr. Carr, who was fired from the Hazardous Waste Management

Corporation. Was he fired? I'm not sure if he was fired. He got a big

settlement, we know that — a very big settlement. We're trying to find

out exactly how big that settlement is. He didn't have to sue for it,

because they want to give that money away. They want to give away

severance money. They want to give that golden handshake. That's what

the member for West Vancouver....

There's a big difference between our side and their side, that's

true. We don't give away taxpayers' money as a golden handshake to

personal political hacks that have done the business of the Premier.

I'd like to deal with the member for Cowichan-Malahat, the Minister

of Municipal Affairs, who talked at length about Ontario. Now isn't

that interesting, Mr. Chairman! We didn't hear very much about the

current budget. Why is that? He talked about the tax increases in

Ontario. Well, what's happened to this administration? Income tax

increases, corporate income tax increases, wealth surtax increases; 800

fee, licence and permit increases; over 200 of those brand-new fees,

brand-new fees of all kinds; medical services premiums, a 75 percent

increase in this government's mandate for medical service premiums to

the working people that have to pay again and again. We've seen tax

increases and tax increases. The average family pays $3,000 more now in

taxes than when this government took office. Can you believe that? No

wonder they want to talk about Ontario. They don't want to defend their

own sorry record.

Let's look at the deficit — the largest deficit in the history of

British Columbia, $1.2 billion. But I want to tell you something, Mr.

Chairman. If the books in British Columbia were done the same way as

the books in Ontario, the deficit would be $2.4 billion. The members

like to talk about Ontario. In Ontario, when the government spends $600

million on school construction, that shows up as part of the deficit.

But not under Social Credit bookkeeping. When the government in Ontario

spends money on subway cars, that shows up on the deficit. But not in

British Columbia The government spends $1 billion on SkyTrain; it

doesn't show up on the deficit because of fancy Social Credit

bookkeeping.

What about the direct debt? All of that money spent on the debt

should show up under direct debt. That's what the auditor-general says.

But not under this administration.

What's happened in terms of total debt under Social Credit in the last

ten or 15 years? It's gone from $4 billion to $20 billion at the end of

this fiscal year. That's what's happened. The direct debt has increased

five times under Social Credit administration since 1975, and just in the last

year alone direct debt is increasing dramatically — the debt for government

purposes, not Crown corporation debt. In fact, it's increasing more this

year than in the last five years combined. Debt is up dramatically under this

administration. The deficit is the largest in history under this administration

and this minister. The direct total debt in British Columbia under successive

Social Credit administrations is up five times since they took office in 1976.

We see massive tax increases across the board on every conceivable one, including

a new one — a property purchase tax. This government, which says it's so

concerned about private property and owning a home, put a tax that's raising

hundreds of millions of dollars on young families and on people trying to buy

a first home.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

What about business taxes? The small business tax is one point

higher now than it was when they took office. What about the paperwork

tax credit that used to exist under the Bill Bennett government,

abolished by this administration? No wonder they want to talk about

Ontario. They can talk about Ontario all they want, but the voters are

going to talk about British Columbia and about their record, and that's

another reason why they'll be defeated in the next election.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we are debating the estimates of

the Minister of Finance and not history, legislation or, in essence,

other jurisdictions. Would hon. members please come to order.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure we all agree with you. I

can't help but remember, when I listen to the member for Vancouver East

speaking, that I thought it was going to be awfully dull around here

when we lost some of their members after the last election. I remember

Dennis Cocke and Alec Macdonald, who were great speakers and always

very entertaining. I must admit that I was wrong, because this member

is very entertaining. He's very good on his feet and makes about as

much socialist sense as Dennis Cocke and Alec Macdonald ever made.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I agree, order should be.... Carry on until the member develops the estimates.

MR. REYNOLDS: Let me just talk about socialist economics with

the Minister of Finance. We're talking about money that was paid out of

the parliament buildings in the last year to a former principal

secretary of the Premier and a former principal secretary of the Leader

of the Opposition. The member for Vancouver East says: "One was fired

and got $89,200." But he forgets that it probably cost about $100,000

for the court case, with judges and other people. He forgets that it

probably cost another $50,000 for lawyers.

Interjections.

[ Page 12674 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I'm getting to my point. I have a

question for the Minister of Finance. I must get this information, and

based on what the member for Vancouver East said, Mr. Chairman.... Will

this minister assure me and the people of British Columbia that this

government will continue with the compassionate way it treats its

employees, that it will not force them to go to court to sue to get

severance, as the Leader of the Opposition and the NDP do? Will he

assure the people of British Columbia that we'll continue that policy

in the way we treat our employees in this province?

HON. J. JANSEN: It's very unfortunate that type of example is

shown from time to time in government. I can assure the members in this

House and the people of the province that we believe in fairness for

our employees. We don't believe in confrontation. We believe in talking

to employees about their situation.

[3:45]

I know your concern about the broader scope of conversation

respecting what is happening in the rest of the country. It's a valid

concern, but I would like the opportunity to respond very briefly.

There's a quote by someone, and I want to read it because it says the

reason that I want to respond. It says: "A lot of the campaign themes

that were run in Ontario are very appropriate for British Columbia, so

we're looking for that same kind of message." Who said that? Well, it

was the member for Vancouver East. He said that on the BCTV news on

February 10, 1991. So we're looking at the same kind of message in

British Columbia. What does that mean?

There's another quote: "I know that it would be inappropriate for me

to interfere in any way in the affairs of another province, but I just

wanted to say I need company." Now who said that? That was Bob Rae,

BCTV news, February 10, 1991. Isn't that interesting!

On the one side they want to divorce themselves from the debacle

happening in Ontario, and on the other side they don't want to. But I

want to respond to his comparison to what's happening in Ontario, Mr.

Chairman, because it's fundamentally what is underlying the philosophy

of our budget document.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As it relates to your ministry.

HON. J. JANSEN: As it relates to my ministry.

My ministry, Mr. Chairman, put together the budget document which

outlines the capital requirements and the debt requirements. A member

is talking about figures he has absolutely no idea about. I think he's

reading the Ontario budget, because I can't find the figures he's

talking about. The figures I find.... Direct government debt was $5

billion at the end of '87-88; and at the end of '91-92, some five years

later, $5.988 billion. He said something about $20 billion for direct

government debt. I don't think he has any idea.

Then he talks about the Ontario situation, and he says: "You know,

if British Columbia's books were done the same as Ontario's books, then

we would show a deficit of...." What?

AN HON. MEMBER: Of $2.4 billion.

HON. J. JANSEN: Isn't that interesting, Mr. Chairman, because

the fact of the matter is — and you can go to the auditor-general; you

can go to the other auditor-general — that Ontario does their

accounting on a cash basis. We do our accounting on an accrual basis. I

know you don't know the difference, but a cash basis allows you

flexibility in terms of postponing expenditures from one year to the

next on the basis of when you actually disburse funds. Auditors-general

across Canada, save and except in Ontario, have said that this is an

incorrect way of accounting and that the principles of accounting do

not allow you to do a cash basis.

But what is more interesting.... If you pull out our capital

expenditures in this year's budget — which have been capitalized in

Ontario — the truth of the matter is that we wind up with over a $1

billion surplus.

You know, there's something wrong with your accounting over there,

members. Get yourself new calculators. Take your hearing aids out and

put your batteries in your calculators, because that's where you need

them. You're not using them for hearing, I tell you.

Mr. Chairman, the bond-rating agencies are people who impartially

look at the financial conditions across Canada. We are the best-rated

province, together with Alberta, in the whole country.

They talk about comparative taxation. I specifically wanted this

schedule in the budget document, and it shows again that we are the

second best in the entire nation.

What other indicators do you want? Do you want me to talk about the

Ontario situation and the regressive taxes they've put in place, such

as capital taxes on banks, loans and trust companies; a minimum

corporate income tax; a land speculation tax; removing the small

business deduction and attacking small business in the province; and

increasing income tax?

They were afraid to talk about the employer medical tax. They had a

separate document which talked about the need for reform in the health

care system. They said: "We have to examine new ways of charging for

out-of-country." They were afraid to come clean in the budget document,

because they knew it was a bad-news item. And it's going to be a bad

news item.

Fuel taxes. That was a really great initiative. They have people

going across the border in droves to shop, and they thought that the

solution would be to raise taxes on gasoline. I can tell you that there

are revenue initiatives.... Mining. The member for Prince George may

think this is great stuff. They increased mining taxes too, and that

industry is already in great difficulty in Ontario.

I think we could talk for a long time about the Ontario budget, its

impact on the country and how it compares to what's happening here. Why

didn't we do the things that they did over there? Because we were wiser

money managers. I don't think they want to hear

[ Page

12675 ]

that. They get really disturbed over there when we

talk about their spending appetites and their deficit appetites. They

want to spend more and more and don't care about how they raise the

money. It's just a continual.... Now they also want to go beyond that,

They want to get involved in the affairs of small businesses in this

province. They have a better idea. I think the people of the province

find that a little offensive.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, maybe for the benefit of the

committee, all members may wish to refer to page 116 of the estimates.

There's a vote description there which is basically the subject matter

that we should be addressing ourselves to at this time under votes 31,

32 and 33. Possibly all members would direct their attention to this

vote description, and we could debate within order.

HON. MR. BRUCE: I would like to continue on a little in this

line of discussion as it respects the Ministry of Finance and the

tracking that the ministry would do. I would expect that you must have

people within the ministry who track not only what's happening in

British Columbia but also what's happening in other provinces and with

the federal government. Because certainly the effect of government

actions in any one of the provinces could have an impact on the affairs

of British Columbia.

I'd like to come back to Ontario.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUCE: Ontario unfortunately elected an NDP

government. I'm trying as best I can to let the people of British

Columbia know just what the opposition would actually do if, heaven

forbid, they happened to become government. I think it's quite serious

Ontario has a $9.7 billion deficit, and I just want to reiterate that.

I think it's important that the people of British Columbia understand

how the $9.7 billion deficit which has occurred in Ontario can affect

them locally.

Now I noticed that with the effects of what's taking place in

Ontario, the real gross provincial product is expected to decrease by

3.3 percent in 1991. I would expect that within the Ministry of Finance

in British Columbia, as I mentioned we would be tracking not only the

situation here in this province but what's happening in others,

particularly Ontario.

I've also noticed that unemployment in NDP Ontario.... This is

something you should understand because I know the opposition likes to

point out and try to pretend that they are the great defender of all

those who work. I would just like to point out that they are incorrect.

However, unemployment is going to hit 10 percent, up sharply from 6.3

percent before the NDP were elected. Unemployment is going to hit 10

percent in Ontario. What concerns me....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The second member for Victoria. Could the

Chair anticipate your point of order. It's probably quite valid.

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, we have the worst deficit

in the history of this province — a $20 billion overall deficit — yet

these members refuse to talk about the debt in British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, what is your point of order?

MR. BLENCOE: Bring that member to the business of the province of British Columbia that we should be debating in this House, Mr. Chairman.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, from just about anybody else on

that side I could take that point of order. But he knows full well it's

not a point of order. In the estimates, everybody has a chance to get

up and speak. He'll have his chance. Sit down and listen to this great

question and point of information by this member from Cowichan.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Both of you are...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...question marks. We are on the estimates of

the Minister of Finance. Only the administrative action of a department

is open to debate in these estimates.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It's always pleasant to enjoy

the time in here, but let's keep the place within order. We will get to

the debate on the ministry's estimates in British Columbia.

HON. MR. BRUCE: I was coming to be very specific as to how my

comments were leading to the Minister of Finance's estimates. As I was

mentioning, in Ontario they're projecting that the unemployment level

will hit 10 percent. I'd just like to reiterate that's up sharply from

6.3 percent before the NDP was elected. What I want to know....

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, all members in this chamber

represent the great people of the province of British Columbia. We

should be talking about British Columbia's business, not other

business. Mr. Chairman, I ask you once again to teach that new minister

the rules of this Legislature and bring him to talk about the great

province of British Columbia, not anywhere else.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair was patient

while listening to the

preamble to your point of order. We will do the

same for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and let him develop his

arguments as they apply to these estimates. I am confident that he will.

[ Page 12676 ]

HON. J. JANSEN: On a point of order, I find it a little

offensive that that member has jumped up out of his seat in this manner

I don't know how many times today. Every time he stood up, it has

been....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point of order?

HON. J. JANSEN: I'm asking that you ask him to refrain from interrupting the proceedings of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Somehow the Chair finds both the kettle and the

pot black. Possibly all members will show some patience and direct

their attention to the estimates.

HON. MR. BRUCE: I would like to refresh everyone's minds on

where I was coming from, and this is extremely important. As I was

mentioning, the unemployment level in Ontario is expected to hit 10

percent.

[4:00]

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, a few minutes ago the Chair

extended the courtesy to you to develop your point of order, and the

minister will have the same courtesy. When the Chair ascertains that he

is out of order, the Chair will draw it to his attention.

MR. LOVICK: On the same point of order, I think this House

would be well served by a ruling from you on whether talking about the

experience of another jurisdiction is germane to this debate. That's

what he's asking. We're asking for a ruling.

MR. REYNOLDS: I would like to read to members on the other

side standing order 61(3) on page 22. The last sentence reads: "Mr.

Chairman may invite submissions from members, but no debate shall be

permitted on any decision. No decision shall be subject to an appeal of

the House."

Mr. Chairman, this member from Victoria has been up three times in a row and

is skating very thinly, I would suggest, around the rules of this House. You

have made a decision: you stated that you will state when members are out of

order. I would ask you to warn this member that if he gets up one more time

and interrupts this House unnecessarily, you will tell him that he must leave

the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think, hon. members, that we should, as I

stated earlier, all look at page 116 of the estimates, particularly

vote 32 — and I know we're dealing with 31 at this time — to find out

the mandate of the ministry and the debate that should come under this.

As all members know — and, I would suggest, particularly the first

member for Nanaimo, who is the self-proclaimed expert on debate and the

in debate, comparisons used responsibly are admissible.

HON. MR. BRUCE: I can truly understand the sensitivity that

the opposition would have to my mentioning the fact that unemployment

in Ontario is going to hit 10 percent, and I can appreciate that there

would be that concern.

What I am concerned about — and I'm hoping the Minister of Finance

can shed some light on this — is that within the vote there would be

tracking of what's occurring in these other jurisdictions, because it

would seem to me that if there is a high unemployment level in one part

of the country, and in another part of the country, such as British

Columbia, there is a relatively strong economy and a very good record

of job development, you will find that people will move from where

there aren't jobs to where there are jobs. And that, my friends, would

have a fair impact on your lives and my life in this province. I am

interested in whether the Minister of Finance and his ministry

officials are monitoring that, because it concerns me when we have a

$9.7 billion deficit in Ontario with an NDP government and when I think

of the impact and effect that may have on the rest of the people of

this country It bothers me when they project that the total employment

is expected to drop by nearly 200,000, following a drop of 100,000 in

the first six months of the NDP government. I would hope, Mr. Chairman,

to the Minister of Finance, that you are making provision, through the

work you are doing for this year and the years in the future, for the

fact that there will more than likely be a great number of people who

will leave Ontario and look to go to other provinces in this country,

specifically to British Columbia.

The other thing that bothers me and that I'm hoping this ministry is

being mindful of is that housing starts in NDP Ontario will fall some

34.7 percent, following an already 32.9 percent drop. I would hope that

the Minister of Finance is reviewing those statistics as well and that

he has within that vote enough money to look after monitoring what's

happening not only within our own province but in other provinces,

particularly in Ontario.

It concerns me greatly when there are projections of deficits across

this country — specifically in Ontario of an $8.9 billion deficit for

1993, an $8.4 billion deficit for 1993-94 and a $7.8 billion deficit

for 1994-95. These are based on forecasts of a robust economy with a

growth of upwards of 4 percent in Ontario, which is going to have an

impact on British Columbia from the standpoint of borrowing, as I

mentioned earlier, not only for this government but for the private

sector.

This is a great drain on capital dollars, and I think the Minister

of Finance had best have within that vote enough money to be able to

track what's happening not only in this province but across this

country and particularly in that province. I would like to hear what

the Minister of Finance has to say about those situations happening

throughout this country and the effect they would have in British

Columbia.

HON. J. JANSEN: My colleague the minister brings up some very

good points. There is a connection respecting net in-migration from

other provinces — how it's going to impact on the province — and job

[ Page

12677 ]

creation in the different economies. But there is also a connection indicating the underlying philosophy of our budget profile.

You may say it's not fair to talk about the philosophy of budgeting

in one province as opposed to that in another province. But by their

own admission, they had a transition team to help prepare the budget in

Ontario. The philosophy of Ontario is the philosophy on that side of

the House, and that was reinforced by the comments of the Finance

critic when he was interviewed on BCTV. It was a sad comment when he

said: "A lot of the campaign themes that were run in Ontario are very

appropriate for British Columbia, so we're looking for that same kind

of message." Shame!

I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the philosophy the transition

team has put in place has in one year doubled the deficit that has been

accumulated in the province of Ontario since Confederation. One year of

NDP socialist government has put together a deficit that has

outstripped the deficits accumulated since Confederation.

Let's talk about the in-migration, because that's an important part

of what is happening. The Ontario socialist government has addressed

the problem of recession by spending more money Can you believe that?

Somehow they feel that the more you spend, the quicker you get yourself

out of the recession, and that when you spend more money, tax

businesses more and increase the burden in the future, you remove

yourself from the recessionary impact.

When trying to defend this situation, they blamed it on the federal

government. Isn't that interesting? They said the federal government

cut back on transfer payments. As a result, they had to do what they

had to do: outspend every other government in the country. There's

Ontario for you.

Let me tell you what's happening in the province of British

Columbia. In the first quarter of this year we have seen net

in-migration from other parts of Canada of 9,500 people. That's because

when they come here they find jobs. In the Ontario economy, employment

has decreased substantially — 200,000 people without work. In British

Columbia we had growth of 17,000 people. I think there is a difference.

You may ask why that difference. The difference is simply reflected in

the fact of a philosophy respecting the economy. We don't intend to

replace the business community with government spending. We don't

intend to burden the future population with unreal deficits. We believe

in free enterprise, and the philosophy of free enterprise means that

the participation of government in the economy must decrease — not

increase — that's the difference. It's going to be reflected in the

fact that because of those initiatives, the growth in our economy will

continue to expand.

Mr. Chairman, everywhere you read, you see headlines like the one I have in

front of me: "The Bloom Is Off the Rae." Everyone is concerned about

the scandals and concerns in their government and the cost of their fiascos.

Mr. Chairman, let me tell you again that when we talk about the deficit and

the size of deficits and the accumulated debt over the number of years, I don't

know where the members get their figures. I refer them to table H4, which may

give them a little opportunity.... I'd be pleased to talk to them. What

I'd really like in this debate is for one of those members to stand up — their

leader won't take any position except on top of the fence — and just for

one moment tell us where their philosophy is. You keep on talking about spending

more money and addressing new programs. You keep on saying that that the more

you spend the better managers you are. For one moment could the people of British

Columbia hear from the mouth of the Finance critic — or somebody else who's

not afraid to have the courage of their conviction and stand up and be counted

— what his philosophy is respecting budgeting?

Do they believe in deficits? Do they believe in this magical money tree? Where are they going to talk about....

Interjection.

HON. J. JANSEN: The member's talking about something. I'm

sorry, I can't hear. You could maybe address it through the Chair later

on. I'd be pleased to hear you stand up and speak. You'll have your

time to debate as well. I would love to hear that member's views as

well. That would really give me an opportunity to respond to her

philosophy. I'm not sure what it is, because nobody in the province

knows what their philosophy is. They don't have any position.

[4:15]

Interjection.

HON. J. JANSEN: We can tell you where we stand and what we

believe in. This budget document reflects that, members. Do you know

something else? It's working, Mr. Chairman. Across Canada they're

pointing to British Columbia as an example of fiscal leadership. So

what do you want to do? Do you want to follow the NDP socialist

philosophy or follow one that makes sense and works? That's the free

enterprise Social Credit philosophy embodied in this budget document.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister wishes to make an introduction.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, I ask for leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I thank the member for Victoria for his kindness.

Seated in the House today are 23 grade 7 students from Langley

Prairie Elementary School in my constituency and their teacher, Mr.

Erickson. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, the Finance minister is asking all

sorts of questions of this side of the House. That minister has been

here a short while, and he may have a bit of time left in this chamber.

I would remind

[ Page 12678 ]

that member that we are Her Majesty's Loyal

Opposition. We have a job to do on behalf of the people of British

Columbia, and we proudly do it. I can assure that member that in a few

months we will give him every opportunity to ask our government

questions, because we will allow that to happen in this province.

I have been in this House a long time....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I'll get to the Minister of Municipal Affairs in a minute.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, the member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll get to that minister in a minute. I have a few words for the minister.

I have been in this House some time, and quite frankly I've never

seen a government in such disarray. They are desperate to say and do

anything to cling to power. For the Minister of Finance to talk about

scandals is unbelievable when we have in front of us the most

politically corrupt government in the history of this country That's

what we have before us — scandal after scandal and conflict of

interest. The people of British Columbia know that.

For that minister to talk about deficits.... Prior to 1975, after

104 years of Confederation in this great province, we had less than $4

billion accumulated indirect and direct debt. The people should know

that in a short 16 years Social Credit has raised that deficit in

direct and indirect accumulated debt from less than $4 billion to $20

billion. Will they talk about that? Will they tell the people what

they've done — in excess now of $6,000 in direct and indirect debt upon

every man, woman and child in this province? This government has built

it up through its squandering and its mismanagement. Thanks for the

memories — that's what the people of British Columbia are saying.

Thanks for the memories of incredible mismanagement and $20 billion of

debt today — in excess of $6,000 per man, woman and child.

I think it's time this Minister of Finance, the fourth we've had in

three or four months.... I lose track, they come and go so fast.

AN HON. MEMBER: There will be one more before the election.

MR. BLENCOE: My colleague says there may be one more before the election comes.

It's time we started addressing that debt. It's unheard of to

accumulate such an overall debt in such a short period — $20 billion, a

$16 billion increase. It took 104 years of all government since

Confederation to reach less than $4 billion. This government has

quadrupled it in such a short period of time. That's the record we

should be talking about. That's the history of mismanagement we should

be talking about. Those are the memories that British Columbians would

love to forget but obviously can't because every man, woman and child

is now responsible for in excess of $6,000 worth of accumulated debt.

Let's talk about the mismanagement of this government and the

overruns — the former cabinet member from Kamloops, who was driving

around in a Mack truck with the tailgate down handing out millions of

dollars as if there was no tomorrow. Let's talk about lottery funds —

incredible scandals of misuse of public funds. That's what British

Columbians want us to talk about in this Legislature. That's the track

record — the incredible deficit this government has given to the people

in such a short period. Maybe this minister can talk about why that's

happened or about the mismanagement that's given to the people of

British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair could possibly make a slight observation that we're in the estimates debate, not the budget debate, at this time.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, it's because there is a tomorrow

that I'm getting up to speak in this debate. You know, that's what the

NDP opposition seem to forget. There is a tomorrow. That's why we're

bringing the budget of Ontario to the attention of British Columbians.

I'm going to be in order. I want to abide by the rules of this House

and to speak within vote 31. It's because of that that I will probably

touch on certain issues from the province of Ontario. When the second

member for Victoria gets up and talks about the debts in British

Columbia, he conveniently forgets the assets. That's the kind of debate

we get from that side of the House.

We're talking of direct debt in Ontario; in British Columbia we're

talking of debt backed by assets. But the NDP opposition wouldn't know

about that. I don't think there are two of them over there that have

any assets. Highways, bridges, buildings, dams, ferries, railroads,

hospitals — those are the assets of the people of British Columbia to

back the kinds of debts they're talking about.

Mr. Chairman, I want my debate to be within the rules of this House.

So I want to talk about those things that fall under the purview of the

Minister of Finance, whose estimates we're here debating today. We know

that the minister is fresh back from a Finance ministers' conference in

the east. I don't read too many of the eastern newspapers — and

conveniently, I don't watch a whole lot of television, because it

sometimes gives me insomnia — but I want the minister to tell me....

All of these stories we're hearing about the sort of thing that's

happening out east in Ontario.... I want the minister, after having met

with his fellow Finance ministers in the Maritimes, to tell me whether

some of those rumours are actually true — rumours like a promise made

by a party that was running recently that they would have a $2 billion

deficit in Ontario, when in fact that deficit was $9.7 billion. I want

to know if that's true. I want to know if he found that out at the

ministers' conference. Those are the kinds of things I want to talk

about today.

[ Page

12679 ]

Was more money promised for education in Ontario prior to the last

election? Was significantly less money allocated to education in their

budget? Is that true, or is that just a rumour?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are on the Ministry of Finance; we are not in the budget debate. I would ask you to come to order.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, you're absolutely correct. I want to

know what our Finance minister, who is just back from a Finance

ministers' conference in the Maritimes, heard. It's our Finance

minister's responsibility to report to British Columbians what he

really found. You can only believe about half of what you read in the

newspaper, so I want to find out, and today I want to make sure it's on

the record for all of the people of British Columbia to know. Are these

rumours or are they facts, Mr. Chairman? That's under the purview of

the Minister of Finance. It's up to the minister to tell British

Columbians.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this politics, Jack?

MR. KEMPF: No, there will be no politics in this chamber, Mr. Member — none.

Mr. Chairman, I'm a member from the north, and I want to know if the

minister heard while he was out east that $400 million was promised for

northern development in Ontario and nothing was forthcoming in the

budget — nothing, not a bean. I want to know whether those things are

true so that I can go back to the north and tell my constituents.

It was the members opposite who mentioned scandals just a few

moments ago, and I want to deal with that as well. I really want to

deal with that, because they talk about scandal and they aim that

accusation at the Social Credit government.

The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head pounds her desk. I haven't finished. When I've finished I hope you will pound your desk.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, Social Credit has been in power in British Columbia

for 37 1/2 out of the last 40 years. Yes, we've had scandals,

certainly, and I'm looking forward — heaven forbid if you ever form

government, you members on the other side of the floor — to the ones

we're going to have in British Columbia then. I want to tell you about

scandals in the province of Ontario. In the eight short months that the

NDP has been government in Ontario.... I want to know from our Minister

of Finance in British Columbia whether he heard these things when he

was out east. Again, we only know what we read in the newspapers. The

minister was actually there speaking to other Finance ministers from

across Canada.

I want to know whether he heard of these things — whether he heard that an MPP

in the province of Ontario was jailed in the last eight months. I want to know

that. Is that true? I want to know whether a minister in that government was

fired for sexist behaviour. Those are the kinds of things that I want to pursue

here this afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I want to know if the Health minister of

Ontario in the last eight months released confidential patient files.

[4:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, I think we're

going quite a long way beyond the administrative responsibilities which

we are really concerned with under vote 31. I realize the member was

turning in that direction; however, I just want to make that point,

because I think we're going a little too far away from what we're

really discussing today.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I just want to get the facts before

the cameras for the people of British Columbia. Having just been out

east, I'm sure our Finance minister is very learned in these things

that are happening out there. We don't have to go just by what we read

in the newspaper and see on television, which members on both sides of

the floor will agree is not always correct. I'm sure we'll have total

agreement in here about that. So I want to know these things.

If we want a direct question, I'll ask the minister: given that the

money comes out of the budget of the Minister of Finance, how do our

welfare rates compare to the welfare rates in Ontario today? We need

answers to those kinds of things. I want to know how the Finance

minister thinks the $9.7 billion deficit in the recent budget in

Ontario might affect interest rates in this country. That is a direct

responsibility of the Minister of Finance. Those are the kinds of

things I want to know about.

After all of the debate that has gone on here this afternoon, I

thought that when the member for Victoria got up, he would agree with

the Ontario budget. If the members opposite think that their

counterparts in Ontario are doing so well, why don't we hear them say

in this chamber: "Yes, we agree"? Why don't we see them get up in this

chamber and tell us how they're going to finance all those things that

we've heard them promise the people in the last four and a half years

in this very chamber? How are they going to finance those things? It's

apropos that we talk about that kind of thing in the estimates of the

Minister of Finance.

We have a Premier-in-waiting over there. Well, we don't have him

today, and we barely have him at any time. Not only do we have a

Premier-in-waiting, but we're also awaiting the fiscal policy of the

Premier-in-waiting. We have heard absolutely nothing about that in this

House.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: If that's part of the platform, my friend, you'd

better shore it up or you'd better not get on it. The people of my

constituency want to know what you're going to do if and when you

become government. Not only that, my constituents want to know how

they're going to pay for whatever they're going to do. There are so

many unanswered questions.

We can ask questions of the Minister of Finance. I know that in keeping with the rules we have to do that.

[ Page 12680 ]

But there are a lot of questions going unanswered out there about

the opposition. What are they going to do to British Columbians? Are

they going to do the same thing that the NDP is now doing to the people

of Ontario? I think those are the kinds of questions that we should ask

in this chamber, and we should expect answers. But in order to give the

opposition an opportunity to answer some of those questions, I'll sit

down and wait for the answers to questions that I've asked the Minister

of Finance.

HON. J. JANSEN: After that comment, it's somewhat

anticlimactic for me to stand up, but I want to speak. The member asks

what was discussed in our Finance ministers' meeting respecting the

economy, because the economy is of concern to every single province

save one, which thinks they have a better answer. That in fact is the

philosophy. When we talked about how we're addressing the recession in

Canada and how to become more competitive, every province was in step

save and except one.

Mr. Chairman, I said earlier in this House that when I asked the Treasurer

from Ontario about the difficulty he must be having in caucus because of all

the pressure he was getting, he said to me: "Well, the way we dealt with

this was to put the radicals into cabinet to keep them quiet." That's

what he said. Can you believe it?

I guess that's why they're having the problems they are having over

there. They're having all sorts of problems, and I don't want to get

into the problems, because I could tell you that even this side over

here.... I know we don't want to talk about what's happening in

Ontario, because that's a different philosophy. That's socialism, and

socialism is going out all over the world. Socialism will be out in

Ontario, and socialism will never happen in British Columbia. But I can

tell you that the experiment that was done in Ontario was aided and

abetted by the members opposite. They admitted themselves that they had

a transition team assist in putting together the budget. We talked

about connections, and in fact that is the case.

I've asked the question in the House several times, and the member

for Omineca also asked the question: when are they going to come clean

with the people of British Columbia? When are they going to stand up

and be counted? Their leader isn't going to do that, but maybe one or

two others could do that. When they ask a question, they could preface

it by the remark: "This is what we believe. This is our philosophy of

government spending. This is our philosophy of intrusion in the

marketplace and of intrusion in the business environment in the

province of British Columbia." That's what we'd like to understand.

The member asked what our philosophy is. I can tell you what our

philosophy is, and it's something you will never understand. Our

philosophy is fiscal responsibility for today's people and for

tomorrow's. The government of Ontario may make promises — $4.5 billion

in campaign promises that are never going to be kept.... But they did

keep a lot.

But I can tell you that when we want to talk about ethics on that

side of the House.... You know, we want to talk about that: a side of

the House that doesn't know wrong from right or anything about ethics.

You want to talk about the justice critic?

Interjection.

HON. J. JANSEN: Yes, I know that's in order; it would

certainly be in order for us to talk about that, members. They're very

sensitive, and I know this is a difficult issue for them to talk about.

It's one of their weak points.

They talk about the accumulated deficit. Yes, we have an accumulated

deficit; it's the lowest in the country. But Ontario's deficit in one

year doubles our accumulated deficit since Confederation, Mr. Member.

We are the lowest per capita in the country, and we will continue to be

that way. You know, the best way to judge it....

Now here's a little

schedule that's prepared. It outlines it in a

comparative way. Whenever that side over there talks about comparisons,

they use incorrect figures, and I find that regrettable. When they talk

about budgets or about accumulated deficits, if they would refer to a

page in the budget document so that we can respond.... If they would

refer to a document that is factual, so that I could respond.... But to

this point in time, it's all rhetoric because they know it's untrue.

Here's a document that talks about the net direct debt as a

percentage of GDP and the debt-servicing cost per dollar of revenue. If

the second member for Victoria wants it, I'll give a copy to him so

that in future he can refer to it and hold this up with pride as to

what British Columbia is doing in this country What it tells us is that

on the basis of per dollar of revenue, debt servicing costs, which is

the most accurate way of judging the debt load in an economy — and it

shows all the other provinces, including the federal government — are

the lowest in the country. Talking about the net direct debt as a

percentage of GDP, we are the lowest in the country.

We talk about the amount of debt. If you want to do comparisons with

other provinces, I would ask you to do that, but to at least be factual

with your figures. If you want to compare Ontario debt to British

Columbia debt, do it, but make sure you include the Ontario Hydro debt

as well, because that's what you're including in our figures. And make

sure you include all the other agency debts of Ontario. I can tell you

what they are. If the member for Victoria wants to ask me the question

instead of jumping up and talking about points of order, I would love

him to do that.

Our philosophy is not to interfere in the marketplace. Our

philosophy is not to add to the recession. Our philosophy is simply

this: we will have a strong fiscally managed government that is

concerned about the programs and intends to deliver responsibility to

those programs. We will not be like socialist Ontario and your NDP

friends in Ontario.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the member standing, I would

just like to say that I think we have strayed a long way from the

actual details contained in the book of estimates. We are dealing with

vote 31 and

[ Page

12681 ]

the other votes, as agreed upon yesterday. I would ask the House to

come as close as possible to the actual expenditures presented in the

book of estimates.

MR. CLARK: I'll be as in order as the last four speakers on

the other side, Mr. Chairman. It is absolutely pathetic — it's the only

way to describe it — to see member after member on the other side

wanting to talk about Ontario instead of their own incompetence. The

largest deficit in the history of British Columbia is from this

administration. The Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and

Culture wants to talk about unemployment in Ontario. He said it's

almost 10 percent. What is it in British Columbia? It's 10.2 percent

this year, and the budget says 10.7 percent next year. They want to

talk about Ontario — a great big speech of 15 minutes about

unemployment in Ontario.

Look at British Columbia — a sorry record, generally, of

unemployment. Take out the lower mainland and look at unemployment in

Nelson of 14 to 15 percent, and in Prince George, Yale-Lillooet and

other regions of British Columbia. Look at unemployment around the

province. Let's talk about British Columbia rather than the straw man

they set up to try to debate. I don't mind having a debate, but it's

quite pathetic to see ministers of the Crown get up one after the other

and talk about Ontario at length, then conclude by asking members of

the opposition lengthy questions.

They're practising being in opposition; we know that. Some of them —

probably a very few — will get a chance to participate as Her Majesty's

Loyal Opposition.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: Not you, Mr. Member; not you, Mr. Minister — but

maybe, just maybe, the Minister of Finance might survive to ask

questions. It's good practice — we've heard it time and time again.

[4:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. I believe some

heckling can be expected in the House, but I cannot accept as much as

we've experienced over the last two or three minutes. I would ask all

members to please add to the decorum of this House, as it has always

been.

MR. CLARK: I don't mind the rules, Mr. Chairman, provided

that they are applied equally to all members of the House, not

selectively. It's a sad day when the Chair gets drawn into this kind of

debate.

I will ask detailed questions on the estimates as we.... Before we

were rudely interrupted by the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

with an attempt to make a political speech, I suppose for leadership

aspirations or for some other member, we were on the question of pay

equity. I do have just a few questions left with respect to....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Finance rises on a point of order.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if this is a point

of order. I find the Finance critic offensive in terms of his challenge

of the Chair. I think that perhaps he should withdraw his comments or

remove himself from the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I know it's a very difficult job

for you, but there does come a time when we are speaking and the other

side is clearly going on at length, and they are way out of order and

are allowed to complete their speeches. When our side gets up to join

in the debate, within seconds we are asked to come to order. I think my

colleague is just asking that there be fairness in this debate; that's

a fair situation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I should note that at the time I made my

comments the member for Vancouver East had the floor. I asked for order

particularly because of the heckling from the other side — from the

government side. I wasn't casting anything on the member who was on his

feet at the time. In all of my comments I tried to protect the member

who had the floor at the time. Therefore I accepted the point of order

the Minister of Finance made.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, if you were calling the other side to order rather than me, I