Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 1997

Afternoon

Volume 6, Number 6

Part 1

[ Page 4787 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

G. Campbell: This is not an introduction, but we have now all learned that on Saturday, June 21, Dr. Sydney Segal passed away. Dr. Segal was a truly exceptional British Columbian and a truly exceptional Canadian and humanitarian. He focused all his brilliance on children. He was a doctor who provided many, many innovations -- lists of innovations -- in terms of care for children and how we can deal more actively and responsively with their needs -- innovations that are used not just in British Columbia but around the world. He opened the first intensive care units for newborns in Canada.

He established the first code blue service in the country for resuscitating emergency room victims. He pioneered research into sudden infant death syndrome. He designed the first transportable incubator system in Canada. As mayor of Vancouver I was fortunate enough to be able to work with Dr. Segal, who chaired our family court -- youth justice committee. He received the city's Civic Merit Award. He is a recipient of the Order of British Columbia.

Dr. Segal is someone who I think was exemplary in terms of his ability to meet the true needs of children across the province and around the world. I think it would be appropriate for the Legislature to pass on their condolences to his family as we celebrate his life of success and giving.

I. Waddell: I would like to add to that, if I could. Many years ago I had the honour of serving as counsel to the Berger commission on family and children's law that was set up by this Legislature. Dr. Segal was a member, and I got to meet him then. Anybody who met Dr. Segal was struck right away by the dedication, compassion and humility of this man. He was a great British Columbian.

The Leader of the Opposition has set out his background as a soldier and as a professor of pediatrics, his background in dealing with children and babies, the work that he did at the university and for changing the laws in British Columbia, and the work that he did dealing with his patients. He'll be sadly missed, but we have great joy in the life that he led -- a really great British Columbian.

The Speaker: I thank the members for their comments, and I will be pleased to send a letter of condolence to the family on your behalf.

On a different tone, the new group of legislative interns have come to join us for the first day to have a look around, with their professor, Paul Tennant. They are in the gallery, and the ones to whom we will shortly be saying goodbye are on the other side. I'd just like to read their names into the record so that we can properly welcome them: Aaron Delaney from UBC, Elizabeth Harrington from SFU, Malcolm Fairbrother from UVic, Adrienne Nash from UBC, Kristin Patten from SFU, Brad Smith from UBC and Cynthia Yoo, also from UBC. Would the House please make them welcome. We are looking forward to working with them.

G. Campbell: We are pleased that we are going to have another crop of interns to come and help the various caucuses as we move through the session. I would like to take this opportunity to introduce the four interns who have worked so diligently for the opposition caucus in the last few months: Anne-Lise Loomer, Amanjit Pandher, Lisa Pape and Lori Ziebart have all made a huge contribution on behalf of the Liberal opposition caucus. I would like to say thank you to them for their contribution. I hope they felt it was worthwhile.

M. Sihota: In the gallery today are Gurbax Bassi and Sayed Ali. They are two individuals who have lost their livelihood as building maintenance workers as a result of change in contractors. They have lobbied long for legislation that will prevent their circumstances from being experienced by others, and they are here today to express their support for legislation that speaks to their needs.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery today we have some long-distance travellers visiting us. They are John Swain of Sidney, Australia, and Allison Bishop of Calgary. They are on their way to South America. They are friends of Steve Cartwright, one of our well-known bartenders at the Grand Pacific Hotel. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Wilson: I rise today to reserve my right to raise a matter of privilege regarding the conduct of the Minister of Labour -- the dissemination of a bill designed to change our labour legislation to special interest groups in advance of placing that bill before the members of this House.

Introduction of Bills

LABOUR STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

Hon. J. Cashore presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 1997.

Hon. J. Cashore: This act amends three statutes under the mandate of the Minister of Labour. Changes are proposed in the Labour Relations Code that address longstanding concerns respecting collective bargaining structures within the construction industry. Changes are also proposed to two other acts. I am pleased that we are able today to introduce this bill.

The changes introduced through Bill 44 make a number of important changes to the Labour Relations Code. There always will be some people who will take extreme views and positions on these labour relations issues. We understand and accept that this will happen. However, our job as government requires that we take a middle course . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. May I remind members that there are ample opportunities for raucous debate and for divisions on particular matters, but first reading is not one of those times.

[ Page 4788 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: . . . to work in the public interest, to ensure labour relations stability in this province. This is what we have done. Some of these changes relate to government's longstanding commitment to recognize within labour relations law the unique character and nature of the construction industry.

The bill introduces a new

part 4.1 -- "Construction Industry Collective Bargaining" -- into the code. This part will allow unionized construction employers and trade unions, which are active within this very important industry, to move towards broader-based collective bargaining structures within subsectors of this industry. This will encourage greater efficiency and stability within this part of the industry.

[2:15]

Beyond the construction industry measures, hon. Speaker . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, I have already brought this House to order because of the noise. I have interrupted the minister because we couldn't hear him speak. The red light has come on because we are out of time, but we are out of time because of the interruptions.

Minister, will you please wrap it up and move the motion.

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, hon. Speaker.

This bill extends the code to successorship protection. Also, the legislation addresses concerns that have been raised by the business community with regard to replacement workers.

Bill 44 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

CONSULTATION ON SECTORAL BARGAINING

G. Campbell: We now know why no one in this province trusts this government. It consistently breaks its word to the people of British Columbia, hon. Speaker.

The NDP is now breaking a commitment that they made previously that they would not introduce sectoral bargaining into any part of the industry without full consultation with all workers that are involved in that industry. The government's own handpicked commission, the Kelleher-Ready commission, recommended against sectoral bargaining. In view of the virtually unanimous rejection of sectoral bargaining for construction workers, can the minister explain to this House exactly what problems he thinks he's going to solve in the construction industry by breaking his word and by taking away workers' rights?

Hon. J. Cashore: I eagerly look forward to getting into this debate. But the hon. Leader of the Opposition has not seen the legislation. He knows the question is out of order at this time, hon. Speaker. But it makes me wonder: is this the new Labour critic?

G. Campbell: The problem that not just the opposition but the people of British Columbia face is that the legislation was shared with the NDP's major financial supporter and not with the people of British Columbia, as the NDP had promised previously. We have learned that the minister . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member, I'm having trouble hearing your question, from your side as well as the other side. Could I ask everybody to please give the member an opportunity.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, give him an extra minute, then.

The Speaker: I probably will have to. And I'll ask the member to please restrict his interventions. Member, please continue.

G. Campbell: We now know that the ministry met with B.C. Federation of Labour officials on June 10. We've been informed that in spite of the fact that a previous bill was prepared, the B.C. Fed demanded ten additional changes to the Labour Code. Clearly the B.C. Federation of Labour has a huge vested interest in this legislation. It has an opportunity to rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars in extra union dues.

My question is to the Minister of Labour: how can he justify letting Ken Georgetti and the B.C. Fed dictate labour legislation that strips away the rights of workers across British Columbia?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. J. Cashore: In 1992 this hon. member made dire predictions about the Labour Code, which has brought the most stable period of labour-management relations in this province's history. I want to ask him to go back and read what he said then; it's in Hansard . He should read what he said then, because it didn't happen. It didn't happen then; it's not going to happen now.

G. Campbell: You know, the really challenging thing here is that if the Minister of Labour has done as much homework on this bill as he has on who was sitting in this House in 1992, we're all in serious trouble. I wasn't here in 1992. But I can tell you that . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Could we all perhaps take a deep breath and allow the member to pose his question.

G. Campbell: . . . if I had been here in 1992, I would have pointed out to this government, as I have consistently since, that their job-killing taxes and job-killing regulations are hurting the economy of British Columbia, the young people of British Columbia and the workers of British Columbia. The B.C. Chamber of Commerce has been very clear. Two things are working against job creation in this province: (1) the NDP's job-killing tax code, and (2) the NDP's job-killing regulatory code.

My question to the Minister of Labour: did the minister consult with anybody in British Columbia who actually creates jobs? Or did he just consult with the B.C. Federation of Labour, which was the largest single contributor to the NDP in the 1996 election?

[ Page 4789 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: This member wasn't here, but he had lots to say -- and he was wrong.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, time is passing.

C. Hansen: We know what kind of stability this party has brought to government. It is not labour peace that has brought the stability. The instability is with a declining economy in this province, declining job opportunities, declining employment for youth and for workers across this province.

We know that sectoral bargaining effectively removes the rights of workers, of unions and of employers. We have freely negotiated collective agreements -- freely negotiated by workers and by employers -- and we have a party that's prepared to come in and rip those up. I can't imagine what terrible problems this minister thinks he's going to solve with this type of legislation.

My question is to the Minister of Labour: what possible justification does he have for this blatant attack on the rights of workers and the rights for free collective bargaining?

Hon. J. Cashore: The member's comments are certainly puzzling. That he would take the period of time in British Columbia when there's been the greatest stability in terms of labour-management relations and refer to that as a negative thing, and that he would take the time in history when British Columbia far outstripped other economies in the country with regard to job creation boggles the mind.

C. Hansen: We've had a time in history when there has been so little investment coming into this province that it is driving jobs out. This government is not creating the jobs that are required in this economy.

This is a party that promised that there would be no sectoral bargaining without consultation. They broke that commitment, and they broke the trust that they have with workers in this province. Will the minister confirm today that he has met with his supporters in big labour -- who, as we know, are major contributors to the NDP -- and that he actively discussed with them that this is only the first stage in a strategy to remove the rights of workers in the retail food industry and the retail services industry as well?

Hon. J. Cashore: This hon. member again makes statements with regard to the economy of this province that simply aren't true. He can say that as many times and in as many ways as he wants to say it; it still isn't true. The fact still remains that the labour relations climate in this province has been very positive, and that's been very good for the reality of improving the investment climate within the province. The hon. member should recognize that, instead of this fearmongering.

GASOLINE TAX INCREASE PROPOSAL BY GOVERNMENT MLA

M. de Jong: Prior to the last election, this Premier and this NDP government promised British Columbians a tax freeze. Since that election, British Columbians have faced increased property taxes caused by government downloading, they've faced increased taxes on things like propane fuel, and they've faced massive increases across a whole range of government services. But now I've got a letter, dated April 22 of this year, from the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, in which that member is advocating to this cabinet a further increase in gasoline taxes.

My question to the Finance minister is: why would the member for Burnaby-Edmonds be advocating a gasoline tax increase in the midst of what is supposed to be a tax freeze?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm always delighted to talk about this government's commitment in terms of tax freezes and, indeed, tax reductions. The facts are, as the opposition well knows, not only that this government has frozen taxes but that we have reduced income taxes year over year in the last few years in this province. We have reduced taxes for small businesses in this province, we have announced tax reductions in aviation fuel in this province, and we are committed to ensuring that this province continues to grow and continues to reduce taxes. I'm very proud of that record.

M. de Jong: The truth is that the member wouldn't be advocating such a thing if he didn't know this whole tax freeze was just a sham in the first place.

But here's the best part, Mr. Speaker. I want you and all members to know how the member for Burnaby-Edmonds justifies sucking an additional $92 million out of the pockets of British Columbians. Here's the quote from the letter: "The way the oil companies increase the price back and forth, most people don't have a clue what they're paying anyway." You know, by NDP standards, that kind of deceptive ingenuity is going to land you in the cabinet, hon. member.

My question is to the Finance minister: why should we believe anything he has to say about budgets? Why should we believe anything he has to say about job creation when his own caucus members are advocating increased taxes and revealing this whole tax freeze for the sham that it is?

[2:30]

Hon. A. Petter: This government's policies in terms of freezing and reducing taxes are one of the reasons British Columbians have the highest disposable after-tax income of any Canadians -- right here in British Columbia.

That opposition, instead of continuing to try to run down British Columbians and the British Columbia economy, should think positively for a change. I know it's tough over there to think positively, but they should really try. British Columbians are getting very tired of politicians in the opposition who have not one positive idea, not one positive suggestion, and who continue to decry efforts by others, including this government, to strengthen the economy, to improve this economy and to build jobs for British Columbians. That's what British Columbians want to see, and it's about time the opposition took their lesson from British Columbians.

PROPOSED INCREASE IN TRANSIT FARES

D. Symons: If the drivers decide to leave their cars at home to avoid the extra gas tax, they're going to find out something about the transit fees. In order for B.C. Transit to pay for its management incompetence, it is proposing to eliminate the non-peak discount fares, and that will double

[ Page 4790 ]

daytime fares for cross-zone riders. These changes are designed to generate 5 percent more in revenue for B.C. Transit.

My question to the minister responsible for Transit is: what measures has the minister taken to reduce the waste and mismanagement within the corporation before passing fare increases onto the transit riders?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I would actually like to go on at length about that, and I'm sorry to see that the red light is on. The Vancouver regional transit commission -- which, of course, is different than B.C. Transit -- has done a great deal of work around fares. They actually did a survey of 600 transit riders to help them gain information about the way to change fares. They had public hearings as well, where people attended. They actually put forward public information throughout April and May about the way to adjust fares in terms of what makes most sense for the people who actually use the ridership. They sought public input; they met with front-line employees, as well.

Three options were put forward by the Vancouver regional transit commission, which I know the member understands is different than B.C. Transit. They actually did some marketing of it. They put forward three options and test-marketed the three options. The choices, actually, were to keep the commuter fares at a frozen rate for those that take transit regularly, so that their fees would not be increased . . . . The solution to increase, to do away with the concessions, made the most sense for those who use transit the most often.

The Speaker: Members, I have obviously waited until the end of question period before I quote the Rt. Hon. Betty Boothroyd, Speaker at Westminster. I've wanted to say this on a number of occasions. Betty says: "Order! Stop shouting and barracking, for goodness' sake!" I would suggest that we all take that under advisement.

Petitions

Hon. L. Boone: I'd like to present a petition from the people in the Robson Valley, with regard to Bill C-68.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members of the Legislature, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Investment. In this House, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Finance.

The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND

CORPORATE RELATIONS AND

MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

(continued)

On vote 31: minister's office, $348,000 (continued).

G. Plant: I want to ask the minister a few questions in his capacity as Minister Responsible for Intergovernmental Relations. These are fairly brief questions. I don't know that they'll require a radical alteration of the staff complement.

The minister will recall that earlier this year he signed a two-page document which is entitled "Proposal for Project to Provide Advice to Minister Responsible for Intergovernmental Relations on National Unity Issues." This is, in effect, a memorandum of understanding between the minister and the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

The minister will recall that the purpose of the project was to provide that member with some support in the process in order to allow him to undertake some work that would result in giving advice to the government on national unity issues.

The process has four steps. The first step involved the preparation of papers. As I see from this text and as I understand from a briefing I've had from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, there is an expectation that there will be three papers prepared: one by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, who's not receiving any contract funding in respect of that; and two other papers, one by Mr. Gordon Gibson and one by a UBC professor named, I believe, Mr. John Munro.

I have also been told that there is the possibility that Mr. Rafe Mair may prepare something in the nature of an addendum that would be attached to one of those papers. Again, as I understand it, it's not expected that Mr. Mair would receive any funding for his contribution, if he indeed makes it. Have I got the basic sense of the first phase of this project correct as the minister understands it?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, my understanding corresponds with that of the member, and obviously I believe that's correct.

G. Plant: Mindful of the fact that the agreement has been in place for some months -- perhaps as long ago as January of this year -- my next question for the minister is: have any of the three or possibly four papers been prepared? If so, does the minister have copies?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm sorry, I was just conferring with staff, and I'll introduce Peter Heap, who is a special adviser with the intergovernmental relations secretariat. Was the question concerning papers being prepared in the course of this enterprise by Mr. Wilson?

Interjection.

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I believe that papers are being prepared. I don't think those papers have been fully completed, or if they have, they're in the final stages of completion. The intention is for the papers to then be used as the basis of discussions with a broader reference group. Following that discussion, a report will be prepared for me which will embrace the outcomes of that broader discussion. The report will hopefully reflect either a consensus view or at least a

summary view of the input received, based upon the discussions with the reference group based on those original papers.

G. Plant: I thank the minister for his answer. I want to go through each of those steps in just a bit more detail. Going back to the beginning, I want to be sure I have the minister's answer properly. Is the minister saying that as far as he is aware, none of the papers which are part of step 1 have as of yet been finalized?

Hon. A. Petter: I'd have to confer with Mr. Wilson -- and maybe the member could -- to know whether the papers are

[ Page 4791 ]

in their final form or whether they're not. I understand that papers have been submitted to Mr. Wilson by the two individuals preparing them that the member referred to. I'm not sure whether those represent final drafts or penultimate drafts. I think they're close to being complete. I don't know if Mr. Wilson's own paper is yet complete. But I believe that they are close to completion. My understanding is that the intention is to move to the second phase, in which the reference group will get the opportunity to provide their input based upon the papers and the response to them.

G. Plant: If I can expand it a little bit, then, I take it that the process as far as the minister understands is that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast will be collecting these papers and may already have done so -- and fair enough. I could ask that question of the member. He obviously hasn't yet provided final or even penultimate drafts of these papers to the minister. Is the minister expecting to receive these papers before, after or during this reference group process? At what point will the minister be brought into the loop in terms of this work product?

Hon. A. Petter: First of all, I apologize to the House for having inappropriately referred to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast by his name. I regret doing so, and let me immediately shift and refer to him appropriately as the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

My expectation is that the papers, once finalized, will be used as the basis for the reference group. They may well be submitted to me in the course of that -- I assume they might well be or likely be -- for information purposes.

But I don't anticipate that they will be formally submitted, if I can put it that way, as the outcome of anything until they have gone through the further step, because the purpose of these papers is not to be an end product in themselves but to provide the basis for further discussion in which a broader range of views is solicited from representatives from a range of different backgrounds and perspectives.

It is the interaction of that broader group, with the ideas that come out of these papers, that will then lead to the report that will be submitted to me and will be the completion of the product that I'm looking to receive under the terms of the memorandum that the member referred to.

[2:45]

G. Plant: The broader group that the minister speaks of, I take it, is the reference group that is referred to in the proposal. I wonder if the minister can tell us what involvement, if any, he or his secretariat has had in the creation of this reference group. That's another way of also asking what the minister knows about the current status of the creation of that group. Have people been asked to participate in that group? Is there a list of names? Do we know if there is a chair or any of that kind of thing? If a list exists, has the minister had input into that list -- that kind of thing?

Hon. A. Petter: The information that I have would be a few days old now, because I've been involved in this House in dealing with other matters. But my understanding as of a few days ago was that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast was contacting various individuals around the province to see if they were prepared to participate. Names of people who might agree to participate in the reference group have been produced by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

There have been discussions between the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast and the assistant deputy minister who's responsible for the intergovernmental relations secretariat. She in turn has talked with me in an effort to ensure that the representation meets the terms of the memorandum -- namely, that there be broad representation.

Obviously the process is that of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. In a sense, it's been a matter of some exchange of ideas around names. The member is now talking, as I understand it, to some of the individuals and is finalizing a list. Once that list is finalized and the member has determined who is prepared to participate, then I'm sure he will inform me of that final list. And I'll be happy -- or he can be happy -- to make that publicly known.

G. Plant: I thank the minister for that answer. At what might be the risk of oversimplification, it sounds like the creation of the reference group is primarily the responsibility of the member with input from the minister and his ministry, as opposed to being a joint project. Is that a fair

summary?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, the process that we're referring to is a process that is being undertaken by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast under the terms of the memorandum, which involves some interactions both for information purposes and to ensure that there is a degree of comfort in the process. As a result, I think I would agree with the member's characterization that the process is one in which the member is forming the reference group but with some input and discussion both with staff and, through staff, with myself.

G. Plant: There is a budget for reference group meetings of about . . . . I think it says a maximum of $25,000. Is that a figure that is basically intended to cover the costs of arranging for meetings, meeting rooms, travel and that, as opposed to covering any fees, salaries or per diems for the participants?

Hon. A. Petter: The member is correct: it's for associated costs. In preparing the consensus report, there may be a reporter or someone like that who would receive remuneration, but the intention is not to remunerate the members of the reference group for their participation.

G. Plant: I want to pick up on something in that last answer. The proposal speaks about a facilitator. The facilitator would be someone who would, I assume, preside over a session of the reference group that would be intended to prepare a consensus report. Has there been a discussion about who this facilitator might be? Is there a name that the minister knows that he could share with us? Is that somebody who might receive a fee or some kind of payment for his or her work? Those are the kinds of questions.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm aware of a suggested name or names for a facilitator. I don't think it's been finalized. I'm not certain of the extent to which the individual or individuals might have been consulted, so I obviously don't want to announce it without knowing.

As to the question of a fee for that facilitator, I'll be frank. I don't know whether that is part of what this expenditure would go to or whether a facilitator would also act on a voluntary basis. It wouldn't surprise me if there were some fee provided to the facilitator. I suspect that might well be the case. I can find out and confirm for the member whether that is or is not the case.

G. Plant: If that's an offer to provide me with that information, I accept it. Thank you.

[ Page 4792 ]

The next question I have is around the time frame. Obviously we're now some four or five months down the road after this agreement was entered into, and I think we're many more months than that down the road from when the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast first made this proposal to the government. The signed proposal document does not in fact contain a specific time frame. I wonder whether there is a time frame, and what the minister's expectations are in respect to when the reference group will receive papers, when this session will be convened and when we will have a consensus report.

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, the intention, as I said, is . . . . I do have information now that the two papers, Mr. Munro's and Mr. Gibson's, appear to be in final form. It's the paper being prepared by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast which is in the final stages of completion, as I understand it, and is expected to be complete sometime next week.

The next stage is to form the reference group. That reference group will convene, I assume, as soon as it can be convened. I believe the intention is some time in the early to mid part of next month, as soon as a time can be arranged, and then to proceed as quickly as possible to derive from that process a report which represents either a consensus or, as I say, a

summary of views that come out of that process. Hopefully, that will be completed no later than towards the end of the summer.

G. Plant: Is it the intention, then, of the minister -- at least as he understands this arrangement -- that the papers that have been completed, which I would assume are the papers of Professor Munro and Mr. Gibson, are to remain essentially private until they have emerged through this reference group process?

Hon. A. Petter: They'll form the basis for discussions with the reference group. I'm not sure they're private, as such. They do not represent the culmination of this process.

I haven't talked to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast concerning whether it's his intention to distribute them more broadly before the process or not. I can take that up with him. Until we have the consensus report, the process will not have become a report submitted to me in a formal way -- at least under this memorandum, as I understand it.

G. Plant: I take it that from the ministry's perspective there's no obstacle to making these two reports public if that were something that other people wanted.

Hon. A. Petter: This is part of a work in progress. I guess I'd analogize it to other areas in which government seeks input from groups or individuals. I don't expect, as a member of government, to receive drafts along the way, unless that's provided for -- nor do I require those groups or individuals to release them. I haven't turned my mind to the question, I guess, is what I'm saying.

I haven't talked to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast as to whether that would in some way undermine the reference group process or whether there's some agreement with the authors to not have that happen until there's been a criticism of them so that they're not released in a way that would be embarrassing to the authors if there are changes later. I just don't know. There's no understanding one way or the other. Again, I'd be happy to follow up. I don't have a strong view, but it is not my process, and I don't know what the understanding with the authors is.

G. Plant: The four stages of the process, as I understand it, are intended to produce some kind of consensus report. I suppose one could say that that whole process up until that point will be relatively private, at least in the sense that it's not a large-scale public consultation around these issues. I'm sure some students of recent constitutional history would argue that the lessons of the last couple of attempts to embark upon large-scale constitutional reform are lessons around the importance of involving the public in the process earlier, rather than later.

I'm wondering what the minister's views are in that regard. Also, I guess I should put that in the context of the fact that while there is a budget for this proposal, the budget does not specifically provide for any public consultation process after the completion of the consensus report. So I'd be interested in the minister's views on how he sees the process unfolding.

Hon. A. Petter: Government receives advice from a number of different quarters on a number of matters, including those related to intergovernmental relations. I guess my view is that once the process has reached the point that a report is submitted -- hopefully a consensus report or at least a

summary report to government that embraces both the papers and the outcome of the reference group -- that document then becomes the property of government in some sense and might well form the basis for a broader discussion or might feed into other discussions that government would want to undertake around intergovernmental issues.

I find this to be a useful process, one that will help us to gather information and present views that can assist government and other members in moving forward. I don't see it as the process to determine the policy of government in the future. I see it as the basis for further discussions, and if the member has suggestions as to how we might proceed to engage others once this process has reached its conclusion, if that's appropriate -- if it's viewed as something that could advance the cause of promoting national unity in a way that is protective of B.C.'s interests -- then I'm certainly open to those ideas.

I agree with the member that I think the lessons have indeed been ones in which the public expects much broader engagement around issues that affect the public under governmental matters. In this province we obviously have a requirement on constitutional change that requires referenda, so I don't see this process as precluding further involvement. If anything, I see it as providing a basis for understanding that could facilitate further involvement.

G. Plant: A comment, and then what might be a final question. The comment, in part to respond to the minister's invitation, is to say that -- and I don't need to get into a debate about it now, just to plant the seed -- when I first heard about this, my reaction was: well, if the government thinks that it would be useful to get advice and assistance from any member of this Legislature, consulting in whatever way with the public on issues of national unity, a perfectly good and time-honoured way of doing that would be through the select standing committee on constitutional issues.

In some measure, I think it is unfortunate that that route wasn't chosen. It certainly has allowed for debate on whether or not the route that has been chosen here is perhaps the best route. Having said that . . . . I don't need to have a debate. I just want to plant

[ Page 4793 ]

the seed with the minister that if at some point he wants to involve the members of this assembly in a process that can perhaps be non-partisan and also public, there are committees of this House that are a good vehicle for that.

[3:00]

The question, then, was: why is he doing this? Why do we have this process? What's broke that needs fixing? Why has the minister in fact engaged in the expenditure of 100,000 taxpayer dollars to obtain this assistance? What is it about national unity that isn't working, from the minister's perspective?

Hon. A. Petter: Let me first say that I appreciate the member's reminder concerning the usefulness of committees of this House. I didn't have to be reminded, because I am well aware, for example, of the useful work going on right now in respect of treaty issues and aboriginal issues, which I know the member opposite has an interest in, that are being conducted through that process. I don't see this process as precluding some future legislative committee process, if that's appropriate.

I think the answer to the second part of the member's question is simply this: I think the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has established himself publicly as someone who is regarded favourably by British Columbians in terms of his views in respect of national unity matters. Certainly -- and I said this previously -- in his previous incarnation as leader of the Liberal Party at a time when the Charlottetown accord was an issue, I think he took a stand that was clearly on the side of the majority of British Columbians at a time when others of us took a stand that turned out not to be.

Given his interest, given his talent, given his acknowledged ability in this area and his willingness to undertake this task and to engage others in doing so, it was the judgment of government that it was a useful opportunity, one that showed -- perhaps not in the way the member has indicated he would have preferred but in a different way -- a non-partisan, cross-partisan approach to an important issue that could engage British Columbians and provide some new perspectives that perhaps wouldn't come out of more traditional processes.

What's wrong with national unity? Or I'll paraphrase the member: what's the problem? I'm an optimist on that score. I actually think that some of the steps that have been taken in the last year or so, in which provinces have played a major role in moving the federal government towards accepting greater devolution in key areas such as labour market training, such as fisheries in this province, are helpful to national unity. I think B.C. has set a positive object lesson, because we're a jurisdiction that on the one hand has a strong sense of its own identity, a sense of autonomy -- of distinctiveness, even.

But on the other hand, I think British Columbians take a back seat to no one in terms of their love of country.

In terms of trying to bridge some of the gaps in this country and some of the tensions which still exist between parts of the country in which some governments and parties advocate radical devolution to the point of separation and other parts in which there is perhaps an affinity for the status quo, I think British Columbia and the west generally stand somewhere in the middle.

Rather than being on the periphery, which we are geographically, I think we can be part of a bridge-building exercise between those, like British Columbians, who want to maintain a strong vision of a united Canada with strong attachment to the symbols of that country and love of country with some sense of distinctiveness and autonomy and self-determination within that context.

So I see the opportunity more than I see the problem, and I think that British Columbians who are motivated to help build that bridge should be encouraged to do so. I see this initiative as a contributing factor to that bridge-building exercise, and I think there was a report yesterday. I haven't had a chance to read it, but media reports from the business community suggest that perhaps the provinces have to take some lead in this area, because the federal government has not been as successful in doing so. So I think there is an opportunity here, and I think the contribution that will come through this report will assist in that bridge-building exercise.

F. Gingell: Recognizing that one of the important things in any family is to have a strong financial plan -- and we know that we shouldn't look to Ottawa as an example for sensible action -- I would like to bring the minister back to the issues of the debt management plan in British Columbia.

In 1995 we had a debt management plan. In 1997 we have a financial management plan -- a difference of one word. But one of the major differences is that in the 1997 plan there is no word about direct debt reduction. This is the area that we reached, and I would be most interested in where they talk about direct debt reduction in the 1997 report.

Hon. A. Petter: On page 30 of "Budget '97 Reports," in table C2 under "Direct Debt," the recommendation is to "reduce over 20 years." It's a direct debt reduction.

F. Gingell: The minister has in the past referred to the issues of debt as a percentage of GDP, and in the previous plan there was a specific proposal to have the debt paid off in 20 years. Is that commitment -- made by this government, by a previous minister -- now dead?

Hon. A. Petter: I think I answered the same question yesterday. There was a previous plan that has been modified by me in this budget in respect of the financial advice that was received by a business and labour panel, in respect of my own judgment -- which, as it turns out, was to accept that advice -- and in respect of my own determination that we set targets that are achievable in light of an economy that, I must say, is far more broadly based and diverse and hence stable than it perhaps has been in previous years but that nevertheless has fluctuations within it.

Contrary to the member's earlier suggestion, the plan does indeed refer to reduction of direct debt. It does not set a specific date for the elimination of the direct debt, and no one will be happier than I to have that happen sooner rather than later and within the time frame mentioned by the member. In the plan I introduced as part of the financial management plan, the commitment is to reduction within the time frame specified.

F. Gingell: I must admit that my mental focus had been on the commitment that was previously made to pay it off. I was particularly impressed by the government when they spoke in earlier plans about the importance of future generations of our children not being required to pay the costs of programs delivered in these days. A great point was made of that, and it was one of the reasons for coming up with a plan that would have the direct debt, incurred by program costs exceeding current revenues, paid off. Has the government come to the conclusion that it is now acceptable for future generations to pay for current program costs?

Hon. A. Petter: As I suggested last day, views reflected in the financial management plan are that we ought to move as

[ Page 4794 ]

quickly as possible from a position of deficit on the program side to one of surplus. We have set very specific targets to do that and to achieve balance next year and surplus the year after. Once we have done that, then the goal is to start to work to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio, which embraces the entire debt, both direct and indirect, and to do so in an orderly way -- initially to 20 percent of debt-to-GDP and then beyond that to 15 percent.

As a component of doing that, we will be paying down direct debt as well as other taxpayer-supported debt, and as I say, my preference would be to eliminate the direct portion of that debt as quickly as possible. The commitment set out in the plan is framed in terms of reduction, because it is prudent and because it has to take account of fluctuations in the economy.

It also has to correspond with the advice received that a more aggressive plan than the one we've adopted might not necessarily be in the best interests of British Columbians. That was advice, as I say, that was received . . . . The statement I made was of a general kind, not a specific reference to any one issue but in reference to the plan recommended by the labour and business panel convened to provide advice to the government on this matter. It happened to be the same panel that provided advice to a previous Minister of Finance.

F. Gingell: The minister recognizes, of course, that it is not a panel's responsibility to determine the financial management of this province. It is this minister's responsibility, and this government had previously made commitments about the repayment of the debt that, basically, this government has incurred. It was very small when you came into office, and it has ballooned tremendously while you have been in office.

I suggest to the Minister of Finance that this government has a responsibility to ensure that you are on a firm plan for repayment. What has this government done? Well, it has moved a whole bunch of expenditures off the consolidated revenue fund. The minister shrugs his shoulders, but it is true. It is true, and you don't include those items when you deal with what you consider to be current direct debt.

This year, what have you done? Well, major renewals and renovations like roof repairs and parking lots being fixed in schools. That has been done for years out of current budgets. School boards have been told: "You're not getting it in your budget this year. It's got to be done through capital." I mean, it's just playing games.

Talking about playing games, I'd like the minister to respond to three sets of numbers. In 1995, when the debt management plan came out, there was a projection for the next four years: 1996-97, '97-98, '98-99 and '99-2000. In the 1995 budget report, it was suggested that the government would have surpluses over those periods of $25 million, $40 million, $125 million and $500 million, totalling $690 million.

When the 1996 report came out, the day the election was called -- and I'm sure that's just a coincidence, but it was the very day the election was called -- this $690 million for the purposes of fighting the election had suddenly grown to $1.814 billion. It's $87 million the first year -- remember that that was the $87 million we kind of lost when it turned into a $300 million deficit -- then $295 million for this year, $488 million for next year and $944 million for the year after.

On election day this government said: "We're going to reduce surpluses over the next four years of $1.8 billion to help us pay off our debt." In 1997, when you think about things, your projection for the same four years has dropped by $2.3 billion, from a surplus of $1.8 billion to a deficit of $470 million. It is charitable to refer to it only as a shell game. You just seem to take a piece of paper and a pencil and write down whatever figures you want.

[3:15]

There was an original plan: $690 million. You're going to call an election. On the day the election is called, a document is tabled in this Legislature -- "Budget '96 Reports" -- which shows a projected surplus of $1.8 billion over four years, at a time when all indications from the Ministry of Finance were that they knew the economy of this province was slowing down. In all communications within the Ministry of Finance in the particular area concerned with these issues, they refer to "budget optimism."

This year it is now suggested that during the next four years, we'll need to borrow another half a billion dollars just to pay for current programs, the way that this government measures those net costs.

Does the minister not accept that the credibility of the Ministry of Finance is destroyed every time you produce different sets of projections for the future, every single year, that are so dramatically different? Of course we expect them to be updated. Is the minister not surprised when our credit rating is put at risk? Don't you think, hon. minister, that it's time we brought some discipline and dealt with these matters in a much more straightforward manner?

Hon. A. Petter: I guess I'm at a loss. I have tried as a Minister of Finance -- and the member goes back, of course, prior to my tenure as Minister of Finance -- to do exactly what the member suggests and to bring both discipline and credibility to the exercise. I don't want to revisit a debate which could take us back, I guess, into a whole range of issues, other than just to touch on some of the points the member refers to.

First of all, he talks about the accumulation of direct debt that occurred under the previous term of this government. Of course there was an accumulation of direct debt, but it's hardly surprising when this government inherited a huge deficit burden from its predecessor, which year over year was paid down. So each year the amount of deficit went down, down, down. Nevertheless, it still added to the direct debt. But previous Ministers of Finance did exercise discipline. That was done through cuts and some tax increases initially. That positive record of reducing deficit is one of the reasons we're now close to -- and hopefully approaching, next year -- crossing the line into surplus.

Secondly, I know the member has absolute prescience, but I don't believe that anyone on this side of the House would claim prescience in terms of the economy. The forecasters themselves and Richard Allen of the B.C. Central Credit Union have said everyone got it wrong. Everyone got it wrong in 1996 -- even Richard Allen, who is on the conservative end -- in expecting more growth than in fact occurred. The amount of growth, which is now still a forecast, albeit retrospectively, that was supposed to have occurred in that year was about 1 percent. That, obviously, fundamentally altered the GDP number and certainly has influenced my thinking as to the targets that are set, etc.

The member goes to great length, exercising his flourish regarding the 1996 debt management plan. My recollection is that when my predecessor, the former Minister of Finance, introduced that budget, albeit in the period leading up to election, there was no hiding the fact that the target had been

[ Page 4795 ]

missed for that year. In fact, I think the member opposite made a big deal out of the fact that the target on debt had been missed for that year.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I had a whole election campaign to make that point. I think that point was made, and I understand that.

My task, though, as a new Minister of Finance has been to try to ensure . . . . I agree with the member. When governments or anyone miss targets, that does not assist in maintaining credibility -- quite the opposite. Is there an issue of credibility here? Absolutely there's an issue of credibility here.

Am I as a Minister of Finance going to do something about it? Yes, I am going to do something about it. What have I done about it? I've introduced a financial management plan that I believe is prudent and achievable, that takes account of some of the fluctuations and also takes account and adjusts for the fact that last year's growth was disappointingly lower than forecast -- by everyone from the B.C. Central Credit Union to the government in its budget, to the Liberal opposition in its campaign material in its fiscal approach based on a growth rate of 2.5 percent.

F. Gingell: They come from you.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, that's quite an admission, hon. Chair. The member says it came from us. If it had come from us, it would have been 2.7 percent. As I recall, it was validated by Price Waterhouse, who, I guess, also got it wrong if indeed that was one of the numbers they validated.

On the question of going out and seeking advice, I agree that it's my responsibility as the Minister of Finance, this government's responsibility in terms of the budget and the numbers we present -- absolutely. That's why we're here, and that's why I'm happy to defend the choices that are made. But to seek advice from the business community and from labour and others concerning what the targets should be and what the impact of targets might be is wise. Consultation, I think, is favoured in these matters

This was not a consultation process with individuals who are unknowledgable or of one mind on this issue. They included people like Mr. Darcy Rezac of the board of trade; Mr. David Bond, the chief economist from the Hongkong Bank; Ken Georgetti of the Federation of Labour; Mr. Larry Blain of RBC Dominion Securities; Arthur Hara; Robert Fairweather; David Levi -- a fairly diverse group.

They had concerns that, yes, governments set targets, meet them and exceed them, and that those targets help to reduce both deficit and debt-to-GDP ratios, but that they not have an adverse effect on the economy. Based on that advice, based on my own view -- which has been that we should set targets that are prudent in the sense that they can be achieved and prudent in the sense that they will move us towards a more fiscally sustainable position -- we adopted the plan that we did.

The member is trying to make a point about its relationship to previous plans; I've tried my best to explain that. He may want to take it up with some of my predecessors, but I can only answer from where I sit.

F. Gingell: The auditor general has pointed out that part of the problem with your debt and financial management plan is that you do not identify the types of contingencies available to you if your assumptions fall short of expectations, which they have for the past two years. How have you responded to those concerns expressed by the auditor general?

Hon. A. Petter: I believe the comments of the auditor general that the member is referring to were occasioned by his reference to the previous year's debt management plan, which we've debated at some length here.

This year's financial management plan, which has within it a number of changes, as I've acknowledged, embraces within it the fact that the forecast of the Ministry of Finance for this year did not form the basis for revenue projections in the operating budget. Rather, I chose an assumption of 1.6 percent growth in GDP as opposed to 2.2 percent growth, which is the forecast of the Ministry of Finance. I think the private sector was a little bit higher than that -- 2.4 percent, on the average of private sector forecasts.

So right away within this financial management plan there is built in a prudent assumption that is a hedge against underperforming against the expected performance in the economy from the Ministry of Finance. That kind of prudence, I think, is an indication of the fact that the concerns of the auditor general are shared and reflected in the approach taken by the government.

F. Gingell: The auditor general also suggests that your plan should clearly identify and quantify commitments made at this time for capital projects that are underway. Now, I appreciate, I'm sure, that again in your 1997 plan there is a listing. "The capital spending plan for 1997-98 totals $1.1 billion. In addition to the continuation of projects already underway . . . . " That's at the top of page 38. So you've listed some of the projects.

But there isn't any nice, clear identification of the major projects and the total of the other projects -- what the total anticipated cost of the project is, how much has been spent this year, how much one anticipates being spent in the following year -- so that we can follow through the borrowing commitments over a longer period of time than just the one year that is shown.

Hon. A. Petter: I guess the way I would see it is that within the budget documents and within my role as both Minister of Finance and chair of Treasury Board, my role is to set the basic targets and make sure the discipline is there to meet those targets. In this case, we've set a target in terms of capital expenditure for this year, and indeed for the next two years, of ensuring that expenditure does not exceed $1.1 billion.

And then, of course, within that overall target the ministries are assigned envelopes, and it is their responsibility to then come forward and make the decisions concerning what projects proceed, according to what time line, and to account for that. Indeed, I believe ministries have made those announcements, and the ministers concerned would be in a position to answer for that.

If the member is suggesting that he would like to see more detailed information on how those announcements are brought forward in respect to various projects, I'm prepared to consider that and see how we might better do that. But from a finance point of view and from a budget point of view, I think the responsibility here is for me to set the basic budgetary allowances with respect to capital spending, not to make the decisions on the specific projects, and to set some criteria

[ Page 4796 ]

perhaps, as indeed we have done through our capital review for those decisions. But then the decisions devolve to the ministers and the ministries with the expertise and the responsibility to then decide on their priorities, gain cabinet approval for those priorities and proceed to announce and manage the projects that are proceeding.

F. Gingell: In dealing with the quantum and type and style of the province's debt, we all appreciate that the debt we have at the moment is a mix of short-term and long-term borrowings. I appreciate that as the CPP funds have dried up, we have looked for new sources.

What action has the government taken recently in response to the $4.4 billion financing requirement for 1997-98 to spread or -- I can't think of the right word -- to look at different markets and at the advantages and disadvantages of those markets? Diversify -- that's the word I was looking for.

[3:30]

Hon. A. Petter: I'll answer both generally and then specifically. In general, the provincial treasury branch is constantly looking at ways to take advantage of opportunities to reduce borrowing costs and to diversify. In recent years it has gone to Japan, for example, and to other markets. There has been a real effort to diversify and be opportunistic, in the best sense of that word, in terms of borrowing strategies. In this year, to date there have been two major initiatives: a Euro-U.S. issue that raised $500 million and an issue in France that raised some Fr 2 billion (French).

The institutional press that covers such things and rates them has been extremely favourable in both regards. They've both been viewed very positively. In fact, I had the opportunity, fortuitously, to be in New York and Toronto shortly after the Euro-U.S. issue had been undertaken.

The feedback I received from investment dealers and investors was very, very positive in terms of how well those issues had done, which I think is a tribute not only to how well B.C. is regarded as a credit risk but also a particular credit to the officials in the treasury, in the Ministry of Finance, who do an outstanding job in ensuring that we do maximize the opportunities that exist, while stabilizing the risk.

F. Gingell: We're probably at historic lows in interest rates. Has there been any move by the government to move from short-term into long-term?

Hon. A. Petter: The floating-rate exposure of the province is around 24 percent. As I understand it, there has been an extensive review done in recent years, with input from expert outside consultants, on how best to profile the portfolio to take advantage of interest opportunities. In fact, there will be some increase in the amount of the portfolio that is put into floating rate, which, it is believed, can assist in saving dollars in the long term. It's still markedly lower as a percentage than, say, the federal government currently has, which I think is in excess of 60 percent.

But, in fact, the direction will be somewhat the opposite of what the member's question suggested. There will be some increase of floating rate within the portfolio, as I understand it, as we move forward.

F. Gingell: I can assure the minister that if interest rates drop over the next year, I won't bring this subject up in a year's time. But if they go up, we'll spend quite a bit of time on the subject.

One last question. When we finished the budget last year, at the end of a long and tedious process, a certain number -- 39,172 -- of FTEs was approved. I appreciate all of the differences that have taken place as we've moved, and it has been helpful in this year's budget for you to have shown the various means. But I've added two figures together. Your press release in April said that 3,221 employees had left the government. Then, in early April or late March, you passed an order-in-council that increased the authorized special warrant by a total of 1,349 people. So you add those two amounts together, and they come to 4,570 people.

My logic tells me that before you started cutting, before you started reducing, you were 4,570 employees over the approved and authorized numbers. Is something wrong with my logic?

Hon. A. Petter: First of all, just on the last point -- because I would prefer that the member share in the responsibilities from the point of view of looking forward, rather than just of looking backward -- if he would be interested, I would very much like to arrange a briefing for him on the whole issue of the investment portfolio, from the point of view of how it's to be apportioned between floating-rate and long-term, because I think it's quite a good presentation.

It doesn't mean that there's perfect prescience, but if he has the time to avail himself of the opportunity, I think it will give him some confidence -- looking forward with the same uncertainties that we all do -- in the strategy that's being pursued, so he can't claim perfect 20-20 hindsight after the fact without at least having had a chance to share the perspective as we have to look at it and as treasury has to look at it, looking forward.

In respect of the FTE question, I didn't quite follow through the chain of argument -- I won't call it logic -- that the member walked through. But I think there are a number of variables here that tend to confuse the issue. First of all is the fact that in this period there have been a number of employees shifting from being employees of government to employees of other agencies -- regional health boards being the major complement. That shift of employees was delayed in the last year, and it complicates the analysis because it makes it look like a much larger number of employees were employed within government than in fact was the case.

What really occurred was that the transfer of those employees, which was meant to occur earlier, has taken place later. The numbers then have to be adjusted to take account of that. The second issue that gets in the way is the difference between positions and FTEs. FTEs are an average of the number of employees over the year. The reduction in the number of positions is something that occurs at a given time. The numbers that were released suggested 3,200 positions had been opened up or reduced because of individuals leaving. It wouldn't translate into an annualized FTE number until we got through the annual cycle with that reduced amount.

To go back to the point that the member made about the order-in-council that was passed, the order-in-council was in large part -- in fact, I think almost entirely -- needed to take account of those FTEs that remained as FTEs on the government's books because of the delay in transfer into the regional health authorities and, to some extent, from Motor Vehicles. That was the reason for the order-in-council.

The other reduction that was announced -- which I think is fairly represented in the budget documents, because these numbers have been adjusted -- was one of positions that will now translate into FTEs as we move to annualize those reductions but which didn't show up on an annualized basis in last

[ Page 4797 ]

year's account. In fact, in many cases the positions were only cleared after a fairly considerable process -- not until the last month of the year.

F. Gingell: I think that the number of individuals involved in regional health and the motor vehicle branch was 1,903, according to the documents. The number of people included in the OIC was 1,349. So there's a 550 reduction, but your press release indicated a reduction of 3,221. I'm wondering what happened to the 2,700.

Before you get into that answer, there is another question I would like to ask you. By my calculation, the number of people on the government's payroll, on a consolidated revenue fund basis, at March 31, 1997, was 38,311. That is the actual count under the PSA of 36,027 and 2,284 additional. Add them together, they come to 38,311.

This year's budget that we will approve -- because you never allow us to change it -- is for 34,304, a difference of some 4,000 FTEs. We're already through to the end of June, so I wonder how many people have gone, from April 1 to now, and how you are planning on making these subsequent reductions -- because they are huge. If you reduce one person for six months, that's only half an FTE. So if nothing had happened at the end of September, you would have to be moving 8,000 people out of the government. So I have problems understanding exactly how this is going to work.

But I have another problem, and that is that in my absence our House Leader made a commitment that I would stop at 3:37, and I'm already over. So if you'll answer this question, I'm prepared to allow the question to be called.

Hon. A. Petter: I'll be happy to provide for a full briefing on this matter, as well, for the member. He went through so many numbers that I can't possibly catch up with him in the time available. But in general, the total number of employees who have left government as a result of the government's initiatives, such as early retirement, the opportunity for people to leave early and a very small number of layoffs -- around 100, I think -- is 3,388. Most of those employees' positions didn't actually become clear until the last few months of the fiscal year, because there is a period of time during which notices are given and people get to declare.

Once they do leave, then the FTE saving becomes reflected in the next year and becomes an annualized saving. That's why one is able to see, if one takes away the FTE adjustment, that there's a reduction year over year, from '96-97 to '97-98, of about 2,560 FTEs. That is the annualized benefit of the reductions that were made in the previous year, through the announcements that were made and the early retirement program, then coming into this year on an annualized basis.

So it's not expected that there need be further downsizing in the number of FTEs in order to meet these targets, because these targets were set as a result of what was, I must say, a very successful and, in my view, very humane exercise in reducing the number of positions in government through voluntary severance and through a number of strategies that culminated in people leaving but not, for the most part, until the last quarter and in some cases until the last few weeks of the fiscal year that now produces the FTE saving in this year.

That's, I think, the explanation at the root of all those numbers. But if it isn't, then John Mochrie, whom I would like to introduce, is deputy minister in charge of the Public Service Employee Relations Commission. He is with me and would be happy, I am sure, to provide the member with a direct briefing.

[3:45]

F. Gingell: I appreciate that I am in injury time now, but I am going to take a little injury time, if I may.

I have been given a number, and where it came from I am not sure. But I wrote down, right in the estimates book, that the actual count on March 31, under the PSA method -- people employed under the Public Service Act -- was 36,027. Then there was a total of 4,494 other individuals, which gave us a total of 40,521. I was under the impression that that was the actual count at March 31. Well, maybe it was the number of FTEs that were the count for the year. So that number may well include the value of the portion of the year, that somebody who has subsequently left, who was not on the payroll at March 31 . . . .

That number includes their value for the year, whatever portion of an FTE that that amounted to, and in most cases it would have been 0.9-plus-something.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm at a bit of a loss, because I don't know where the member's numbers are coming from. We don't have the same numbers here. The confusion may come, at times, from the difference between the number of people working in government and the number of FTEs. Usually the number of people will be higher than the number of FTEs, because some of those people will be part-time and some of those people will be seasonal and what have you.

Let me assure the member that the FTE numbers represented in the estimates book reflect the FTE complement that we believe is achievable based upon the very substantial reductions in actual people working in government that has occurred, plus the transfers out.

Like everything else in the budget documents, I wanted this table to be presented as clearly as possible, with adjustments all up front. I'll tell you, FTEs have been a horrible hornets' nest for me to figure out. I thought this table was a tremendous improvement, so I kind of like the table. And now the member is trying to give me numbers that aren't on the table, and I'm confused. I like the table because it clearly shows the budget adjustment numbers.

It corrects the numbers to this new system of accounting that relates the numbers to the consolidated revenue fund, and then it compares the corrected numbers with the next year. If that is not sufficient and the member requires something better than that to answer his question, then I'm sure that a briefing could further assist him.

Vote 31 approved.

Vote 32: ministry operations, $95,394,000 -- approved.

Vote 33: special operating agency, registries, $8,297,000 -- approved.

Vote 34: pensions administration, $1,000 -- approved.

Vote 35: British Columbia Utilities Commission, $1,000 -- approved.

Vote 36: product sales and services, $1,000 -- approved.

Vote 58: management of public funds and debt, $905 million -- approved.

Vote 59: contingencies (all ministries), $50 million -- approved.

[ Page 4798 ]

Vote 60: B.C. Benefits, $299,796,000 -- approved.

Vote 61: commissions on collection of public funds, $1,000 -- approved.

Vote 62: corporate accounting system initiative, $10,884,000 -- approved.

Vote 67: Public Sector Employers Council, $1,607,000 -- approved.

Vote 68: Public Service Employee Relations Commission, $10,103,000 -- approved.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply B, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. A. Petter: I call second reading of Bill 49.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 2), 1997

(second reading)

The Speaker: As Minister of Finance, do you wish to begin the debate?

Hon. A. Petter: That would be delightful. I move that the bill be now read a second time. The supply bill is in the general form of previous supply bills. The bill requests one-twelfth of the voted expenditure, as presented in the 1997-98 estimates, to provide for the general programs of the government while estimates debate is being completed. Because that debate has taken such a vigorous and substantial form, additional time is required to complete the debate, and hence this supply bill is required at this time. With that, I move second reading of Bill 49.

G. Abbott: It's certainly a pleasure to rise and commence the debate with respect to second reading of the interim supply bill. I'd like to say, first of all, that the minister's characterization of the reasons for a second interim supply bill during the current session is, I guess, in part true. There certainly has been substantial and vigorous debate surrounding the passage of a number of estimates through the course of this session to date.

I think it would also be fair to note at this point that there is an additional reason why we are involved in a second interim supply debate and why, in fact, we may even be looking at a third interim supply debate later in the year. And that is, we got off to a rather slow start in the commencement of the current session. As you recall, and as many British Columbians recall, the first interim supply debate commenced in late March.

It's certainly the contention of this side of the House -- and I hope members on the other side have come to take this view, as well -- that this institution could get underway a good deal earlier than the last days of March. I think that would go a long way to eliminating these -- necessary at the moment, but in some respects unnecessary -- interim supply debates.

I know there's tremendous anticipation and excitement coursing through the House right now, wondering what theme we might take on in the current debate today -- and I think that theme will be legislative reform. There are a number of ways in which this institution could operate better. I don't think it should be necessary for interim supply debates like this to occur if, perhaps, there was some better organization of the operation of this House.

Can the business of government be better organized to eliminate the necessity for interim supply? More importantly, can we conduct the business of government in a more businesslike and efficient manner? I think yes, we can. There are a number of ways in which we can do a far better job of legislating, of governing in this province, than what we have seen in recent years. There are a number of . . . . Perhaps they can be called innovations; I guess they would be for this particular Legislature. They're not for some other parliamentary institutions, but perhaps for this institution they could be called innovative.

I think among these are the fixed parliamentary calendar, better use of committees and a number of other reforms which might go a long way to eliminating more interim supply debates in the future.

I think what most people want from government and their representatives in government, whether they are on the government or opposition side, is, first of all, a very thorough, effective, mature and sober consideration of public policy proposals. When the government brings forward legislative proposals to us in the form of bills, I think they expect us to give that kind of consideration to the bills. In many cases, the opposition may ultimately agree with the government that the legislative proposals they're making are good ones and vote with the government.

Of course, there are other instances where a generally well-intentioned bill has deficiencies which perhaps can be corrected by the attention we give it in this Legislature. Or, as is the case in some of the most recent legislation from this government, it may be ill-advised in principle. We think it's our responsibility on this side of the House to challenge that and to attempt to persuade the government and, I suppose, the people of British Columbia that it is ill-advised. I think that's fundamental, and it's something that our constituents and the people of British Columbia expect from us, regardless of where we sit in the House.

[4:00]

As well, the second thing that people in British Columbia would very much like from their government and from their representatives is accountability. They want to see this Legislature provide an opportunity for accountability in all facets of the government of British Columbia, whether those issues be legislative changes or whether they be the way in which a ministry of government operates. In a whole host of areas, this is the institution where there is accountability for the actions and the operation of government.

Again, I think the people of British Columbia expect us to give our full attention to issues surrounding accountability. Certainly this is the minimum that people should expect from their government, and I think it's the least that we should provide them with.

Like all members of the House, I certainly continue, after just over a year as an MLA, to feel that it's a remarkable honour to be a part of this institution. One of the things that was noted early on was that since Confederation -- for 125 years or thereabouts -- there have only been some 800 people in British Columbia who have been fortunate enough to be

[ Page 4799 ]

elected to this institution. It's a great honour for us to be here, and I'm sure members on all sides of the House want to do the best possible job they can for their constituents.

So clearly what we need to do is organize the operation of this institution in a way that can allow us to best serve our constituents. If there are problems in the way in which this institution is organized or in the way in which it operates, I think it's our responsibility as legislators to try to identify and rectify those problems so that indeed we can better serve our constituents.

It's my view -- and I know that many if not all of the members on this side of the House share this view -- that there is a broad frustration right now with the way in which this institution is operating. I'm trying as best I can to be non-partisan at this point, Mr. Speaker. I think that we need to take a long look at the way this institution operates and see if there are ways in which we can make it work better.

Certainly among the frustrations we feel at this point, with respect to the organization of this institution, is that we don't know from year to year when the legislative session or sessions will begin. I know I was at home in my constituency for January, February and March, and through those three months there was continuous speculation about when we might be called back into session. In fact, we never knew we were going back until days before the session was called by the Premier. Frankly, I don't think that's a very constructive way to deal with that particular issue.

I had family commitments which I could have made. Just as importantly, I had constituency commitments which I could have made. And no member of the House knows whether they can make those commitments, because they don't know when they're likely to go back. Two weeks' notice, a month's notice or two months' notice would be great. It would allow us to have at least some predictability in our lives, which we don't have now. Perhaps members on the government side have a far better idea of when they're likely to be back, but I know that we on this side of the House don't know until days before the session is called that we're coming back.

Just in terms of people trying to deal with family issues . . . . I think we all have family issues that are challenging enough as it is already with this institution. More predictability and -- as we'll be proposing here -- a fixed parliamentary calendar would go a long way to helping all members of the House, whether they be government or opposition, deal with that issue of predictability of the start of sessions.

As well, we have no idea when this session will end. Now, certainly we on the opposition side have a good deal more say about when the session is going to end than when it's going to start. We can debate bills longer, we can debate estimates issues longer, etc. So we have more control there. Nevertheless, I think it might, again, be a comfort to all members of the House if we had some sense, with a parliamentary calendar, of when we will be going as well as when we will be arriving here for the sessions. So again, I think a parliamentary calendar would be very, very useful in that respect.

I think, as well, that we on this side of the House are very frustrated with respect to the day-to-day operation of the House. We don't know, for example, when the government will deem it appropriate to take some extra days off around a weekend . . .

An Hon. Member: Or an election.

G. Abbott: . . . or an election. And we don't know for what reasons the government might choose to do that. We will find out only a day or two before -- if that -- that we will be getting an extra two days off to deal with the federal election or whatever it happens to be. Again, I think there needs to be a good deal more cooperation between the government side and the opposition side with respect to this issue. If we're going to be taking days off, let's have them for good reasons, and let's know about them so we can make good use of our time.

Even more frustrating, from my perspective, is that in this institution we don't know what we will be doing from day to day or from week to week with respect to the content of our debates here. If we're lucky, we find out whose estimates are going to be considered or what bill is likely to be discussed the night before. I simply think that that's not good enough. How can we give that thorough, mature, sober consideration to important issues if we don't know from day to day, and sometimes from hour to hour, what we're going to be dealing with?

I don't think providing us with some notice of the flow of things through a parliamentary session is going to, in any substantial way, impair the ability of the government to govern. In fact, I think -- and I hope the government is listening to this -- we would see things like estimates, bills, motions and all of these things flowing in a much smoother fashion if they were to advise us some time in advance of what the agenda was in terms of estimates.

In some cases we've had estimates start and stop, not to reappear again for weeks, with no apparent reason why. Bills have been given second reading in some cases but haven't proceeded to committee stage. In a whole range of areas, we just don't know what the agenda of the government is in terms of moving through on the business of the House. When we don't know that, it adds in great measure to our frustrations about the operation of this institution. In turn, because I think it leads to further debate, I'm sure it makes the frustration level rise on the government side as well.

So I would think that with some effort at greater cooperation between the government and opposition we could make some strides towards seeing this institution operate in a better, more efficient manner and, through that better and more efficient operation, provide better government to the people of British Columbia.

I guess this is an ongoing frustration as well. Recently we haven't known how late we will be sitting at night. Most nights it's been at 10 o'clock that we have adjourned, but not always.

A week or two ago, the Government House Leader advised that, because of the pressing weight of government bills pending, we absolutely had to finish the estimates of the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. It was absolutely critical. I see the Attorney General over there now is underlining the point of how critical it was that we get those estimates through that night. Well, as it turned out, we did. We sat late in order to do that, fearing that there would be enormous problems come down upon the government if those estimates were not completed that night.

What we found out after that weekend was that, in fact, the weight of government was not so great that we needed to sit late. We were able to take two or three days off in the following week despite that. So, in fact, there was no good reason to be sitting late that night.

We are, as I say, constantly frustrated by the way in which this institution is operating. With even a modicum -- and

[ Page 4800 ]

hopefully we can get more than a modicum -- even with a minimum of cooperation between the government and the opposition side, surely we can improve the way in which the institution is operating. It's fair to say that the frustrations which all members -- particularly on the opposition side, but perhaps all members of the House -- have been feeling about things like the unpredictability of sitting times, sitting dates and all of that kind of thing certainly has not led to a positive working environment in this institution.

In fact, that's reflected in a level of partisan rancour, Mr. Speaker, which you have on occasion noted yourself -- which you have on many occasions noted yourself. That rancour is there; there is no question about it. One of the reasons why it is perhaps more evident in recent days than at some points in the past . . . . I haven't been here that long, but I understand from former members of the House that the situation may be rather more rancorous now than it has been at some points in our past. That, in large measure, is a reflection of the absence of cooperation with respect to things like the operation of this institution.

If we don't have a positive working environment here, I don't think we have an atmosphere which is conducive to good government. Because of that, I don't think we can always give the mature, sober, logical, reasoned consideration to bills that we should. Perhaps we don't provide the level of accountability which we should be providing in the government of British Columbia.

I think the partisan rancour, which is quite evident on occasions . . . . I'm trying to keep my speech devoid of it here, because I know the Attorney General is very sensitive to it. I am as well. We try to stay away from that, and I'm trying to keep it out of here. The partisan rancour can be quite unhealthy, as you know, Mr. Speaker. And without it, perhaps we could do a better job here.

Partisan rancour perhaps has always been, in some measure, a part of this institution; but I know it has not always been at the current level. It may seem a bit surprising, given the situation these days, but prior to 1903 we didn't even have party lines in this assembly.

An Hon. Member: Let's hear about that.

G. Abbott: Would you like to hear a little bit about that? A little history lesson here, Mr. Speaker? This is a fascinating area.

Interjections.

G. Abbott: I know that members on both sides of the House are demanding that I give something along the lines of a history lesson here. I don't want to do that.

S. Hawkins: No, no. We want it, please.

G. Abbott: I don't have quite enough time to do that and to get in . . . .

Interjections.

G. Abbott: People are begging me, Mr. Speaker. The last time I spoke, I guess it was the Government Whip who actually moved a motion of unanimous resolution of the House that I continue over my allotted time. It was only the intervention of the Deputy Speaker which prevented me from probably speaking for hours and hours. I don't want to put you into that uncomfortable position, Mr. Speaker, of having to enforce the rules despite the many pleas from the government side that I go on for hours here.

At any rate, all of that has managed to get me thoroughly confused about where I wanted to go here.

S. Hawkins: No party lines -- 1903.

[4:15]

G. Abbott: No party lines prior to 1903. This will be the brief history lesson. Cabinets prior to 1903 were always a combination of people who described themselves as liberals, conservatives, independents . . . a host of labels. The cabinets were, prior to 1903, never along consistent lines. I guess that had benefits and liabilities. The governments actually tended to work pretty well. Between 1898 and 1903, not such -- there were, I think, six or seven administrations in about as many years, so there was certainly instability there. Prior to that, the system had actually worked pretty well.

After 1903, to continue my history lesson here, we do have the introduction of party lines. But we also see in the decades that follow a less rigid adherence to party discipline than what is demanded in this institution today.

I think we also see during those decades a much broader role for individual members in this institution than what we see today. Looking back on some of the microfiche from the twenties, thirties and forties, there are periods or times in there where private members' bills actually are kind of the order of the day, make their way through the Legislature and become law, something which certainly hasn't happened for a long time in this institution. Certainly not often, in recent decades, have we seen that.

As well, I think, we see in earlier decades of this institution much more cooperation between the government and the opposition with respect to the conduct of business in this institution. Again, when we have a situation where we don't know from day to day what we are going to be debating -- whether it's going to be estimates and whose estimates, or whether it's going to be bills and what bills, or a motion or what -- we should all conclude that there is something wrong with respect to the level of cooperation between the government and the opposition on these issues about the operation of the House. Things really need to be improved.

I don't think that we can ever return to what we had prior to 1903 or before 1940 or anything else. Those days are gone, we are in a different age, and there is a different culture existing in this House than existed then. We can't possibly hope to recreate what existed in those days. What we really must do, if we are going to have a more constructive relationship in this Legislature, is look at ways in which we can improve the business of governing this province.

I want to make some suggestions at this point, which may help to improve the level of cooperation between the government and the opposition and may also, as a consequence, improve our ability to give that sober, mature consideration to the issues which come before this House. Among these is the fixed parliamentary calendar. This, in my view, would go a long way to easing the frustrations which I have noted, and which are certainly felt on this side of the House.

A fixed parliamentary calendar would give us some idea of when we will be starting, when we will be stopping and when we will be starting again. Knowing that, we can make some arrangements with respect to time allocations for bills

[ Page 4801 ]

and for estimates. All of these kinds of day-to-day House issues could be much more satisfactorily resolved than is currently the case today. It would, I think, provide us with a predictable agenda from day to day. We would know that bill whatever was coming up on Thursday; we should be ready to deal with it in an effective manner.

As well, in terms of things we could look at as innovations -- if you like -- for the operation of this House are private members' days. We have -- and I think it's a good thing -- our opportunities on Friday mornings for private members' statements. Those are good, but I think in some respects a private members' day where we could actually advance bills, or at least debate bills, might be an even more useful way of dealing with issues.

Private members' statements are good, but they're generally -- or at least they're supposed to be -- non-partisan and non-confrontational and about issues or problems which are not of a political nature. If we had a private members' day where members had some real expectation that their bill could advance, with the possibility of the bill becoming law, I think members would have a greater sense of actually having an important role in this institution.

I think, as well, that private members' day and private members' bills, if carried out in that fashion, would go some considerable distance toward breaking down some of the partisan rancour and divisions which exist in this House. The one example, I guess, of bipartisan cooperation in terms of a proposed bill was the . . . . I'm trying to recall the exact phrase which was used to describe it -- something along the lines of the banning of cherry-flavoured, smokeless tobacco.

I know that a member -- was it Richmond Centre or Burnaby-Edmonds? -- proposed a bill which would ban the sale of cherry-flavoured, smokeless tobacco. You'd perhaps know more about this, Mr. Speaker. Would that be snuff or snoose? I can't remember.

An Hon. Member: Chewing tobacco.

G. Abbott: Chewing tobacco -- is that the way we should characterize it? I've never indulged in that personally. I guess you haven't, either? No? That's an unfair question to pose to you at this time, perhaps. Chewing tobacco, we'll characterize it as.

I think that's good, but since the bill was introduced, it hasn't gone anywhere. Maybe the government plans at some point to surprise us with that one. I don't know, and actually, I would be quite surprised if they did, Mr. Speaker. I don't expect, in fact, that they will.

Again, the point I'm making here -- and I hope the government is listening -- is that a private members' day, where we could see bills of that nature advanced, would be very useful in terms of giving members a sense of efficacy and contribution to this institution. Too frequently we're currently relegated to roles -- whether we be government backbenchers, opposition members or whatever -- where we don't have a sense that we are making a contribution to legislation that might be useful.

As well, if we see some of those partisan divisions -- some of that partisan rancour -- breaking down over time, it will be a way in which perhaps, in the future, we can see the opposition actually having an opportunity to make useful amendments to government bills. I guess I had the pleasure of actually having a successful amendment accepted by the government on Bill 2 earlier this session . . .

S. Hawkins: They turfed 33 others.

G. Abbott: . . . but there were a whole bunch that didn't receive that consideration.

On this side of the House, we do want to see bills improved. But all too frequently there is a sense that if we propose it, it has to be wrong. I think we need to get beyond that, and I'm not blaming the government for that. I think that's part of the culture that we have in this institution at this time, and we need to develop some mechanisms to begin to break that down.

Actually, I'm the designated hitter here. Does that give me extra time, Mr. Speaker?

The Speaker: Indeed it does, member, and I'm sure we're all pleased for that.

G. Abbott: Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. [Applause.]

I just want to note, Mr. Speaker, that I'm pleased that I can continue the . . . .

The Attorney General was just about to leap to his feet to move the resolution that the House unanimously endorse the continuation of my remarks. He doesn't need to do that now, because I now have up to two hours to complete my remarks.

S. Hawkins: Only two hours?

G. Abbott: Only two hours. Oh, what a shame. This may actually bring some relief to my colleagues here: I don't propose to go that long. Maybe a few more minutes, and I'll yield to other members who, I'm sure, will make far more compelling points here than I'm able to.

Mr. Speaker, I think the use of legislative committees is also a very important area that we should look at in terms of the operation of government -- both as a government and as an opposition. The effective use of committees is another way that we can enhance cooperation and start to build some non-partisan or bipartisan relationships in this House. The committees in this House have not been used to good purpose, and I think we all know that.

Of the 14 committees which are currently struck for this Legislature, I think perhaps three have met in recent times. Aboriginal Affairs certainly are doing an important job now, and they've been meeting. Among the others, Public Accounts have met on a number of occasions, and the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills has met once. The other 11 committees have not met since I've been elected. I gather they have not met since some time prior to the election of this government in 1991.

I don't know the history of committees prior to 1991 -- perhaps they met, perhaps they didn't. I'm suggesting here that it doesn't particularly matter what they did under previous Social Credit administrations. I think it's important to again reactivate and revitalize those committees to ensure that we're making the best use of the members of this House.

The other side of what we do here -- ensuring the accountability of government -- is something which a fixed parliamentary calendar would go a long ways towards enhancing. Our last session ended in August of 1996, and of course, we did not meet until late in March of 1997 to start the current session. Over those seven months, there were some very dramatic changes, developments and shifts in government policy in British Columbia. I mostly want to talk about some of the developments around my critic role in Municipal

[ Page 4802 ]

Affairs, but of course, the whole issue surrounding the two surplus budgets that were in fact massive deficit budgets was a very big issue -- which was expected but was not clearly defined until after the end of the '96 session.

In my critic area there were some really dramatic changes that occurred, and I don't think that this government was called to account as effectively as it should have been. In September the Minister of Municipal Affairs advised the Union of B.C. Municipalities in Penticton that things were changing, that municipal governments were going to have to share a greater portion of the load in terms of reductions in the provincial budget. The local governments' budgets . . . . They were going to have to pay a price that they hadn't been expecting.

Around those times, we saw the cancellation or reduction of programs associated with Municipal Affairs. The downtown revitalization program was terminated without any kind of notice or consultation. The provincial contribution to the weed control program was terminated. The provincial contribution to aquatic plant management was greatly reduced, again without notice or consultation and despite a written agreement with local governments around the province. The provincial contribution for economic development commissions and so on were reduced, again without any kind of notice or consultation.

[4:30]

In November we found out that the Local Government Grants Act was going to be gutted in a very fundamental way. We found that

section 2 of the Local Government Grants Act, which provided predictability, certainty and stability from year to year, was going to be repealed. Again, this was something that was done without any kind of notice or consultation. We didn't have the opportunity, I don't think, that we should have had to bring the government to account for that change.

There was secondary highway downloading and the announcement of closure of courthouses around the province. In a range of areas we saw this government moving in a very dramatic manner on issues which they had never previously consulted the people about.

Would a legislative session have brought the government to heel? Would it have brought better government to British Columbia? I think, in fact, that it would have. I think that the presence of the opposition and the concern of the opposition is something which produces better government in British Columbia. I think it forces the government on many occasions to take a second look at the kind of things that they are proposing. The hasty and precipitous actions of the government with respect to the courthouses and the secondary highways might not have occurred had the government been called to account by this institution and by this opposition.

We understand, Mr. Speaker -- and I do want to try to wind down here -- that despite the length of time that I've been speaking, there still courses through this House a sense of anticipation and excitement, which I find marvellous. I guess that's not too strong a term to attach to it. At any rate, we have, theoretically, in British Columbia now a new age in provincial-municipal relations. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and I talked about this at length in the Municipal Affairs estimates. The government has borrowed or taken from the B.C.

Liberal community charter a number of provisions, which -- I think, happily -- are now a part of the government's way of doing business. There is a joint council, which I hope is going to work.

Hopefully, with that kind of new system in place, we won't have a system where the government basically announces all the bad news when this institution is not sitting. Hopefully, we've gone beyond that. And hopefully, as well, we can go beyond the kind of lack of cooperation and rancour which we've seen in this House in the past number of weeks. I hope we can go on to see a new age in terms of the conduct of this Legislature.

There will always, nevertheless, be sharp differences of opinion in this Legislature, and that's how it should be. Differences of opinion are what governments are built around. There will always be parties; there will always be divisions. But there is a need -- and I hope I've made it clear over the course of the last few minutes -- to create mechanisms in this House which will improve the operation of this institution.

What we have currently is a political culture in this institution which will not be changed overnight, but I think it can be changed gradually and in important ways by the adoption of things like better use of committees, the fixed parliamentary calendar and greater cooperation in terms of the operation of the House. Things will not change overnight, but I think with some embracing of legislative reform on both sides of the House -- hopefully, within the lifetime of ourselves as legislators -- we can see some tangible improvement in the operation of this institution.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your rapt attention. I will resume my seat.

V. Anderson: I rise to speak on the supply act, Bill 49, which is the government's bill to ask for $1.680 billion in order to cover their projected expenses for July of this year. This has to be asked for by the government because we have been delayed in dealing with the estimates and delayed by other activities of this government. So they must ask for this advance.

But, hon. Speaker, as I go into this I also want to digress for a moment, with your permission. Earlier today, the Leader of the Official Opposition commented on the passing of Dr. Sydney Segal. I too would like to comment on my appreciation of the life and work of Dr. Segal, having had an opportunity to work with him on the youth justice committee of Vancouver city council, having had the opportunity to meet him in many meetings in which he dealt with the concerns of children in our community -- some of them only within the last few months.

Dr. Segal, in his quiet, consistent, smiling way, dealt with difficult issues and found very important solutions. I trust that even as we remember him, we'll remember that our concern here in this Legislature is like his: to find a future for our children, to find ways in which they can be supported and in which we can find solutions to the problems that confront us.

But in looking at the present situation, as we deal once again with this supply act -- which we dealt with three months ago when we first came into the Legislature, the thought that came to mind immediately was "order out of chaos." Out of that thought my mind went back to see what in history could guide us with principles and basic understanding as we arrive at the principles of discovering how to go about order out of chaos.

As I thought back, I thought I would like to go back for a few moments to the teachings and the wisdom of the Hebrew people. In the writings of the Hebrew people, there's a book called the Book of Genesis, which is a book about the

[ Page 4803 ]

beginnings. I would like to read a little bit from that book about the beginnings of bringing order out of chaos, because it sets a pattern and a philosophical base for what we're doing here in the Legislature, which oftentimes I feel we forget to reflect upon.

I took these particular writings because there are at least three of the major religions for which these are fundamentally important, and most of the other religions of the world acknowledge, with respect, these principles. Let me read:

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters."I will take a little licence -- instead of always repeating the word "God" all the way through, I will change that to "the Creator."

"And the Creator said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light.

"God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.

"God called the light 'day' and the darkness he called 'night.' And there was evening, and there was morning -- the first day.

"And the Creator said: `Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.'

"So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so.

"The Creator called the expanse 'sky.' And there was evening, and there was morning -- the second day.

"And the Creator said: 'Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place and let dry ground appear.' And it was so.

"The Creator called the dry ground 'land,' and the gathered waters he called 'seas.' And the Creator saw that it was good.

"Then the Creator said: 'Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed . . . according to their various kinds.' And it was so.

"The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to . . . with seed in it according to their kinds. And the Creator saw that it was good.

"And there was evening, and there was morning -- the third day.

"And the Creator said: 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.' And it was so.

"The Creator made two great lights -- the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

"The Creator set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.

"And there was evening, and there was morning -- the fourth day.

"And the Creator said: 'Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.'

"So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And the Creator saw that it was good.

"The Creator blessed them and said: `Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.'

"And there was evening, and there was morning -- the fifth day.

"And the Creator said: 'Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground and wild animals, each according to its kind.' And it was so.

"The Creator made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And the Creator saw that it was good.

"Then the Creator said: 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground.'

"So the Creator created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

"The Creator blessed them and said to them: 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.'

"Then the Creator said: 'I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

"'And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground -- everything that has the breath of life in it -- I give every green plant for food.' And it was so.

"The Creator saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning -- the sixth day.

"Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

"By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.

"And the Creator blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done."

Hon. Speaker, here we have, in the teachings of the ancient Hebrews, thousands of years before our time, the basic understanding that the earth on which we live has order and meaning and purpose within it. It is our responsibility to use it with order and meaning and responsibility.

[4:45]

For many generations people struggled with how, in a government form, to bring that order about in a fair and equal way. It was in 1215 that the people of England, from whom we gained our heritage of government, came upon a decision. Up until that time, as with so many people in our world even in this day, the government -- the rulers -- were those who lorded it over them, who dictated to them and told them how to live and what to do, and who bought and sold them as chattels. When those rulers wanted funds, they simply set out their armies and collected the funds.

If people did not have what we call dollars to send at the request and the demand of the leader, then they simply took their property, if not their lives.

It's interesting to look at some of the things that were covered by that Magna Carta and to discover that they're essentially the same items that we're having to deal with in our own day. One of them was freedom of religion: for people to practise and have freedom for their own religious faiths. Another one was to deal with how the forests were to be used; another one was to deal with how debts were to be paid; another one had to deal with how the government was to be administrated; another one had to deal with the responsibility for fish. In many ways things have not changed.

Today we're debating not only the amount of money that this government might be allowed, by the common people, to spend on behalf of the people, but in the variety of estimates we're also discussing and resolving how that money might be allocated to the forests, to the fish, to the taxes -- to whatever else is a responsibility of the government.

A couple of comments from the Magna Carta: "To all free men of our kingdom we have also granted, for us and our heirs forever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs." In that

[ Page 4804 ]

statement and the statements that are written below, we discover the basic freedoms and responsibilities that are for us in our current day. I will highlight a number of those freedoms. Again, reading from the Magna Carta:

"No scutage or aid may be levied in our kingdom without its general consent, unless it is for the ransom of our person, to make our eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry our eldest daughter. For these purposes only a reasonable aid may be levied. Aids from the city of London are to be treated similarly."

There we find the beginning of what we're dealing with today in the supply act.

It also comments that:

"To obtain the general consent of the realm for the assessment of an aid -- except in the three cases specified above . . . . To those who hold lands directly of us we will cause a general summons to be issued, through the sheriffs and other officials, to come together on a fixed day (of which at least 40 days notice shall be given) and at a fixed place."

It is interesting that back in 1215, at least 40 days' notice needed to be given across the land to summon those who would come to vote the expropriation that the government might have had. As our previous speaker mentioned, we do not even receive those 40 days' notice in our present time. Perhaps we need to learn some lessons from history.

It goes on to point out:

"We shall have similar respite in rendering justice in connection with forests that are to be disafforested, or to remain forests, when these were first forested by our father Henry or our brother Richard; with the guardianship of lands in another person's fee, when we have hitherto had this by virtue of fee held of us for knight's service by a third party."

Even then we were discussing in government the use of our forest system.

One interesting clause here -- and I'm not Welsh, but this will be of interest to the Welsh who may be about:

We have here a clear statement that these decisions about the use of land, and the proper restoring of land that has been properly taken, has to be dealt with in a court of equals, which is well for us to take in our own time.

Within that there is also the statement that, "in future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it." These are important liberties which we take for granted coming from 1215.

Finally, from the Magna Carta:

"No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."

We can translate that, in our own day, to mean the collection of taxes: no person shall pay taxes except by the decision of his equals and according to the law of the land.

That's what we're here about today. We wonder about this when we read in the recent order-in-council of June 5 that the government, which is in debt $20-plus billion at the moment, has just borrowed $3.4 billion. They ask that in this supply act we might grant them, for one month, $1.68 billion.

This is not

an act to be taken lightly, because it sets out the freedom with which the government can act once they've been allocated the funds. Then we have to hold them responsible for it. That's been part of our difficulty in this Legislature, trying to find out how the government is accountable for the funds, and then coming up short in that accountability. How many times have they promised us that they had balanced the budget, and the budget has certainly not been balanced? We must acknowledge that they had a debt given to them of some $17 billion, but that debt has increased every day and every week and every month since they have been in charge of the government in our province.

We're concerned here about the ordering of government, because no society can live without order, plan and system. It has been my struggle, ever since coming into the Legislature in October 1991, to discover that there is no order, there is no plan and there is no system in what the government presents to us. Each year we are never sure when we will sit in the Legislature, be it spring or fall. We never know when we will sit in the Legislature until a week or, if we're lucky, two weeks before the Legislature is called into being.

Bills are brought in one day, and we're to debate them and deal with them and sometimes try to say yea or nay to them within a week. There is information and there are questions within those bills that we've had absolutely no way to deal with or appreciate prior to the time of that being presented.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

I would recommend from our experience here . . . . I think others would join me in saying that bills should be brought in in the spring of the year. They should be put on the order paper and then they should be made available for all of the populous to look at, to review and to comment on. Then they should be dealt with honestly and sincerely in the fall session. That way we could have input. But even prior to that, prior to those bills being produced, they should be dealt with. The topics and the interests should come out publicly in open sessions where all the public can deal with it.

What has been happening is that private groups, special groups, have had an inside opportunity to deal with these issues, and others who have been equally affected by them have had no opportunity to input their concerns and responsibilities. This kind of behind-the-scenes backroom governing with friends and insiders is not the way to run a government.

Maybe it's the way to run your own private business. We give freedom to people to run their private businesses the way they like, but we're not dealing with a private business. This is not the private business of 18 members of government. This is the people, and the people should have the opportunity to know what's being discussed openly and freely and to comment upon it, to know that they've been heard and listened to and that their ideas have been incorporated or responded to, as the case may be, before the legislation is brought forward.

Then when the legislation is brought forward, when it's put together by those who have all the legal terminology and ability to do so, then it should be laid on the table. It should be laid on the table like a family budget so all the family has an opportunity to see it and deal with it. This kind of exclusiveness is the kind of thing that our forefathers argued against prior to the Magna Carta -- that there was a king, a person, a dictator, if you like, leading them around by the nose and demanding of them, without accountability.

Whether it's one person or 18, if the same process is in place, it's equally wrong and equally not viable. I would also say it's equally undemocratic. It's not democratic for an inside group in a hidden room to do their work and hide it away from the people, then bring it out in the open for three or five

[ Page 4805 ]

days, whatever the case may be, when people have no opportunity to bring it to the fore, to talk about it, to debate