1990 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

10147 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Loan for B.C. raspberry growers. Mr. Barlee –– 10147

Dioxin emission from pulp mill. Mr. Cashore –– 10148

Truckers' dispute. Mr. Sihota –– 10148

Challenger jet and government air logs. Mr. D'Arcy –– 10149

Flooding at Canyon City. Hon. Mrs. Johnston replies to question –– 10149

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

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier)

On vote 28: minister's office –– 10150

Mr. Clark

Ms. Cull

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Harcourt

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Peterson

Mr. Miller

Mr. Perry

Mr. Williams

Mr. Sihota

THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 1990

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Mr. Speaker, today the government

Whips and former Whips met to hold a not so formal investiture of the

Loyal Order of the Whip. We celebrated 15 years of whippery in the

House.

Today we have the individual on the floor of the

House who not only brought a private bill in establishing the Loyal

Order of the Sasquatch but he is also the patron of the Loyal Order of

the Sasquatch. Of course, he's now the grand patron of the Loyal Order

of Government Whips.

I would like to introduce to you —

through you, Sir — Mr. George Mussallem. The coat of arms, I know, is

not allowed to be demonstrated in here, but it is at the end with the

current government Whip.

I also have two other people to

introduce. In the gallery today we have someone who has felt the sting

of Mr. Mussallem's whip many times. In your gallery, Mr. Speaker, is

our agent-general in London, Garde Gardom, QC. Would the House please

make him welcome.

Here to speak with me and some of my

officials today about items concerning trade in Canada and things that

are happening, I want to introduce to you Mr. Sandy Morrison, president

of the Brewers' Association of Canada. Mr. Morrison and leaders of

Canada's brewery industry have been meeting in Vancouver. They hosted a

reception Tuesday evening to highlight the industry's very active

"Responsible Use" campaign. I look forward to meeting with him this

afternoon. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. GABELMANN :

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition, I want to welcome

both George and Garde. I'm delighted to see them here. I'd like to let

them know that these days we no longer have the kinds of troubles that

we had in the bad old days, and we're all much happier about it.

Welcome to you both.

MR. REID : Mr. Speaker, there's

a special guest here today from London. She happens to be accompanying

the former member who was introduced, and making him a success in his

life. I'd like to introduce Helen Gardom to the House today.

MR. PERRY : I can't let the opportunity go by without welcoming Mr. Gardom on behalf of the people of Point Grey.

MR. SPEAKER : If the members think it's appropriate, perhaps the Chair could send a message to the Gardoms on behalf of the House.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon are

23 members of the American Public Transit Association who are visiting our province

for their annual convention. Also present among their number are some delegates

from Europe.

All

of these guests to British Columbia are enjoying observing our

world-class transit system, which we are certainly very proud of. I

would ask the House to please make all of our guests welcome.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

On behalf of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), who is absent in

Ottawa these days, and myself, I would like the House to welcome two

ladies from the constituency of Kamloops, Elsie and Pat Humphrey, who

are in the members' gallery.

MS. MARZARI : Mr.

Speaker, a dear friend for over 25 years who worked with me in

Strathcona in Vancouver is here today. She is now on Galiano Island

running a small bed-and-breakfast called Polly's Place. I want to

introduce to the House Pauline Topp. Would you please welcome her.

MR. RABBITT :

Mr. Speaker, today I have a class from C.E. Barry Intermediate School

in Hope. With them are their principal, Mr. Chris Harvey, a teacher,

Kathy Warner, and an exchange teacher from Australia, Mr. Ed Blaker. I

would ask the House to give them a real warm royal welcome.

Oral Questions

LOAN FOR B.C. RASPBERRY GROWERS

MR. BARLEE :

This is to the Minister of Agriculture. Several weeks ago the Pacific

Raspberry Co-Op Growers' Association in the Fraser Valley asked the

government for approximately $1.2 million for a loan. This is not a

subsidy; this is a loan. This loan, hopefully, will enable them to

compete in a rather difficult market.

There are 200 growers

involved; 1,400 worker jobs are at stake; 2,000 acres are involved and

$48 million in annual receipts. I think this is important; I think you

should understand it.

Time is becoming increasing important

to the raspberry growers. Has the government made a decision on this

loan? And if not, why not?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : Mr.

Speaker, to the hon. member, to this House and to this assembly: let me

assure you that this minister and this government are well aware of the

problem in the raspberry industry. I might say it's not a unique area

where there are problems relative to food production. But I can tell

you, from the point of view of the $1.239 million request, that we are

working with it. As you well know, it has implications relative to GATT

and relative to the free trade agreement.

Therefore I am

telling you that it is very important that we do not put British

Columbia raspberry production in a position subject to countervailing

action by our trading partners. So it is being carefully looked at, and

we will continue to work diligently on their behalf.

We want to make sure that whatever type of assistance is given to those growers — and I support

[ Page 10148 ]

helping them — must be in the position that does not cause a countervailing action.

MR. BARLEE : Evidently they have already beaten that challenge from GATT in the courts once. How many times do they have to beat it?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I hope that in making a statement like that the hon. member understands

the implication of that decision. That dealt with strictly two

particular applicants on assessment.

It is not, I remind

you, the condition of all the decisions that were made in the

anti-dumping case in the first place. As you well know — or at least I

would hope you would know — it is important from Canada's position,

since Canada is a signatory to GATT. I would hope that the opposition

would be in the same position to support GATT.

By golly,

I'll tell you: it's important that we deal within GATT rules if we are

to be a trading nation among the 90-odd countries that are involved in

it.

DIOXIN EMISSION FROM PULP MILL

MR. CASHORE :

To the Minister of the Environment. The minister claims that dioxin

emissions from B.C. pulp mills have been dramatically reduced. Yet

dioxin emissions from the Western Pulp mill into Howe Sound have

quadrupled since last September, and the company has not reported this

dramatic increase to the government. Can the minister confirm that he

has not required Western Pulp to provide this information to his

ministry and to the public?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Mr.

Speaker, I am interested in the question from the hon. member, taken

from a press release by Terry Jacks, a man who a couple of weeks ago

said that he had the grass roots in my riding and was going to beat me

for my nomination. I guess he is just a little lonesome without the

publicity. I can assure that member that his statements are false. In

the first couple of months of this year there were no detection levels

of dioxins from that mill. The results from testing in the last -couple

of months are higher than they were in the previous months but still at

least less than half of what they were last year, and the furans are

only one-tenth of what they were last year. To say that my ministry is

not in contact with Western Pulp is absolutely false.

MR. CASHORE :

A supplementary. The minister referred to Terry Jacks. I would remind

the minister that the West Coast Environmental Law Association is a

very reputable organization representing well over 80 environmental

organizations. The minister knows that the mill's manager has stated

that the dioxin increases, which he admits were increases, were not

disclosed "because nobody asked for them." Has the minister now decided

to take action to ensure that pulp mill dioxin emissions are

continually reported to government and the results of that monitoring

made public?

[2:15]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I have great respect for Bill Andrews and members of the West Coast

Environmental Law Society. We're working with them right now to make

sure that there is a list of all the mills, municipalities and others

who are polluting in this province. He will get a copy of that report

when it's available, I hope within the next two weeks.

would stress to him again that to try to get the message across to the

public that this government is not doing anything about dioxin levels I

think is mischievous and irresponsible of him and his party. This

government has brought In the toughest regulations in Canada. The mills

know that and are working with us to solve the problem. The member

across there knows that the mills in this province have the lowest

dioxin levels they've had in years because of the toughness we've put

on them in the last few months.

TRUCKERS' DISPUTE

MR. SIHOTA : Only a Socred would think that telling the truth is mischievous.

have a question to the Minister of Labour on the independent truckers'

dispute. The mediator in that dispute has recommended that independent

truckers have full collective bargaining rights. Has the Minister of

Labour now decided to move on that recommendation?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

Mr. Speaker, I told the member in response to a similar question just a

few days ago that what he's talking about is potentially future policy.

It may be; it may not be. But again, we are not going to discuss the

welfare and well-being of people in industry and the legislation that

affects people's lives in an arena such as this. When and if the

legislation comes forward, we will advise you. But we will not discuss

the future legislation.

MR. SPEAKER : The question is apparently future policy now. A supplemental question.

MR. SIHOTA :

Only a Socred would say that we ought not to discuss the welfare of

people in the Legislature. This is a dispute that has the potential of

causing all sorts of disruption in British Columbia. The government was

forewarned of this very situation emerging when it introduced Bill 19.

Could the minister explain why his government is reluctant to provide

independent truckers full collective bargaining rights?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : Mr. Speaker, how does the member know that the government is reluctant?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. It's inappropriate for a minister to ask a question of a

member of the opposition, save and except the question can be put

[ Page

10149 ]

to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee by

a member of the House. Other than that, it is not possible to put a

question.

MR. SIHOTA : If the minister says that the

government is not reluctant, could he then explain why the government

has not taken any action with respect to providing these people full

collective bargaining rights?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

Well, again, Mr. Speaker, the member refers to the reluctance of the

government. I don't know how he's in a position to know that.

AN HON. MEMBER : Because you haven't done anything.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

I suppose that In most cases the members opposite would appreciate the

opportunity to discuss the things we might and might not do. That time

will be afforded them. I guess you'll have to wait until the

appropriate time, and we'll discuss that issue.

CHALLENGER JET AND

GOVERNMENT AIR LOGS

MR. D'ARCY : To the minister

responsible for government air services. Now that the Challenger jet is

back from the block, can the minister tell the people of British

Columbia what she has decided to use this aircraft for?

HON. MRS. GRAN :

The Challenger is back in British Columbia. It is still for sale. The

market is soft. There are ten more aircraft for sale now than there

were when it was put on sale. The aircraft will primarily be used for

ambulance purposes outside of the province.

MR. D'ARCY :

Can the minister tell the people of British Columbia on which one of

these trips the Challenger jet and the person in need of ambulance

services were used as a backdrop for the production of a government ad?

Can the minister tell the people of British Columbia when she is likely — or has she decided —

to table the logs not only of the government aircraft, so the people of

British Columbia will know what their dollars are being used for in

this regard, but to as well provide information to the people of B.C.

regarding the use of charters by the B.C. government?

HON. MRS. GRAN : If I thought the request for the government air logs

was for anything other than muckraking, it might be different. It's a little

bit like asking what the Leader of the Opposition needs $450,000 for an office

in Vancouver for. Let's answer that question. There are lots of questions

that could be answered on both sides of this House, and if we want to spend

our time muckraking and making politicians look bad, then go for it.

MR. D'ARCY :

It had never occurred to me for a moment that there might be any muck

to rake. But the minister has now disabused me and the people of B.C.

of that notion.

To the minister: is there not a statutory

obligation to provide information about the use of government aircraft

for any purpose?

HON. MRS. GRAN : I don't know what

the member was saying, whether he was suggesting that a woman was

abusing him or not; it was not my intention.

I don't know

whether there is a statutory requirement when.... Obviously there

isn't. When the time comes and I have completed a review in that part

of my ministry, I will consider releasing those logs. But I ask the

opposition members another question: how did you enjoy your dinner paid

by the Vancouver Stock Exchange?

MR. SPEAKER : It's not appropriate for ministers to ask questions of the members of the opposition.

FLOODING AT CANYON CITY

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

During question period yesterday the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) put a

question forward to this ministry, and I would now like to make a

response to the question taken on notice.

The question

concerned the Canyon City footbridge, a suspended cable span structure

and the only form of access to the small native community of Canyon

City, located on the north side of the Nass River. The bridge is on

reserve land and is the responsibility of the band and Indian and

Northern Affairs. The bridge was inspected on request by a ministry

engineer about four years ago and found to be in an acceptable

condition.

The most recent concern appears to be with

regard to the condition of the timber decking and the Page-wire sides.

Indian and Northern Affairs, in conjunction with a provincial emergency

program, are presently looking into this problem. If requested to do so

by Indian and Northern Affairs, our Ministry of Transportation and

Highways will do an inspection of the bridge components that are of

concern to the band.

In the meantime, it really is not within our jurisdiction.

MR. SPEAKER :

The Chair would like to thank the minister for taking the appropriate

action of bringing an answer back, taken during question period, after

question period.

Orders of the Day

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

[ Page 10150 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

AND CORPORATE RELATIONS

On vote 28: minister's office, $329,702 (continued).

MR. CLARK :

Mr. Chairman, I know that the minister had the appropriate staff in

here this morning. I'm sure they will be here shortly. Given that the

questions which we were discussing this morning had to do with

contracting-out and the range of initiatives....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Hon. members, if you wish to have private meetings, I'd prefer you had

them in the hallways. The second member for Vancouver East may continue.

MR. CLARK :

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to take up too much of the House's time at

the early stages, but I think it would be important that the minister's

staff be here, because we will have some technical questions. I hope

the Chair shows some indulgence in terms of this discourse that I am

pursuing while we wait for staff.

I don't know whether the

minister has any of these statistics here, but I want to ask a question

with respect to the number of personal service contracts that the

government has entered into in the last year.

If the

appropriate staff isn't here to answer that particular question, I will

turn it over to the member for Oak Bay and she can pursue, perhaps,

questions arising out of the minister's comments. We can get Into more

specific questions when the appropriate staff arrive.

MS. CULL :

I want to go back to the discussion we were having before adjournment.

I asked the minister how he was going to implement pay equity within

the public service, given the fact that we now have two systems in

government for temporary employees. We have the regular auxiliary

employees, who are members of the B.C. Government Employees' Union and

are paid union wages and receive benefits according to the contract;

and we have— side by side — contract employees, employed by office

employee firms such as Kelly Temporary Services and others like that,

who are making considerably less per hour for doing the same work.

[2:30]

Two things troubled me with the minister's answer. First of all, I think

I heard him say that there wasn't a difference between auxiliaries and full-time

equivalents, when we were taking about this discrimination. Certainly there

is. I am sure his staff will advise him that there is a difference between an

auxiliary employee and a full-time employee. Auxiliary employees are hired to

fill positions that do not extend beyond a certain period of months stipulated

in the contract. But when government offices find themselves needing employees

for short periods of time, they are being directed more and more towards Kelly

Temporary Services, as opposed to using the regular system of hiring an auxiliary

under contract.

hope the minister is clear about that difference. I am not concerned

about contract employees making less than full-time permanent

employees, but I am concerned about contract employees who sit next to

auxiliary employees. The jobs are the same; the circumstances about the

length of time those people are required for those jobs are the same.

What is different is the salary and the benefits.

The other

thing that disturbed me about the answer was that I thought there was a

nice little pat answer that if there is a problem such as this, then

there is a process through the contract whereby one can grieve it.

could stand here all afternoon talking about circumstances that I have

personal familiarity with, but I am not going to go on about it. But

let me tell you what happens in government offices when there are women

— usually office assistants 1 and 2 — who are hired on contract and

someone in that office says: "Gee, shouldn't that person be an

auxiliary?" Or perhaps the person in that position thinks that she

should be an auxiliary because she has talked to the woman sitting at

the next desk and realizes that the woman at the next desk has got a

lot better deal. What happens is that those people, or their direct

supervisors, are intimidated. They are told: "If you report this or

grieve this, we will lose this position." And so they are silent. The

women in those positions are silenced. The supervisors above them are

silenced, because they are afraid that if they make a fuss and insist

on an auxiliary and insist on fair treatment for these people— insist on what I guess we would call pay equity between these two positions —

they will lose that position entirely. That happens time and time

again. You could consult with anyone in your ministries and find that

kind of information.

If the government persists in having a

two-tier system for temporary employees, some of those people hired as

auxiliaries and some of those people on contract, and they persist in

allowing this kind of intimidation to go on within the civil service,

how can we implement pay equity?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

The member alludes to her expertise in the area, so I must assume she

understands that the Issue of pay equity in the context in which we

discussed it this morning is not related in any direct sense to this

question of auxiliaries as she's trying to merge them. The member may

not be aware that the auxiliaries are counted in the calculation of

FTEs. So if there is some extrapolation of figures you've got in mind

here, you should understand the basis on which the stats are collected.

I think we had a good discussion on this before lunch. And as I said before lunch, the government believes that we should — to the maximum extent possible — reduce the size of government. We do that with a variety of different devices.

Many of the forces at work here are contradictory in the sense that we assume new obligations every

[ Page

10151 ]

year — new services, new programs — and that of

itself seems to inevitably result in expansion of the public service.

To the extent that we are able, we do attempt to contract it out. To

the extent that we are able, we want to ensure that those positions at

the lower end of the pay scale get treated fairly. And because we have

been unable to get that fair treatment at the bargaining table, we

embarked on this pay-equity proposal.

In any event, the

principal response to what I sense is the thrust of the question is

that this government happens to think that smaller government is better

government. Therefore, in the pursuit of that ambition, it's necessary

for us to look at every possible device, including contracting-out, In

order to ensure that we don't build into the bureaucracy permanent

positions that may not be necessary. I think that deals with the thrust

of the questions.

MS. CULL : Mr. Minister, auxiliary

positions are not permanent positions. They are temporary positions,

and that's what I am talking about. In some offices, when there is a

temporary position -let's say we need an office assistant 2 in a

ministry for a period of three months-that individual is hired

sometimes as an auxiliary and sometimes on contract. Sometimes there

are two positions, and one is on contract and one on auxiliary. We have

the situation where people doing the same work are being paid different

amounts of money. My understanding of pay equity is that that is not an

equitable situation. I'm also concerned.... Are you saying it's a fair

situation that ministries should be able to hire some temporary

employees on an auxiliary basis and others on a contract basis without

there being rhyme or reason for the difference between the two?

The other question comes out of what I hear you saying —

and I hope it isn't what you are saying. Are you telling us that yes,

we can have pay equity, as your government sees it, for the civil

service, but that we're going to do it on the backs of some of the

lowest-paid people in this province, in the civil service, by

contracting out those jobs? Surely you are not suggesting that we are

going to have a two-tier system in the province, where we will save

money by contracting out to various firms those kinds of low-paying

jobs so that we don't have to deal with the inequity of women who are

doing the same work but not receiving the same amount of money.

It's

been pointed out that we are not saving money on it in any event,

because we are paying the private contractors' firms that extra money

that we would be paying.... It's going into their pockets, not into the

pockets of the women who are doing the work.

I'm concerned that we have inequities within offices and ministries of

people doing the same jobs but receiving very different amounts of pay. This

isn't an issue about adding to the civil service, even if we're talking

about temporary employees — people who will have a short work duration, whether

it's two or three months or what have you. We have situations where some

of those individuals are hired on contract and others are hired under the public

service as auxiliaries, and they are being paid different amounts. Do you think

that's fair? Is this your idea of pay equity?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

The hon. member seems to wish to impress us all with her grasp of one

minute aspect of a far larger issue. The program of pay equity is

intended to address pay equity across all aspects of government

operation. The member, by virtue of her unique quality of being a

government employee herself, I'm sure would appreciate that as a

general rule positions are contracted out because there are no FFE

allocations assigned for the task to be performed. The auxiliaries are

counted as FTEs. I don't know if that's part of your confusion here,

but they are counted as FTEs.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Good. I don't know what more I can add. I think we've canvassed that

one pretty thoroughly. The member rephrases the question a number of

times, attempting to make out it's anew question. I don't sense there's

anything new about it. I've answered the question as well as I am

capable.

MRS. BOONE : Perhaps that's our difficulty.

Perhaps we're expecting a little more out of the minister than he's

capable of giving. That may be our problem.

I too am a

government employee. In a previous life, I was on the opposite end of

the spectrum, working on the management end for a temp personnel

office, sending out people, and at that time the company that I worked

for would have dearly loved to have some government business from B.C.,

but they couldn't get any. They couldn't get any because B.C. hired

their own temporary people, took care of it all through the civil

service commission, employed those people and gave them all those jobs.

We would have dearly loved to have had that ability to staff those

offices with temporary people because we, the company, made a profit.

We made dollars out of that. We didn't do it out of the goodness of our

heart. We didn't do it to save the government money. We did it because

we wanted to make money, and that's what's happening right now. It is

not saving the government money. It is not decreasing the size of

government, because the positions that these people are filling are not

new positions. They generally are positions that, as I said, are vacant

because of illness or maternity leave or any number of things. They are

positions that are there. They are filling existing positions.

Right

now the government is not saving any money by contracting those out. It

costs you probably more to go out and hire a person through an

employment agency than it does to hire that person through existing

government services and pay the wages there. The only difference is

that instead of giving that entire amount to the employee, which is

what we would like to see happen, you're giving a good portion of that

to the employer of that em-

[ Page 10152 ]

ployee, who doesn't happen to be the government, and that employee only gets a small portion of it.

really think that if the minister can't understand that this is

controversial and in conflict with the whole idea of pay equity, of

trying to make sure that women in the workforce receive reasonable pay,

then he should be going back and revisiting the whole concept of pay

equity so that he understands what it is, because I don't think he

really understands what the purpose of pay equity is. Pay equity is to

make sure that the lower-paid people receive adequate wages for the

work they put in. When you've got people working side by side with

others, doing the same job and receiving less money, even the same

classification.... The whole idea of putting in a pay equity system

when you won't even deal with the inequities that are there and that

you could deal with just doesn't make any sense at all. If the

government were serious about solving some of these problems for women

and about making sure they received adequate pay, then they would

institute a policy and say: "We will not contract these services out.

We will employ people as auxiliaries and make sure they get fair

wages." That's not happening right now, Mr Minister.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

All the rhetoric aside, the fact of the matter is that the government

is providing efficient government services to the people of the

province. You see that exhibited by our credit rating You see that

exhibited by the fact that we don't have to borrow money. You see it

exhibited by the comments of people in the financial community. To

suggest that we're not running the government efficiently is just

categorically false. To suggest, also, that it's the obligation of

government to create full-time positions to do part-time work I find

absurd. And to suggest that you as a private sector operator weren't

getting your share of government contract work and therefore that

didn't work, either, I find a contradiction in arguments. On the one

hand you make a point about the private sector not getting their share;

on the other hand you make the plea that we should be having more

public servants. What exactly is your point, Madam Member? What exactly

is your problem? What exactly would you do were you given the reins of

power? What exactly would you add to the taxpayers' burden in this

province in order to provide your perception of the perfect world? Tell

us a little bit more about what taxes you're going to have to raise to

finance this kind of utopian world that you envisage? I'd like to know

a little bit more about that.

[2:45]

MRS. BOONE :

Mr. Minister, you seem unable to understand. You seem unable to get

through with this. Perhaps it is because you have been counting beans

for too long. I'm not sure. But if you are paying $20 an hour to an

agency to provide the services of a secretary, and $10 of that is going

into the pockets of the agency and $10 is going into the pocket of the

employee, then that is not efficient. That is not paying that employee

well. On the other hand, if you are paying $20 Into the pocket of that

employee, that is not costing the government any more money, Mr.

Minister; it is merely saying that the worker is getting their fair

share of the dollar there. That is what the difference is.

do not believe we have to raise taxes to pay people a fair wage. We do

not believe you have to increase the size of government. Mr. Minister,

you mentioned today that you had all kinds of contracting-out people

working at home. just how many do you have working at home who aren't

even shown on the government rolls? Just how many people are out there

working, in between doing the diapers and doing the laundry, putting

figures into machines to satisfy the government's need not to have them

show up as government employees. Is that what this government wants to

do— have the numbers reduced on paper so that they don't show as

government employees, but still have them out there working at slave

wages? Is that the purpose of this government?

You don't

seem to understand. We are not asking you to increase the size of

government; we're not saying you should increase what you've got. We

are saying: "Replace those people who are on contract with an outside

agency with temporary people." That is not an increase at all. It's

merely shifting one to the other and saying: "We are putting the

dollars in the pockets of the people who work for this province, not in

the pockets of some entrepreneur out there." That is what we believe

in. If you believed in some sense of fairness for the working people of

this province, you would be saying that's what you should be doing as

well.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Mr. Chairman, it might be

useful to get the debate back on track. If ever you needed to see the

attitude of the socialists capsulized in terms of their obligation to

build their empire, the bureaucracy and the size of government, you

only have to put the last speaker's comments next to the performance of

the socialist government when they took power in this province in 1972.

With the stroke of a pen, they increased the cost of governance and

upset all of the equities that had been built into the system prior to

that time. It took years to find an accommodation. If ever you needed

any illustration of the difference between us, you just have to go back

to those records.

Mr. Chairman, in an effort to get the

debate back into focus, I'd like to mention that the first speaker this

afternoon asked for some information about personal service contracts.

I understand that we don't capture the personal service contract

information with FTEs incorporated. I suppose it could be possible to

go through all of the public accounts and extract a figure, but it's

not done that way. We have the cost of public service contracts, but

not the number of employees associated with them. We're just not able

to provide that information, unless we were to exert a great deal of

staff time towards it.

Interjection.

[ Page

10153 ]

HON. MR. COUVELIER : We know how many contracts there are,

hon. member, but we don't know how many employees are covered by those

contracts. Many of the contracts are with firms that have a number of

employees. What I am saying is that we don't capture the FTE count. We

can identify the dollars, but we don't have readily available the

number of employees those contractors would be putting on the job— which would be the only basis on which you could make any comparison with government employees or FTEs.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : We can obtain that information, but we don't have it with us today. We certainly will undertake to provide it to you.

MR. HARCOURT : Mr. Chairman, the minister doesn't seem to get the point. The point isn't just efficiency; the point is equity too.

What

we're talking about is how to treat people. That's really what we're

talking about: how we treat people. This government has taken the

extremism of the past government and its restraint program and turned

it into almost an art form— a macabre and savage art form — in the way

people are treated. It's called "lower the FTEs." It's a body count.

It's almost as though this government is a search-and-destroy mission

of marines in Vietnam. They're out to lower bodies in the civil

service; to go out and find bodies they can get rid of, they can

pretend aren't there.

It's like the personnel equivalent of

the BS fund of the Minister of Finance. It's like the equivalent of the

environmental BS fund we talked about yesterday with the Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds). We call it a legal fiction that's

created to give the illusion that there are fewer people working for

the government. All it is is contracting-out to get a political hit:

"We have lowered the bureaucracy."

Interjection,

MR. HARCOURT :

No, you don't. You've got the same number of people working either on

contract or inside the civil service as full-time employees,

temporaries or whatever you want to call them. What we're trying to get

through to the minister is how you treat citizens in British Columbia;

that's the issue.

It's been pointed out by some of my

colleagues that you're talking about women, by and large, who are

secretaries; who are at the bottom end; who lead a marginal existence;

who lead an existence that is very difficult, particularly if they're

single women trying to raise children, trying to pay the rents and the

huge increases, with a government that doesn't have a rent

stabilization plan to deal with zero vacancy rates, a government that

has not provided proper child care for them to be able to go out and

have a full-time job. That's what we're talking about: how you treat

citizens in British Columbia.

We can give all kinds of examples. We're not just talking about temporary

or contract secretaries. I'll give you another example. And it doesn't

cost more money.

You

heard the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) saying that $20

is $20, whether it's to a person working for the public sector as a

full-time employee or to a contractor who takes half off the top and

what's left goes to the employee. It's still going to cost the

taxpayers of British Columbia the same amount of money.

I'll

give you another example of how people are being exploited at the lower

end of the income scale in this province of ours. How you treat the

most vulnerable people is how you measure the civility of your

community. I'll give you another example where no money was saved: the

flag people on the highways of this province, who are mostly women and

who were making $12 an hour when they were within the BCGEU and when

contracted out ended up making $5 to $7 an hour, with the balance going

to the contractor and no security in a very dangerous job, where a

number of them get injured every year working through very difficult

weather conditions a lot of the time.

It cost the taxpayers

the same amount of money, but those women are far worse off. How can a

government can say it's serious about pay equity and equality for

women, given their behaviour in those two instances? Most British

Columbians know that the government, because of the way they're

behaving, isn't taking equality for women and pay equity seriously.

Now,

Mr. Minister, you can get outraged, you can get paternalistic about

some of the questions that the women members have been trying to ask

you, but it isn't getting through to you that it is not a matter of

bean-counting; it is not a matter of big government versus smaller

government. It is a matter of how British Columbians are mistreated by

this Socred government.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I'm

delighted that we've been graced with the presence of the Leader of the

Opposition and that he chose to be a speaker here in this debate of my

estimates, because it gives me a chance to repeat what I was saying

this morning to his colleagues when he wasn't in the House: that this

pay equity program is introduced by government because of government's

inability to address what it has seen for years as a serious problem

through the normal bargaining process. Finally, after the 1988

experience, when we deliberately attempted to bottom-load those

negotiations, we found ourselves denied by the negotiating committee

from the union— a male-dominated committee, I might add. Government's

efforts to bottom-load our contractual relationships with our employees

is a matter of record. That's easily proven and should be understood

and appreciated during this debate.

Pay equity is overdue.

We have said that. We have introduced a program to deal with it,

because there's no other way we can find to deal with it. And we are

determined to make it work.

[ Page 10154 ]

During

the pontifications we've just heard from the last speaker, he said that

he's going to give us a lesson on how to create citizens. My goodness—

the socialist approach to trying to build a sense of personal

responsibility and improve people's freedoms! Independence and economic

freedom surely don't arise from the introduction of collectivism, which

is what socialism is all about— as opposed to this side of the House, which believes in individualism.

It's

only by nurturing the private sector that we are able to develop that

independence of mind and that economic independence which are so

important if people are to feel responsible for their own lives, as

opposed to the approach that seems to be espoused by the members

opposite who consistently and continually talk about expanding

government's largesse and government's bureaucracy in some naive hope

that it will work. It hasn't worked anywhere else in the world, my

friends, and you know that well. It hasn't worked to the point that

you've even changed your name, I understand, in the international forum.

any event, we are talking here about pay equity and a program that

government has brought in. After listening to all this rhetoric, it

will be interesting to see whether members support the program or they

don't. I certainly will be interested to see exactly how you belly up

to the bar when it comes time to express your support in a way that can

be read by the voters or used by your opponents during an election

campaign.

The hon. member also talked about highway

privatization, and he seemed to suggest that highway privatization was

not a well-run exercise and did not save money. I've got to tell you,

my friends, that highway privatization saved $100 million in the first

term of those contracts. How on earth can you take the issue of a

flagperson and compare some sort of rates— which I have no idea are right or wrong in that narrow instance — and try to fabricate an argument that highway privatization does not work?

the year that we brought in the privatization initiatives, we

documented in the appendix to the budget how we calculated that $100

million, and that $100 million has not been argued or contested. We

have saved through the highway privatization initiative, my friends,

not increased the expense. But here again it illustrates this

government's serious approach to dealing with human and social

problems. We bring in a program to address what we believe is an

inequity, and you cast in all sorts of extraneous arguments around

privatization and try to introduce the concept that we haven't operated

that

section efficiently. We have, and the evidence is there.

MR. WILLIAMS : Oh, nonsense!

HON. MR. COUVELIER : If you don't believe me, my hon. friend, read

the appendix to the budget document that we released at the time we announced

the program. It's all there on the record, if only you'd read it.

[3:00]

MS. MARZARI :

We're not dealing directly with privatization; nor are we dealing

directly with FTEs; nor are we dealing, it seems to me, with statistics

of workers in the provincial workforce. What we're dealing with in this

chamber today is women's work. We're dealing with the work that women

do that has been over the years devalued and turned into something

which is considered by our society, our culture and your government to

be inferior to men's work. I canvassed this a bit this morning when I

talked about the fact that work which women choose to do very often....

For

example, at the turn of the century when the typewriter was first

invented, there was a move in business schools, which were largely

dominated by men at the time, to make the typewriter the property of

men who were seeking management positions. In other words, the business

of tapping keys and producing letters was in the honourable tradition

of male clerks.

AN HON. MEMBER : You would remember that, would you?

MS. MARZARI : I don't remember it personally, Mr. Member, but I'm sure you might.

Over

the course of the First World War it became quite apparent that the

people going into clerical positions were women, for obvious reasons.

The value of that work fell in comparison to men's work of the time.

The clerical stream became a female stream, and in becoming a female

stream became a lesser-paid stream than men's work. It's a simple fact.

We can look at other areas where women have entered even a profession— the teaching profession — only to find that by their entry the very nature of the profession became devalued. We're talking about women's work.

This morning when we were getting into the area of contracting-out and contracting out clerical services — women's work —

the minister made reference to women being at home, in the comforts of

their own home with their family, to do their work. Is this government

in the practice of creating out of women what you'd probably call

small-profit centres, of keeping women at home, in other words, to do

their piecework? Is this in fact happening through yourself or

indirectly through some of your contractors?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I'm proud to say that this initiative has been in place in my ministry for a number of years.

don't want you to take my remarks this morning out of context. I was

merely responding to one of the questions put to me which suggested

that people had to be in an office in order to perform work. I was

making the point this morning that as the technology explosion occurs

there will be more and more people performing work at home. It will be

full-time work, or could be, but it could be work that they would do at

their leisure, to suit their own personal timeframes.

[ Page

10155 ]

In answer to your specific question, yes, we have had such a program

in the Ministry of Finance for a number of years. It's something that

will grow, I suspect, as time goes by.

MR. PETERSON :

I'd like to change the tempo of discussion a bit here, Mr. Chairman. I

would like to bring up a process that I was involved in last fall;

involved with me were the first and second members for Okanagan South

(Mr. Serwa and Mr. Chalmers), the second member for Richmond (Mr.

Loenen) and the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long). It was called the

caucus budget committee, and it was very ably co-chaired by our

Minister of Finance and our caucus chairman.

I found it a very interesting process, and, I believe, a process unique — and you may correct me on this, Mr. Minister of Finance —

in terms of the back bench having an input on the expenditure side of

government. In fact, if I could elaborate somewhat, not only did we

have an input on the expenditure side; we also had a very close look

across ministry issues, whereby we looked for duplications in the

big-government process, if you like, so that we could more effectively

have our dollars at work in programs where they were needed, without

duplication, thereby producing a net benefit for the people of British

Columbia, not only in terms of taxpayers' expenditures but also in

terms of putting the money where it was really needed for the programs

that were indeed valid and indeed happening. I'm very pleased that we

had the opportunity to do this.

I would like to take this

opportunity to compliment the minister, Mr. Chairman, because I believe

it was his idea. I also want to compliment our Premier at this time,

because he wholeheartedly approved of it. It gave us an opportunity.

I've been told by many ministers that probably members who served on

the caucus budget committee know more about the government in total

than a lot of the ministers themselves because they are so preoccupied

with the immensities of their own ministries. We've got such an overall

view, and the knowledge we gain from that most certainly helps us in

our deliberations in caucus.

I hope that this will continue

in future years, because it is an excellent process. I think we

achieved a lot, and I just wanted to stand up and give this minister

full credit for that. I wonder if the minister might wish to comment on

his intentions— if that is acceptable to the House — and how he felt

about the process in terms of dealing with senior staff and other

ministers relative to these envelopes of spending that we deal with.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I am indebted to the member for pointing out the budgetary process that

this administration has been using in the last few years. It is unique

in Canada; it is unique in the parliamentary system, as far as I know.

In my conversations with parliamentarians from Great Britain, I

understand that they also don't have such a system.

It has

worked very well. Basically it amounts to the caucus members who are

not burdened with cabinet responsibilities sitting around day after day

reviewing ministry budgets and interviewing the ministry senior staff— in some cases the ministers themselves — about their budget requests.

Two

things happen out of that process that we are benefiting from. First of

all, there is a unique direct line from someone who is involved in his

constituency and aware of his neighbours' and constituents' problems— and is therefore aware of where government might do a better job in some areas —

having an opportunity to influence the critical way in which government

applies solutions to problems and how they spend their money.

believe that opportunity has resulted in a far more sensitive approach

by each line ministry to the uniqueness of this province and the wide

difference of needs between different regions in this province. Because

of that, I think we get a particularly sensitive approach to public

spending.

The second benefit I think arises from what the

second member for Langley referred to, and that is the heightening of

awareness of all caucus members about all cross-government and

cross-ministry issues. In that process, once again— as we might consider options and opportunities —

we start from a much higher plateau of learning and understanding. Once

again it enhances the quality of the decisions that are made.

The

caucus back-bench committee is an adviser to government. Its role is to

comment on the ministry spending proposals. I can tell you that as a

consequence of that valuable input and the individual approaches taken,

many line ministries have reacted in a positive way to the suggestions

they have received. So the program has worked very well, and we are

still the only jurisdiction I am aware of in the parliamentary system

that uses it. I would certainly expect that we would use it again next

year, because I believe you get a far more sensitive and relevant

approach to dealing with people's problems, which, after all, is what

all of us in this House are expected to do.

MS. MARZARI : To get back to women's work, Mr. Minister, we are dealing very much with people's problems.

When you answered my last question about women at work in their own homes —

as you put it: "at their leisure, working on clerical government work

while in their own homes".... This morning I connect that with the

words you used about "being with their families."

It's a

comfortable picture of a woman being with her family at home doing the

government's clerical work, possibly putting the bread in the oven in

the morning to rise, going downstairs for a few minutes to pick up on

some computer files and do a little bit of work, then bringing the

children home from school, make them a little lunch, send them back and

go back down to the basement. They probably incorporated themselves so

they can deduct from their

[ Page 10156 ]

income

tax that portion of their home they have their word processor in. What

a sweet little setup you've suggested for us today.

Women

are raising children, raising bread and keeping their income flowing

through their household by doing government contract work. Are these

women individual contractors, or are they contracted out by government

contract? Do you know how many of these women are actually working in

the sanctity and the bosom of their families every day? Do you have any

idea what the hourly wage of these women might be? Do you have any

sense of what the contractor for whom they are working might be making?

Do these women have enough money at the end of the month to pay for a

break— perhaps a bit of child care? Do these women and their happy family existence there — doing work at their leisure —

have any opportunity for fringe benefits, disability plans, health

plans or dental plans that their unionized sisters might have who are

working directly for the government? Could you give us an idea of the

numbers of these women?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I can appreciate that the hon. member is critical.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : It's the sarcastic way in which you run through the issue.

I'm

not fully familiar with the individual cases. I can tell you that in at

least one of the cases we were dealing with an employee— not a

contractor. It's not uncommon in my ministry that women who wish to

remain home during a pregnancy would retain work with the ministry.

That has occurred.

I know of cases where women in the

pursuit of higher education have come to us and asked for contract work

that they might do in their spare hours in order to help finance their

independence and the improvement in their lifestyles. We've obliged in

all of those cases where it's possible to do so.

I don't

believe we're the only ministry of government doing this. I think there

are one or two others, but I don't have details of that. Nor do I have

for your information today any numbers or

summary. But if you'd like,

I'd be delighted to give you the names of the individuals who have

received this so you could interview them yourself. You could determine

whether this government is attempting, in the most sensitive,

responsible way we possibly can, to allow women in particular more

flexibility in their hours of work.

[3:15]

We have some flextime initiatives that we've approved. I'm not aware

of any option out there that we haven't considered. Our employees, I

believe, are aware of the fact that we are happy to consider any

proposal they might wish to bring to us to satisfy their desire to make

a valuable working contribution, and also their desire to handle some

personal issues that might require different than normal business hour

attendance.

In any event, if that gives you any comfort, I'm quite happy to — upon receiving the approval of the employee — give

you those specific names, and you could conduct your own interviews. If

you found it unsatisfactory, I'd like to hear about it so I could react

to it. I'm not aware of any criticisms that are presently out there

from our ministry staff about this program not working, or that we're

not serious about trying to make it work.

MS. MARZARI :

Mr. Chairman, sweatshops are sweatshops are sweatshops. Sweatshops by

choice are even more abhorrent than sweatshops that have traditionally

existed. By sweatshop in the 1990s, I mean piecework being done without

support at home in an isolated situation by women who are, in the

vernacular, supposed to be at home with their families in the first

place and don't have the means for any other choice. I call them

sweatshops. I call it piecework. I call it work done probably at

minimum wage.

I would very much like to know, Mr. Minister....

Interjection.

MS. MARZARI : You can give me names. You can give me a list. I'd appreciate lists. We're getting a lot of lists for Public Accounts

lately, and I wouldn't mind a list of the people you are contracting

with individually. I wouldn't mind a list of contractors you are

working with who, in turn, have women working in their word-processing

rooms in their homes. I would like those lists.

I would

like to know which other ministries are using this technique and

calling it flextime and flexible working arrangements. I would like to

know what those women are getting paid and what their contractor/

employers are getting paid. I'd like to know what their benefits are

and what their future looks like and what their pensions and disability

might look like. Yes, I would like those lists.

I'd also

like to ask the minister if he's ever heard of the concept of contract

compliance. When we were talking about pay equity, we were talking

about closing the wage gap. This government is talking about closing

the wage gap, all right. It hasn't really got a plan; it really doesn't

have a fixed time-frame; it's not really quite sure how it's

approaching it. But it does think it's going to have a think-tank.

That's fine. But what you've done is taken a body of women and you've

thrown them out Into the private sector. You've thrown them out into

personal contracts, either through a contractor or directly with

yourself. You don't count them as FTEs, and they don't qualify for pay

equity, do they?

One way of getting around that, since I'm

assuming that you are concerned about this problem, is to ensure that

any contractor doing business with the provincial government falls

under a program of contract compliance by which every contractor in the

private market is asked to instigate a pay equity program similar to

our own. This guarantees that the women being employed by contractors

out there,

[ Page

10157 ]

working in their homes or working as Kelly girls,

are being properly paid through their employer and are included in a

pay equity and in an affirmative-action program. Is the minister

prepared to bring in a contract compliance program that will take to

the private contractors the same terms of fairness, the same terms of

wage-gap closure that he is prepared to bring In for the inside workers?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I sometimes have trouble responding to questions the way they're

framed. The pay equity issue isn't limited to "inside workers." I don't

know what that means. What we've said is that we want to learn from the

experience of other jurisdictions and that we're well aware of the

difficulties experienced around Ontario's pay equity program. One of

the criticisms of that program that we have heard is that they tried to

do too much too fast, and they tried to move the goalposts in the

private sector at the same time they were dealing with the issue

internally. As a consequence, they created chaos.

We made

it plain in the throne speech and in the budget speech that we are

dealing here with government employees. That is what we are talking

about We are not dealing with the private sector. We don't intend to

deal with the private sector. We believe that if we can make the

program work, if we can implement it intelligently and sensitively, the

merits of it will become self-evident to the private sector, and they

might well choose to embrace it simply because it's the appropriate

thing to do.

As the hon. member expressed herself this

morning, it is a very complex issue. It was so complex that she brought

armloads of material back from a conference in Ontario, she tells us,

and offered to share them with us. We have the same material, and we

have been working on this now for some months. So things are moving

along. As I mentioned this morning, we have discussed it and are

continuing to discuss it with the union representative. In any event,

Mr. Chairman, I don't know what more I can add. We really are starting

to repeat ourselves, me included.

MS. MARZARI : One

more question. The Ontario legislation was broad-reaching. It said

right off the top that organizations in the private sector that

employed more than 500 employees had to report back with the pay equity

scheme within 18 months...plus the public sector extended— that included hospitals, municipalities, libraries, etc.

Obviously

it is a very large chunk to chew off, because in a further 18 months

the next category of private employers had to report back, and the

system is choking. They are just working through the backlog now,

trying to go through the lists of private employers that are bringing

in their pay equity schemes.

My question to you is very specific. I wasn't advocating that we move to

a full-scale moving-out to the private sector, saying report back in 12 months

or 18 months on how you're going to do it. No, I'm not saying that,

and I don't want those words to be put in my mouth. I'm saying you've

got some women working in their basements, raising the kids, probably at less

than minimum wage in the last analysis. That's what I'm saying. And

I want to know: if they are working for you, do they qualify under the pay equity

program? If they're working for a private contractor....

MR. CHAIRMAN : The minister rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Mr. Chairman, I find that comment outrageous. The member talks about

people contracting for the provincial government at less than minimum

wage. That's outrageous, and shouldn't be allowed.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Mr. Minister, that is not a point of order. The member continues.

MS. MARZARI :

just the other day I stood up and talked about welfare mothers in this

province who are being encouraged to go into special child care

training centres, which means they get ten hours of child care training

in a day care centre. They get whipped back into their own house, told

to bring in other people's kids, and by the end of it, the money that

they make bringing in three or four other kids is deducted from their

welfare cheque.

By the time you take off the allowance they get from their husbands through the FMA — if their husbands have taken off — these women are working for less than $50 a month. Yes, I'm talking about slave labour.

do it in this province; we do it through the Ministry of Social

Services. Are you prepared to say that the women who are working for

you through contractors, in their own basements, are going to be

eligible for pay equity through you bringing in a contract-compliance

plan that makes it imperative that anybody out there doing work for us

gets pay equity?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Mr. Chairman,

we want the pay equity plan to work. It is a complex matter. It is a

matter that has not been well handled in other jurisdictions; we're

well aware of that. We're aware that it is full of pitfalls. We're

aware that it will take much discussion, much good will, and a

cooperative spirit among all the players, as I said this morning.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I believe it would be a guarantee of the failure of the program. I

suspect that may well be the desire of the members opposite. Nothing

would suit your purposes better than to see the program fail by this

administration, because it would suit your narrow political purposes.

But we don't intend to allow that to happen. It will apply to the employees of government — period.

[ Page 10158 ]

As it evolves and its success becomes evident to all, then it can well have a broader application.

But

we're not going to stand here and misrepresent the challenge, or

misrepresent our appreciation of the complexity of it. We're going to

take this a step at a time. We're going to do it inside government.

We're going to do it with a spirit of cooperation from all the players,

and we're going to do it successfully, hon. member.

MR. CLARK :

Mr. Chairman, I can use a different example on this topic, because the

point is very simple. That is, with contracting out and less government

employees working directly for the payroll, it undermines the very

noble goals the minister professes to hold with respect to pay equity.

Having

pay equity in the public sector is of course a worthwhile goal. The

minister said they're pursuing that direction. But if you contract out

temporary services to Kelly Temporary Services, and those women are

making half the wage, which is essentially the case, working alongside

other people in the public sector, the question is: will those people

from Kelly Temporary Services, who were working for the government more

or less full-time in many cases at half the wage, be covered by the pay

equity program introduced by the government?

You have the power. You say to the contractor: "We will contract out this service to you, provided that you pay a fair wage" — this and this and this — "and

provided that you follow the kind of program which we're now putting in

place in the public sector." That really seems to be the question.

you do not make private contractors comply with your own pay equity

rules with respect specifically to Kelly Temporary Services and

services like that, then in fact you've undermined the very goals which

you profess to hold.

That's the question that I think the member from Point Grey was asking,

and I don't believe we really got an answer. I wonder if the minister would

care to answer that for us now.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I notice that the members enter and leave the chambers through the

swinging doors with great alacrity, not bothering to listen to the

answers, so I'm not quite sure how seriously I should take this string

of questions, Mr. Chairman They obviously don't care about the answer.

have said that the issue is complex. I have said it will require a

spirit of cooperation of all the players. I have told you that we are

in negotiations— no, negotiations is the wrong word — discussions with the BCGEU representative who deals with classification issues.

[3:30]

I don't want to pre-empt any of those decisions by giving you

answers that would have the effect of offending people whose opinion I

want. Your best efforts aren't going to get me to discuss specifics,

because I don't have the arrogance to believe that I'm the sole source

of wisdom. I realize this is a shock Every time I say such a thing, the

members opposite break into howls of laughter, as if somehow this

should be something I should be ashamed of. You know, the irony is that

I'm not ashamed of it. I have never portrayed myself as being the sole

fount of all wisdom.

I've always said — publicly, and to anybody who asks —

that I do my best, and I require the support of many other intelligent

minds to make sure we get the best solution to any specific problem. I

don't happen to think that I'm the only person with an

Independent-thinking mind.

I'm not troubled by the fact

that I can't answer these specific questions, because I don't intend to

develop a program until we've received all the valuable advice that is

out there on this complex issue. So I'm sorry, my friends. You can

portray it as ineptitude on my

part if you like. It doesn't bother me

in the least. We will do this job properly, we will do it thoroughly,

we will do it sensitively, and we will do it by involving all of the

players in the decision-making process.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

The Chair would just like to bring to the attention of hon. members

that the matter of pay equity is being reasonably well canvassed today.

As a matter of fact, although they are being phrased in somewhat

different ways, the Chair can't help but notice that the questions bear

a great deal of similarity one to the other.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Well, the answers are the same.

Having mentioned that to the hon. members, I recognize the member for Prince Rupert.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Do something different — be nice.

MR. MILLER : Being mindful of the request of the Minister of Education to be nice, I will be; in fact, I think I'm always nice.

think this is an issue that really is about the policy. It seems to me

that it's the policy in this application, as my colleague from

Vancouver East pointed out, that requires further clarification. I

don't know why there's a reluctance to discuss it. Clearly there must

have been discussions among the cabinet in arriving at the policy— fairly extensive discussions, I presume. It surely wasn't just a spur-of-the-moment addition to the budget script.

The

policy question vis--vis contracting-out seems to me to be

fundamental, particularly when you look, for example, at some of the

hard numbers. The Ministry of Forests presented a brief just in the

last few weeks to the Forest Resources Commission. They outlined in

their brief how they have shifted from having their own employees

undertake work required by the ministry to contracting that work out. I

am mindful of some debates I had with the last Minister of Forests with

regard to that issue. But when you look at the numbers, for example....

[ Page

10159 ]

I'm quoting from the Ministry of Forests brief of May 17: "In 1980

the ministry employed 2,682 permanent staff, 1,700 auxiliaries and 1,

00 contractor person-years, for a total complement of nearly 6,000

person-years." I should add that there is really no particular saving

for the government in this contracting-out. Presumably what happens is

that the contractors require a profit, and the difference really comes

out of the pockets of the workers.

If we shift to the

1982-84 period, the ministry reduced its full-time complement by about

2,000 FTEs. So there's been a shift, and along with that shift.... What

bears on this issue is how the policy is going to apply, given that the

government, at least during the past 3 years, has professed an

overwhelming desire to privatize. We don't know yet, because the

Premier stopped talking about phases 4 5, 6, 7 and 8, and just what's

in store for us. I guess that falls into the category, as we heard from

the Minister of Government Management Services (Hon Mrs. Gran), of not

really wanting to talk about issues that might get us in trouble.

am curious as to how the policy can be applied whether the government

is serious about it and whether there was a lot of thought,

consideration and work in coming up with a policy. Surely there must

have been some consideration given to the question of shifting the

permanent workforce — which would presumably benefit from the policy—

to the private sector. We seem not to be able to get the minister to

comment on whether or not those workers will also benefit from the

policy. Perhaps the minister might like to explain to us how the policy

was developed, whether there were considerations about that shifting

workforce and how this policy will aid those jobs that have been moved

from the government service into the private sector.

seems to me a very straightforward.... In the words of the Minister of

Education, I was nice. I put the question, I thought, quite rationally,

and I can only conclude that there was no particular planning involved

in this so-called pay equity. It's really just a sham.

It falls into the category of many of the other items we've seen promulgated by this minister — the

public relations attitude towards policy that this government adopted

from its inception: "Let's not really do anything; let's just say we're

going to do something Let's run a host of government ads that seem to

suggest to the public that we have somehow achieved a measure of pay

equity and pensions for housewives"— misleading advertising. And when

we try to explore the substance of the government's programs, we find

that there is none. We find that the Minister of Finance refuses to get

off his chair and deal with a very legitimate, straightforward question

I don't know what particular benefit the government sees, given that the

cost to government has not been reduced by shifting the workforce to the private

sector. You've simply reduced the wages and benefits of those workers in

the private sector who work for the consultants and contractors.

how can the government be taken seriously? Presumably if the

privatization shift continues, if that's a policy of the government, we

could see those numbers that I quoted earlier become even more

distorted. We could find that the majority of the government service

was not employed by the government but by the private sector. Would

those people still have the benefit of the program that the government

is promoting? Or is there really no substance to the program? Is there

no intention to really deal with the serious issue of pay equity?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Vote 28. The member for Prince Rupert.

MR. MILLER : Mr. Chairman, again I can't understand the refusal of the Minister of Finance to deal with the issue.

MR. MOWAT : Read the Blues. Where have you been all day?

MR. MILLER : I was in the House for question period, Mr. Member for Little Mountain. I enjoyed myself hugely.

MR. MOWAT : Where were you this morning?

MR. MILLER :

We were busy deciding which questions to ask in question period, and it

proved to be quite effective. I'm glad I spent a little extra time

deciding which questions to ask and which ministers to quiz.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Point of order. I believe we have been most patient on this side of the

House' attempting to answer serious questions put to us, and as you

pointed out earlier in your comments, some of those aspects of my

ministry have been canvassed at length— ad nauseam, some might say. I

find it totally irrelevant to find ourselves now in a discussion of how

the members in opposition design their questions for question period.

MR. CLARK :

Mr. Chairman, we made the point that we have great concerns about the

government's commitment to pay equity. We are not satisfied with the

pace of change; we are not sure the process is correct; and we think it

is in its infancy, to be very kind.

Beyond that, in terms

of contracting-out, we have canvassed at some length some of our

concerns about contracting-out. I might say that it is not an

ideological concern per se that contracting-out is always bad. The

problem is that they haven't saved any money by doing it, and the

contractor very often makes a good profit and the workers receive less

than the wages they otherwise would be accorded. So the real agenda for

the government is ideological, not one that has to do with efficiency

or the way government is managed. We are seeing a dramatic increase in

personal service contracts and contracting-out, and we don't see any

evidence that we're saving any

[ Page 10160 ]

money.

As a matter of fact, in some cases it is costing us more. But the

workers in that sector see their wages and living standards undermined.

And that is essentially the point we have been trying to make.

There are several things I would like to canvass — and I'll alert the minister to this. We have some questions that deal with the staff person — Mr. Moser, who is here in the House —

which we want to canvass. Beyond that, what flows from contracting out

is privatization, and we have some very serious concerns about the way

privatization is being characterized by this government and

particularly by this ministry. So we want to canvass that.

First,

I am going to turn it over to the second member for Point Grey, who

wants to canvass some questions about some positions taken by the

government on certain negotiations— some misleading positions, we believe.

MR. PERRY : just before I forget, I would like to pursue with the minister — since I'll be voting on his salary in these votes — a question I attempted to pursue with him in question period, when the answer was not entirely satisfactory.

Following a recent meeting with the editorial board of the Vancouver Sun , the minister was quoted as saying in an April 25 editorial in the Vancouver Sun :

"He" — namely the minister — "spoke about, without

of course naming, a certain woman he has heard about who has had her blood pressure

checked by her doctor every day. There's nothing wrong with her blood pressure,

said the Finance minister. She's just lonely.

"He offered other examples. The broad thrust of Mr. Couvelier's

remarks was clear. Medicare is costly and there are abuses."

The minister should have been aware — and I suspect he was aware —

that there is an established committee between the Medical Services

Plan, representing the government, and B.C. Medical Association to deal

with so-called patterns of practice or suspected abuses in billing of

the system. The kind of case he alluded to in his comment with the Sun editorial board is exactly the kind of case for which that committee is established.

The

president of the B.C. Medical Association, Dr. Anderson, wrote to the

minister on April 30 requesting he turn over the name of the physician

and patient of which he was aware to the patterns of practice committee

so that an investigation could be performed. I asked the minister in

the House in question period recently whether he had done so. He gave a

very obfuscating answer without, in my view, answering the question.

have since been apprised that on May 22 of this year, the minister

wrote to the president of the Medical Association, Dr. Anderson, in

response to Dr Anderson's letter, saying:

make no excuse for the fact that confidential matters are drawn to my

attention that raise questions in my mind and in the minds of taxpayers

about the propriety of certain services that are provided by medical

practitioners. Our task, Dr. Anderson, is to work together to ensure

that proper value is received for all services rendered, and I continue

to support the fair-minded practitioners who provide needed services to

the people."

As the minister knows, if he meant what he said in that quotation, he has an avenue — just as any physician who suspects an abuse or any member of the public who suspects an abuse has an avenue — namely, asking for that joint government-professional committee to investigate the case.

would like to ask the minister a very simple question now before I'm

prepared to vote on his salary. Has he provided the necessary

information to the patterns-of-practice committee or to the Minister of

Health (Hon. J. Jansen) to turn over to that committee or to Dr.

Anderson of the medical profession?

[3:45]

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Once again we see exhibited in front of the world the ineptitude and

poor quality of research work that can be provided by the members of

the opposition. They are given an ample budget to make sure they are

able to develop their positions and provide useful help to government.

Once again they've exhibited that evidently their sole source of

commentary appears to be in the Vancouver dailies.

The

doctor's issue is a difficult one. We have been involved in bargaining

now for 15 months. The government has tried every device it can to seek

a settlement amicably. We're still in negotiations. They haven't broken

off. I see no point at this stage of the negotiations, given the fact

the doctors themselves have evidently abandoned their advertising

campaign which was designed to gather public support, and which I

gather didn't realize that objective....

I don't think,

given the current dynamic relating to those delicate, complicated and

most difficult negotiations, that I add anything by commenting further.

It's in the hands of the negotiators. I wish them Godspeed in finding a

happy accommodation.

MR. PERRY : I understand

increasingly well why the hon. member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr.

Sihota) awarded the minister the bafflegab prize that he did last year.

I see the minister attempting to leave the House before I can repeat the question,

but I think the record is clear. I will therefore move that the committee rise,

report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived unanimously on a division.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, for the record, I just want it known

that the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Perry) was wasting

the time of this House by moving a motion and then voting against his

own motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. That is not a point of order.

HON. MR. VEITCH : On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the second member for Vancouver East

[ Page

10161 ]

(Mr. Clark) seems to be taking lessons from his

leader. He seems to be completely ambivalent. He didn't vote either way

on this issue, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN : That is not a point of order.

HON. MR. VEITCH : He can't do that; he can't have it both ways.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. minister, it's not a point of order.

MR. PERRY :

For the record, I moved adjournment because the Minister of Finance

walked out of the House in the midst of an important question, and

there would be no point in this side of the House spending time in the

chamber when the minister....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, the House does not require an explanation. We're back debating vote 28. Please continue.

MR. PERRY :

In that case, I would like to rephrase the question I put to the

minister, which has yet to be answered. The question is a simple one.

The Minister of Finance has effectively usurped the authority of the

Minister of Health to deal with an important issue that relates to the

maintenance of health services in British Columbia; in this case,

negotiations for a settlement of the Medical Services Plan contract

between the government and physicians. And the same minister has, in

the midst of exceedingly difficult negotiations that have become highly

polarized, chosen to make in public gratuitous insults to the opposing

side in negotiations.

It may be that the minister does have

evidence for the types of abuses he described. I would be surprised if

he did have evidence of the type he mentioned to the Sun

editorial board. But my point is that if he does have such evidence, he

has a responsibility as a public servant, and in particular as the

Minister of Finance, to disclose that evidence to the relevant joint

committee of government and the medical profession so that corrective

steps may be taken.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

would not be unprecedented in doing so. The normal procedure by which

that committee identifies abuses of the system is through computer

recognition of abnormal or unusual billing patterns; but periodically

there are also complaints made to the committee. The very existence of

the committee is based on the desirability of there being a mechanism

to investigate and adjudicate complaints of the kind the minister made

in public.

I would like to reiterate that very simple

question. Has he reported his complaint to that committee, to the

appropriate officials in the Ministry of Health, to his colleague the

Minister of Health or to Dr. Anderson, who asked him for that evidence

in a letter dated April 30, 1990, from which I have quoted?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Mr. Chairman, I can't believe we went through the charade we did just a

few minutes ago. The hon. member refuses to accept the answer I gave

him to the same question he put five minutes before.

What

are we doing here? Are we serious about doing the people's business, or

are you just serious about getting on the record in Hansard

so you can send it to your doctor friends? We are here, my friends, to

deal with serious matters of government business. You asked that

question five minutes ago; I answered it.

[4:00]

MR. PERRY :

Mr. Chairman, I can assure the minister that there are many other

issues I'd like to be addressing. I will address some of them in this

debate.

MR. LOENEN : When are you going to stop being a doctor?

MR. PERRY : The second member for Richmond asks me when I will stop being a doctor.

MR. LOENEN : When are you going to stop being in conflict of interest?

MR. PERRY :

I'd invite him to repeat that implication outside the Legislature,

where it would be actionable. I'd invite him to withdraw the remark

now, because it's objectionable and offensive, and it impugns my

reputation. I respectfully ask that he withdraw that remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

A number of things are said across the floor from time to time.

Although the second member for Richmond did not have the floor, unless

the member is offended by the statement, which he obviously is....

Perhaps the second member for Richmond may wish to rise and withdraw

that statement.

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Chairman, on a point

of order, I appreciate the comment you've made. The second member for

Richmond indicated that the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey is

engaged in some type of conflict of interest. Either he should explain

why he thinks the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey is engaged in

conflict of interest, or he should withdraw the statement. It's up to

him to exercise the choice, one or the other.

I would ask you again, Mr. Chairman, to ask the member either to withdraw or to take steps to explain his comment.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Further to the point of order, Mr. Chairman, any remarks that may have

been made by the second member for Richmond were certainly not on the

record — at least not until the— member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew got up and put them on the record. If they are in there for everyone

[ Page 10162 ]

to see, it rests on the head of the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA :

In response to that rather weak defence by the minister, quite frankly,

we should have just asked the second member for Richmond to do the

honourable thing and withdraw the point. You know, there have been

occasions in this House when I've sat here and the Premier has uttered

words about me while he was not standing. He was seated, but he was

asked to withdraw those remarks. The precedent in this House has been

set.

The comment was heard. The Chair asked the member to

withdraw, and now the member should answer by either agreeing to

withdraw or explaining the comment. What's the matter? Are you afraid?

Stand up.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Again, I would just say at

this point that it's impossible for the Chair to hear all of the

comments that are made across the floor besides the person who is

speaking. It's very difficult to obtain exactly what's being said. On

that note, I would ask the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey to

continue on vote 28.

MR. PERRY : Sometimes I wonder

whether I went to school in a different country or grew up in a

political and historical culture that was totally different from that

of some members on the other side. I was schooled in the traditions of

common law. Perhaps my understanding of conflict of interest is

different from that of the member for Richmond, the Minister of Health

or some other members on the other side. I find it difficult to

understand why a member on the other side....

MR. CRANDALL : You are absolutely wasting time now. Why don't you get on with it and do the people's business?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. I would ask the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey to deal with vote 28 that is before us.

MR. PERRY :

I will, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps if you or your wife had been wakened up

by the hate call occasioned by the Minister of Health's remark to me

the other day, you might take these matters as seriously as I do. I did

receive a hate call thanks to the comment that the hon. Minister of

Health made in this Legislature about me, for which he apologized

privately but not in public.

Now I see one of his

colleagues attempting to make the same scurrilous allegations about me

here. I take it seriously. I am trying to pursue the public business,

and I have yet to receive a serious answer from the Minister of Finance

to a very serious question.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order,

please. Everybody take a seat at this point. The business before the

House at the present time is vote 28. Shall vote 28 pass?

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the Minister of Finance a number of questions in relation to the privatization benefits fund.

HON. J. JANSEN :

Point of order, Mr. Chairman. The second member for Vancouver–Point

Grey intimated my involvement in terms of some comments that were made

to him. I think he used the words "death threat." I would like him to

clarify that please, or withdraw those comments.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Would the Minister of Health make his point once more?

HON. J. JANSEN : Mr. Chairman, I think that the member was trying — in his own devious way —

to point out to this House that my comments in the House led to a hate

call that he received. I find that remark offensive in the extreme. I

would ask him to clarify and give this House more details of that, so

that we could respond. I think it's unfair to suggest by innuendo that

I was responsible for some of the comments he gets from members of the

public.

MR. PERRY : Since the minister asked for

clarification, I will provide it to him. His comments in the

Legislature on Tuesday were to accuse me of putting my hands into the

public pocket, in some sense. He never offered any explanation of what

he meant by that comment. It was reported in the public media the

following morning. My wife received a hate call at quarter to six in

the morning based on a newspaper

article occasioned by and quoting

directly his remarks in the House. I find his remarks were

contemptible, and I think it would be appropriate if he offered a

public apology so the matter could be put to rest.

HON. J. JANSEN :

Mr. Chairman, I don't know where the member was when I explained my

comments in more detail. I indicated that I was trying to point out

that the member is receiving cheques from a number of government

sources. That was the extent of my comment in the House. I regret he

found offence in that comment. I indicated to him, in a private

conversation, that I regretted my outburst. However, the facts are

true. They are for public record. I had no other motive than that.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

I would just ask the committee, in particular the two members in

question.... While there has been a fair exchange on this subject, the

Chair obviously cannot deal with this kind of matter when there has

been that much debate on it. We will get on with the business of vote

MR. PERRY : Mr. Chairman, may I just ask that if

the Minister of Health has any legitimate complaints, he make them

public or make them outside the

[ Page

10163 ]

House, in writing, so they can be addressed in the suitable forum.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Hon. member, I asked that the parties agree to get off of this subject

because the Chair cannot decide on it, and here you go on again on the

same issue. I would ask you kindly at this point to carry on with vote

MR. PERRY : May I again ask the Minister of

Finance if he will answer my question, which was posed very clearly.

The record will show that I cited from his remarks as quoted by the Vancouver Sun ,

that I cited from a letter to him from the president of the Medical

Association asking him to document his remarks and lay the appropriate

complaint and that I cited even from the minister's reply to Dr.

Anderson.

I have yet to receive — and this House has yet to receive — an

answer whether the minister has laid any such evidence in front of the

Minister of Health or his officials or the patterns-of-practice

committee, which is the appropriate committee to investigate an

allegation like that. This is a matter where, if the minister feels

that there are abuses, he has a responsibility to investigate them. I

am asking a very simple question.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The Minister of Health has a request to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. J. JANSEN :

I would ask this House to make welcome visiting students from Kent

Elementary in Agassiz. They are grade 4 and 5 students accompanied by

their teachers, Mr. Fraser and Mrs. Froehlich Would you please make

them welcome.

MR. PERRY : I think it's obvious we're not going to get an answer on this one.

I'll

ask the minister another question. Is he aware that if he finds that

mechanism unsuitable to address the issue I have raised and the one

he's raised publicly in the midst of negotiations, the Medical Service

Act provides for the appointment of an audit committee, which offers an

even more powerful mechanism to investigate suspected abuses?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Yes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. PERRY :

Will he tell us whether he has considered advising his colleagues in

the cabinet that an audit committee be appointed so that abuses, if

they exist, can be investigated in an appropriate way rather than

simply be alluded to in the media in such an unproductive and

inflammatory way?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Minister of Health. Sorry, Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I've got enough problems with finance, Mr. Chairman, without taking health on.

I mentioned and indicated to the hon. member, I don't believe, given

the fact that we're back bargaining with the doctors and that they have

evidently abandoned their megadollar advertising campaign, there's any

point in my speaking to these questions.

Number one, as I

have indicated to the member, I don't want to jeopardize these

negotiations by making any further comment. I find it passing strange

that during all of the 15 months that these negotiations have been

going on, the hon. member, who is a member of that profession and

affected by the outcome of the negotiations, has held his silence. Now

that he senses that things are coming to a conclusion, he decides that

he wants to all of a sudden act like the spokesperson for the

profession. However, that's his choice.

[4:15]

In any event, those issues relating to the questions he's just asked

are more properly in the province of the Ministry of Health. They

certainly have no relationship to these estimates that we're dealing

with now, and I would like to point out that you asked to proceed with

the discussion on this particular vote about five minutes ago, and we

still have failed to do that.

MR. SIHOTA : The member

for Point Grey has asked what I think is a legitimate question. Perhaps

the minister can help us all in understanding this matter by simply

telling us how it was that he came to learn of this information.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : What information?

MR. SIHOTA : The information that the member for Vancouver–Point Grey just alluded to and the representations that you made.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I'd like to identify his ignorance. Now that he's been handed this

written thing that he can refer to, he can now tell us what it is he

was so curious about.

MR. WILLIAMS : Let's get it

straight, Mr. Chair. This Minister of Finance appeared before the

editorial board of the major newspaper in this province and made

accusations about abuses of the Medical Plan. He talked about a

specific woman coming in daily just to get her blood checked for blood

pressure, and there was never a problem. Well, you have some

obligations, Mr. Minister.

You've had a letter now from the

Medical Association asking for identification of this, dealing with the

specifics, asking for the details. Since then, you've wandered off into

all of the business of the negotiations between the medical fraternity

and this government. Are you saying that that was just a ploy, that

that was just part of the bargaining game on the part

[ Page 10164 ]

of the Social Credit Party, that that's the way you do business in British Columbia?

You got a letter on April 30. It's now a month later....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please, hon. member. Please address your comments to the Chair.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. All of a sudden we get some learned judgment out

of this Chair, who has trouble even reading the first stage of the

rules in this House.

This minister appeared before the editorial board of the Sun .

He ended up laying these charges before them, printed in the public

press. You've refused to answer the member from Point Grey in terms of

the direct questions. We're asking you here and now: 'fess up. Was it

just part of the game? How much trouble do you have to get yourself

into in a session? How much time do you have to mislead and get into

this kind of glue? This administration has enough trouble.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Before I recognize the Minister of Finance, I would like to ask the

first member for Vancouver East to withdraw the remarks he made

concerning the Chair.

MR. WILLIAMS : There was

nothing offensive, Mr Chairman. When that member for Richmond stood up

and talked about a conflict of interest, you let that slide by. If the

level of competence is a problem, you address it yourself, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

On a point of order, just to correct the first member for Vancouver

East, the member for Richmond did not have the floor when he made any

alleged comments. He wasn't on his feet in this House, and there's

quite a difference.

I think it's deplorable for you to have

to sit and listen to the tirade you just listened to. No chairman

should have to put up with that.

MR. WILLIAMS : I am certainly willing to withdraw the comments, Mr. Chairman. It's the government that appoints the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you, hon. member.

MR. PERRY : I'll yield, if the minister wishes to answer that question.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Please proceed, hon. member.

MR. PERRY : I'll yield to my colleague.

MR. SIHOTA : The minister made these representations to the Vancouver Sun .

They must have been founded on some facts that were peculiar to his

knowledge. Will he share with the House how he came to know of the

situation? Who was involved? Is it a fabrication? Is it a truth? And if

it is a truth— which I would expect it certainly is, because far be it

from me to suggest that the minister would be involved in a fabrication

— then he should expand on the details. How did he come to learn of it?

Who is involved? Who was the doctor? The medical profession has asked

for this information. Does the minister not think that it would be

appropriate for him to provide those details, or does he think it's

just okay for him to go in and make some kind of grand accusation in

the public press about an unknown doctor and an unknown patient and

then leave it at that?

Don't you think, Mr. Minister, that you've got some

responsibility to say what or who you were talking about, how you

learned of the situation? Don't you think you've got some

responsibility to refer it to the appropriate authority for them to

investigate? Or do you think it's just okay for you to make scurrilous

comments without any kind of consequence?

Mr. Minister, it's time for you to 'fess up, so let's have the details. Will you now provide to the House the details?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

We've now run through three of them asking exactly the same question

that I answered a good ten or 15 minutes ago. The answer is on the

record. If the members who have just arrived late haven't heard it,

they can read it tomorrow in Hansard .

MR. SIHOTA :

The minister spoke about a patient, a certain women who had a blood

check by her doctor every day. Could the minister tell the House...?

MR. VANT : On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that the

hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is being repetitious and redundant. I

have heard that particular Vancouver Sun

article quoted already.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Thank you, hon. member. I know it's repetitious. We'll give the member

a chance to evaluate the questions that have already been asked, and if

you wish to continue, please proceed on vote 28.

MR. SIHOTA : We all know that the Minister of Finance must be in trouble when he has to engage the member for Cariboo as defence counsel.

Let me ask the minister: who was the doctor that you referred to?

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA : Let me ask the minister this question: was it a fabrication?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Shall vote 28 pass?

MR. SIHOTA : I want to ask the minister again. It's a very simple question for the minister to answer, and

[ Page

10165 ]

I would hope that the answer to the question is no. But, Mr. Minister, was it a fabrication?

MR. WILLIAMS :

This minister gets up and does the ideological dance, but what we're

seeing right now is the ideological non-dance of this minister. The

reality is that he has these ideological biases about medicare. He

believes that these kinds of things happen. Because he believes they

happen, he says they happen. That's the reality.

So when you appear before the editorial board of the Sun ,

because you believe it happens, you tell them it happens. But when the

doctors came forth more than a month ago and said, "Give us the

evidence; there's a process to deal with this kind of abuse, " you

couldn't provide the evidence. The reason is that you're caught in your

own ideological trap, your own mind-set. You believe that happens. You

believe that medicare leads to these kinds of abuses. That's your

problem.

You've provided no answers to the doctors and no

answers to the House. You can laugh away and say: "I gave you the

answer." You gave us no answers, and you've given the doctors no

answers. If you've given the doctors an answer, file the letter with

this House, Mr. Minister.

You are captured by your own

ideology. That's abundantly clear today. You don't believe in medicare.

You think these kinds of abuses are rampant, and you run around saying

so. In so doing, you fly in the face of something most Canadians

cherish.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Yes, indeed. Didn't you ever tune in on the free trade debates? Didn't

you realize that most Canadians think we stand for something different

than the people to the south of us?

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Oh, come on! Why don't you just stand up and give us a clear answer,

Mr. Minister? Was there ever such a person? Was there ever such a

doctor, or was it just a figment of your imagination?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

As I mentioned, probably 20 minutes ago now, I am not going to inflame

currently very tender negotiations. The doctors have indicated their

willingness to find some accommodation.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. Let the minister answer.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : The doctors have withdrawn their advertising campaign

so that we now have, once again, some sense of harmony in the arena of these

delicate negotiations, and I am not going to jeopardize them. I have a heavy

responsibility to try to find an accommodation here. We have been working very

hard to find that accommodation for 15 months.

find it extremely humorous for the first member from Vancouver East to

talk about ideologies. My goodness, the whole day has consisted of a

debate about ideologies. If ever there has been a group of individuals

so captured with an ideology, it's the members opposite. I see it with

every speech, every question and every focus, bias and spin that they

try to put on their

interpretation of this question of my estimates.

The

record will be clear, for anybody who wishes to read it, how the

members opposite are the guilty ones in terms of being straitjacketed

into some ideological restrictions that don't allow them to recognize

the desire of every single British Columbian to be free and able to

enjoy economic activity and prosperity— something that this government has brought forward in the best three years in the history of the province.

MR. SIHOTA :

The doctors have pulled their advertising. Is the minister now saying

that he has pulled his? Is that what he is saying now? We could talk

about ideology all day long. I just want to talk about the truth, and I

just want the facts.

My question to the minister....

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

A point of order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member is grossly

misrepresenting the truth. We've never advertised dealing with this

doctor's campaign. Not one red cent of public money has been spent on

this issue, other than one explanatory ad, so the hon. member is

totally distorting the facts.

MR. CHAIRMAN : It's an argument, not a point of order. I'll ask the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew to continue.

MR. SIHOTA : I want to ask the minister: were you just joshing when you made this statement?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Through the Chair, hon. member.

MR. SIHOTA :

I want to ask the minister, through the Chair, this question. Could you

tell us whether or not this statement is a falsehood? Is it a

fabrication, Mr. Minister?

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you

that the minister's nose is growing. He's sitting there and he's not

prepared to answer the very simple question of who this certain woman

was and who this certain physician was. He made these comments. Is it

not true, Mr. Minister? You just made these comments. You just made

them without any consideration as to whether or not they were true.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Order, hon. member. This subject has been canvassed very thoroughly.

The minister is under no obligation to answer questions. I think it

would be to the best interest and effectiveness of

[ Page 10166 ]

this debate if you would get on to the next subject under vote 28.

[4:30]

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Chairman, the minister earlier on talked about ideologies. We're

talking about certain principles, and one of the most important

principles here is that when ministers are questioned in this

Legislature, in this chamber, under our democratic system, they're

expected to answer the question in a forthright fashion and honestly.

We're simply asking the minister a very basic question: will he name

the doctor involved? Will you do that? Number two, will you explain why

to date you haven't reported the incident to the proper authority?

Number three, could you please indicate to this House whether or not

the statement that you made is a fabrication? Those are three very

simple questions.

We'll get on to what I want to ask the

minister about, the privatization benefits fund, the moment the

minister answers those three questions. They aren't skill-testing

questions, Mr. Minister. Right? But there is a game called "Truth or

Consequences, " and maybe that's what we're really talking about here,

in terms of what the truth is and what the consequence is if indeed a

minister goes out of his way to make a statement that is not accurate,

that is a falsehood.

So, Mr. Minister, let me put those

three questions to you again and with the expectation of an answer One,

who was the doctor? Two, could you explain why you haven't reported it

to the proper authorities? And three, could you tell us whether or not

the statement is a fabrication?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Before

I recognize the next member, I would just like to say again that there

has been a lot of repetition on this particular item. It's tedious. It

takes up a lot of time. Not just one member has repeated the statement;

it has been repeated by several members of the House. I would ask those

who wish to continue speaking on vote 28 to discontinue on this

particular subject, because the minister is not about to answer the

questions that you are putting, or is perhaps not.in a position to

answer those questions. Therefore I would ask the hon members to

cooperate and get off this particular subject and on to something else

under vote 28.

MR. ROSE : I rise, Mr. Chairman, on a

point of order. We have estimates in the House so that members, in a

wide-ranging debate, dealing with the minister's office, not subsequent

votes but all votes here.... And there is an expectation — that's why

we have estimates conducted in this manner— of forthrightness. That's

why we're called honourable members: "the honourable Minister of

Finance." There's an expectation that he will answer with all dispatch

truth and facts at his disposal. If he doesn't know, he should say he

doesn't know. On the other hand— and this is becoming increasingly a tactic in here on the part of the government, in my view —

there is the stonewalling, the refusal to answer. If you stonewall long

enough, naturally the questions are going to become tedious and

repetitious. The only reason that they become tedious and repetitious

is because no answers are forthcoming.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please.

MR. ROSE :

Well, Mr. Chairman, I hope the Minister of Finance is not harassing me

for being out a bit. I've been in here a good deal. I've heard a good

deal of this today. I didn't hear this part. But obviously the question

hasn't been answered or we wouldn't be asking the question all over

again. For me, as a special favour, Mr. Chairman, will he answer the

three questions?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : You didn't get the answers you wanted, that's all.

MR. ROSE : Oh, we didn't like the answers?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : That's what I say.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please.

MR. ROSE :

Mr. Chairman, I know it must be difficult for you, because today there

have been times when this place has become a bit fractious. But you

know, it takes two to tango. If the answers are provocative and we get

lectures from the minister as we got sometime earlier today-or sort of

ideological rants, you can expect similar treatment over here. It's

very Interesting how sometimes these estimates go rather rapidly and

relatively smoothly. But if things get cheeky on one side, they get

cheeky on both sides. Right? So therefore I think that we should maybe

try to turn down the temperature a little bit and get back to the

facts. And let's cut out the extraneous material and comments and deal

with the facts.

MR. WILLIAMS : What you said to the Sun

editorial board was that you'd heard this story. Is that right? You'd

heard this story. And then you tell us just a couple of minutes ago,

Mr. Minister.... Maybe he needs this briefing help that he's getting

right now. You heard this. Presumably after this hit the public print,

you checked it out. Did you find that it was just an apocryphal story,

that It didn't exist at all?

A few minutes ago you said

that you didn't want to discuss this anymore, because you don't want to

inflame the negotiations with the doctors. What you are really saying

is that you were quite willing to inflame the situation with the

doctors at an earlier stage when you were before the Vancouver Sun editorial

board. I think it's pretty clear that this never happened, Mr.

Minister. I suppose we don't have to spend a lot more time on it,

because by your....

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Hurray!

[ Page

10167 ]

MR. WILLIAMS : Of course, you should say hurray. By your

actions, by your non-response today and by your lack of reply to the

doctors, you've indicated that it simply never happened. It is an

apocryphal story. It has no substance whatsoever, and that's why you

find it so difficult sitting here today. It was simply another attack

by this administration on medicare and on the doctors. By what you said

just a few minutes ago, you've indicated that. It is simply an exercise

in inflating the dialogue between you— the medical fraternity and the government — and in feeding a pattern of lies about medicare in this province. By your actions today you've confirmed that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Point of order. The opposition House Leader wisely asked for the heat

to be turned down in here; I think that's a good suggestion. We've

heard words such as "truth" and "honesty" from the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. We've heard "pack of lies" come from the second

member for Vancouver East. He used that phrase. Mr. Chairman, you've

asked these members to come to order several times, and I think you

should exercise your prerogative in the chair. Maybe they don't

understand that "no" is an answer. They're just not getting the answers

they want to suit themselves, so they are fabricating their own

answers. I suggest that we get back to the vote and that they heed your

admonishment.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Before I recognize the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew — unless he rises on a point of order — I would just like to read

section 43, which deals with irrelevance and repetition in debate:

"Mr.

Speaker or the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, after having

called the attention of the House or of the Committee to the conduct of

a member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of

that member's own arguments or of the arguments used by other members

in debate, may direct that member to discontinue speaking and, if the

member still continues to speak, Mr. Speaker or the Chairman shall

follow the procedures in standing orders 19 and 20."

would again ask the members to address themselves to areas within vote

28 other than the matter widely discussed this afternoon.

MR. SIHOTA :

I'm mindful of that, Mr. Chairman. Let me summarize. Let me put a

question to the minister that hasn't been put to him. Let me put it

this way to you, Mr. Minister: if you say something and you discover

that what you said didn't materialize, I would describe that as a lie.

How would the minister describe the statement he made to the Vancouver Sun ?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Shall vote 28 pass?

MR. PERRY : I think the minister's silence on that question speaks

for itself, as did his response to the first member for Vancouver East, who

described what I

think is a well-known fact, that Canadians cherish the medicare system.

We saw the Minister of Finance laughing. I never thought I would come

to the day when I would see a government minister— even a right-wing minister —

laugh at the idea that Canadians cherish medicare. It's not even a

matter of ideological debate; it's a matter of public record that

Canadians cherish medicare.

I'd like to move on to another

issue which relates in a sense to the debate of the last few minutes:

how the government conducts its negotiations with public servants or

people who work for the people of British Columbia in the health field

and in other fields. In the short time I've been in politics, I've seen

a disturbing pattern whereby negotiations are frequently conducted in

public. Government statements are relatively inflammatory. Granted,

some of the claims made by the other parties to a negotiation are also

sometimes exaggerated. But government has a role on behalf of all of

the people, in my view, to maintain an absolute frankness and honesty.

Nobody

could criticize the Minister of Finance if he were to represent the

public interest as he sees it by telling the truth frankly. I'm one of

those people who believes quite strongly that, as painful as it is,

there's seldom much to be feared from the truth, and a lot to be

gained. I would commend the Minister of Finance if, in his public

statements about negotiations with people working in the health field,

I felt that there was always frankness.

I'd like to raise

another example that concerns me, because it's extremely topical at the

moment. It's the dispute with the psychiatric and community health

nurses in this province, in which the minister, through the government

personnel services division, is presently in the midst of negotiations.

would be inappropriate for us in this Legislature to engage in

discussions of the details of the negotiations. It's entirely

appropriate that those should be conducted quietly and discreetly. But

I find the type of press release that I have in front of me somewhat

disturbing, and perhaps misleading. The memorandum is undated. It

appears to be from May 31, from the government personnel services

division: "Negotiations Update on Nurses' Bargaining." It gives only

one side of the story in this dispute.

[4:45]

For the background of members in the House who may not be familiar

with it, let me just mention that we're discussing, in the case of the

psychiatric nurses, those individuals who supply vital services to

patients in institutions like Riverview Hospital and the Forensic

Psychiatric Institute. These psychiatric nurses are skilled

professionals who deal with, in the case of the Forensic Psychiatric

Institute, the most difficult psychiatric criminal cases in the entire

province: cases involving serious violence; cases of sexual offenders,

child molesters and other people who are exceedingly difficult to deal

with from the point of view of the health professions, government or

anyone else.

The kind of public information released by the government suggests that the government is making

[ Page 10168 ]

an exceptionally generous wage offer. For example — I'm

quoting from the release I just referred to: "...an employer's proposal

for a wage settlement within the percentage parameters of the BCNU-HLRA

agreement amounting to 20.93 percent over two years." I have no reason

to question that figure, but the general tenor of press releases and of

information released by the government is to suggest that it is

offering parity with nurses working in the general hospitals under the

HLRA contract. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Many of us may not be aware — I'm new enough to this field that I'm only beginning to understand — that

past Social Credit governments argued strongly for the principle of

parity between psychiatric and community nurses, and general hospital

nurses. There are many valid reasons to do so. Any of us who have

visited a forensic psychiatric unit or the Riverview Hospital have

looked at the kind of work community health nurses do in dealing with

seriously ill patients, palliative care and patients in the final

stages of AIDS receiving home treatment. Any of us who are familiar

with that kind of work— and I hope some members of this House are so familiar — will know that this is difficult work.

One

thing I find intriguing and contradictory in the present government's

ideology is its so-called commitment to the free market system. In

terms of a free market in labour supply, the very concept implies to me

that when the market mechanism shows a shortage of skilled workers,

then the price of such workers would rise, just as for any other

commodity, if I may use that term.

It's a well-known fact,

Mr. Speaker, that throughout British Columbia we face a shortage of

nurses. Our health care system is increasingly stressed due largely to

the shortage of nurses and the difficulty of recruiting nurses in this

province. No one, including the Minister of Finance, I am sure, will

dispute that that is a fact.

One of the unquestionable

reasons for that, if we believe in the mechanism of a free-market

economy, is that the price of the service has not risen to reflect the

demand. Watching members on the government side of the House and their

public pronouncements, I have been intrigued over the last year— including the time of the nurses' strike last summer when the Minister of Finance held the purse-strings —

at the apparent difficulty in recognizing that when there is a severe

labour shortage, perhaps the natural mechanism of the market should be

utilized to rectify that situation.

Why do I make that

preamble? Well, because when we look at the true relationship of

psychiatric and community health nurses employed directly by the

government with hospital nurses employed through the HLRA, we find a

marked discrepancy in the wage levels.

For example, as of

April 1, 1990, a starting nurse at the first initial classification who

works for an HLRA employer would start work at, if I'm not mistaken,

$20.27 per hour; a government-employed nurse would start work at $17.43

per hour. I could make many other comparisons about direct wages. I'll

point out that the shift differential is different. General hospital

nurses now make the glorious sum of $1 per hour extra for working at

night,

whereas government nurses make the glorious sum of 65 cents per

hour extra for working at night.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker — I see that you are listening to this debate with interest —

if it strikes you as logical or fair that a psychiatric nurse working

with difficult patients in Riverview Hospital is inherently entitled to

35 cents less per hour, or 35 percent less on the differential, for

working at night than a nurse working on a general medical ward in a

hospital? I find it difficult to see a log