Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 15, 1992

Volume 4, Number 15

[ Page 2565 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, today we have special visitors in the members' gallery. I'm pleased to introduce the mayor and mayoress of the borough of King's Lynn in the United Kingdom: Councillor and Mrs. Jeffrey Tilbury. King's Lynn is the birthplace of Capt. George Vancouver. The mayor and mayoress have brought a replica of the ship's wheel of his vessel, HMS Discovery, to the Sunshine Coast Maritime History Society for display. Please welcome them to British Columbia.

J. Weisgerber: Hon. Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce five constituency assistants who are meeting in Victoria today: Coral Anne Holweg from Okanagan-Vernon; Sandra De Jong from Abbotsford; Susann Borth from Prince George-Omineca; Dorene Callison from Peace River North; and Donna McTavish from Peace River South. These very able and hard-working constituency assistants are meeting today in Victoria. The only difficulty is that they don't require quite as large a caucus room as they used to for their meetings. Would the House please join us in giving a warm welcome to some very hard-working constituency assistants.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I have a couple of introductions today. First of all, there is someone who I have appeared before and who is a friend of the Premier: Mr. Ken Glasner and his son Daniel; I believe it is his eleventh birthday. I would ask members to make them welcome.

Also, I'm delighted to introduce today 26 grade 6 students and their teacher, Mr. A. Palmer, from the Vancouver Christian School in my constituency. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

D. Symons: Hon. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce to the House and the world -- particularly to my colleague from Richmond East, who is not here today -- a new constituent of hers: Dylan Robert Adam Symons, who weighed in just three hours ago at 6 pounds 15 ounces. I wish the House would make him welcome.

D. Schreck: Joining us in the gallery today is Russ Baker of Sharpe Sound Studios, an internationally known part of the movie industry located in North Vancouver. Will the House please join me in making Mr. Baker welcome.

Hon. A. Hagen: Visiting in the House today is Jack Finnbogasin, the president of the B.C. School Trustees' Association. Would the House please welcome him.

P. Ramsey: Joining us today in the gallery we have Mr. Alf Nunweiler, and his daughter Carol. Mr. Nunweiler, as many of you know, is a former member of this assembly from the riding of Fort George who served as minister of northern affairs in the government from '72 to '75. Will the House please make Mr. Nunweiler welcome.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I rise to welcome the president, once again, of the Union of B.C. Municipalities: Joyce Harder, who is meeting with me, the hon. Minister of Education and the hon. Finance minister. Will the House please make the president welcome.

Introduction of Bills

BRITISH COLUMBIA TRANSIT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. G. Clark presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled British Columbia Transit Amendment Act, 1992.

Hon. G. Clark: Bill 51 amends the British Columbia Transit Act to provide the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission with three new options to help deal with a local revenue shortfall projected for the '92-93 fiscal year.

Bill 51 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT
ACT (No. 2), 1992

Hon. E. Cull presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1992.

Hon. E. Cull: This bill amends three statutes administered by the Ministry of Health. It amends the Health Act to make minor housekeeping amendments, update obsolete references or practices and to pave the way for legislation in environmental health protection.

In addition, the amendments formally recognize the health status registry, a division of the vital statistics division in the ministry which has been operating since 1952 without any specific legislative mandate.

Amendments to the Hospital District Act will improve and streamline the procedures relating to regional hospital districts, which are established and governed by this act. The amendments have been requested by and discussed with regional hospital districts, and we're pleased to accommodate them by revising unnecessary, cumbersome and some confusing provisions in the legislation. The majority of these amendments recognize that the boards of regional hospital districts consist of the same members as the boards of the regional districts under the Municipal Act, and remove the inconsistencies.

Vancouver General Hospital is one of two hospitals which is established under the authority of its own statute, and minor amendments to this act are being made to ensure that the powers of its board are consistent with those of other hospitals and to provide for an appropriate definition of a quorum.

[ Page 2566 ]

Bill 62 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS, RECREATION
AND HOUSING STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1992

Hon. R. Blencoe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1992.

[2:15]

Hon. R. Blencoe: Provisions in this bill represent another step in this government's modernization of legislation affecting the management of local government in the province of British Columbia. The provisions apply to the Electrical Safety Act, the Fire Services Act, the Revenue Sharing Act and the Union of British Columbia Municipalities Incorporation Act. The bill's provisions also apply to the Greater Vancouver Water District Act and the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act and include a Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act amendment for the Regional District of Central Okanagan.

Bill 48 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

ARCHITECTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. T. Perry presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Architects Amendment Act, 1992.

Hon. T. Perry: I am pleased to introduce today Bill 67, Architects Amendment Act, 1992, which contains proposed amendments to the Architects Act. The purpose of these amendments is: (1) to provide the legislative authority for architects to practise in corporate form; and (2) to require architects and architectural firms to obtain certificates of practice before being authorized to practise architecture. With these amendments the Architectural Institute of B.C. will be granted the legislative authority that it now lacks to regulate and discipline incorporated practices as well as sole proprietorships and partnerships. Also included in this bill are a few miscellaneous amendments.

Bill 67 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

PULP WORKERS' LABOUR DISPUTE

G. Wilson: I'd like to take advantage of an all too rare occasion to be able to put a question to the Minister of Labour. I see that he is back from saving the country -- or attempting to. Welcome back.

I suspect that the minister feels that he has somewhat jumped from the frying pan into the fire if he comes back into British Columbia to be welcomed by a very significant strike of pulp workers. On this side of the House, we read with interest today about the minister saying that he was prepared to intervene in this dispute. I wonder if the minister could spell out specifically: what actions is the minister taking, and to what extent is the minister prepared -- I think the quote was -- "to intervene"

Hon. M. Sihota: It certainly is a pleasure to be back from the constitutional discussions. I see very little has changed. I have no idea what the opposition leader has read and what article he is referring to, and I have no idea what he is talking about. But I can tell him this: there have been extensive and exhaustive discussions ongoing with respect to this matter, which collapsed over the weekend. It seems to me that the prudent thing at this point would be to allow the parties to reflect on what has transpired over the weekend, and we will give the parties the opportunity to do just that.

G. Wilson: I'm sure the minister is aware of what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a pulp workers' strike in British Columbia. I realize that may not have got as far as Ottawa, nevertheless we are in some dire straits here.

The Speaker: Your question, please, hon. member.

G. Wilson: My question to the minister is: given the serious financial impact that this is going to have on the B.C. economy and on the particular coastal communities that are going to be affected by this strike, at what point would the minister feel that it is important for this government to intervene and to move into that question?

Hon. M. Sihota: This government has demonstrated in the past that we will intervene at the right time, when the conditions are correct for us to intervene, after consultation with the parties, and after carefully considering what they have to say, and always mindful of the economic impact of these matters on the province.

G. Wilson: A final supplemental to the Minister of Labour. My question is whether or not the minister shares the view of the Premier, who recently, in last week's question period, said that British Columbia should be withdrawing from trade discussions in the United States and in Mexico. Given that one of the principal concerns in this pulp mill strike is the competitive position of Canadian and British Columbian pulp mills vis-�-vis those in the United States and Mexico, I wonder if the Minister of Labour shares the opinion that we should become isolationist, remove ourselves from the table, and not look at the question of competitive advantage.

[ Page 2567 ]

The Speaker: Hon. member, I fail to see a question in that question, but I see that the Minister of Labour has risen.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm pleased to say that the Premier and I are always of the same mind on all issues, and I'm pleased to say that we are not always of the same mind, with respect to the same issues, with the opposition.

LABOUR LAW CHANGES

L. Hanson: I too have a question for the Minister of Labour. He's very popular today. As indicated by the submission from the Business Council of B.C. to the Advisory Committee on Bill 19, most businesses are opposed to any changes that would outlaw the right of employers to carry on their business in a strike situation. Can the minister assure prospective investors today that he has not made any commitments or entered into any agreements that would compromise the independence or outcome of the process now underway to recommend changes to Bill 19?

Hon. M. Sihota: I can assure the hon. member that, unlike under the previous administration, the new labour law will not be written in the back rooms.

L. Hanson: A supplemental question. That's very interesting, because I have in my possession a letter dated April 11, 1991, from the now Minister of Labour, which promises changes to Bill 19 to accommodate secondary picketing. I quote from that letter: "...the implementation of anti-scab legislation." Can the minister advise the House if he is still committed to that promise, and if so, has he advised the business community and the Baigent committee of his position?

Hon. M. Sihota: This government is committed to a process of consultation. I have advised the business community and the commission headed by Mr. Ready of our desire to have a full and open public consultation process. We look forward to their report. They are proceeding with the development of their report on the basis of that type of consultation, mindful, of course, of the fact that there was a change in administration to one committed to arriving at labour legislation that is both fair and balanced. That was the commitment we made during the election campaign; it's the commitment that we will see completed with legislation that will be tabled in the House.

The Speaker: A final supplemental.

L. Hanson: On May 21, 1991, the then opposition leader wrote to the Canadian Paperworkers' political action committee to say an NDP government "would implement anti-scab legislation." Can the minister explain how he can reconcile that statement with his government's stated promise to fairly accept and evaluate all submissions on possible changes to Bill 19? Can he explain why investors, who are concerned about possible changes to existing labour laws, should have any confidence in this government's consultation process when the Premier himself has already promised the unions that anti-scab legislation is a done deal?

Hon. M. Sihota: I can assure the hon. member that the public will have a far greater level of confidence in our process than they did in the process that your administration embarked upon. I can also assure the hon. member that if any differences need to be reconciled, they'll be reconciled in a fashion so as to deliver legislation that puts the interests of British Columbia and British Columbians first.

WESTAR MINING LTD.

W. Hurd: A question for the Minister of Labour. I don't know whether or not the minister is aware that miners at Westar's Balmer mine are locked out. As a result of the court ruling by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Westar has lost its credit arrangements. Does this mean that the Balmer mine will remain shut until at least September 30, even if the company and the unions can settle on the collective agreement?

Hon. M. Sihota: I appreciate that question. I have had the opportunity to meet with the owners and operators of the Balmer mine and also with the union involved in the dispute. I have also had the opportunity to discuss with both of those parties the implications of the court application that is being made and the effect it has on (a) their financial status and (b) the collective bargaining process. There's no doubt that what has transpired in court will have an effect on the collective bargaining process. It will be up to the parties in that case to decide whether or not they would allow that matter to go on until September 30. It is our preference, of course, that the matter be resolved before then.

W. Hurd: The minister may be aware that we're talking about additional workers. Besides the Balmer mine, we're talking about Roberts Bank and CP Rail. The opposition is curious. Has the minister held all these meetings since he arrived from Ottawa?

Hon. M. Sihota: I can assure the hon. member that when I come back from constitutional discussions, I have meetings with these types of parties on a very regular basis. I talk to them while I'm back east on constitutional business, taking full advantage of the three-hour time difference. In this instance, I met with the parties, in my office, some weeks ago.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

W. Hurd: Perhaps the minister can answer for the House a question that arose last week: how does he feel he can handle his duties and the strikes -- like the pulp dispute and this Balmer mine one -- from Ottawa?

Hon. M. Sihota: Without difficulty.

D. Jarvis: My question, for a change of pace, is to the Minister of Energy and Mines. It pertains to the 

[ Page 2568 ]

report by the job protection commissioner, Mr. Doug Kerley, on the towns of Elkford and Sparwood. Why has the report not been released publicly? Further, why has it not been introduced to the court as part of the restructuring package presented to the Chief Justice?

Hon. A. Edwards: The job protection commissioner reports to the Minister of Economic Development. I will certainly refer the question to him.

D. Jarvis: I have a new question to the Minister of Finance. Why would the government issue what amounts to a loan guarantee of $12 million to the towns of Sparwood, Elkford and Beaver Valley for unpaid municipal taxes mere weeks before the company landed in court? Is it true that the province is now on the book for an additional $12 million for giving these communities borrowing authority?

Hon. G. Clark: On the one hand, it seems to me from the tone of the questions that the members opposite want us to give more money to Westar and not be so tough on them. On the other hand, they're now asking a question asking why we are giving loan guarantees to the communities in the region. I'll be delighted to take that question on notice and give a full and detailed answer to members of the House.

D. Jarvis: A third question to the Minister of Finance. We have estimated that Westar owes $40 million to the federal and provincial governments and Crown agencies. How much of that $40 million does the company owe the province?

Hon. G. Clark: I believe the answer is $19 million.

HEALTH MINISTRY ADVERTISEMENTS

L. Fox: My question today is to the Minister of Health. On Saturday, May 16, the minister ran this half-page ad in the Montreal Gazette inviting job applicants for a variety of positions. Can the minister....

[2:30]

The Speaker: Order, hon. member. I must remind the hon. member that you may not bring props such as that in the House. If you could summarize as quickly as possible in your preamble and then proceed to your main question.

L. Fox: Can the minister confirm that this ad cost the taxpayers of British Columbia over $9,000? Can she tell us how many similar ads are being placed in other papers outside this province, and how often she's running these ads?

Hon. E. Cull: We're very proud that we've been able to put over $100 million into the community health care sector this year in our health budget. That ad is designed to recruit over 700 employees to fill jobs throughout British Columbia in community health. As to the cost of the ad and the number of times it has run and the papers it has run in, I'll have to get back to you on that. I will take it on notice.

The Speaker: I do want to remind members answering questions that you can either answer the question or take it on notice. You cannot do both.

Supplemental, hon. member.

L. Fox: I'm really disappointed that the minister chose to answer the question without really answering it.

Can the minister explain why the ministry's spending so many dollars on advertising in other provinces for new employees instead of using this money for retraining the existing staff who are losing their jobs due to the government's damn-the-torpedoes approach to shifting away from hospital-based care?

Hon. E. Cull: I am pleased to inform the member that we're doing precisely what he has asked. We have been working with the major unions in the hospital sector to develop a labour adjustment strategy that will ensure that British Columbians are the first people to be considered for those jobs, particularly those who are being displaced from hospitals.

The Speaker: The bell signals the end of question period.

L. Hanson: I ask leave to table a document, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply, both sections. In section A will be the Ministry of Government Services, and in section B will be the Ministry of Finance, the last vote: Crown corporations secretariat.

The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE
AND CORPORATE RELATIONS

On vote 37: Crown corporations secretariat, $10.

Hon. G. Clark: I'd like to introduce staff today. Brian Mann on my right is the senior financial officer; Bob Williams on my left is the secretary to the Crown corporations secretariat. Because we are on the last vote for the Crown corporations secretariat, perhaps I could briefly describe the activities of the secretariat. It may forestall some questions from members opposite. I would like to inform the House that because the leader of the third party was absent, we out of courtesy delayed the proceedings to the last vote on the Crown corporations secretariat.

The Crown corporations committee of cabinet is a committee that I chair and which consists of ministers of the Crown who have Crown corporations reporting 

[ Page 2569 ]

directly to them. The Crown corporations secretariat really provides two main functions for government which have heretofore not been extant in British Columbia. The first is to give ministers independent policy advice on the activities of the Crown. When we came to office, and I asked the Ministry of Transportation and Highways for the staff people who scrutinize the B.C. Ferry Corporation and B.C. Transit Corporation, the answer was that there were none. There was no in-house staff in the ministries proper that reviewed the spending or policy decisions of the Crowns.

On the other hand, Treasury Board did review, obviously, capital funding and allocations by government for those Crown corporations, but that review was only predicated on not challenging the basic policy assumptions that were made. For example, if the B.C. Ferry Corporation decided that it needed ten more ferries, then Treasury Board's function was limited to reviewing how much money is actually required to build those ten ferries, rather than challenging whether or not those ferries should be built in the first place, or whether there were other cost-effective means at the government's disposal.

So Treasury Board did do a review, but the review was not on the policy question or consideration and really not even on the funding questions -- only on whether or not that much public money was required to engage in the activities which had been approved by cabinet or by the ministry responsible. By and large, that's the case. That was the situation we inherited during the transition period.

The second main area in which the secretariat assists government is in better coordination between the Crowns. There are some synergies which we hope can be developed with the expertise that exists in the Crowns -- some obvious ones. B.C. Building Corporation has some expertise in land development; other Crowns do not. So B.C. Transit, B.C. Ferries -- B.C. Hydro, maybe more appropriately -- are engaged in moving offices and in perhaps redeveloping some of their sites or selling some of their sites.

It makes sense to use the expertise that exists in the Buildings Corporation to assist with those other Crowns. That's never been done. Another obvious one that we see is Systems Corporation, which is a Crown corporation specializing in systems and computer knowledge, with very high quality staff. Again, they are not invited in to the various Crowns, by and large, to assist them in some development, perhaps, which makes sense.

Beyond just using the services of the Crowns for each other -- which is a novel approach in British Columbia -- there is also the question as to whether or not there can be some coordinated policy between the Crowns. The obvious ones are B.C. Ferries and B.C. Transit. There was no coordination between them; in fact, they were very competitive. So there is the strange situation where B.C. Transit is leasing out the SeaBus terminal for private ferries without the knowledge -- or, at least, without the support necessarily -- of B.C. Ferries.

Now there's nothing necessarily wrong with that decision, but it seems to me it's appropriate and prudent for government to have these Crowns talking among themselves and looking at ways in which they can work to minimize costs to the taxpayer. We think great efficiency gains can be made by using the Crowns in a more coordinated way with each other.

In general, just to sum up, the two main areas are: giving independent policy advice on the activities of the Crown so we have some further review of their activities independent of government proper, and secondly, coordination of the Crowns between the Crowns and within the various Crown corporations.

F. Gingell: We appreciate that the vote is only for the great sum of $10, but it does incur an expenditure of $2,053,761, all of which but $10 is going to be recovered from the Crown corporations. Can you please tell us how this is going to be split up? As a matter of fact, I might just point out, having just noticed that.... No, it's all right, carry on.

Hon. G. Clark: The total budget, as you know, is $2,053,771. We essentially tax the Crowns on the basis of their expenses, which I think is kind of clever because it helps to give some measure to the Crowns for efficiency gains.

Just to give you a sense of it, if I could for the record, you add up all of the expense statements of the Crowns and they equal 100 percent. Then you take the budget required for the year and divide it on the basis of their relative share of operating expenses for the Crowns. I think that's a fair way of dealing with making sure it's equitable. In the percentage terms: B.C. Transit, 14 percent; B.C. Buildings Corporation, 8.4 percent; B.C. Systems, 4 percent; B.C. Lotteries, 1.2 percent; ICBC, 11 percent of this $2 million; B.C. Ferries, 8 percent; B.C. Rail, 7.5 percent; 42 percent for Hydro; roughly 1 percent for B.C. Petroleum Corporation; and then obviously the smaller ones.

This is interesting because the Lottery Corporation, which generates a large revenue, is a relatively small share of the Crown corporations secretariat in keeping with the notion that we're going to charge people on the basis of the expense side of their voucher.

F. Gingell: So this is just another whammy, with the corporate capital tax, I take it, added on.

To the minister, it was interesting to listen to your description of the mandate and the mission statement. I was wondering if you could advise us what kind of staffing you anticipate in the secretariat.

Hon. G. Clark: We have essentially full-time staff. We have six people, and that may rise a couple more. Bob Williams, of course, is paid at the deputy minister level. We have a couple of people, maybe three, who would be at the assistant deputy minister level, and then staff support. Any remaining staff are consultants on an ad hoc basis. If we have a particular problem, for example B.C. Rail negotiating with northeast coal, and we want to review that question -- negotiating rates in terms of dealing with that problem -- then we hire a consultant ad hoc to give us some independent review.

[2:45]

[ Page 2570 ]

F. Gingell: So there's a basic staff of six to whom you're going to pay a total of $1,216,771 or an average of $202,000 apiece.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry, I didn't understand. If it's what I think I heard, it's a ridiculous question.

As I said earlier, there will be -- when we're fully up and running -- about eight full-time staff and the rest on contract. Obviously a deputy minister's salary is about $100,000. An assistant deputy minister's is about $90,000, and this is a civil service position. This is not different from that -- unlike, for example, most Crown corporations, which pay significantly more than the public service; and unlike, say, Saskatchewan, which has a holding company model that pays commensurate with the Crowns or the holding company that they are supervising. This is not that at all. This is at British Columbia civil service public sector salary levels.

Obviously various contracts might be let from time to time -- which would be very short term but very expensive -- to try to get expertise in certain areas to review questions. For example, if we're looking at world coal markets, we may want to hire some fine talent from around the world for a week or two to review those questions. That would be possible.

F. Gingell: So do I take it that included in this $1.2 million -- for now we've gone from six to eight individuals -- there are some additional sums to pay professional fees for various consultants?

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, that's correct. I think the majority of the funding.... Oh, I see, not quite. There'd be a large share; probably 25 percent or so would be professional services, professional consulting.

F. Gingell: How would you differentiate those professional consulting services from the $400,000 you have budgeted under STOB 20 for professional services, which seems to cover that description?

Hon. G. Clark: Sorry, that's precisely what I am referring to. That's about 20 percent of the budget.

F. Gingell: Can we please go back to the $1.2 million that we're dealing with on the salaries, because I thought that was what you were saying.

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, that's correct. We will be spending some of that $1 million on salaries for contract work as well, in terms of giving the flexibility to try to deal with it. That's correct. We could staff up as is authorized here, but we've chosen to spend a bit more on the contract work than we originally planned because of the need to be flexible....

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, that's correct. We will be contracting services to people as they become available.

F. Gingell: If you have in your briefing book a complete, quick summary of this salary number, it would be helpful, because we are a little confused. There's $400,000 provided for in professional services. We're now from six to eight FTEs. From the discussion of them all being paid at public service rates, one might think that the average was somewhere around $85,000. That would be $680,000 of the million dollars that is budgeted. There seems to be a lot of dollars here in addition to what you're discussing.

Hon. G. Clark: No, what we're discussing in these estimates is precisely for the budget you see before you. There has been no attempt to pay more than that. The original plan was 18 FTEs; that's what the $1 million is for. At the moment we've chosen not to fill all those positions, but rather to use some of that funding for professional contracting.

G. Wilson: We appreciate this rare glimpse at how the inner workings of this government actually transpire.

B. Jones: That's as close as you will get.

G. Wilson: I don't doubt that. An hon. member says that's as close as we will get.

Could the minister tell us, in terms of this coordination of the Crown corporations -- I don't think anybody in the Liberal opposition would disagree that we need a much greater coordination of how the Crown corporations operate -- why the government has undertaken to put this kind of money into a cabinet committee, rather than to work to a more open process? That would have allowed a legislative committee a greater degree of access into the working operations of the Crown corporations, which constitute such a significant portion of the provincial debt.

Hon. G. Clark: I don't think it's mutally exclusive to have some review of Crowns down the road by members of the House. We have certainly been able to that. Maybe I could refer you to the transition document we received from Dr. David Emerson at the time of the transition period. I'll quote you from that letter of transmittal in October, 1991: "The loose, informal and somewhat ad hoc framework for managing the relationship with Crown corporations and various public bodies has not been successful in the past."

From our perspective as government -- as a new government in particular -- it is pretty important that we get on top of the Crowns in terms of improving our efficiency, stimulating some new ideas and looking at coordination from a government point of view. In other words, we want to make sure we get our act together in order to get those operations running efficiently and working in a coordinated fashion. Perhaps down the road we would be delighted to have more input from members of the opposition.

I might say that this mechanism we have now allows you, in the House, to question me on the subject of those Crowns; that is a form of accountability that didn't exist before. I might also say that members avail themselves of the opportunity to discuss various Crowns in the estimates. I'm quite pleased to debate 

[ Page 2571 ]

them. I thought the Leader of the Opposition had a very informative discussion of the B.C. Ferry Corporation at some length -- more than we've had in the House for some time. I commend him for that; I think that was a good discussion.

While there is no legislative committee, there are more avenues now for the opposition to question the activities of the Crown than there have been before. This is really a management tool more than it is a governance question at this point, in terms of accountability for members of the public.

G. Wilson: One of the concerns that we're trying to focus in on here is the question of what the minister referred to earlier in his introductory remarks: independent policy advice. Given the structure of the way the Crown corporation committee is set up, can the minister tell us exactly what constitutes independent advice on this question, insofar as the government really has full control, if not a greater hand, in the operation of Crown corporations than perhaps previously?

Hon. G. Clark: What I meant was from a government point of view, independent of the Crowns. For example, as you know, when we took office, ICBC had reviewed their rate structure and recommended certain things. Through the Crown corporations secretariat we hired Peat Marwick, in this case, to do a full review -- Mr. Ray Healey -- and work with ICBC on the various assumptions behind their initial review. That's when we started to uncover serious problems at ICBC. That would have taken us longer to do if we didn't have the secretariat, and we would have been in much deeper trouble.

The Crowns are independent of government, by and large. They act with their own staff, to some extent outside the scrutiny of Treasury Board, outside the loop so to speak. The government thought it prudent to be able to call upon an agency to give us another opinion on the activities of the Crowns. I appreciate that it is not independent in the sense that it's some external body independent of government, but from the government's point of view, it gives us a vehicle for having a second look at those activities. Obviously over time that should become increasingly less significant as we start utilizing the services of the secretariat to work with the Crowns on presentations.

For example, in ICBC's case there was a radical difference between what they told us during the transition period and what they told us after the Crown corporations secretariat's consultant review. But at the end of the day, it was ICBC management who gave us a fundamentally different recommendation after working with the secretariat. It wasn't that we got, in this case, the secretariat saying something different than ICBC; it was the consultant for the secretariat working with ICBC management through some tension and some dialogue and debate in arriving at basically the same views. I think that's much better public policy as a result, although not very satisfactory answers, because obviously serious problems at ICBC still exist.

G. Wilson: Would the minister accept then that given the mandate that has been spelled out with respect to the Crown corporations secretariat, and given the substantial budget at its disposal...? I would say that there seems to be some freedom to move in terms of the FTEs that the minister just alluded to, if I can borrow a phrase from Peat Marwick. This freedom to move also provides a certain amount of freedom to control. I wonder if the minister might talk about the intention of the Crown corporation with respect to direct intervention on matters of financing, particularly the question of borrowing with Crown corporations.

Hon. G. Clark: If I can, I want to clarify the record. This is not a substantial budget when we're looking at reviewing the Crowns -- a $2 billion budget at B.C. Hydro. As you quite properly said earlier, the Crowns are huge entities, among the largest businesses in British Columbia, and have not been given government scrutiny in the past. By and large, they have been free agents. This budget for the Crown corporations secretariat is puny compared to the kinds of activities they are undertaking. They are engaged in reviewing the activities of the Crowns.

We have six or eight people and some consultants up against thousands of employees in those Crowns to review their activities. I'm not suggesting that it should be dramatically higher. I'm just suggesting that characterizing this as somehow dramatic or huge as compared to the activities of the Crowns is simply not accurate at all. This is a small organization designed to scrutinize these huge activities and give us some advice. They don't supplant the Crowns. They don't attempt to run the Crowns. They don't attempt to deal with all of the substantive matters. They look at the Crowns on a project-by-project basis, at the call of the minister responsible and the committee of cabinet, to give us a review and a quick check on some of their activities and, hopefully, to impose some rigour and discipline on the Crowns themselves.

G. Wilson: I don't want to get into a semantic argument as to what constitutes huge. But outside of Treasury Board, I don't know of any other ministerial cabinet committees that have the kind of budget for FTEs that this one is being....

An Hon. Member: Treasury Board.

G. Wilson: Outside of Treasury Board was my remark.

My question has to do with respect to the authority or powers that this Crown corporations secretariat will have regarding the review of the financial operation of the Crown corporation, particularly in relation to the ability of the Crown corporation to borrow and the matter of borrowing authority. To what extent will this Crown corporations secretariat have an opportunity to review, advise and direct on that?

[3:00]

Hon. G. Clark: None really. The borrowing authority is scrutinized by Treasury Board and by the 

[ Page 2572 ]

treasury branch of the ministry, in terms of the actual borrowing. The Crown corporations secretariat will help review policy questions; for example: is this money required, or are there other alternatives which might result in some efficiencies? There may be a role for the secretariat in that regard.

I might also say that the previous government -- I don't know when; it may have been under the Bennett administration -- abandoned the cost-benefit analysis in the review of capital decisions. Capital for Crown corporations, by and large, was free under the previous Social Credit administration, which may account for massive capital expenditures, sometimes irrationally chosen, and the supplanting of capital for labour. You get bigger and bigger ships and bigger and more expensive SkyTrain systems, but it precludes alternatives.

Through the secretariat we are now embarking upon bringing the routine cost-benefit analysis back into government -- because it used to exist under the previous NDP administration, and I assume for some time thereafter -- with the same kind of social discount rate and the same sensitivity analysis that might be applied to all capital decisions made by all Crowns, and perhaps by government itself.

Anybody who is familiar with the cost-benefit analysis should know that it's not the be-all and end-all. In many regards, it depends on the assumptions you use to get the answer. But at least we'll have a common set of criteria for the first time in many years so we can say: a dollar spent on capital for Ferries vis-�-vis a dollar spent on capital for Transit vis-�-vis a dollar spent on capital in B.C. Hydro.

We're trying to bring about a common set of standards and a common evaluative framework that will apply to the Crowns. That may be one of the best examples of the secretariat's work. Instead of going in and doing the cost-benefit analysis, for example, through the secretariat, we're trying to develop common parameters for a cost-benefit analysis that the Crowns can do before they come to government for access to capital funding.

It may be that the secretariat would be utilized to review the findings or reports made by the various Crowns -- I don't know; we haven't thought that through yet. That might be an appropriate role down the road. But bringing some of that business approach to the Crowns and to the decision-making, particularly around capital, I know will save the taxpayers millions of dollars in the long run, and perhaps even in the short run. I can tell you that it has already saved the taxpayers money, as a result of the work by the secretariat.

G. Wilson: Perhaps we can try and focus a little on the functioning role of this Crown corporations secretariat with respect to policy -- I hear the minister saying it is essentially a policy directive toward the way the Crown corporation is going -- and with respect to this cost-benefit analysis, which I would suggest can be done through an independent review without the government necessarily structuring this kind of committee. To what extent, then, is the government, through its policy directives in this Crown corporations secretariat, going to start to direct the manner by which these Crown corporations operate?

If I can give you a case in point, coming back to a comment that the minister made earlier with respect to the integration of services for B.C. Ferries and B.C. Transit, if it should become the policy that that is a cost saving, to what extent will the policy that may be directed by this Crown corporations secretariat translate into actual functional changes to those two corporations with respect to what's delivered to the public?

Hon. G. Clark: It's not the intent of the secretariat to be issuing directives in that regard. To get back to the capital side, the Crown corporations secretariat will prepare a common set of cost-benefit analyses -- a common set of criteria -- and may work with the staff in the various Crowns to make sure that they are trained in applying those kinds of criteria. It'll be up to the individual Crowns, not the secretariat, to do the work, because we want them to keep their in-house capacity. We're not trying to supplant that expertise. We're trying to work and to have a common set of expertise between the Crowns. The individual ministers responsible are still responsible for those Crowns, not the secretariat. The secretariat may demand information at the minister's request, so we want to make sure that information is provided by the Crowns to the secretariat at their request. However, they're not policy-making. The policy-making rests with the minister and the ministerial committee -- a cabinet committee. It's not an attempt.... They have no power to force functional changes. Those changes are made with the ministers responsible and the Crowns. They are only there to collect information and to provide us with, or perhaps confirm something the Crown is doing or give us some kind of.... Perhaps, even more fundamentally, the secretariat may be useful in giving the ministers responsible lists of questions to ask about areas that we need more information on or areas we can move on. It's a resource to be used. I don't think you should confuse that with something which you seem to be implying: a bit more actual day-to-day management of the Crowns by the secretariat. That's certainly not intended.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Could I have the leave of the House to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I would like to introduce a group of 55 grade 4 to 6 students from Bert Edwards Elementary school in Kamloops, and their teachers Marg Gallagher and George Smith, and some parents who are assisting as well on a two-visit trip to Victoria and then to UBC before going back to Kamloops. I would like the House members to make them welcome.

G. Wilson: With respect to the procedural operations of this secretariat, how is the operation of this secretariat maintained and recorded? Will the information that is active and operated upon -- based on whatever policy recommendation or directives for 

[ Page 2573 ]

coordination -- be subject to the new Freedom of Information Act? Will that be available for public scrutiny and public review?

Hon. G. Clark: To be candid, I don't know the answer to that. My sense is that it probably would not be, in the sense that it's a cabinet committee and information given to cabinet is, by and large, confidential information. I guess you'll see in the results of the Crowns' work some influence by the secretariat -- the 24-hour sailings, which I know your seatmate there has been praising. I was delighted that he came out in favour of 24-hour sailings last week. I know that the people of his constituency were delighted, and I made sure -- I'm making sure now, as we speak -- that they're informed of his support for 24-hour sailings. You might know that I, and I think all ministers, will give credit to the secretariat about having some influence in that regard.

You should know that the decision rests with the minister, the Crown and cabinet. This is the place for that accountability. If the secretariat recommended against 24-hour sailings to me in their policy review, that's not necessarily of any consequence, because the decision is still made by the minister, by the Crown. You can quite properly ask those questions at that time. It's like the rest of my staff who work in Treasury Board and make recommendations. I get briefing notes on every subject in the world every day. That's not information for the public; that's information for decision-makers to make decisions with. The Crown corporations secretariat is exactly the same as all of the other public employees who give recommendations and advice to ministers. The ministers are accountable for the decisions they make and for the defence of those decisions. That's where accountability lies.

G. Wilson: The minister's response to the question of the hon. member from West Vancouver-Garibaldi on 24-hour sailings is precisely the reason that we would advocate that the information should be made public. The minister neglects to say that yes, 24-hour sailings are a good idea, but from Tsawwassen to Nanaimo, not from Horseshoe Bay to Nanaimo. That little detail was somewhat missing. We're concerned that there may be a lot of details missing in this secret cabinet committee that's going to be making such profound decisions as 24-hour sailings at the B.C. Ferry Corporation, among others.

I come back to my question with respect to these 18 FTEs that are going to be eating up the couple of million dollars that we've got tucked away. What exactly are these people hired for? What is their structure? What are their backgrounds? Are you talking about economists doing needs assessments? If you're doing cost analyses, are you talking about former and failed candidates? Just exactly who are we hiring here?

Hon. G. Clark: The member for Burnaby North is an expert in this area and was instrumental, as we all know, in the implementation of freedom-of-information legislation in this province. He advises me, and I have no reason to doubt it, that background studies -- not policy advice, but background studies -- will be available within 30 days of an announcement or the implementation of a cabinet decision. The secretariat is subject to freedom-of-information legislation and will be made available to you if it's in the form of background studies. That would probably mean a significant amount of the work done by the secretariat. It is certainly not exempt from freedom-of-information legislation.

For the House's information, I'll just give you background on all of the individuals who are working for the secretariat. Richard Bridge has a BA and a law degree and is a member of the B.C. bar. He worked for Fenton and Company. Members who were here in a previous Parliament may remember that he was an intern at one point early on, a few years back. He is a first-class individual, was a finalist for the B.C. Rhodes scholarship and is working full time for the secretariat.

Sam Bawlf is doing some work for the secretariat. I think many of you know him. He has a BA from UBC, with graduate work in urban economics. He is an honourable member of the Architectural Institute of B.C. The Old Town of Victoria, Market Square and the like are parts of his development. He is the former chair of the Ferry corporation, a former member of cabinet, a former member of B.C. Harbours Corporation and is doing some work particularly with respect to the B.C. Buildings Corporation, land use and development in Victoria. I was not questioned by the member opposite about the Peat Marwick report and the use of space. Mr. Bawlf assisted the B.C. Buildings Corporation in the development of a Victoria space plan, which is the first of its kind and well worthwhile.

Alastair Crerar is working at the secretariat full time. He has a BA and MA in economics and geography, is the author of a list of articles, as many of you may know, and he was elected a Fellow of the Canadian Institute of Planners. He is a former CEO of the Environment Council of Alberta, a former director of the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet in British Columbia, and has 40 years' experience in land use planning in the country, most recently working internationally.

Robyn Allan is currently working at ICBC, but, as you know, was on contract with the secretariat, and I hope she will be back working for the secretariat in the not-too-distant future. She has a BA and MA in economics and history, is former executive director of VanCity Community Foundation and former senior economist at B.C. Central Credit Union, a former lecturer at Kwantlen College and the University of Regina, former manager, financial planning and budget controls, Saskatchewan Government Insurance Corporation, and, obviously, a long list of publications in economics as well.

Bruce Duncan is working for the secretariat. Mr. Duncan brings us 15 years of professional economic and public policy experience. He is the full-time senior policy adviser to the secretariat. He is a public employee of long standing in British Columbia, with a BA and MA in resource economics and public finance. He was a senior policy adviser, B.C. Hydro, under, I believe, the Bennett administration, economic adviser 

[ Page 2574 ]

on oil tax policy for the board of inland revenue, United Kingdom, manager of resource development ministries, treasury board staff, and most recently a senior resource economist, Ministry of Economic Development. We stole him from the Ministry of Economic Development.

Mr. Len DeVito was on a short term contract looking at ICBC. He has 19 years of insurance experience. He is currently the chair of ICBC, is former comptroller of executive reporting integration, ICBC, former comptroller of insurance operations data, ICBC, former manager of internal audit at ICBC, and prior to the advent of ICBC a former regional services manager of Allstate Insurance.

Harold Halvorson: I'm delighted that Mr. Halvorson has come to give us some help at the secretariat. Mr. Halvorson has a PhD in metallurgical engineering, an MSc and a BA from UBC; he has a PEng as well, and has lots of publications. Many of you may remember that. He's been in private practice since 1974. Dr. Halvorson used to work for Alcan, Cominco, and B.C. Research. Mr. Halvorson made a noted study for the southeast B.C. mayors, recommending against the northeast coal project. Most of his work has proven to be prescient, I think it's fair to say, and he is a very interesting fellow. He most recently worked for Mr. Jack Davis, the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, on a consulting basis; he is a private sector consultant and is working on a variety of projects right now for the secretariat.

[3:15]

Eva Hague: she is basically an analyst. Career highlights: she worked in Stockholm -- I can't pronounce the words for that. She has a BCom from the University of Alberta and an MBA from the University of Western Ontario. She has lots of international consulting expertise in telecommunications, chemical and utilities strategic planning and analysis, and her main area of interest at the moment at the secretariat is B.C. Hydro.

Allen Kanerva has a BA and a master's from Canadian Forces staff school. He's a helicopter pilot with Canadian Forces. He has expertise in business plan writing and research. He was contracted to do some work for us with a variety of Crown corporations. He has a short-term contract.

Chris Main is working for the secretariat. He brings ten years of research and consulting experience with provincial Crown corporations, line ministries and government services; again, someone we stole from the main staff.

An Hon. Member: Borrowed.

Hon. G. Clark: We borrowed -- excuse me. He has a BA in history, a diploma in education, and an MPA from the University of Victoria. He has done work on a project basis in government for the previous administration's Royal Commission on Education. He worked on the previous government's Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs, originally was out of Treasury Board, I believe, and worked with Treasury Board staff. He is doing a variety of tasks for us, including, I think, our accounting work.

Ken Peterson has done some work for the secretariat. I'm giving you all of the contractors we've hired to date, including people who are working full-time as well as contractors. I am delighted that Ken has decided to come and give us some of the value of his expertise. He has a BA and an MA in economics; he is associate professional economist of B.C., adjunct professor at SFU and a former director of planning at B.C. Hydro. In many respects, I think, he was the architect of the Power Smart project. Maybe I shouldn't give him more credit than he deserves, but he was a senior staff person at B.C. Hydro for many years; he left just a few years ago. His particular expertise is in resource economics and in environmental and energy policy and planning issues, and he's giving us assistance with the B.C. Hydro review.

Marvin Shaffer works for the secretariat, and he's just back, I think, from Tanzania. We're delighted to enter into a contract with Mr. Shaffer. He has a BA in economics from McGill and an MA and PhD in economics from UBC; senior economist with the B.C. Energy Commission; obviously Canada Council fellowships, Woodrow Wilson fellowships. Dr. Shaffer has 15 years of professional experience in evaluation and policy analysis. I may say that he is in fact the key staff person doing the cost-benefit analysis review that I've just mentioned in terms of trying to provide professional standards to all the Crowns.

Ron Stromberg is employed by the secretariat. He has a BSc in civil engineering and a diploma in planning and has lots of experience in the transportation sector. He's been reviewing some of the work at B.C. Transit.

Sam Ahad is employed by the secretariat. Mr. Ahad has 22 years of engineering and project planning experience in the private and public sector. Currently he is a private sector consultant; BSc in engineering at McMaster University, graduate school at the University of Calgary and a PEng doctorate -- in engineering -- from Ontario.

Obviously, many of you are familiar with Mr. Williams's background, both politically and professionally. He has a master's degree in planning from UBC and much work in that regard.

G. Wilson: I confess I was almost sorry I asked. It's certainly a very high-powered group, and it seems like an eminently well-qualified group of people in their own field of expertise.

The question would be: with all of this high power that you've got and all of this obvious strength of purpose with respect to their own particular areas of expertise, how is this being structured with respect to the work they do? The simple question is: now that you've got all these people assembled, what are they all doing, and to what extent are they being sectored into various Crown corporations -- Hydro, B.C. Rail possibly, ICBC, B.C. Ferries, whatever?

Hon. G. Clark: Well, I tried to give you a sense of where they've been currently working, but the short answer is: the Crown Corporations Committee of 

[ Page 2575 ]

cabinet meets weekly, and we discuss the work of the secretariat, and various ministers may bring forward issues which they would like review undertaken on, and within the budget and staff time available the cabinet committee makes those decisions.

I might tell you that ICBC has taken up a disproportionate amount of the work because of the mess that was left behind by the previous government. There are serious problems at ICBC, which are going to take an enormous amount of effort to fix. It is a very challenging part of our undertaking.

In fairness, obviously we are now just reviewing various Crowns in terms of their abilities to deal with some of the problems I mentioned earlier, but ministers may, from time to time.... B.C. Rail, for example, is in negotiations with northeast coal producers. The previous government had, I think, an appalling position with respect to dealing with negotiating in a tough way to protect the interests of the Crown. The minister responsible for highways and transportation asked for some review by the secretariat. We engaged people of the calibre of Mr. Halvorson for that review.

As a result of the work of the secretariat and the negotiation process that took place after we dismissed the former Socred MLA who chaired the board, we saved the taxpayers, potentially, tens of millions of dollars. For the first time, there is now an upside to that. If the price rises, then we can share in the value of those proceeds. That's a concrete example of the kind of work done by the secretariat at the request of the minister. The minister takes it to the cabinet committee and asks for it. We consult with the secretary, Mr. Williams, to see whether we can find the resources, because there is a fixed budget and we can't accommodate everybody's request.

We are, and will be, engaged in a more precise, longer-range plan. We now have new boards in place with a variety of expertise so the secretariat can, we hope, work with the boards. We can develop more of a long-range business plan for the secretariat. By and large it's been crisis intervention more than anything else at the moment, trying to deal with the difficult situation the previous government left the people of B.C.

G. Wilson: How much influence did the secretariat have in the appointment of boards? Was there any direct recruitment that took place as a result of this commission with respect to the eventual appointees who were successful?

Hon. G. Clark: The secretariat and the secretary had virtually no role other than to.... There was some suggestion of names. As you know, we now have a very elaborate process -- I won't say too elaborate -- of review and consultation to try to fill positions. I believe members opposite were consulted on some of the appointments and have seen the benefits of that. Gordon Gibson Jr. was appointed to one of the boards through that process. In the same way that members of the opposition can feed names in for review, the Crown corporations secretariat secretary can feed names in for review.

G. Wilson: I'm not sure that I would say consultation was exactly the process used in the formulation of any names coming from this side. Nevertheless, in response to that question on the matter of the ICBC board, if the secretariat felt there were suitable people for the appointments to be made, the secretary could make direct recommendations through to the minister for the appointments to those positions. Is that pretty much how it works?

Hon. G. Clark: Well, the secretary could make recommendations to the minister, but the minister has to put them through the same process -- in other words, the competition process through Mr. Pollard's office now, in terms of reviewing all of the appointments. It's just a matter of presenting and collecting talented British Columbians from across British Columbia. Only in the sense that any other citizen can nominate someone for a board, as you have, as your seatmate has, or as I have letters from people recommending.... I've seen letters from the Leader of the Opposition, I think, and other members of the opposition recommending someone for a board. I have a letter from the member for Saanich North and the Islands recommending from that geographic region, and I'd be delighted to have names from that member that we would feed into the system for review as a vacancy occurs. The member makes a good point about the southern Gulf Islands, and in that respect the secretary or others can make the same representation.

G. Wilson: Full marks for a nice effort there from the minister. Any letter you've had from the Leader of the Opposition certainly would outline our policy, which is for a public process in the selection of board members. Nevertheless, the question comes back: if in fact....

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I certainly could. I'm sure that the price is too high for many members of British Columbia business and industry. The signing of the NDP card is just too much for them to bear.

Back to the point at hand, if in fact the commission has the ability to recommend the appointment and hiring, I wonder what role, if any, the commission would have with respect to the firing of board members, board chairs, from Crown corporations.

Hon. G. Clark: I assume you mean the secretariat can recommend people. No, the decision, as you should know, is essentially a legal decision. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council makes certain decisions. The board of directors has certain powers that are specified in law, and there's no intent whatsoever of changing the legislation governing the Crowns at this time.

G. Wilson: I have one more question, and then I'd happy to hand it back to my colleagues who might want to get into specifics on the financing of this new venture that we have in the province. It has to do with the functional role of this secretariat vis-�-vis the general 

[ Page 2576 ]

direction of the Crowns. If the minister could outline whether or not I have an accurate understanding, it would almost seem this coordinating committee is a structure or level of authority between the minister and the Crown corporations that can provide two specific kinds of directions. One is a question of policy in the direction that the Crown corporations ought to be going, and the second is a watchdog role to make sure that the Crown corporations are functioning properly.

If I have those two correct in my mind, then I wonder if the minister might tell us to what extent the directives from the secretariat will be able to shape the manner by which these Crown corporations will operate over the next several years with respect to proposed integrations that might be taking place or proposed new directions with respect to ferries and fast-ferry service -- those kinds of things. To what extent will this become a driving agency rather than simply a policy and policing agency?

Hon. G. Clark: An excellent question. I would say, first of all, that it's important to distinguish that the minister responsible is still the minister responsible. There's been no diminution of that ministerial accountability, so questions on B.C. Rail go to the minister responsible for B.C. Rail. There's no level in between. We try to have a collegial approach so that the secretariat can give advice to that committee of cabinet and the committee of cabinet can give advice to the minister. Believe me, that advice is not always taken. Ultimately, as you should know as well, the cabinet committee reports to cabinet every week in terms of the decisions or recommendations coming out of that cabinet committee with advice guided by the secretariat. There's no attempt to force.... We haven't come across this yet, and I don't think it's contemplated -- that a minister responsible for a particular Crown corporation will have that right fettered by the committee of cabinet or the secretariat. It's more of a collegial approach to those questions.

[3:30]

Will it become a driving agency for change? I think that may well be true, but not in the sense that the secretariat has any powers to force decision-making on the Crowns -- not at all. Only in the sense of trying to work with Crowns and get some creativity generated in terms of some of the options. That's my hope. I don't want to give the secretariat or myself too much credit, but I think the ferry decision had some impetus from the minister and the secretariat. That decision and the excellent work done was by staff at B.C. Ferries. They've done a superb job. But some ideas generated and some options available for those Crowns generated by the secretariat.... That's just a small example.

B.C. Rail management did a superb job. It was B.C. Rail management that did that job, not the secretariat; but it was the secretariat that gave some advice to the minister and the cabinet committee. They said: "Hey, wait a minute. We're not taking a tough position. There are some options here that should perhaps be explored." It was after giving that feedback to the management that they said: "We think you're right. We think we can drive a better deal than we may have done in the past." So the strategy changed. It may have been recommended by the secretariat, it may have been recommended by that committee of cabinet, but the follow-through and all of the work was done by that Crown corporation.

That's the way it should be; that's the way it will stay. We have no intention of supplanting the management of the Crowns or ministerial accountability. It's more of an information-gathering and policy discussion where we can help focus the activities of the Crown.

G. Wilson: Would the minister not agree that in using this kind of structure it's very much like saying to the administration of the Crown corporations that the reward for doing it our way is survival, and that if you don't, you are going to not only buck the minister but buck what would seem to be a pretty powerfully appointed secretariat that has some clear ideas and direction? They are advising government with respect to policy. It's almost like saying that your reward is your own survival.

Hon. G. Clark: I understand what you're saying, but I think that that comment does a disservice to the people who work in those Crowns. Take the B.C. Rail example: they have a first-class CEO recruited by the previous government. Believe me, if that individual or staff did not agree with the direction that the secretariat, the committee or the cabinet minister recommended, I don't think they would simply follow along with that recommendation. These are strong individuals running large corporations who have lots of expertise at their disposal. They debate these issues. That's as it should be. I think it's fair to say that there is some healthy debate -- not tension -- that takes place between the Crowns, and the minister receives some policy advice from the secretariat. That's healthy. In fairness, I think all of the Crowns really act that way; they don't acquiesce to the decision-making. They have their own staff, their own ideas -- high-quality staff, at that -- and they debate them at great length. Not all of the recommendations or advice that we receive are acted upon.

J. Weisgerber: It's an interesting point. I'd like to talk for a few minutes about the B.C. Rail decision as it applies to northeast coal. I'm of the opinion that the decision to hold out for some upside benefits of the agreement came long before the election.

Interjections.

J. Weisgerber: If you would like to look back in the minutes of the B.C. Rail board, you will find a decision taken by the board prior to September to try and tie the upside benefits that might come further down the road to the concessions that were being asked for as part of the Quintette restructuring. For the secretariat to claim that it somehow came up with this notion is total nonsense. It was a decision that was developed by the management and board of B.C. Rail. I would suggest it had absolutely nothing to do with the secretariat.

[ Page 2577 ]

Hon. G. Clark: I think it's hard to dignify that with an answer. That is a pathetic approach by the member opposite. He knows better. It was a team review after the election with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, the Economic Development ministry, the secretariat and B.C. Rail. It was obstructionism from the board and from a former Socred MLA, who tried to give away the public interest in that regard. It was only by the activities of this administration that we drove a deal. It was over the wishes of the previous administration, who were prepared time and time again to give away the store, to not look after the public interest, to use these Crowns as their own little fiefdoms, their own little political objectives, without the kind of business sense or tough approach to protect the public interest that we see in all the ministries of government and all the Crowns. I think that if it wasn't for the activities of the ministries' personnel -- I have talked about the minister responsible and the secretariat and the management of the Crowns -- we would have lost millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. I'm surprised the member opposite can stand there with a straight face and even pretend that the decision was made prior to the change of government.

J. Weisgerber: Obviously I hit a bit of a nerve. It's kind of nice to see that that happens once in a while.

The reality is that there will be many opportunities, I am sure, to talk to the management of B.C. Rail -- a very capable crew -- who were taking exactly the same approach of recovering the upside benefits on the proposal that related to the barging on Williston Lake. So it wasn't a brand-new idea at B.C. Rail, nor was it a brand-new idea for the board.

I would assume, at least, that the chairmen of the Crown boards report to the minister responsible. I am wondering if the presidents and chief executive officers report only to the chairman, or do they report to Mr. Williams, or do they report to the minister? How does that reporting relationship work with the presidents and chief executive officers at the Crowns?

Hon. G. Clark: They report to the chair of the board as well as the minister responsible. There is no reporting relationship to the secretariat nor is there contemplated to be one. The secretariat provides a source of information for ministers and boards. The CEOs and presidents are not expected to report in any way to the secretary, to the Crown Corporations Committee of cabinet or to anybody who works there. They are expected to cooperate with the secretary or any of the staff of the secretariat in the gathering of information so that we can work from a common fact base.

J. Weisgerber: Perhaps the minister could tell us when the secretary attends board meetings. Does he go there at the behest of the minister, or is he there acting on behalf of the secretariat?

Hon. G. Clark: The secretary has attended two board meetings to date -- B.C. Hydro last week and B.C. Rail previously -- both at the request of the respective ministers.

J. Weisgerber: It's interesting. From the number of calls that I got I would have thought he had been to at least a half a dozen of them. He seemed to have made an impression on some of the directors who are no longer there. I was of the impression that he had attended previous Hydro board meetings. I'm well aware of the meeting that he had with B.C. Rail. It's my understanding that the secretary would only attend board meetings on behalf of the minister and would be bringing government advice on behalf of the minister to the board.

Hon. G. Clark: The secretary has no voice nor vote at board meetings; although I am advised that the secretary did attend a B.C. Rail board meeting before we got rid of the Socreds on that board. He did speak once at that meeting. It's our hope that the Crown corporations secretariat can play a role in training board members and working with board members in terms of providing that kind of expertise. But it's important that it be clear here that members of the secretariat, if they're invited to attend a board meeting by the minister responsible, are there only as resource persons for the board, and are not participating in the discussions or the deliberations. They're there to assist the board in that capacity.

J. Weisgerber: I understand, in the recommendations that the secretary made to the board and in some of the responses that the board members made, that the secretary became somewhat flushed. I suppose that might have been that he was unhappy with the message he was going to take back to the minister. But it's nice to hear that that relationship has kept itself pure, and that in fact the secretary is not bringing any messages from anyone other than perhaps the minister responsible.

I was pleased to hear that the secretariat had adopted the contracting model, because I think that even though it's received a lot of criticism by this government -- or the previous government from this government -- it was a fairly effective way of dealing with issues. Certainly someone as much a capitalist and free-enterpriser as the secretary was quick to grasp that. My congratulations to him.

I'm wondering, of the very well qualified people that the minister listed, how many are on a per diem contract and how many -- if any -- get more than the $600-a-day figure that's become a bit of a number and a point of reference in this House.

Hon. G. Clark: Many of them are on per diem, as is usually the professional contract case, but I think a couple of them are on an annual contract. It appears that the vast majority of the contractors make less than the $300 a day, and certainly less than $400 a day. It's hard to break it out. As we discussed, Mr. Bridge is actually on an annual contract at what looks like $242 a day, which is about $63,000 a year. Mr. Stromberg is on an annual contract, and it looks like $225 a day. Mr.Bawlf is on a $305-a-day contract, not for the full 

[ Page 2578 ]

year. There are some higher ones. Ken Peterson is actually $735 a day, for a short-term contract.

These rates of pay are not determined by the government, by and large. Mr. Peterson is a well-known professional economist who does business for a variety of agencies, and that's the prevailing rate. That's the rate, I might say, that the previous government paid these individuals when they worked for them. As I mentioned earlier, many of them have done consulting work for the previous administration. Harold Halvorson, for example, worked for Mr. Davis. I remember discussing that with him at the time. Mr. Halvorson is at $370 a day, and that's lower than he should be paid, and lower than I think he was paid by the previous government. But we hope he will working for the secretariat for the full year, because we want to tap his expertise.

J. Weisgerber: If I understand correctly, only one of the contractors that you have working for the secretariat earns $600 a day or more.

Hon. G. Clark: It looks like three. Marvin Shaffer is higher, but that may change, because we're hoping that Mr. Shaffer will be at an annual rate at an assistant deputy minister's level. He was on a previous contract before he went to teach in Tanzania for some time. When he comes back I assume that will be lower.

[3:45]

Mr. Brad Bond, who was.... I didn't mention his name earlier -- sorry. He worked for only two weeks. Mr. Bond was in charge of work for Mr. Peter Toigo as the chief operating officer for the conglomerate that is Mr. Toigo. He's an East End guy who impressed us with his business acumen. He has since left Mr. Toigo's employ. We did hire him on a brief contract. The per diem was higher, but it was only for two weeks.

J. Weisgerber: Could the minister advise whether Tom Gunton, Bill King or Bob Adams have ever had contracts with the secretariat?

Hon. G. Clark: No, they did not. Bill King worked for the government personnel services division in my ministry on contract at about $300 per day. Mr. Tom Gunton worked for the cabinet planning secretariat. I believe Bob Adams worked for the cabinet secretariat, as well, for a brief period.

Tom Gunton, as you may know, worked for the previous administration -- or at least for the Forest Resources Commission. He has done consulting work for governments across the country including the previous Social Credit administration -- at least through the commission, if not for the government proper. Mr. Adams is a Rhodes scholar and has a PhD in economics. He is doing some work, as I understand it, putting together the economic and trade summit that the Premier is hosting this coming week. Mr. King, as you know, has a lot of experience in labour relations. He did some work for me through the government personnel services division of my ministry.

J. Weisgerber: The minister said a couple of times in these debates that the previous government provided no direction to the Crowns. Having sat on the board of two Crown corporations and having been in cabinet for about three and a half years, it seems to me that that is not accurate.

First of all, let's look at B.C. Ferries. The minister has made comments a number of times. He complained in the House last week that the B.C. Ferries board had been directed not to involve themselves in the fast-ferry business. Then he complained that the government gave the Crowns no direction. I know very well that B.C. Ferries came to cabinet with the superferries proposals, and that those were debated at length in cabinet. Changes in routing were brought to cabinet and approved, and changes in fares and rates were regularly brought forward to cabinet.

It also seems to me that B.C. Hydro received a fair amount of influence, and there was a fair amount of interaction between Jack Davis and the board and chairman at Hydro. I could go on to look at B.C. Rail. There were a number of areas of influence by ministers. I agree that the amount of influence varied from minister to minister. If you're looking for a concession, I would certainly concede that.

For example, let's talk about the B.C. Trade Development Corporation. For the first time that I'm aware of, that very small corporation has a full-time president and CEO and also has a full-time chairman of the board, very few employees -- I think less than 60....

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: One hundred and twenty. Perhaps. A very, very small corporation. In contrast to that, the chairman at B.C. Rail, up until he was relieved at least, received I believe $3,000 a year and $300 a day for those days he attended board meetings. Contrast that with the current chairman at the B.C. Trade Development Corporation. It's very, very difficult for me to believe that on top of all that management and influence there needs to be a secretariat to help them straighten out their business. I'm more interested, I suppose, in the relationship of the corporation, for example, to B.C. Hydro and how this secretariat would see itself in giving advice to Hydro on various issues.

Hon. G. Clark: Some kind of a non sequitur there -- you made a speech about full-time chairs, and then you asked the question about Hydro. Let me just deal with the first part first. You're right, when we came to office, there were no criteria for whether there would be full-time chairs or part-time chairs. For example, B.C. Transit had a full-time chair. B.C. Hydro didn't, but they used to. I think Chester Johnson was a full-time chair. I may be wrong, but I think there used to be a full-time chair at Hydro and a full-time CEO, or at least chief operating officer. And there isn't a review. So they're not consistent, I grant you that.

But also what's not consistent.... I published the information earlier this year. Mr. McElligott makes $229,000 a year, plus bonuses, and he runs a large corporation. At B.C. Hydro, which is of course a huge 

[ Page 2579 ]

corporation, I think the CEO makes about $180,000 or $190,000, added up. And then Mr. Rhodes makes $110,000, I think, as CEO. There isn't a lot of coordination. I guess that is the way it has developed. We are trying to review that through the Korbin commission and elsewhere, in terms of rationalizing that.

But with the B.C. Trade Corporation, I think it's fair to say that the appropriate place to ask these questions really is with the Premier. The Premier took the B.C. Trade Corporation because of the government's commitment and the Premier's commitment to trade development. It was decided at that time to upgrade the status of the B.C. Trade Corporation and dramatically improve its visibility in the community. A decision was made at that time to have a full-time chair. That's not unusual when you look around the various Crowns, but I'll grant you that there's no policy regarding full-time or part-time chairs.

On the question of B.C. Hydro, the minister responsible is the Minister of Labour. At this point the secretariat is reviewing. There are a lot of issues at B.C. Hydro, as the member knows, which the government has to come to grips with. Obviously there has to be a close working relationship with Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources staff on issues like downstream benefits, independent power producers, export of power -- issues around those questions. The secretariat can be available to the Minister of Energy and the Minister of Labour to assist in review in that regard. I think, frankly, if you do have questions specifically on B.C. Hydro -- I don't mean this as a cop-out -- you should really address them to the Minister of Labour, whose estimates come right after this.

J. Weisgerber: The questions of the downstream benefits and the other issues that the minister raises are appropriate ones. But we just recently approved an Energy Council in this House, which I assumed would be the guys who would be looking into those kinds of weighty questions.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: Well, it's an interesting topic. I supported the notion of an Energy Council staffed with some people who had some ability and some knowledge in the energy field. I certainly didn't support the notion of an Energy Council made up of a number of individuals whose greatest ability was to travel around the province and listen to the wishes of British Columbians. That's a worthy exercise, but it's not going to help this province develop a coherent energy policy.

There's a good argument to be made for establishing or re-examining the energy policy in this province. In the short time that I was in the ministry, it was one of the things that I certainly would have liked to have had the time to pursue in a bit more detail. Of course, certain events got in the way of that happening, and those things have a way of doing that. But there's always the next go-around. The way things go, there will probably still be lots to be done on developing an energy policy. We'll have had a few hundred thousand hours of public input to a very well-qualified Energy Council, so the job will be much easier then.

Getting back to the function of the secretariat, could the minister tell us if a written mission statement or direction has been made public? If it has not been tabled, would he table it?

Hon. G. Clark: That's a good question. There hasn't been one published, but I anticipate that one will be before long. We obviously have a working document on a mission statement for the secretariat. We are, as you can imagine, going through the exercise to get the reporting relationships clear. It is evolving somewhat. I think you can expect that we will publish one in the reasonably near future.

J. Weisgerber: Is it the intention of the ministry to have a separate annual report tabled for the secretariat? The only previous one that I can think of was the native affairs secretariat, and I believe that it did table an annual report. I'm wondering if we can look forward to that document.

Hon. G. Clark: It hasn't been determined. I don't believe it's contemplated. You're right that other cabinet committees don't. But in terms of increasing accountability, it's not a bad idea, and I'll take it under advisement.

J. Weisgerber: The difference is clear: it's a secretariat as opposed to a cabinet committee. I don't know that there would be any other reporting mechanism. It would seem to me to be an appropriate thing to do.

Following that, I was wondering what legal authority the secretariat has. Is it a Crown corporation, or is it government? When the secretariat does business, what kind of legal entity does it do business as?

Hon. G. Clark: It's really just an arm of government. It has no special power; it just operates the same way that any branch of government would. The mechanism for paying out is a common one in government: it's a $10 vote this year. That's a recoverable vote. Last year it was a section 22 account under the Financial Administration Act, which is opened routinely to pay in so you can be paid out. For the $10 vote, the accountability is here and in the vote description. So essentially it has absolutely no special power, and none is contemplated at this time.

J. Weisgerber: The minister explained how the contributions were assessed. Are the contributions from the Crowns paid to the secretariat, or are they paid through the Ministry of Finance?

Hon. G. Clark: The cheques are payable to the Minister of Finance in the same way they are elsewhere. They come into the Ministry of Finance and are managed by my staff the same way other branches of the Ministry of Finance are handled.

[ Page 2580 ]

J. Weisgerber: I'm curious then why you simply wouldn't have this as a branch of the Ministry of Finance and fund it through the estimates and put a levy -- if that's what you wanted to do -- on the Crown corporations to pay for it. Why is this other mechanism used?

Hon. G. Clark: There are a variety of vehicles for government. This is a fully cost-recovered vote. We'd like to show that in the budget.

Perhaps the member knows from his experience in government that in the budgeting process we only look at the expenditure side of the equation and revenues go into a great big pot. We wanted to have this separate and distinct where the costs paid for by the Crowns, on the basis of expenses, were remitted and fully cost-recovered so that the budget is still clear.

[4:00]

The Crown corporations know the money is going to service this agency. I think this is true by and large of government. If the Crowns are simply paying the Minister of Finance and it was going into the general revenue pot, there would be a great temptation on the part of the Minister of Finance to keep a piece of that money. In fact, that has been the experience historically, regardless of government. What we tried to do here is keep it as a cost-recovered vote so that the Crowns know exactly what they're paying in, and they know it's being spent on areas which benefit them in terms of efficiency gains that might accrue.

J. Weisgerber: One easy way to find out how much they benefit from it and how much they appreciate the benefit that they get would be to make their contribution voluntary. I suppose you would then have a measure of the benefit.

I'm curious about the model that is set up now. It is set at a $2 million budget. It's reminiscent of the eight regions and their initial $1 million budget. There seems to be some interesting similarities here, insomuch as the staffing at that level would indicate that the secretariat won't spend the $1.25 million that's allocated for salaries and contracts unless there is a significant upswing, as the opposition Finance critic questioned. I'm curious. Has the money all been paid in advance for the year? Is it a monthly billing that goes out?

Hon. G. Clark: We must recover what we spend. If there is any extra money, obviously it would go into general revenue. There is no mechanism for carrying it forward.

I disagree with you. The nature of this secretariat is not to have a big bureaucracy but to use consultants and contractors on a project-by-project basis. That gives more flexibility. It was never an intent to have a huge staff. By way of comparison, the Saskatchewan Crown Management Board, which is a holding-company model that is a little more elaborate than we're talking about here, supervises 14 Crown corporations and four joint-venture corporations that have a total of $7 billion in invested assets. This is significantly less than British Columbia. This is in Saskatchewan, which is having a very difficult time, as you know. The budget in Saskatchewan in 1991 was $4.9 million with 35 full-time staff and, in addition, relied heavily on outside consultants for specific issues.

Just to give you a sense of how lean this operation is and how it's intended to ensure that we have the flexibility, while we originally thought that we would have a larger FTE count -- which is by and large fictitious anyway; the real question is how much money you're spending -- we've decided to employ consultants dealing with specific expertise and working in the private sector. I'm very pleased that we do have a small core group of public employees who have come over from the public sector. These people worked in the various line ministries. I'm not sure if there are any that you are familiar with in that list. I'm hopeful that over the course of the next year we may manage to convince a couple more senior public employees, senior staff people, to give us that advice.

We want to make sure that this is part of the public service, that this is an agency with good links throughout the government, in a non-partisan sense, to ensure that Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and Economic Development and underlying agencies have good working relationships with the Crowns. The disadvantage of contractors sometimes is that you're using them on a project-by-project basis. That's important, especially when you're dealing with crisis intervention. It's also important to have a core group of employees who work with the line ministries and in most cases come from the line ministries. We can make sure that it's part of the government proper.

J. Weisgerber: I don't know how long the corporation in Saskatchewan has been in existence. I suspect that if we're back here three years from now, it will be interesting to see how this organization will have grown in comparison with the budget generally.

I don't know that there are any controls here. It seems to me that the secretariat advises you of how much money you need. You divide it into the expenditures of the Crown corporations and you come up with a number. I don't suppose that they squeal very loudly when they get a little bill for a few hundred thousand dollars for the administration of the secretariat. It would seem to me that for that very reason there would be very little public concern if next year you brought in a budget of $4 million and the year after that brought in one for $8 million. That's a genuine concern. I'm advised that there's no mechanism in here that would control the growth of the secretariat, other than your levy on the corporations.

Hon. G. Clark: The budget comes forward every year, the same as every other ministry of government. I can advise you that I don't get to participate in the budget decisions on my own ministry. The request was larger than was granted, which isn't surprising, because it was at the end of the day, after the rest of the ministries had been cut. We're going to make representations on the appropriate size. I would have preferred that it was a little larger this year, to be candid. My colleagues didn't agree. We'll go through and compete for funding the same way we do every other year. You 

[ Page 2581 ]

can be sure that that's the budget that you're debating right now. I've made that clear. There's certainly no intent to exceed that budget. Next year we'll be before you, and you can challenge me.

I can tell you that the secretariat has saved the taxpayers millions of dollars to date. It's good value for money. I hope I'll be able to say that every year. If I can't, I know you'll hold me to account.

J. Weisgerber: Do I understand that the budget for the secretariat is approved by Treasury Board or by the Cabinet Committee on Crown Corporations?

Hon. G. Clark: Treasury Board, actually -- unfortunately. Let me say that the Cabinet Committee on Crown Corporations obviously reviews the budget submission that goes to Treasury Board -- like a ministry, in a sense. For example, in this past budget year the cabinet committee recommended something that was not modestly larger than what was finally approved by Treasury Board. That is likely to be the case again as the budgeting process takes place. Essentially it goes through two hoops. It goes through the cabinet committee on Crowns; then that goes, as part of the Ministry of Finance's presentation, to the Treasury Board, at which point I'm absent from the deliberations.

J. Weisgerber: Perhaps the minister can tell us about the offices and other real estate and accommodations that have been rented, leased or otherwise undertaken to provide for the needs of the secretariat. I'd like to know where the offices are located, if there is more than one. I'm curious also as to the size and the cost of those offices.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: As a matter of fact, this question is going to get very long unless the minister returns. Perhaps I should try to lump it together with another question, rather than make this one too difficult and too long.

The auditor general recommended some framework of accountability for Crown corporations. I'm wondering whether or not the secretariat finds itself involved in this framework of accountability. If so, what part does it play in that activity?

[M. Lord in the chair.]

Hon. G. Clark: The office is in the attic of the wax museum here, and there is also one at 200 Granville Street in Vancouver, which is at the foot of Granville across from Canada Place. The total amount of building occupany charges is $165,000 per year, which, by the way, for Vancouver space is very good and better than many of the.... Mind you, there are a fair number of good deals right now for downtown Vancouver. It's very reasonable.

J. Weisgerber: Could the minister tell us whether these properties are BCBC properties or privately leased properties?

Hon. G. Clark: The wax museum is BCBC property; 200 Granville Street is Marathon Realty.

J. Weisgerber: During the election we were treated to a picture of the current Minister of Government Services walking around and pointing to vacant buildings. She was suggesting that these were somehow a picture of waste by the government of the day. Did all of those vacancies evaporate, or were none of them suitable for this particular activity?

Hon. G. Clark: We're reviewing the operations of BCBC in order to minimize surplus office space, and I gather success has been made in that regard as well. But at this point, on the Vancouver side, there is limited availability of the office space required. This space was at a good price and close to the cabinet offices, so it was agreed to.

J. Weisgerber: Am I to understand that the minister is saying that basically BCBC doesn't have any vacant office space in downtown Vancouvver?

Hon. G. Clark: This particular site is one of three sites recommended by BCBC.

J. Weisgerber: I don't know what kind of responsibility the minister has for office space, so perhaps I'll leave that and move down to Committee A where I think the Minister of Government Services is presently dealing with her estimates and ask the same series of questions there. Can the minister tell us the size of the office space in Vancouver?

Hon. G. Clark: I don't know the square footage, but I'd be delighted to find out for you.

J. Weisgerber: I suppose that's always one of the dangers of asking the question that you have the answer to. I'm led to believe it's about 4,200 square feet. Perhaps you could confirm that. Could the minister advise how many people are working out of that location?

Hon. G. Clark: It varies, obviously, depending on the vast majority of those consultants and contractors who come in from time to time. Recently we had a couple of people working at ICBC, and they're no longer using the offices at 200 Granville. I guess at any given time there are probably eight or nine people. It varies with secretarial help and the like.

I don't know the answer to the size of the office.

J. Weisgerber: Perhaps the minister would be good enough to bring the size of the office and the number of full-time employees back to us and whatever other provisions there might be.

I'm moving very near to the end of the questions I have, so I'll take my place and let the other members, if they have questions, proceed. I hope to have an opportunity to review my notes and come back if there's anything else.

[4:15]

[ Page 2582 ]

C. Tanner: In this conversation we've been having for the last hour and a half, I somehow missed Mr. Williams's title. I heard that he had a deputy minister status as far as his salary is concerned. What is his title?

Hon. G. Clark: Secretary to the Crown corporations committee of cabinet.

C. Tanner: I heard you referring to "secretary" a number of times, but I didn't realize you were talking about Mr. Williams.

When the Crown corporations are talking to the secretariat and to Mr. Williams, who reports on behalf of the Crown corporations?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm not sure what you mean? Could you clarify that?

C. Tanner: If the secretariat wants to talk to a Crown corporation, to whom would they talk? To the board? The CEO? The department within the Crown corporation? Who do they specifically address?

Hon. G. Clark: They would talk to people in the Crowns at the request of the minister, and only at their request. They generally talk first to the CEOs or presidents but certainly not always. The Crowns have been asked to cooperate in information gathering with the Crown corporations secretariat, so information is to be made available to secretariat staff as and when needed.

C. Tanner: If you were going to put a line of authority together, it would start with you, Mr. Minister, as being at the top and having the most authority. It would be the secretariat next, then the Crown corporations, then the board of the Crown corporations. Is that how it's structured?

Hon. G. Clark: No, not at all. The minister responsible for that particular Crown is the minister responsible. The board obviously has certain statutory obligations. The secretariat is only to give independent policy advice to the minister, so they can collect information from the Crowns, discuss options with the Crowns and report to the minister.

C. Tanner: Perhaps I could get this in perspective. If the CEOs from the Crown corporations were in a room with Mr. Williams, who would be the senior member present?

Hon. G. Clark: I don't know what you mean by "senior." There isn't a pecking order. The CEOs are responsible for the activities of their Crown corporation. The secretariat gives independent policy advice to the minister responsible.

C. Tanner: Do the CEOs get together as a group and talk to the secretary of the secretariat? Do they discuss policy decisions for all Crown corporations or any specific Crown corporation?

Hon. G. Clark: We had the first meeting with the CEOs and the senior financial officers of the Crowns. They met with the secretary to the secretariat collectively to discuss this capital valuation review that we were talking about earlier in terms of cost benefits and common criteria for evaluating capital.

C. Tanner: Was the minister there? If the minister wasn't there, who was the senior person in that room when the Crown corporations got together?

Hon. G. Clark: I don't understand what you mean by "senior person." The committee of cabinet approved a capital valuation review. On those instructions, the secretary met with the CEOs and SFOs of the Crowns to discuss evaluative criteria that might be applied to all Crowns when it comes to capital questions. I don't think a pecking order question is appropriate. It's more of a collegial discussion, reporting back to the cabinet committee, in this case, because we're trying to have common standards.

C. Tanner: This has got to be the first government bureaucracy I've ever seen where there isn't a pecking order. It seems to me that if those Crown corporations got into a room together, some of them responsible for millions of dollars and some of them responsible for a million dollars, obviously some have got more importance than others. If our friend sitting to your left is there as well, I suspect that there is a pecking order, and the pecking order starts with him. But the minister doesn't want to say that.

An Hon. Member: He doesn't get paid as much.

C. Tanner: He's not worth as much.

Does the minister see that if this secretariat is successful, it will eventually disappear? It will have accomplished what it wants to do, and that's to make the Crown corporations more successful.

Hon. G. Clark: No.

C. Tanner: Now we've got it, haven't we? We've got a new ministry set up to run the Crown corporations and advise the minister with nobody in charge of it except himself -- according to him -- that answers to nobody, that takes money out of the Crown corporations, and the only thing it can do from here on in is get bigger. Is that true, Mr. Minister?

Hon. G. Clark: No.

F. Gingell: I would like, if I may, to go back a little to some earlier responses that were given to questions from the leader of the third party. You were talking about what the budget might have been before Treasury Board cut you back. What kind of budget did you have in mind originally?

Hon. G. Clark: I can't remember exactly. I think it was about 10 percent higher, though.

[ Page 2583 ]

F. Gingell: As a result of that cutback, have there been any functions, roles, mandates that were originally included in the mandate of the Crown corporations secretariat that have been cut out because of a lack of resources?

Hon. G. Clark: Essentially we cut the consulting budget to accommodate it. All it really means is that we have to rely on the Crowns a bit more. There's a little bit less of a consulting budget because of the Crowns themselves trying to do that work. We can rely on the resources and the expertise in the Crowns themselves. I certainly understand Treasury Board's dilemma, having dealt with the rest of the budget. I have no problem supporting it. We can certainly accommodate what we're trying to accomplish with the budget allocated by Treasury Board. I expect that that will be the same this year.

F. Gingell: You spoke briefly in passing about savings and additional earnings that have already started to accrue to the Crown corporations because of the work of the secretariat. I didn't catch what they were. Perhaps you could elucidate a little.

Hon. G. Clark: At this point I'd rather not, because it's early in the year. There are certain things that we're working on that we anticipate will save money. I would say that the first and most important one is the new instruction to B.C. Rail that will result in increased revenue to the Crown if there is an upside price, which we expect and are optimistic about. Secondly, the secretariat helped to move the 24-hour sailings along, at least in small measure. That should potentially save us capital costs down the road, and it certainly improved service to the public. There have been some improvements, and we're quite confident that there will be more over the course of the year. As you know, we've only been in office a few months.

F. Gingell: As a matter of fact, none of the things that the minister has mentioned have actually happened yet; they're all things that will come about in the future. Perhaps the minister would advise us if the Crown corporations secretariat has advised him that all-night sailings are going to increase the revenues of B.C. Ferries or just relieve some congestion and reduce revenues, as I understand that the late-night sailings will be at a reduced fare.

Hon. G. Clark: Most of the work is done by the Ferry Corporation itself, not by the secretariat. Our preliminary review was one of the reasons for moving it along. The incremental cost of the all-night sailings is about $1 million. It's anticipated that revenue at a reduced rate will fully cost-recover that. That takes the place of building more and bigger ships to increase capacity. If you look at it in terms of providing that service with alternative techniques and with limited hours, that alone will probably save millions of dollars in capital expenditures.

While the ICBC review did result in a rate increase, a $90 million loss would have been incurred had we accepted the ICBC board's original recommendation. That's $90 million in additional loss had we not had the Peat Marwick review, commissioned by the secretariat, to improve the bottom line of that corporation.

F. Gingell: If I may, I'd just like to turn the minister's attention to B.C. Systems Corporation and B.C. Buildings Corporation. It seems to me that, different from all the other Crown corporations, these two corporations are purely and simply service bureaus for different ministries of the provincial government. I was wondering if the Crown corporations secretariat has made any recommendations to you with respect to whether or not this corporate organization or setup is a sensible way of dealing with these two particular roles.

Hon. G. Clark: That hasn't been reviewed yet by the secretariat. Specific questions governing those two Crowns would be better put in Committee A, which is sitting right now, with the minister responsible.

F. Gingell: I hope you don't answer this question the same way. A couple of years ago the British Columbia Systems Corporation was partially privatized to a company called Hi-Tech Systems, I think. Is there any intent on the part of the Crown corporations secretariat to deprivatize HTS at this point?

Hon. G. Clark: No. Each agency in review will be taken on a business basis. The Crown corporations secretariat recommended the abolition of the B.C. Hazardous Waste Management Corporation, which was a Crown. So that was opposite to the direction that you're suggesting. On the B.C. Systems Corporation question, that's for the minister responsible and the staff of the B.C. Systems Corporation.

F. Gingell: Would the Crown corporations secretariat get involved in questions regarding the approach that the B.C. Systems Corporation should take in offering their services to other ministries and divisions of the ministry?

[4:30]

Hon. G. Clark: The secretariat has been promoting more competition to make the Systems Corporation and BCBC compete and bid for business from government in a general sense, but we haven't gone into any more detail than that. There have been a few cases where we've discussed it. But as a governmentwide policy, we're trying to make the Systems Corporation compete for business so we're not subject to monopoly pricing from that Crown. Again, generally speaking, that has been up to the minister responsible. The secretariat has played a limited role with respect to the Systems Corporation to date.

F. Gingell: I appreciate that the B.C. Systems Corporation is the responsibility of another minister, but the Crown corporations secretariat.... Obviously if they got into a discussion such as you've just discussed, that becomes a fairly significant issue. I was wondering whether the Crown corporations secretariat, in encour-

[ Page 2584 ]

aging B.C. Systems Corporation to compete for work, has ensured that they only compete on a fair basis. Obviously the B.C. Systems Corporation doesn't have the same profit pressures that a private company does, such as: if you're not profitable this week, perhaps you won't meet your payroll next month and you will be out of business.

I was particularly concerned about the question of a contract between the British Columbia Systems Corporation and the B.C. Assessment Authority, which previously had in fact been serviced by Hi-Tech Systems, the privatized company. I'm wondering whether you could give us any background on that particular situation.

Hon. G. Clark: Sorry, I can't. You'd have to ask the minister responsible. But let me say this: there is a dividend policy which requires B.C. Systems to operate like a private sector. So they do have a dividend target, which puts the pressure on them to perform like a private sector model. They are exceeding the target in the plan in terms of the business plan presented, which precedes our administration in terms of trying to move in that direction. They are encouraged to bid just like a private sector model. But be careful. There are some advantages to having that expertise in one source for government, so you wouldn't want to throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak, in terms of taking advantage of the Systems Corporation's expertise in a broad sense. The minister responsible is reviewing these questions, and we haven't come to grips with it in the secretariat yet.

F. Gingell: I seem to remember that Peat Marwick was somewhat critical of the demands of the previous administration in requiring dividends to be paid, and in fact criticized the previous administration for demanding dividends when it required the Crown corporation to take out a bank loan to pay the dividend. I was wondering what your attitude is towards this, Mr. Minister.

Hon. G. Clark: I think Peat Marwick made some good points. Borrowing from the bank to pay the dividend is not good public policy, but requiring a dividend is generally good public policy in order to encourage that kind of profit motive and that kind of incentive to efficient operation.

I think part of the problem with the previous government is setting an artificial dividend and then requiring it to be paid without the kind of detail work which we're now able to do with the secretariat to see whether there are efficiency gains, to put pressure on the corporations to be efficient, to have a dividend policy which is reasonable and is attainable, so there's a bit of a balance there. The previous government, I think at least in the case cited.... You know, it was an artificial dividend required to try to balance the books in an election year, and I don't think that's good public policy.

F. Gingell: So do I take it that your policy will be that Crown corporations will not be required to pay a dividend if the payment of such dividend requires them to borrow those funds?

Hon. G. Clark: Sorry?

F. Gingell: The question was: was your response making a clear commitment that at no time in the future would a Crown corporation be required to pay a dividend if that required them to borrow the money?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm only hesitating because there are some big Crown corporations that are required to borrow money in the course of their business, and it may be difficult to disaggregate between.... It's clearly not our intent to require Crown.... It's clear policy not to require them to borrow money to pay dividends, but in the case of B.C. Hydro, they borrow a lot of money to do business, and pay dividends on a rational basis. I just don't want to mislead you that Crown corporations borrow money routinely and pay dividends routinely. Clearly they shouldn't be borrowing money from the bank to pay dividends; that's certainly not our policy.

F. Gingell: We were speaking earlier about the mission statement of the Crown corporations secretariat. One of the problems we've come across is that there seems to be a lack of mission statements by the Crown corporations themselves. I was wondering if the Crown corporations secretariat is planning to play any kind of role in ensuring that mission statements by Crown corporations are made and in helping them to develop them.

Hon. G. Clark: That's a good point. You're right, there are Crowns without mission statements. It is certainly our intention to encourage them to do so.

The Crown corporations secretariat -- be careful again, though -- reports to the Crown corporations committee of cabinet. It's up to the cabinet committee and the minister responsible to direct the Crowns to develop mission statements. We are aware of that. It is on the agenda, and I think it's fair to say that the ministers responsible will be ensuring that those Crowns do prepare mission statements.

C. Tanner: I didn't quite conclude my questions. I have one more to the minister, which wraps up all the previous ones. I have two concerns. One is that what we're seeing here with your secretariat is a duplication. I've heard a lot this afternoon which, in some respects, assures me that it isn't a duplication. But I can see where it might be.

The second one is: surely the people with the most expertise in Crown corporations are in the Crown corporations themselves, in many respects. If they aren't, they should be. They have the expertise within the Crown corporations to make the secretariat work. Could the minister tell the House why he didn't choose to go that route -- perhaps with Mr. Williams in charge -- and choose people within the secretariat? There are two reasons: one, it would be less expensive; and two, it seems to me that the competition among the Crowns 

[ Page 2585 ]

themselves would keep that committee honest, particularly under the direction of the gentleman on your left.

Hon. G. Clark: We do have many excellent staff in the Crowns. In fact, one of the ideas I would like to explore is seconding people from some of the Crowns to the secretariat, because then we can help develop some review. They may have some expertise in that Crown and could lend their experience to other Crowns. It's certainly our intent to make this a part of that ground.

I think you can see by the size of the organization, which isn't large relative to the Crowns, that we have no intent of duplicating the work of the Crowns, nor would we have the capacity to do so. It's really a question of giving some quick policy advice, maybe lists of questions, and pushing the expertise in the Crowns to make sure they're responsive to the government's agenda and that they're assisting us in coordinating policies among the Crowns.

D. Mitchell: I have a question on a related topic. I don't want to belabour this point, but I'm somewhat confused about the function, terms of reference, role and potential evolution of the secretariat.

When the Crown corporations secretariat was first announced in the early days of this administration, the minister referred to the cabinet committee as fulfilling an accountability function. What we've heard today in the committee is something quite different. It's certainly not public accountability that he's referring to; the evidence of that is the all-night ferries from the B.C. Ferry Corporation. Public accountability is not part of the function, although the minister has indicated and admitted to the committee that the Crown corporations secretariat did play a part in that decision.

The terms that have been used during the course of this afternoon's debate on the spending estimates for the secretariat include a management tool, a resource for the Crown corporations and a crisis management vehicle, which is a term he used until now. He has referred to information-gathering in terms of its function. These are all interesting terms, but one interesting comparison he made was with the Crown Management Board in Saskatchewan and its predecessor the Crown Investment Corporation, as it was called under a previous administration. I wonder whether there is the potential, either in this year's spending estimates or in the future, to see the secretariat evolve into a kind of a holding company, parent corporation or perhaps the mother of all Crown corporations in British Columbia. Is that a direction that we're heading with the Crown corporations secretariat? Is the holding company model one that has some appeal to the minister, and is that one potential direction we're heading in?

Hon. G. Clark: It has some appeal to me, but it's not contemplated at this time, nor is it being actively considered. We prefer to keep it in-house as part of government and to work on these questions here. I'm not sure it's necessary to have a holding company if this model works effectively, and it's certainly not contemplated at this time.

D. Mitchell: The reason I ask is that I think it is one model, and it's one that the minister indicates he has some predilection for himself. The previous administration had developed something called British Columbia Inc., which I don't think was a very well-thought-out idea. It looked at the Crown sector and whether or not there was some merit in tying it together with a coherent strategy. From what the minister has told us, I think that is what is being attempted here through the secretariat in a more modest fashion, perhaps. Various members of the committee this afternoon have indicated some concern about where this is all going.

The minister has indicated that the secretariat does not take a hands-on approach to the Crown corporations, but there are certainly several cases in point that would indicate otherwise. I would mention just one case, and that's the appointment of the interim president of ICBC, Robyn Allan. If the secretariat does not take a hands-on approach, then why would a staff member of the secretariat have been parachuted, so to speak, into ICBC's senior executive position on a temporary basis? Does the minister want us to believe in this committee that the secretariat had no role at all in Robyn Allan's appointment as interim president of ICBC?

Hon. G. Clark: Actually, she had experience working for the Saskatchewan insurance corporation and was available at the time. We were trying to clean up a difficult situation, and that's the main reason she became available on an interim basis while we do a search.

I don't mean to say that the secretariat doesn't play a role in these decisions and doesn't have influence over these decisions; not at all. All I'm saying is that the Crowns themselves, with the ministers responsible, make the decisions and carry out policy -- in all regards working with the boards.

In that particular case it is true that we had a person working for the secretariat who was available, who did have some expertise in the area and whom we could move in -- at least while we do a search. But that's a bit unusual.

D. Mitchell: If it was unusual, I think it does point out the nature of this beast that has been created. This Crown corporations secretariat certainly has the potential to head off in a number of different directions. It can be hands-on; it doesn't have to be. It can be a resource or a management tool; it can be a crisis management tool. It doesn't fulfil an accountability function; it could become a Crown corporation in its own right.

This creature is very ambiguous, and it's a terrific management tool politically for the government, because it could be all things to all people or it could be nothing at all. So it's a terrific political device -- ingenious, in fact -- and I compliment the minister on whatever role he played in helping to invent it, because it's absolutely brilliant from a political standpoint.

In terms of the secretary to the committee, I have one question about the role of Mr. Williams. I wasn't quite 

[ Page 2586 ]

clear on this. Earlier the minister referred to a number of employees of the secretariat as well as a number of contractors. Is the secretary to the cabinet committee secretariat an employee, or is he a contractor?

Hon. G. Clark: He's an order-in-council employee.

[4:45]

D. Mitchell: As an order-in-council employee of the secretariat -- I understand that his status is the equivalent of a deputy minister in government -- is there any potential for conflict, given the nature of Mr. Williams's outside business interests, the fact that he's also on the board of a major financial institution in British Columbia and simultaneously serving in a deputy-minister-equivalent position? I ask this question in all earnestness. Is there any potential for conflict? Was there a legal opinion sought on that prior to the appointment of Mr. Williams?

Hon. G. Clark: No, there wasn't. I don't see the case for conflict, but I'll take that under advisement and get back to you on it. I don't think that it's routinely required of employees of the government.

D. Mitchell: I welcome the minister's offer to get back to me. The reason I think the question is an important one is that I can't think of any other senior public servant, certainly in government, especially at the deputy minister level, who while serving as a public servant or in a public-servant-equivalent position also has outside interests of a very significant nature -- for instance, serving on the board of a major financial institution owning other businesses. I can't think of any analogies to that, but certainly there is a potential for conflict there.

Hon. M. Sihota: What about Westar?

D. Mitchell: It was a private company. There are other presidents with private companies, but certainly not in the public sector. Would the minister comment on that? Are there analogies?

Hon. G. Clark: There are senior officials working in non-profit organizations outside government -- lots of them. In fact, there's a public employees' credit union.... At least there was.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Well, they are credit unions; they are not.... The individuals serving on the boards don't have the ability to make money by the results of their decisions, and I think that's the key question here. Mr. Williams or anybody cannot personally benefit by the activities of those credit unions. I don't see that as a problem in that regard. But there is an individual in the Attorney General's ministry who owned pieces of neighbourhood pubs, for example -- and even individuals involved in liquor licensing questions. I expect that over the course of the next few years senior public employees may well be required to engage in certain disclosure activities and the like. I think that may well be contemplated down the road -- certain varying standards. But when it comes to credit unions or non-profit groups or community groups, lots of senior officials in government participate in their community. In fact, I personally would encourage them to do so. I don't see any problems in that regard.

W. Hurd: I just have a brief line of questioning regarding the study of ICBC. I note that the secretary for crown corporations was retained to undertake a thorough review of ICBC some six weeks or so ago. Would it be reasonable for the committee to assume that the parameters or mandate of the secretary would be somewhat broader in this particular investigation than they would be as part of his normal relationship or normal duties in reviewing ICBC?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure of the question. Questions with respect to ICBC might better be applied to the minister responsible, who comes up for debate in a few minutes. I won't try to duck the question. The secretary did review ICBC shortly after taking office. We did engage Peat Marwick in a different exercise to review the Insurance Corporation. I don't think the terms of reference were broader than what might be otherwise. Robyn Allan reports directly to the board and to the minister responsible, the Minister of Labour.

W. Hurd: This may also be a question under the Minister of Labour's estimates, but I'll ask it anyway. Would the approval for such a review of ICBC be done by the cabinet committee, or would it be ordered by the individual minister responsible for the Crown corporation?

Hon. G. Clark: In that case, both the cabinet committee and the minister were involved. At the end of the day it was the minister responsible, but I'm not absolutely certain of that. When we came into office.... Cabinet has to approve rate increases. We received the suggestion from the board appointed by the previous government management. There were some things that looked a bit funny in their statements. The Crown Corporations Committee of cabinet reviewed it. We sent a team in to do two different reviews. Actually, the ultimate authority was probably the minister responsible, the Minister of Labour.

W. Hurd: Is the committee correct in assuming that, from the previous comments, individual ministers can approach the Crown corporations secretariat to undertake reviews pertinent to a Crown corporation that they may oversee? Is that a correct assumption?

Hon. G. Clark: Well, not quite. Yes, individual ministers can approach the secretariat and ask for work to be done on their behalf, but it is approved through the cabinet committee itself. The minister may ask for a specific item to be reviewed. It will then come up on the agenda for the cabinet committee. If approved, 

[ Page 2587 ]

the secretary and the secretariat will undertake the work. What happens very often -- to be candid -- is that the secretariat will review the request and then bring to the cabinet committee a more detailed review of what might be undertaken and whether or not we wish to proceed with it.

W. Hurd: In the case of the ICBC review, ultimately, the decision as to whether to proceed or not would be governed by the cabinet committee. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Clark: I want to be careful because ministers have their own resources. They don't have to rely on the secretariat for scrutiny of the Crowns. They can ask their own staff to do reviews as well. Not everything is funneled to the committee. On balance, you are correct that the minister responsible will come to the cabinet committee with a recommendation that the secretariat be asked to undertake some work. It is vetted and reviewed through the cabinet committee.

W. Hurd: In the case of the ICBC review, if we have the schedule or chronology correct, the request would go to the Crown corporations secretariat from the Labour minister. The Crown corporations secretariat would then report the request back to the cabinet committee, which would then issue a recommendation as to whether or not it should proceed.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm pretty sure that that is correct. That is the correct chronology.

W. Hurd: So we're safe in assuming, then, that the cabinet committee would approve the terms of reference and parameters of the ICBC study.

Perhaps the minister can advise the committee what special powers or parameters were given to the Crown corporations secretariat to review the affairs of ICBC that he might not have had previously in dealing with ICBC?

Hon. G. Clark: None whatsoever that I can think of. There is a consultant hired by the secretariat, after having been approved by the cabinet committee. Then the minister responsible informs ICBC that they are to cooperate with the consultant working for the secretariat, and we proceed from there. There are no special powers whatsoever. The only thing that happens with respect to the Crown is that they are usually instructed by the minister responsible to cooperate fully with any investigation that might be undertaken.

W. Hurd: From the minister's memory, in this particular investigation of ICBC, was it within the jurisdiction of the Crown corporations secretariat to also review the credentials and performance of the board members at ICBC and make a recommendation as to whether their employment should continue?

Hon. G. Clark: No, absolutely not.

W. Hurd: So it was the decision of cabinet to appoint the assistant deputy minister to the Crown corporations secretariat as an interim chairman or head of ICBC?

Hon. G. Clark: That decision was recommended by the board to cabinet.

W. Hurd: A further question with respect to future reviews of Crown corporations from a policy standpoint. Is it possible for a minister of the Crown to conduct a review of a Crown corporation in the province and be totally independent from any activities of the Crown corporations secretariat? Is there still that latitude available to the minister when dealing with a Crown corporation that may be under his or her jurisdiction?

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, that's correct.

W. Hurd: Would it be reasonable to assume that a minister would be somewhat reluctant or unwilling to proceed with an investigation or review of a Crown corporation without involving the Crown corporations secretariat? Would that be an acceptable way for a cabinet minister to conduct his or her affairs in relation to a Crown corporation? Or would it be reasonable to assume that the minister would at least consult with the secretariat before undertaking such a review or asking staff to review some aspect of how the Crown corporation was running?

Hon. G. Clark: The ministers have no requirement to inform the secretariat of any independent review they are undertaking. Believe me, ministers deal with these Crowns all the time, and they don't always ask the secretariat for advice on the variety of decisions that they may make.

W. Hurd: A further brief question regarding the review of ICBC. Again, this may be a subject that we can deal with in the estimates of the Minister of Labour. But can the minister advise the committee about the terms of reference for the ICBC study? If it didn't entail reviewing the performance of the board, can he perhaps describe for the committee the terms of reference for that particular review of ICBC? Was it strictly the assets and debts of the corporation? I realize that a Peat Marwick report was authorized. Was it authorized by the secretary, or was that decision vetted through this cabinet committee?

Hon. G. Clark: Essentially it was a rate review and a review of the assumptions and the modelling that were used by the corporation. Then there was the broad review of ICBC -- just a coincidence, essentially -- as a result of the major Peat Marwick study. There was a section on ICBC. But the specific terms that you're talking about were really to deal with rate questions, the amount of the reserve and the modelling that might take place -- as it always takes place -- in insurance corporations.

W. Hurd: With respect to those representations to Peat Marwick, would it be the responsibility of or 

[ Page 2588 ]

within the purview of the secretary to approach Peat Marwick independently of the cabinet committee and to ask for and receive information? Or would any request for an outside audit or outside review of a Crown corporation be vetted through the cabinet committee?

[5:00]

Hon. G. Clark: In the normal course of events, yes, I think they would be through the committee, but as I said earlier, ministers are responsible for those corporations, and ministers have the authority, by virtue of their position, to review any activity of a Crown which they are responsible for. In this case, the secretariat was the vehicle. I would anticipate that these major reviews would generally take place through the secretariat, but there is no requirement to do so.

W. Hurd: Just a few brief questions regarding the salary and fringe benefits payable to the secretary. Some of these issues may have been canvassed. If they have, I'm sure my colleague from Delta South will advise me.

Can the minister advise the House what terms of reference or benchmarks were used in setting the dollar figure for salary and fringe benefits for this particular position, in light of the fact that there isn't a precedent for it in the history of British Columbia? What types of studies were undertaken, or what types of recommendations were accepted, with respect to setting a salary level and fringe benefits level for this particular position?

Hon. G. Clark: Since it's government's prerogative to appoint deputy ministers, their salaries and all of that are public information, which was available at the time of the order-in-council. This secretariat is reviewing billions of dollars of public investment, and it's clearly appropriate that someone at least at a deputy minister level be responsible.

D. Symons: Just a very few questions to the minister. One, I guess, is a comment, and if you care to respond.... I noticed a while ago, when you answered a question from the member for Delta South regarding the Crown corporation paying dividends while at the same time borrowing money.... It seems to me that I remember when this government was in opposition and they rather vociferously criticized the government for doing that very thing. I find some difficulty now that you seem to be doing what you were very critical of not too long ago.

My real question is regarding Crown corporations, and possibly the example I could use is the B.C. Ferry Corporation. I have noticed over the last period of time that the percentage of subsidy that seems to come from general revenue, going towards the Ferry Corporation, has been steadily reduced as the ferry fares have been increased. There seems to be a philosophy here, I would think -- and I'm looking for confirmation of this -- that the ferry system is going to be made 100 percent self-supporting. Is the direction that we are going to end up subsidizing it to a certain extent, or are we passing it all on to the passengers of the ferry system?

Hon. G. Clark: No decision has been made that it would be fully cost-recovered, and the capital plan requirements for the Ferry Corporation make it extremely unlikely that it would be fully cost-recovered over time. Despite how desirable that may be in a fiscal sense, obviously there are other motives behind running a Crown corporation like B.C. Ferries.

D. Symons: Then the slow decline in that percentage of support that I have been noticing over the years is happenstance?

Hon. G. Clark: We hope that we can achieve greater efficiencies, as we've talked about earlier -- like the all-night sailings, which will limit the dramatic increase potentially contemplated in the Ferry Corporation subsidy as we move into building bigger and more expensive ships.

D. Symons: Just one question. I'm not sure it quite belongs here, but maybe you can give just a quick answer on it. I believe I read a while back that two Russian gentlemen came up with a system for fuel savings. Has that system been successful? It was an experiment, apparently, and one of the ferries is using it to see whether it is working. Any response on that?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry, but I have no idea. I'll try to find out the information.

W. Hurd: Just a quick question about the nature of the contract governing the employment of the Crown corporations secretary. Is the contract -- with a record of the total dollar volume and any merit bonuses -- a public document?

The Chair: Member, could you clarify?

W. Hurd: I just had a question regarding the terms of reference for the secretary's employment and whether the financial arrangements -- any merit bonuses or expenses -- would be a matter of public record, whether they would be public documents.

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, they would be. It's an absolutely standard deputy minister's contract.

W. Hurd: Does the secretary have authority to sign contracts without reference to cabinet, or would they all have to be vetted through the cabinet committee?

Hon. G. Clark: No. All contracts don't go to cabinet. It's the normal course of events, and, frankly, I approve all contracts.

W. Hurd: Can the minister advise the committee whether there is a stated limit at the moment on the signing authority of the Crown corporations secretary?

[ Page 2589 ]

Hon. G. Clark: It's the same as every other deputy. I think it's $50,000, actually, but I'm not absolutely sure.

W. Hurd: One final question with respect to this particular position. In light of the fact that it involves rather large Crown corporations with sizeable property assets, is the secretariat able to enter into contracts for any property transactions without a reference to cabinet? Is that part of the mandate in any way?

Hon. G. Clark: No, absolutely not.

F. Gingell: I, for one, support this approach to the sensible operation of Crown corporations. How this will work in the next year only time will tell. It is perhaps a little more difficult to ask estimates types of questions when we're dealing with something that is on the agenda for the first time. I do ask you to have a very open attitude about Crown corporation accountability. It has been a major matter for discussion at Public Accounts Committee meetings over the years. The first member for Vancouver East sat on that Public Accounts Committee and dealt with this in a very forthright manner. I certainly hope that this secretariat will live up to the kind of role model that that member put forward at that time.

If you wish to bring forward vote 37, we will be happy to support it.

Vote 37 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR
AND CONSUMER SERVICES

On vote 51: minister's office, $303,875.

Hon. M. Sihota: I am most interested in proceeding with these estimates. Given the fact that there's nobody on the opposition side, I'm wondering whether I should just sit down and have the vote called, or if I should proceed.

An Hon. Member: I'm all ears.

Hon. M. Sihota: I hear them now say that they're all ears, so that's fine.

Hon. T. Perry: Set a record for the longest estimates speech.

Hon. M. Sihota: For the longest? Okay. I'm being called upon by my good colleague the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology to set the record for the longest estimates introductory speech, which he tells me was about one hour. It was his. I surely would not want to disappoint him. Most certainly I would want to give the opposition the opportunity to get into the House so that I may be able to have this speech heard by the learned members opposite.

I do want to make a number of introductory comments. Let me say this at the outset. I know I say it in the absence of both individuals that I'm going to be speaking of. I look forward with great interest to this debate. It is the first opportunity to have an extensive discussion around the issues and areas of policy that I'm involved in, particularly and primarily in the area of labour relations but also in the area of constitutional affairs. As most members know, that's an area of responsibility that falls on my desk. I also hold a file for ICBC and B.C. Hydro, and would be most interested in receiving the advice and comment of members opposite with respect to those matters. I am sorry to say, and sorry to have learnt, that my critic from the Liberal Party will not be in attendance during these estimates. I know from the many conversations I've held with him in the hallway that he's expressed a keen interest in being here, but it is my understanding that he is ill, in fact hospitalized, and will not be with us this week. I'm sure that all members of the House would agree with me in expressing our wish that he recovers quickly, and offer him Godspeed. Hopefully we will see him back in the House soon, as we head into the summer and what may be other days in the Legislature, of course. So we look forward to his return, and I'm sure he'll be reading this in Hansard. We welcome him back, but hopefully he'll be a little less chippy than he's been in the....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: No, he won't? Okay, well, with the level of vigour that he's demonstrated in debate. But he's a member who's contributed well in terms of debate that I've seen in the House so far, and it's unfortunate he's not going to be here.

I will also welcome the fact that during the course of these estimates the critic from the third party is a former Minister of Labour. I think that it will clearly help in this debate to have that kind of experience from the opposition's bench as a part of these debates and these estimates. I'm sure that, given his experience, particularly with the introduction of Bill 19 and with seeing through other matters, and his familiarity with the officials that have joined me in the House today, as always, there will be well-placed and thoughtful questions coming from that member. I've certainly noticed in the questions asked in question period that his questions are always well placed -- surprisingly well placed. I think they are evidence of the experience found in that member.

[5:15]

Those are two comments that I make now in the absence of those members. I should say in an introductory way that there are other people in the House right now with me. I would just like to take this opportunity, hon. members, to introduce to you my deputy, Mr. Heywood, who's here with us today, as well as Jacquie Rice, who's our ADM responsible for consumer services in the Consumer Affairs component of the ministry, an area of the ministry -- and I'll comment on this a little bit later on -- where we hope to take some major initiatives in the course of the year; and also our ADM from the Labour side, Mr. Ron Buchhorn. I'm sure his advice will be indispensable as we deal with debate during the course of these discussions.

[ Page 2590 ]

Let me also say -- mindful of the comments and the advice of my good colleague the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology -- that there are a number of comments that I do want to make. Of course this portfolio, as I've certainly come to know over the last few months, is a fascinating portfolio. There are a number of complex and important public policy issues that face this administration in regard to this portfolio. In particular, I think it's fair to say, given what happened between 1986 and 1991 vis-�-vis Bill 19, that this government is committed to and will indeed be proceeding with changes to labour legislation in British Columbia. Those changes are long overdue. The legislation introduced in 1991 failed on several counts, most particularly on the count of being a piece of legislation that was crafted and drafted in the back rooms of this building at the very time that there was a supposed consultation process ongoing in British Columbia. It's fair to say that as a consequence of the fact that the consultation process was described by many as a sham, the legislation itself did not enjoy the confidence of the parties that it purported to serve. In a quote that is attributed to the former minister and now the current member from the Vernon area, he had, I think, said at the time something to the effect that if legislation does not have the support or the acquiescence of those it purports to serve, it will not succeed.

That is the reason we are pleased to say that we are engaged in a consultative process with respect to the reform of labour legislation in British Columbia. That consultative process started in January of this year and, again, Mr. Heywood was kind enough to volunteer his skills to chair that committee that is travelling around the province. Out of that committee there was a subcommittee whose task was to take a look particularly at the matter of labour relations.

We were most fortunate to have had Mr. Vince Ready, a well-known mediator in British Columbia, a person who I know because of -- I think all members would agree with this -- the work that he's done in labour relations. He enjoys the confidence of, if I can put it this way, both sides in the labour relations field. He is an experienced mediator with impeccable credentials and remarkable skills who has been able to weave his magic through a number of tough and difficult disputes in the past. We're hoping that that magic will find its way into dealing with some of the tough public policy issues dealing with the legislation. He is the head of that subcommittee.

He is joined by Mr. Baigent, an experienced practitioner in labour relations law. I think that over the years he has been one of the leading thinkers with respect to labour relations in British Columbia, if I can put it that way.

We're pleased to say that the two of them are joined by Mr. Roper, who is well-experienced and well-known in the labour relations field. He has a tremendous background and has made a tremendous contribution to the province in that regard in a practical sense in terms of dealing with matters on a day-to-day basis. He will now be assisting in this legislative exercise and helping to draft the legislation. Certainly, his practical experience will be most welcome, and I'm sure his hand will be seen in the legislation that will be coming before this House with respect to labour relations.

The consultative process is important for this administration. We set out at the beginning to arrive at fair and balanced labour legislation which enjoys the confidence of all the parties that it serves, and that's not an easy task. We've asked the panel of nine to take a look at a broad range of labour relations issues, but particularly with respect to that subcommittee they're very difficult issues. I can assure all members that this government is committed to seeing that consultative process run its course and do its work and hopefully produce legislation that serves the interests of this province well.

Given the fact that we've engaged in that consultative process, we have also, as an administration, had to deal with the interim, the time between last January and this year. We're pleased to say that there have been some changes at the Industrial Relations Council. We had made a commitment and have indeed proceeded with fulfilling the commitment of making some changes in the Industrial Relations Council. I'm pleased to say that Mr. Stan Lanyon, a well-known and well-respected labour relations practitioner, has agreed to head the Industrial Relations Council. Immediately upon his appointment the volume of work at the Industrial Relations Council increased significantly and greater demands are being placed on that council than had hitherto been the case. I think it's fair to say that Mr. Lanyon's appointment was greeted generally with applause in the labour relations community, and I need only reflect in terms of evidence to a letter to the editor of the Vancouver Sun that I enjoyed reading. It was from Peter Gall, who was one of the authors of Bill 19, commenting positively on this administration's choice of Mr. Lanyon. I think Mr. Lanyon has all the skills and credentials to serve that high office in a skilled, impartial fashion and to live up to the high standards that we expect from those who hold quasi-judicial offices. We're very proud of that appointment, and very proud to see that Mr. Lanyon has taken on that responsibility. I'm pleased to say that the four appointments we've made on the IRC since that time have been in continuation of our view that appointments made to this quasi-judicial body are such that they must enjoy the confidence of the parties which will be coming before it.

I can assure all members that the texture and consideration of the appointments that we'll be making with respect to the Industrial Relations Council will be in keeping with that broad view of making sure that people there will reflect the labour relations community and will have the support and confidence of both business and labour and the practitioners in the field.

I've obviously talked for some time with respect to labour relations, both in terms of the long run -- the need to replace labour legislation for all the reasons that I outlined -- and also to deal in the interim with injecting a sense of stability and calm with respect to the work of the Industrial Relations Council. I must say that that stability and calm was evident in the number of the disputes that we've had to deal with.

[ Page 2591 ]

But that's not enough. In British Columbia, we've had a real history of an adversarial and confrontational labour relations atmosphere. Admittedly, no matter which side of the fence you're on in these issues, it's had the effect of at times creating some uncertainty in terms of those who seek to invest in this province. I think we all understand that certainty in labour relations, a good level playing-field and a rational system of labour relations that everybody can buy into goes a long way towards giving investors confidence that we will have a labour relations climate that will not be an impediment to investment.

Much has been said and written in the past, and many excuses made for those who have sought not to invest in this province based on the labour relations climate. It's important that that type of argument be taken away from those who would hold it up as a reason not to invest in B.C., because both business and working people benefit when there's investment and economic growth and activity. All British Columbians benefit when that's happening, and of course it is the purpose of government to try to ameliorate any conditions which serve as disincentives to investment. I want hon. members to know that that variable is very important to this government, and our need and desire is very clear in terms of having that value front and centre in reflecting where we come out in labour relations at the end of the day. That will guide us in the days, weeks and months ahead as we deal with labour relations changes.

I did say there's been a somewhat adversarial history to labour relations in British Columbia. Quite candidly, I'm not persuaded that just changes to labour relations legislation or to staffing and personnel at the Industrial Relations Council is enough. I think that British Columbia has to play a leadership role in being innovative and imaginative in terms of how we deal with labour relations. That's why I'm pleased to say, hon. members, that we have been fortunate enough, as a part of our panel that we've set up.... As I've said, it was a nine-person panel. We've asked Graham Leslie, who was Deputy Minister of Labour in British Columbia under a previous administration, to chair a subcommittee that takes a look at the whole idea of the Pacific Institute, an institute that begins to deal with issues with a broader perspective to try to create conditions and an atmosphere that chips away at the adversarial nature of labour relations in British Columbia. That legislation isn't enough, and personnel changes aren't enough, but the kind of forward-thinking ideas that were coming out in the mid-eighties, prior to the intervention of Bill 19, were significant symbols in terms of the way we should be going in British Columbia.

Those options were foreclosed upon because of the process of Bill 19. Apart from all the political rhetoric against Bill 19, I think it is important to note that it foreclosed upon a number of other options and public policy instruments that were being thought of and developed that would have allowed for a better harmonization of labour-management relations in British Columbia in setting a tone for dealing with some broader needs.

We've asked Mr. Leslie and two others on that committee to work towards establishment of the Pacific Institute. It's very important, for example, that we begin to deal with development of mediation skills and arbitration skills, perhaps taking some of the issues relating to productivity, which are tough issues to deal with at the table around collective bargaining, and try to deal with them through the institute, and try to create an atmosphere there where labour, business and government get together and work in a more cooperative way, to deal with some of the more tough-nut issues, such as productivity.

I'm pleased to say -- I said three, but it was the wrong number -- that Mr. Leslie is joined by Marie Decaire, who comes from a private sector union; by Cleta Brown, who worked with the ombudsperson office for several years in labour relations; Lynn Smith, dean of law at the University of Victoria.... Sorry, at the University of British Columbia in Victoria.... Sorry, Vancouver. Being an alumnus of both, you know, they blur in my mind from time to time. And Barbara Rae, who is currently the chancellor at Simon Fraser University. They've come together. We've been able to take, I think, some of the leading minds in British Columbia around labour relations and put them in charge of this concept of the Pacific Institute.

Again, it is very, very important to this administration that we proceed with the establishment of that institute, to move into uncharted waters, to show some leadership in this country and this province and to demonstrate to people elsewhere that we're going to go beyond legislation and personnel changes. We're going to deal with the fundamental nature of the labour-management relations that we've seen in North America and become innovative by building more toward consensus and cooperative models.

The genesis of the idea of the Pacific Institute is the spark that I think will take us there. It is absolutely essential in my mind to allow that component of our public consultation to run its full course. I look forward with great delight to the report from those British Columbians who have dedicated themselves to this cause. I look forward to reading their recommendations and to implementing a program of action around the establishment of the Pacific Institute.

[5:30]

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention -- I will do it quickly, mindful of the time -- that we have also asked a third group of that group of nine to deal with matters relating to the construction industry. I think we all understand the peculiarities of that industry. As a 1986 report indicated, there is a need to move, in terms of dealing with some of those issues. In a broad way, those are some of the areas we're dealing with in the labour relations field.

We've taken other action in the last few months. I'm pleased to say that we've moved toward -- and have implemented -- a fair wage policy. I turn to that issue in part because I see my good colleague the member for Burnaby-Edmonds in the House today as well as the member for Skeena and the member for Kamloops -- all of whom have been of great assistance by coming to us as a government and talking about the need for fair 

[ Page 2592 ]

wages and the development of public policy in that regard. I wish to acknowledge their effort and good advice in terms of developing the policy and their ongoing advice in terms of embellishments to that policy that are required to make it even better than it has been to date.

I'm pleased to say that the policy is working very well, hon. members. I look forward to the debate on that. It's a very tough public policy issue on fair wages. We understand that on both sides of the House. This government is fundamentally and philosophically committed to a fair wage program of action. We don't find it acceptable that working men and women can be dealt with in the unfair and arbitrary manner they've often been dealt with in a number of industries. We're determined to introduce a sense of fairness and to introduce a floor with respect to wages and standards that apply.

Of course, a fair wage policy must go beyond simply dealing with wages and benefits; it must also ensure that young British Columbians have the opportunity to develop their skills and secure employment in the construction trades and other fields of endeavour, such as roadbuilding. Again, I must say that as part of our fair wage policy, we've allowed for an extensive apprenticeship training program to make sure that young British Columbians have the opportunity to develop skills that are necessary for them to secure employment.

All members know and appreciate full well that sometimes the toughest thing for any young person is to find that first job. They don't always have the necessary skills to get into the marketplace. That first job is often the biggest barrier. If you can get yourself in and develop some experience over time, then you become far more marketable. You develop far more confidence in terms of your own skills, and opportunities open up. By providing young British Columbians with a proper apprenticeship program, we're helping them to take that first step on the ladder to success.

We're pleased to say that the apprenticeship component of the fair wage policy is doing well. It's an integral component of that policy, as is the requirement of trade qualification certificates. We've moved, in a phased way, to establish the requirement for trade qualification certificates. I have to say that that's very important from the point of view of this administration, because we want the most qualified people building our roads, schools and hospitals. I don't think that the public would be satisfied if people did not have the appropriate certificates, standards and qualifications. We're committed to making sure that British Columbians get the best value for their dollar in terms of people who are hired to work on these projects. We will no longer tolerate a situation where a company bills a government $25 an hour for a person's work, pays them $21 and pockets the $4 as excess profit. We don't find that practice to be conscionable, and we'll put an end to it.

I look forward to the discussion that we will inevitably have on fair wages. I also look forward to the support that I'm sure I'll get from those three colleagues I just referred to a few minutes ago, in terms of their advice of where we could go further with that policy. We're always very open to that. [Applause.]

I see the member for Port Coquitlam applauding that comment, and that allows me the opportunity to thank him as well. He and the good doctor from Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain were very instrumental in coming to this government and saying that we needed to expand the repertoire of services that we have with respect to employment standards. Those members came to me and made a good and very compelling case that we needed to decentralize our employment standards operations, which are so heavily focused in Burnaby; that we were wasting time getting people to drive from Burnaby to somewhere in the lower mainland and back into Burnaby; and that it made more sense to decentralize our employment standards offices into various areas of the lower mainland, so that they're closer to the people they're working with -- both employers and employees.

Because of the case that the two of them made -- and I appreciated their comments -- we've moved to establish an employment standards office in Port Coquitlam. I was pleased to have both of the members there to assist in the opening of the office. You know, it's a good thing. It's a good thing because the employment standards programs are now closer to the people in those communities, and it's good for business in those communities, because we moved a subset of people into that community, and they have to go out and buy lunch somewhere and buy gas or whatever. So in terms of the economic development of Port Coquitlam, there's an ancillary benefit there. Again I commend my colleagues for coming up with that suggestion. I'm pleased to say that we have been able to move, and that will allow the member for Port Coquitlam to engage in other lobbying activities with other ministers.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Good government, that's right.

Speaking of good government, hon. Chair, we think it's important that government not only look at labour legislation in the unionized sector, or employment standards legislation -- which, of course, we'll talk about a little later on -- but also make sure that we're attending to the needs of the working poor in British Columbia. It's absolutely essential that we begin to deal with issues such as poverty and the difficult situations faced by those who are not organized, who are not represented by labour unions. In that regard, I'm pleased to say that this government has taken three very firm steps.

The first of those is that immediately on assuming office, we increased the minimum wage for the first time in 18 months. I want all hon. members to know that in the weeks or months ahead we will indeed be increasing the minimum wage again, because we see it as an instrument that is good for the economy. It's an instrument that deals with issues related to poverty. We made a fundamental commitment during the election campaign to stand up for the interests of the working poor in this province. I was criticized at the time by certain elements in society for proceeding with in-

[ Page 2593 ]

creases in the minimum wage. I want all hon. members to know that this government will not betray the interests of working people. We make no apologies for increasing the minimum wage in this province, and we'll do it again.

We will also be moving with changes in the Employment Standards Act, so those people who are not represented through labour organizations or trade unions will have new legislation. It will be contemporary legislation that deals with the contemporary marketplace and the need to make sure that people are looked after.

Am I out of my 15 minutes?

The Chair: I just wanted to remind you, minister, that according to standing order 61 it is not in order to discuss legislation or the need for future legislation in Committee of Supply.

Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, Madam Chair. In my exuberant enthusiasm for the work we're doing in this ministry, I must confess that I am sometimes forgetful of the rules. Given my absence from the House of late, perhaps they are not at the forefront of my mind. I appreciate that.

The Chair: And, Minister, you are out of time as well.

Hon. T. Perry: Like other members, I have not had the opportunity to have as frequent a dialogue with the hon. minister as is my wont. He's been working very hard far afield on behalf of Canada. I'm really enjoying the chance to catch up with his thinking. I look forward to hearing a lot more from him.

Hon. M. Sihota: I would not want to disappoint my good colleague the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, and therefore I shall continue to comment on the good work that this ministry is doing.

I talked about three initiatives and not betraying promises that we made and interests that are important in society. I must say that for too long farmworkers in British Columbia have been ignored by government. They're not adequately protected or covered by the provisions of the workers' compensation system, and indeed it's long overdue that we attend to their needs. Too many speeches have been made in this Legislature about the need to provide adequate protection and coverage for farmworkers in British Columbia. It's time for those speeches to end and for action to begin. As a consequence, I'm pleased to report to this House that we have asked the Workers' Compensation Board to begin to do the necessary work to bring about the type of coverage that we believe is necessary for farmworkers. We're endeavouring to do it in a consultative way. The B.C. Federation of Agriculture, I'm pleased to see, has joined in the process so that we can develop some regulations that provide assistance to farmworkers.

I have just a few other comments that I want to make. I don't intend to talk about the constitution at this point. I know that the good Leader of the Opposition has indicated he wants to be present when we're having that discussion, so I won't make any comment with respect to those issues.

I just wanted to talk a little bit about the Consumer Services component of our ministry. It's a very important area of the ministry, and I think the matter of consumer legislation has been ignored by previous administrations, and the whole area of consumer operations has been neglected. That will change. We intend to be far more proactive in our attitude around consumer legislation. We will proceed with increased staffing in consumer areas. We will be proceeding with more consumer information for the consumers of British Columbia -- and in different languages, to recognize the multicultural character of this province and to see that those needs and wants there are met.

We will be far more aggressive in going after those who wish to question the law. We've been forceful right at the outset in dealing with litigation against the Ford Credit Corporation, and there will be other similar actions in the future around consumer services. There will be other legislative action which I can't comment on at this time, mindful of what the Chair had to say.

[5:45]

It's often not recognized that this ministry has responsibility with respect to housing. We're the ministry that oversees the operations of the residential tenancy branch. It's important that we deal with some of the tough public policy issues in that regard. For example, this administration campaigned on the need to provide tenants with greater security in terms of their situation, and to deal with the whole matter of rents and how they're regulated. We will be doing that in the weeks ahead in terms of some initiatives that we intend to take at that time. I would be happy to amplify on that. We will be taking other actions, and indeed, we would be happy to talk to members about some of the actions we've taken to make sure that British Columbians are well aware of their rights as tenants, their responsibilities as landlords, and the need for all of them to work together to make sure there are no problems with the relationship that they've entered into.

I've covered a broad range of issues. They are important public policy issues in a dynamic ministry. I must confess that it has been a real delight to have had the opportunity to work with staff, cabinet and caucus members in developing a lot of the public policy issues in this ministry. Also, I've had to deal with tough issues around the corporations, both ICBC and B.C. Hydro. Therefore, I welcome debate on these estimates.

With that said, I conclude my opening comments -- slightly short of the record that the hon. Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology had established, but I think sufficient to have satisfied his desire to hear heard a lot about this ministry. So he is back up to speed. I wish to thank him for his keen interest in these affairs.

Hon. T. Perry: I was so interested that I've been willing the clock to stop, but I don't seem to have succeeded -- it's marching on. I'm advised that com-

[ Page 2594 ]

mittee A would like to report, so I move that this committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee B, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee A, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

The Speaker: In keeping with the sessional order when resolution is reached in Committee A, I would now ask for the summaries of the debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services. For the first five minutes, the hon. member of the third party.

H. De Jong: Hon. Speaker, it's indeed a pleasure for me to rise and say that I believe the ministry estimates have been thoroughly canvassed. Although there are a number of new policies, policy directions have been explored with the minister, and they appear to be going in the right direction. I just want to say that I wish the minister and the ministry staff the very best in carrying out these policies and new directions to the best of their abilities and, of course, for the good of the citizens of British Columbia.

K. Jones: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to report briefly on the treatment in Committee of Supply A of the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services. We reviewed the structure, philosophy and funding of the many parts of this ministry -- from B.C. Systems Corporation, B.C. Buildings Corporation, B.C. Lottery Corporation, grants programs, pensions, administration, government purchasing, government jets and cars, Queen's Printer and protocol to freedom of information. We covered a very wide-ranging area.

I'd like to state, as the official opposition critic for this ministry, that a number of concerns bear reporting to the full House. It would appear that this House needs to address a proper forum for the review of Crown corporations' administrative policies. We found this to be lacking in the examination. We found a real change in the administration of lottery dollars, and we feel that the public will want a very full accounting next year on exactly where their lottery dollars have been spent. I would also like to include our concern about the removal of the charitable organizations from a solid base of funding, which they've had in the past and which needs to be addressed in the future.

We are still lacking firm policy from this ministry on the use of government aircraft, and we will be looking for this in the weeks and months to come. We simply do not believe that government ministers should be using government aircraft when commercial flights are available, and we need to see this ministry take greater responsibility for seeing that this occurs.

Generally, though, the minister was quite open and forthcoming. The staff she had in support of her were very helpful in bringing forward the answers to the various questions we've addressed, and for this we thank them and her.

Hon. L. Boone: We've had an interesting and, I think, a rather productive couple of days here. It started last Monday, went on to Tuesday and then again this afternoon. So we finally finished these estimates, but I think we canvassed a great deal over that time. Spending estimates were examined in considerable detail at times, and I think some good ideas were exchanged. We will certainly be taking some of the members' ideas under consideration.

In the course of debate I think the opposition saw that Government Services is first and foremost, as its name implies, a service ministry, and that we serve for the most part the internal government clients. The better our operation is, the better government performs. Our sole purpose here is to make ourselves available, to provide services to government so that it is able to meet its mandate through its various ministries.

The quality of services that this ministry provides has a direct bearing on the overall performance of government. The ministry's aim is continuous improvement of the efficiency of government and, particularly in today's economic climate, of cost-effective ways of making government as affordable as possible for the taxpayer. So we take very seriously the object of our ministry in terms of trying to cut costs and making government more affordable. The taxpayers, as you know, have had a tough time of late, and they're struggling right now.

In fact, it is the commitment to efficient and effective service that ties the ministry's many seemingly dissimilar branches together -- and we do have a number of dissimilar branches. We have everything from protocol to Government House to Government Air, as the member opposite mentioned, to records management and government fleet operation. This government covers a tremendous amount, in addition to the Queen's Printer and the Purchasing Commission.

However, there is another area. Although we function mainly to work with government, we have, I think, a very worthwhile role to play and we perform a good function in working with the private sector to help them develop. The Purchasing Commission has supplier-development days and the First Buy program to assist local suppliers, and it works hand-in-hand with local companies to try and put them in touch with government business and ensures that they have a knowledge of that so they can get involved there. We do have a connection with the private sector in that way. I'm very proud of the work that we've done to help the private sector and the suppliers that we have out there.

The critic for the official opposition had a number of very complimentary things to say about the ministry and its programs and staff. It's unfortunate that he didn't say all of the things in this House that he said in the previous one, but I will say them for him. In particular, he said that in his extensive contact with the ministry when preparing for the estimates, he found 

[ Page 2595 ]

staff to be very cooperative and helpful. I'm very pleased about that, because if this ministry is cooperative and helpful to all members, then I think we are performing the function that we have to perform. Keeping with the spirit of freedom of information, we are supplying the member with as much information about our operation as possible and have met most of his requests promptly and adequately, and he has commented on that.

I'm pleased to hear that he thought our people were open and honest and certainly helpful, because in the effective services that we provide to government, we have to be open, approachable and honest in our dealings. I think that this service certainly is that. This is the philosophy that guides this ministry and the implementation of information and privacy in its tendering procedures for government purchasing, the opening of Government Air logs and everything else that this ministry does.

We talked a lot during our debate about the British Columbia Buildings Corporation, the B.C. Systems Corporation and the B.C. Lottery Corporation -- the Crown corporations that report to me as a minister -- and the pivotal role that they play not only in delivering services to the public but also in economic development. Although the opposition critic says here that he's concerned about those areas, I stress that this is the first government that has tried to get some accountability into the Crown corporations. We have in fact implemented a Crown corporations committee, we have a Crown corporations secretariat and we are reviewing a number of different areas of the Crown corporations which haven't been attacked before. It's the first time that a government has actually tried to get some accountability to the Crowns, and I am pleased with that.

He has also expressed great confidence in the abilities of the CEOs of these Crown corporations, and certainly I echo his sentiments. We have some very solid and commendable people working in those operations, and the CEOs have done a good job in keeping those operations going and making them as good as they are.

The Chair: Excuse me, hon. minister. There is noise coming from various corners of the chamber.

Hon. L. Boone: Having reached a resolution of these estimates, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those members of my ministry who have worked so hard to bring the questions and the answers to me and who have developed over the short time that I've been a member of this group and a part of this team. I have been impressed with the professionalism that they show in their ability to organize and their ability to bring about resolution to some pretty tough problems that we've had to face over the last few months. As the newest member of the team, I can say that I look with pride at the people that work with me. I look forward to working in the future to make this ministry even better and more accountable than it is.

I see the House Leader is here, so I'd like to thank the members for their questions in estimates, and I look forward to probably a lengthy debate next year as well.

Hon. G. Clark: I move the House, upon its rising, stand adjourned for five minutes.

Motion approved.

The House recessed at 5:59 p.m.

The House resumed at 6:03 p.m.

Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 49.

COMPENSATION FAIRNESS REPEAL ACT

Hon. G. Clark: I rise for second reading of the Compensation Fairness Repeal Act.

On January 29, 1991, the Compensation Fairness Act came into effect. Its stated purpose was to tie public sector wage increases to the taxpayers' ability to pay. It always puzzled me that such legislation might be required in the sense that surely public sector employers take ability to pay into account before they issue wage increases. If that's not the case, then the converse is true. That means public sector employers say, "My goodness, we can't afford this," and then go and sign a collective agreement. I don't believe that's happened. I think it's an admission of failure if legislation of this kind is required to deal with public sector employers.

We in this administration are hoping to deal with the question of the public sector's ability to pay but in a less Draconian way -- to work with public sector employers to ensure that there's some consistency in bargaining. That seems to me to be appropriate. Public sector employers have to bargain. They should bargain, and they should discuss. There should be some coordination of bargaining between public sector employers. Surely it's an admission of failure to simply bring in legislation to require public sector employers to follow a particular path.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

This administration is acutely aware that adequate revenues are essential to support any expenditure by government, whether that expenditure is on salaries for public sector employees or otherwise. We recognize that revenues must at some point cover expenditures. We are committed to balancing the budget over the economic cycle. In our view, the Compensation Fairness Act has not contributed and will not contribute to the achievement of a balanced budget. What it will do is create disharmony in relations between public sector employers and their employees. It will have a negative effect on productivity and will therefore result in increased costs to the taxpayer.

In repealing this legislation, we're not suggesting that there will be no control of wage increases in the public sector, because obviously one is not going to sign collective agreements that one can't afford. We're not suggesting that taxpayers will be expected to pay increased taxes to support wage increases to public sector employees. They will not. What we do say is that the rigidities and distortions introduced into the collective bargaining process by legislation of this nature 

[ Page 2596 ]

causes harm that far outweighs any advantage that might be gained by its application.

Employees in the public sector will always be subject to the forces of the economy, just as employees in the private sector are. Government revenues rise and fall with the economic cycle, so the economic cycle will determine how much money is available for wage increases in the public sector. The evidence is clear that the discipline of the marketplace within the public sector employers' general ability to pay will be a much more effective governor of public service settlements. Passing the responsibility to a third party for approval is not fair by anyone's definition. Thus we have concluded that this legislation unnecessarily infringes on the right to free collective bargaining, and it should be repealed.

I move second reading of the bill.

F. Gingell: Bill 49 doesn't cause the Liberal caucus any problem. I appreciate and understand what is being said by the Minister of Finance when he talks about the importance of the free-bargaining system being left untouched.

I was speaking to my doctor over the weekend and explained to him that we would be dealing with Bill 49 early this week. I was able to read him the words of the Minister of Finance saying that this act did not ensure fairness in compensation, this act did more harm than good, it was an unnecessary intrusion in the free collective bargaining system, and agreements between parties should be respected. My doctor said: "Is that right? Well, well, well." He didn't have any prescription to cure cases of hypocrisy. With those few words, I will retake mt seat hoping, sincerely, that the government means what it says, and that it will deal with the spirit and intent of this act in all of the particular matters that come before this House in the years to come.

J. Weisgerber: If the Liberal caucus sees fit to support this act, I can tell you without any reservations that the Social Credit caucus does not. I think that the government is fulfilling one of the few election promises that it will fulfil; that was simply to say that it would get rid of the Compensation Fairness Act.

I believe they will find themselves in the position of having to deal with their employees in exactly the manner that's prescribed under the act that is being repealed. The ability to pay has to be the prime factor that determines wage settlements. If you look at settlements in those areas that are arm's-length from government but in which the province is the one that pays the bill, you will find time and time again that there have been settlements made which that agency, with the budget that had been approved for it, could not afford. The assumption has always been that you would make the settlements, particularly in years for which the budgets have not yet been set, and that those settlements would, in fact, drive the budget. I would suggest to the minister, despite the fact he believes agencies would not approve contracts that they could not afford, that he may find, sooner rather than later, he is wrong. In fact, agencies that look to him for the vast majority, if not all, of their funding will in fact settle with their unions at rates that their current budget levels cannot afford, or, given the increased wage settlements, the quality of service delivered to British Columbia will suffer as a direct result of it.

I think you have only to look at the settlement with the B.C. Teachers' Federation to find that now, having overturned the implications of the Compensation Fairness Act and given the teachers the increase that they negotiated, the school boards are laying people off. They couldn't afford the agreement that they had signed and couldn't maintain staff at their current levels. They couldn't maintain the special programs they wanted to maintain and fulfil their obligations under the contract that they had negotiated.

I believe that there aren't the same pressures on a public sector settlement as on a private sector settlement. I believe that the ability to pay is much more easily defined in the private sector. You know when your negotiations are going to put your employer over the edge. You only have to look at some of the settlements in the forest industry recently to recognize that the union leaders themselves understood their employers' ability to pay. I want to commend them for making the kinds of settlements that were reasonable, given the times. I'm talking particularly about the IWA settlements. As we get into the pulp sector, we will see.

At the end of the day, the settlement with the pulp workers, as with any other private sector employer, will be limited by the employers' ability to pay. I don't believe that this translates into the taxpayers' ability to pay, because that's the employer in the public sector. What the minister seems to be saying is that agencies of the government will not make wage settlements at a rate higher than the taxpayer can afford, and I don't think that's the case. I would be much more comforted as a taxpayer to know that the settlements were going to be limited to an average of those in the private sector, and that's what the Compensation Fairness Act set out to do.

I'll recognize and I'll acknowledge that there were difficulties with the implementation date: when do you start to implement the act as it applies to various employers? There were school districts which had settled and some which hadn't, and those which hadn't felt aggrieved by this legislation. There's no question that there was some difficulty in the implementation of the act when it was brought in.

Beyond that, I believe and I suggest to you that recently settlements in the public sector have been running considerably higher than those in the private sector. If the minister and the government are able to settle their current round of negotiations within the framework of the Compensation Fairness Act, then I'll say there would be no difficulty if the act were still in place. On the other hand, if the settlement is higher than would have been anticipated under the Compensation Fairness Act, then I'm not sure that the taxpayer was well served by the repeal of this act. In fact, the minister says that controls are necessary. Well, controls are easy to think about but sometimes difficult to implement. I think that the minister and most British Columbians would recognize that settlements negotiated by the province with the employees who work for 

[ Page 2597 ]

it have not been the area of concern. It's been those agencies that are at least at arm's length.

[6:15]

When the minister demonstrates over the next little while his ability to control those agencies without the Compensation Fairness Act, I will feel a bit more comforted by that; but I tell him right now that it's going to be a tougher job than he anticipated. With that, I want to say without any reservation that we believe this is a mistake which the government undertook in order to satisfy some demands on it during the election campaign and running up to the election campaign that they do away with that act.

I suspect, although I don't know, that having been in power for six or seven months, and having come face to face with some of the harsh realities of governing, they probably wish they could leave this act in place and that they would use it and find it beneficial. But I know they're driven by forces that occasionally motivate them to keep an election promise. We know that it isn't a very overwhelming kind of force, because it doesn't happen very often that they keep an election promise. But occasionally one comes along that on the surface is reasonably easy to implement, like the repeal of legislation, and nominally has no price tag attached to it, even though it may have a huge price tag down the road for the taxpayer.

I think that I will finish by saying again that I believe the government is making a serious mistake when it repeals this legislation. It is our intention to vote against the repeal of the Compensation Fairness Act, and to vote against Bill 49.

C. Tanner: The position of this part of the House, the majority of this side of the House, has been enunciated by our Finance critic. I felt I should again illustrate the hypocrisy of this government in the fact that they're prepared to say that the accepted practice of bargaining wages in this case will be as the market dictates, and that is between the employer and the employee. The hypocrisy lies in the fact that they don't say the same thing to another group who aren't employees but who are in an equally difficult position: the doctors of this province.

If this act passes, and it will, and if this side of the House will vote for it, which we will, it is an acceptance by the government that they have an obligation to the doctors, as they have to these senior employees. This party will assume, since the passage of this act makes it so, that the government will then repeal or will not go forward with those bills which put any limit on doctors' salaries whatsoever, and that the doctors should have the same right that the repeal of this act gives to those employees. We will assume, by that side of the House voting for the repeal of this bill, that that will be the case in point, and we will not see a progression through Bills 13 and 14 of an imposition on the doctors of any salary-capping.

C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to speak in opposition to this particular bill, the Compensation Fairness Repeal Act. Regrettably there's a substantial amount of hypocrisy in the position of the government with the repeal of this particular act. That hypocrisy exists, as rightly pointed out by a previous speaker, with respect to the proposed method of settlement with the doctors of British Columbia, where not only is free and collective bargaining recognized as a right between two parties -- the Ministry of Health, certainly, and the doctors -- but the government has gone one more than that. They've actually gone towards forthright intimidation, utilizing two bills, Bills 13 and 14, which haven't been tabled in the House for debate on second reading or anything else. It's merely a mechanism, because the doctors have been selected -- like the lawyers have been selected -- as a particular target of government. That's right, hon. member; you're a target.

The reality is that that is not in concurrence with the position taken, the self-righteous type of presentation, with respect to the Compensation Fairness Repeal Act.

In the past ten years public sector wages have grown by over 70 percent. They average about a 72 percent increase in British Columbia. Over the past ten years private settlement wage increases have been about 51 to 52 percent. The consumer price index has risen by about 44.6 percent. That is the reality. Obviously, when the government was in opposition, they cried, "Too little" and "Not enough" and "More and more," and there have been tremendous investments in many areas, education being one that the province has invested a great deal of money in. That capital has gone not so much to provide the services, the computers, the textbooks or the library books that students require but fundamentally to satisfy wages.

Public sector bargaining is very, very well organized. The BCTF is a very strong and powerful organization and very dominant when it comes with a $30 million budget to the small school districts that don't have the type of resources to bargain on an equal footing. You remove the compensation fairness and, as my colleague the leader of the third party has indicated, the net result of that successful effort by the BCTF has resulted in the requirement of school districts to reduce their quality of service to the students. We've had to let all sorts of teachers go because the districts can't afford them. Some school districts such as Surrey, I understand, are looking at 18 percent wage increases in the next two years.

The reality is that over the past ten years, if we go back to the period from '81-82 and look through the restraint periods when businesses were going bankrupt, there were a lot of personal bankruptcies and a great deal of unemployment in British Columbia. What happened to the public sector? The public sector not only was assured of continuing jobs but continuing wage increases. There were a few years where they were almost on a status quo during the restraint period, but the net result.... With teachers in education the increase has been 55 percent, and the consumer price index rose in that period of time about 44 percent.

The reality is that government does not run a business. Government is not a business. Government has no money of its own; they merely collect taxes and direct spending. Provincial bargaining requires the taxpayer.... I'm registering my opposition, hon. minister. The provincial government is merely an authority 

[ Page 2598 ]

that dispenses tax dollars to try to provide services for the people.

There is no restraint, specifically, with this particular provincial government to restrain any public sector spending. It's a well-known fact that the unions indicated that for every dollar invested in the election of this particular government, there will be a $20 return. This government is committed to doing that on the backs of the taxpayers. All of the people in British Columbia are going to pay this particular bill.

The reality is that we prided ourselves in running a tight ship. It's obvious from the record that in spite of that reality, we haven't run a tight ship. There can be no separation of private and public sector. We all belong to the same economy and are part of the same province. The reality is that every dollar that is added on to the public sector expenditures has to be gained somewhere along the line. It makes us less competitive in international trade. It doesn't matter whether the individual's working internally in the province of British Columbia or manufacturing widgets that are exported to the United States, to the Asian Pacific market or the European export community. The reality is that every unnecessary wage increase -- and I consider wage increases unnecessary unless they are met with increased productivity -- add to the cost of our trade. And if we don't have trade, we're not going to have jobs for people and we're not going to have a sound education system, sound health care system or a good social service system, where we're able to look after those that are disadvantaged, temporarily or otherwise.

I oppose this. This government has shown no indication of restraint. They are going to come in with the largest deficit budget of any government in the history of British Columbia. They think that that's perhaps a humorous type of situation; but that's a reality. Unless they're willing to take an effective hand in control.... They haven't displayed that right from the start of their term. They've let go of the reins, and the taxpayer is going to have to pay. That is going to hurt the economy and cost the people of the province jobs right across the board. Until the government comes up with an alternate plan to look at some sort of a ruling with compensation fairness.... I agree that there could have been improvements made.

The reality is that until the government comes in and ties private and public sectors so that we're running at least on an even balance, there is nothing in the private sector that is immune to the marketplace. The public sector has, in fact, no marketplace. The world's at their doorstep. Anything they want, we know how to get it: we raise taxes; we impose new taxes. There is no defence for the taxpayer out there. That's the reality -- no defence whatsoever. We have the GST; we have the 1 percent corporate tax, which is a tax on debt; we have increases in taxes; we have new taxes. The reality is government is not controlling. Government appoints somebody to negotiate settlements paid by public funds. The reality is that the more everyone gets, the more justification there is for the upper echelons to get more money. There's no real responsibility for the taxpayer.

I speak in favour of the retention. I will vote against this bill, because the government has not shown by any action that they have any ability or the slightest interest to control public sector spending.

W. Hurd: The opposition finds itself in a curious position with respect to the comments from the hon. member for Okanagan West, who appears to be indulging in some selective memory loss when it comes to the Compensation Stabilization Act, which was introduced by his government. Of course, we remember it was the previous government who decided they were going to break the back of the BCTF by giving individual school boards a right to bargain with the BCTF, and then found to their horror that the settlements were running well in excess of what the government of the day could afford. They decided that what was required was some sort of heavy-handed Compensation Stabilization Act, which then encouraged the school boards to rush out and sign agreements they knew they couldn't afford, because they'd be, in fact, rolled back by the compensation stabilization commissioner. Apparently that is the kind of approach to labour relations that the opposition party, in this case, is being asked to support in the House.

I don't think there is any doubt that this particular act that was in place, supposedly to restrain public sector wages, in fact encouraged school boards to bargain somewhat dishonestly with the BCTF, or at least with their local representatives. They were more than willing to throw around funds they didn't have. They had complete confidence that those onerous settlements would be rolled back arbitrarily because they exceeded a percentage guideline that seemed to exist only in the mind of the compensation stabilization commissioner.

While we certainly recognize that public sector wages have to be restrained in some manner, and that we sometimes can't rely on public bodies to do that, any suggestion that artificially introducing government into this process is in any way going to help us restrain wages over the long term is totally unrealistic. I thought it was important, for members of the opposition who intend to support the abolition of this particular body in principle, to set the record straight that the record was very spotty with this particular commission.

[6:30]

What's required here, of course, is a commitment by the government to replace it with some form of control or inducement for school boards or some other public body to negotiate settlements they can afford. In the case of education, that may eventually involve provincewide bargaining once again by the BCTF on behalf of all school boards.

I thought it important to point out these discrepancies with the facts that have been offered by the hon. member for Okanagan West as he defends the former bill, why it should be retained. I certainly look forward in committee debate to that hon. member producing some amendments to the bill or some ideas to produce a better result or a better means of addressing the issue of controlling public sector wages which don't involve the heavy hand of a compensation stabilization com-

[ Page 2599 ]

missioner, who enjoyed very little, if any, support for the kinds of decisions he was handing down.

L. Fox: Hon. Speaker, I didn't intend to speak to this bill, but after hearing the Liberal member talking through both sides of his mouth, I felt compelled to try to clarify the issue.

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. member. It's not appropriate to cast aspersions on any member of the House.

L. Fox: Hon. Speaker, I stand corrected. I believe you provided the previous speaker with some latitude with respect to that particular issue, and I was only trying to afford this House the same opportunity.

There were some aspects of the bill that I had problems with. The fact that some members had to pay retroactively out of their pockets was a concern of mine and an issue that I personally had a great deal of trouble with.

I believe the intent of the bill was a good one, because I've been on the school board for five years and on municipal council for eight years. I know the difficulties those organizations had in negotiating within their abilities to pay. I am well aware that the previous speaker was not aware that while you negotiated in the 75 school districts independently, from a board's perspective, the BCTF certainly didn't do that. The BCTF negotiated where they could negotiate the largest single increment of increase and then used that as the indicator for other settlements. So I think the government of the day devised the bill to provide some opportunity for school boards and municipalities to negotiate within their abilities to pay. I have seen instances where many school boards, for one reason or another, negotiated beyond their ability to pay.

When you look at the structure.... I speak specifically on that structure. When you look at the school district's budget and see what component is wages, you have to understand that an average of 83 percent of the budget within a school district is spent on wages. So 1 percent means a lot of dollars. I'm extremely concerned that through this action this government is once again opening the floodgates. It's going to be extremely difficult, and we're going to see a lot of demands. I know that there are administrators out there who are $95,000- or $100,000-a-year people. They are really looking forward to the day when his bill is given royal assent. There will be an immediate flood into the boards, and they will be saying: "We haven't had a wage increase for two years, and now you can give it to us. We expect it."

Along with my colleagues, I will vote against this bill. I would have looked favourably at amendments that would have looked after some of the inadequacies in the present bill. But I think that the intent was right, and I am disappointed that this government sees fit to scrap the whole bill.

Hon. D. Miller: In summing up the debate, it has been made patently clear that there's a fundamental difference between trying to construct some ideal world on paper, where somehow because you have it written in a bill, it will act as a restraint on wages and protect the public.... I very much fear that that approach, which purports to use the heavy hand of the state, as my hon. friend across the way has indicated, is simply not the way to deal with the issues of wage pressures.

I've heard this debated endlessly. There have been numerous attempts to construct an apparatus on paper that somehow protects the public. Quite frankly, it has never worked. I would simply remind members that despite all those attempts in the past, I hear my hon. friend on the Socred benches complaining about wage levels in the administrative sector of education that are far too high. So clearly your approach has not worked. All the evidence says that this kind of approach doesn't work. The bill that the government is proposing, to do away with the previous bill, is indeed the correct thing to do.

With that, hon. speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

Bill 49, Compensation Fairness Repeal Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[6:45]

Hon. D. Miller: I call second reading of Bill 61, hon. Speaker.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, Bill 61 will enhance the benefits that the public receives from the management of the province's forest resources. First, it will improve the way in which timber-harvesting levels are determined, so that they reflect current management practices and social values. Second, it will improve the ability of the Forest Service to protect the public's financial interest in the forest resource. The chief forester's determinations of allowable annual cuts for tree-farm licences and timber supply areas have come under increasing scrutiny over the past few years due to 

[ Page 2600 ]

increasing public appreciation of their importance to our enjoyment of economic, recreational and environmental benefits from our forests. This bill will allow the chief forester to better reflect society's expectations by requiring new allowable annual cuts for all timber supply areas and tree-farm licences by the end of 1995; ensuring subsequently that allowable annual cuts are determined at least every five years; ensuring that the set of criteria, including broad social and economic objectives, that are used for timber supply areas are considered for both tree-farm licences and timber supply areas; and enabling the chief forester to obtain from tree-farm licence-holders all the information necessary to assist in the determination of allowable annual cuts.

[M. Farnworth in the chair.]

Bill 61 addresses various matters for the efficient and fair administration of timber harvests. It will enable greater consistency and fairness in the administration of major tenures -- for example, by permitting cut control on a five-year basis for small tree-farm licences. This provision already exists for small-forest licences.

The bill will improve the efficiency of administering the small business and woodlot programs. For example, free use permits will be given to members of the public for firewood without requiring people to fill out unnecessary forms.

The Forest Service's ability to enforce reforestation obligations will be greatly improved by allowing up to two years to discover offences, such as failure to plant trees.

Bill 61 also addresses numerous aspects of administration that will aid the Forest Service in protecting the financial interests of the public in its forest resource. The amendments are a result of the Forest Service's commitment to protecting the financial interests of the Crown.

The bill will improve the administration of timber marks. Timber marks are the key identifier used by the Forest Service to ensure that the correct stumpage rate is charged.

The bill will improve several aspects of timber scaling. Scale returns indicate the volume and value of timber that must be billed. Individuals will be held responsible for submitting scale returns to the Forest Service on a timely basis. Penalties will be assessed for late submissions.

The bill will enable regulations to control the movement of timber. That is essential to ensure that revenue is correctly identified. New authorities to stop and inspect vehicles for compliance with the Forest Act will assist in controlling the movement of timber.

Bill 61 improves Forest Service access to private lands for administering the Forest Act. This access will be limited to regular routine inspections at reasonable times. Bill 61 will require private landowners and their contractors that harvest near Crown land to be aware of the private land boundaries. This will help reduce unauthorized harvesting of Crown timber.

This government is committed to protecting the financial interests of the Crown and improving the Forest Service's stewardship of the province's forest resources.

I move that the bill be read a second time.

W. Hurd: I'm pleased to respond to the thrust and intent of Bill 61, the Forest Amendment Act. The opposition recognizes the need to toughen up the existing Forest Act to require better stewardship of the province's forests.

Since we plowed through the minister's estimates on expenditures, we have to assume that there will be no money available in this budget for the Forest Service to undertake most of the additional powers they're being granted under this bill. That leads us to make the logical assumption that it may be the licence-holders, companies and woodlot holders that will end up bearing the additional costs of the amendments to this particular bill.

We'll be dealing with some of our concerns when we go through this bill clause by clause in committee stage. We have flagged a couple of things that the opposition is somewhat concerned about. We're particularly concerned about subsection 4 and what impact it will have on the small woodlot owner and independent owners who may be required to spend a great deal more money to meet the kind of responsibilities and requirements that are being demanded in the act.

We note that the act also gives the minister the power to consolidate and subdivide forest licences with what appears to be a great deal more latitude and authority than was previously the case. If it's exercised properly, that will be a reasoned addition to the act. Again, as it's worded, it will provide a great deal more uncertainty to existing licence-holders as to what kind of additional expenses they'll be facing.

Of course, we run into this now-famous omnibus clause of the government: No compensation payable by the Crown in connection with any reduction in value or loss or damages as a result of the act coming into force: that particular clause shows up in almost every resource bill the government has brought down, including Bills 32 and 33 -- the Resource Compensation Interim Measures Act and the Golf Course Development Moratorium Act -- and is one that we always flag and express concern about, and will be expressing concern about in committee. It's the government taking a branch and covering its tracks on the outcome of this bill so that anybody who is adversely affected not only has no right to appeal but is unable to pursue any redress through the courts, which is something we have expressed great concern about in the past. I am sure that when we get to that particular clause in committee, we'll be proposing a constructive amendment, which I hope will not go the way of other amendments we have proposed on this no-compensation clause in these bills.

With those brief remarks, we look forward to debating this bill clause by clause in committee. If there are others who wish to speak to the intent, I would certainly surrender the floor.

L. Fox: I rise to speak on the principle and the intent of Bill 61, Forest Amendment Act. While this bill does contain a number of technical amendments that tighten up the rules and better define forest management in 

[ Page 2601 ]

British Columbia, I have some difficulties with the words of the minister when he says that it will provide for more efficiency and fairness. While this bill does in fact provide for those technical amendments, it also tends to overlook the rights of individuals in favour of the rights of state.

The chief forester is given an incredible expansion of authority. He can actually break or alter legitimate contracts with forest licences, practically at a whim. He can reduce AACs without consultation and without compensation, something that we've seen in most bills put forward by this government. At virtually any time, he can alter tenure agreements to allow a second or third company to enter a forest area and remove certain stands of timber. I am sure that will be the subject of much debate during the next stage of the bill. In my view, this will be most controversial. We look forward to committee stage for some clarifications from the ministry.

Another concern with the principle of this bill is that an individual who is not directly involved in the timber scaling process can be held responsible for the accuracy of the scale and can be fined if the scale results are reported late. That has to be a concern when a third party who's not directly involved with that is in fact able to be prosecuted.

Another concern is about the future of the forest industry in British Columbia. In a very short time this NDP government has successfully driven the mining industry out of British Columbia, and now with Bill 61, the Forest Amendment Act, this government is doing exactly the same thing it did to the mining industry: providing legislation that will allow it to break contracts. It will break down the comfort zone that has been provided to the industry over the years and has allowed them to make long-term investments, which have provided jobs and development in many rural and northern communities.

So far during this sitting of the Legislature, we have seen a promise of a 20 percent reduction of the working forest by increasing our parks by 6 percent of the province, which will effectively reduce our working forest from 28 percent of the province to about 21 percent of the province. Along with this, when we look at our old-growth strategies, our recreation and forest values, and our log-around policies, we have grave concern about the future of forestry in British Columbia, and we wonder if Sandy Peel's statements made approximately a month ago didn't have some of these considerations in mind.

This bill appears to have centralized power once again. It provides for no compensation, and it provides for a lot of uncertainty in the forest sector. I am extremely concerned that we will see a reduction of investment and, like the mining industry, we'll see the forest industry look outside this province to make their future investments. I will be voting against this bill, and I look forward to committee stage for clarification of the many questions we have with respect to it.

Hon. D. Miller: I found some of the comments somewhat strange. It seems rather contradictory to me that when we bring forward legislation based in part on some aspects of the legislation dealing with the administration of revenue, on direct recommendations of the auditor general, which were embraced by the government at the time that that report was brought down -- which happens to be the former Social Credit government -- we now have a member of the opposition Social Credit Party speaking against it. I would recommend that members get hold of that report and read it to try to understand the reasons behind some of these changes in the Forest Act.

Certainly it did not make a lot of sense to us to allow, for example, the situation to continue where scale returns were not being submitted in some instances. When it was discovered, sometimes a great deal of time later, that the proper scale return had not been submitted, there was no penalty. I recall, as the opposition Forests critic, doing a great deal of research on that issue and talking to members of the RCMP at the time, who said: "You could drive a truck through this legislation. You're foolish; you should tighten it up." When we do that in the interests of protecting the interests of the Crown -- after all, it is the Crown's timber -- I find it passing strange that we would somehow be accused of using the heavy hand of the state; and, even worse, words to the effect that we're trying to drive the forest industry out of the province. If collecting revenue from the sale of our forest resources is perceived by that member as an attempt to drive the forest industry out of the province, then I hesitate to think what kind of regulatory scenario that member would want to construct to deal with these very serious administrative problems.

[7:00]

Similarly, the ability to stop vehicles carrying logs to ensure that they have timber marks on them and to ensure that they have been scaled and billed would seem to me a timely and useful exercise for any owner of the resource to engage in. I would imagine that even private landowners would have some method of ensuring that timber they sell off their lands is properly accounted for. So I find it kind of strange to hear some of the criticisms.

You know, the issue of determining annual allowable cuts is a very serious one. Members are aware, and we've offered a briefing.... I don't know if members on the opposite side have availed themselves of that briefing by the chief forester to explain our accelerated review of the annual allowable cuts. These are very serious issues, and we need to get a handle on them. We need to impose a regime that requires that the same information base be used, whether it's on a timber supply area administered by the Crown or on a tree-farm licence administered by a private company. It seems the height of foolishness to have two distinct and separate systems used, when at the end of the day it's the chief forester's job to establish the appropriate cut level.

All of these things are very reasonable amendments to the Forest Act, and all are designed to improve administration and in some cases -- for example, in the case of the five-year cut provisions on the small TFLs -- to give them the same kind of provision that currently exists for holders of similar-sized forest licences; to 

[ Page 2602 ]

recognize that size does have a bearing on the administration of a forest management unit; to give the flexibility that I think, quite frankly, will be welcomed by the holders of the licence; and to establish new criteria that will make it easier and provide a fairer means of addressing the issue of woodlot licences in terms of competition for those licences. It's to do a number of administrative things, as I said.

We did deal with the issue of compensation, and I look forward to dealing with it again. I seem to recall the member for Prince George-Omineca debating the issue of compensation in a previous bill. I patiently explained at length what it all meant, and I thought at the time that I saw a light go on over there.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Maybe you could reread Hansard for that particular debate, hon. member, before we get into committee stage of this bill, and perhaps it might go a little more smoothly and a little more quickly.

I can assure you that the principle of this bill has nothing whatsoever to do with simply coming down on the forest industry. I think that characterization of the principle of this bill is completely wrong. There is no basis at all for that characterization. I don't think I heard that from the Liberal benches, so perhaps there is a slightly different view. Who knows? At the end of the day, after listening to reasoned debate, perhaps even the members of the Social Credit opposition will see the wisdom contained in this bill and will be prepared to support the measures that really are intended to improve administration and our ability to ensure that the proper revenue is collected for the Crown's resources and, in short, to do what any prudent manager would want to do in managing such an important resource.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved on division.

Bill 61, Forest Amendment Act, 1992, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Miller: I call committee on Bill 54. [See erratum, p. 2621]

PENSION STATUTES
(TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENT) ACT

The House in committee on Bill 54; M. Farnworth in the chair.

On section 1.

C. Tanner: I thought the minister was going to speak to the bill.

The Chair: Hon. member, please address your comments through the Chair.

C. Tanner: I'm up here making a noise because my critic is not available. I don't know where he is. Perhaps the minister could just stand down the committee for a couple of minutes until we find him. Alternatively, I could tell you a story.

The Chair: Would the member wait just for one second, please.

Hon. L. Boone: I'll be pleased to speak a little bit on the bill, seeing as how the member wishes it. This is a very short bill. It's now being presented for the final reading. The bill provides technical amendments to our public pension acts in order to comply with federal requirements. The acts affected are the Auditor General Act, the Ombudsman Act, the Pension (College) Act, the Pension (Municipal) Act, the Pension (Public Service) Act, the Pension (Teachers) Act, the Provincial Court Act and the Public Service Act.

As details of administrative arrangements have yet to be finalized, the purpose of this bill is to temporarily delegate authority to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make detailed amendments to the public sector pension plans in order to comply with the new federal requirement under the Income Tax Act and to maintain existing benefits for plan members. This will allow technical changes to be made later in the year, after administrative arrangements can be clarified with the federal government. This bill does not provide for any permanent amendments. Any temporary changes made under this act must be brought before the Legislature by August 31, 1993, or repealed at that time.

This is, as I said, a technical bill that just allows us to provide some changes to the pension acts so that we can meet the regulations of the new federal Income Tax Act. Without this act and these changes, we could run the risk of having our pensions declared null and not being able to have them for our various pension plan holders. This will affect approximately 700 pension-plan-holders. I hope that this House will give quick passage to this so that we can get the necessary changes in there and protect the pension plans of those 700 people that we're are talking about.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. L. Boone: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.

Bill 54, Pension Statutes (Transitional Arrangement) Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Miller: We have made remarkable progress here this evening, and I would move that the House do now adjourn.

Hon. D. Miller moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 7:13 p.m.

[ Page 2603 ]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.

The committee met at 2:43 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
GOVERNMENT SERVICES

On vote 45: minister's office, $330,000 (continued).

K. Jones: The first question I'll ask is: does this committee have a quorum?

The Chair: Yes, we do, hon. member.

K. Jones: How many members do we need for a quorum?

The Chair: Hon. member, it is understood by the Chair that the House leaders have determined that the quorum count in committee A will be five; that includes the Chair. I count five.

K. Jones: Continuing with the Purchasing Commission area, I'd like to ask the minister if the statement that is published on one of the bulletins of the Purchasing Commission, specifically the office products centre, is still in practice. It makes a guarantee. It says:

"We guarantee we will not be undersold. If you find any item of the same make, quality and quantity selling at any commercial stationery outlet in B.C. for less than the price listed in our customer guide to stationery and office products, we'll match it. We'll credit you the difference, plus an additional 10 percent towards your next purchase from us. Our low prices include delivery anywhere in the province."

I ask the minister, first of all: is that policy still in practice?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, it is.

K. Jones: If that practice is still in place, then we're setting up the Purchasing Commission in competition with our local stationery product suppliers. Not only that, but we're saying that we'll guarantee a price that is going to give the customer the difference. That means we're going to take some additional money and give that to them. We're also going to add another 10 percent to that. Where is this money coming from to make this extra payment to the customer of the government, who is the government and just another agency of government? Are we taking this money out of general revenue and paying it to another ministry so that it can be satisfied that it's got the outside price plus 10 percent?

Hon. L. Boone: The Purchasing Commission has done a tremendous job at reaching out and getting good value for government. In fact, they have managed to negotiate such good prices that in computers, for example, we're now the lowest.... What's the percentage? It's just a very short markup, actually, over the actual cost for computers. The Purchasing Commission has done an admirable job, and in fact I'm told that there's only been one occasion when they've had to pay out on their guarantee, because they are able to search out and get such good prices for the government and save the taxpayers' dollars. That money comes from the $10 vote; it comes from this minister's vote.

K. Jones: Does the minister really believe that an agency of the government needs to use hypesterism to market the stationery products that are required for the operation of various ministries and agencies of government? Do you think that there needs to be this extra promotion and selling in order to promote an agency such as the office products centre with a marketplace, somehow trying to justify its means? Surely it should be able to provide the items at cost and should not have to show a profit margin. It should be able to do the very best shopping around, as you say, and it does. It shouldn't have to do this type of promotion. It looks like a lot of effort is put into promoting something when it's really not necessary.

Hon. L. Boone: I think anything that promotes awareness of a very good program and makes the government, a large operation that has operations throughout the province.... It makes the people in all communities and in all ministries aware of the products that are there, that they are of cost-value, and that we can save them money. You use the term that we are making money. We do not make money from this, but I think that anything which promotes something that is going to save ministries, government and taxpayers money is a good policy. I see nothing wrong with it whatsoever.

K. Jones: If an agency as a sector of government can go out into the public marketplace and get a better price for something, do you feel that it's suitable for them to make their purchase that way rather than through the government Purchasing Commission?

Hon. L. Boone: Unfortunately, it is not very often that you can do that, because the purchasing power of the government is large. Through that power, they are able to negotiate some very good savings for government, and those savings are not available to the person who goes out and negotiates on their own or even on behalf of the ministry. The bulk purchasing power of the commission enables us to have considerable cost-savings for government. Yes, I think that's a good idea, and yes, I think the taxpayers think it's a good idea as well.

K. Jones: I'm just trying to clarify that. You believe that all purchasing by the government should be done through the one agency and that no one should be able to go out and get a better deal if they happen to be able to get a better deal from a local supplier here in Victoria. In other words, as far as the local suppliers are concerned, there is no way that they are going to make 

[ Page 2604 ]

any sales to the government or any of the government agencies, because the only place that any of the government agencies can make their purchases is through the Purchasing Commission. Is that the way it is?

Hon. L. Boone: No, that's not the way it is. Each local office has a $1,000 limit that they can purchase through LMPOs, and they can purchase those things through the local suppliers. We also have master standing orders, whereby services are supplied on a regional basis. I'll use tires for an example. We have master orders with tires. They're negotiated on a provincial basis by the Purchasing Commission. Those prices are adhered to through the local distributor. Thereby we are giving business to the local supplier, but at the same time we are saving the taxpayers' dollars. It is a very good program, and they are very good people. We ought to be very proud of the work they do for us.

K. Jones: You're saying that there is a $1,000 limit. Is this on office supplies? Is that $1,000 a week, $1,000 an order or $1,000 a year?

Hon. L. Boone: It's $1,000 an order, and it's for everything -- anything that's within that area, not just office supplies.

K. Jones: I'll see if anyone else wants to speak on the Purchasing Commission area. Did you want to? Okay.

I wish to move to the subject of government air services, vehicle fleet and travel management. Just a few questions this year. On government air services, could the minister comment on the purpose of the new regional air service and perhaps make some comment on the first month or so of service?

Hon. L. Boone: I thank the hon. member for giving me the opportunity to talk about a program that I'm very proud of, that we've worked hard to implement and that's working fairly well right now. Before I do so I'd like to introduce Dianne Lawson, who is the manager of Government Air and is responsible for a lot of the good things that are happening out there right now.

Just as a little bit of background, Government Air currently has six airplanes. One, the Challenger, is up for sale. The other one is a Citation 500. It's a smaller one. We are looking to trade or sell that one so that we can get another 550, which would bring our complement of airplanes up to five 550s, two of which are already converted to air ambulances. The third one would be totally converted to an air ambulance as well.

The other two airplanes we have are required for emergency services. They have contracts with the provincial emergency program and with Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and therefore have to be available for use in emergency circumstances in the province. It has long been my thought that we ought to be making as much use of these airplanes as possible. They are very costly items; they cost us the same amount of money when they are sitting in a hangar as when they are not in use. We have staff that have to get around, and we ought to be using them.

We ought to be trying to implement a program whereby the staff of the various government ministries would be able to utilize the air services to complement the regular services of the commercial airlines. As you know, there are no direct flights to Victoria. Some of the services outside the lower mainland are very limited indeed and appear to be getting even more limited as time goes on, as services are cut. There are other areas that aren't serviced very frequently at all.

The services were brought into line, taking into consideration the needs of the government, getting back and forth to Victoria; taking into consideration the needs of people in getting around the regions; and trying to make our airplanes as cost-effective as possible so that we are providing a service to government and saving the ministries money. The ministry employees that are using our air service right now are able to get back and forth in one day sometimes, whereas before they'd have to have overnight travel. They are saving them time, which is money, as you know, in anything. It's making government work a lot better.

I'll use an example. The other day when we were coming down from Prince George in the morning, the Crown counsel was going across to Rupert. Had he not had that available to him, he would have had to fly down to Vancouver, wait in Vancouver for a while and then fly back up to Rupert -- and the same thing coming back. He says that this is a wonderful program, as has the government agent in Prince George, who I talked to, and anybody else that has utilized the service. It's going well. We're hoping to have it used more in the future. We'll take the time to re-evaluate at the end of a few months and see if there are any changes that should be made to some of the schedules or anything like that. It's a good program and one we could be proud of.

K. Jones: Just following up on that, I hope it works out very well. It's certainly a concept that may be worthwhile -- in saving the government some dollars if it's worked right.

Could you give us some indication as to how many MLAs have been using it since you instituted it about a month and a half ago?

Hon. L. Boone: About four or five so far, outside of some of the cabinet who have been using it. We're hoping that that will improve as it is used a little more and as people get used to using it.

K. Jones: With regard to the cabinet ministers' usage, could you indicate to us how many flights have occurred where there was a sole minister or a sole minister and companion, since you started this program?

[3:00]

Hon. L. Boone: We estimate around three since the coordinated regional travel has come in, but it could be slightly off. I'll get back to you if there's any difference in that.

[ Page 2605 ]

K. Jones: Could you give us a report on how many cabinet ministers and/or wives or spouses....

M. Farnworth: Significant others.

K. Jones: Significant others -- that's a good term. Yes, that's the right one. How many have flown in the jets in the period prior to the implementation of this service, from the beginning of government taking office in October?

Hon. L. Boone: My staff are very competent, but we'll have to take that question on notice. It's a little too complex for questions here.

The Chair: I would offer for consideration that I believe that question was prior to October 17 and currently we are only examining.... Was it not prior to October?

K. Jones: Since October.

The Chair: The chair stands corrected. Thank you.

K. Jones: With regard to the utilization of the air services, could the minister give us an indication of the percentage of air mileage in which passengers are carried, the percentage of air mileage when air ambulance occurred, and the percentage of air mileage when taxi service occurred -- or empty loading transportation, like moving a jet to a location with no one aboard?

Hon. L. Boone: I think that's another question we're going to have to take on notice. Are you asking for percentages from October 15 right through to now?

K. Jones: Yes.

Hon. L. Boone: Okay. I think the member ought to know that there are two jets that are totally dedicated to air ambulance and which do nothing except air ambulance work. The other three are currently being used for other purposes. I'll get the percentages, and we'll have to get back to you on that.

K. Jones: Again, could the minister indicate if there actually is a published guideline now from the office of the Minister of Government Services on appropriate use of these aircraft?

Hon. L. Boone: We are currently working under a revised government management operation policy, or GMOP. We are working under revised GMOP guidelines.

K. Jones: There has been a practice in the past of everyone signing the manifest except cabinet ministers. Is the minister changing that policy so that cabinet ministers are also accountable to be registered on the manifest?

Hon. L. Boone: As you know, ministers show up on the manifest, but it is not for accountability; it is merely so that we can charge back the various ministries involved. We do charge back the ministries or, in the case of MLAs, vote 1, the Speaker's vote. The ministers are registered there, but their costs come out of my vote.

K. Jones: I just want to clarify that the practice is that everyone else, including spouses or significant others, has to sign the manifest. Ministers do not have to sign the manifest -- or at least that has been the past practice. I was wondering if the minister would also consider changing that policy to make sure that ministers also put their signature on the manifest, so that there could be accountability that that person was actually on that flight. It is very easy not to have that person be on the flight if their signature is not there.

Hon. L. Boone: Any minister whose name appears on a flight manifest is on that flight. Their name would be stricken if they weren't actually there. I don't really see the point of having a minister sign. It is not accountability, as I just said. The signing is merely so that there is a record, so that it can be charged back to the various ministries we would get funds from. But in the case of ministers, all of the funds for ministerial travel come out of my vote -- rather unfairly, I think, too. Don't you? It does come out of my vote, and that's the way it is. There really is not a lot of point in instituting more bureaucratic procedures. I think we all have enough bureaucracy to deal with, and we don't need more.

K. Jones: I would just like to press this item a little further. You say it's not required for ministers, but it is required for everyone else. I think it is a matter of accountability, and I think it is very important that ministers have the same procedures as everybody else. There shouldn't be a special case for not signing. It's certainly not bureaucratic, because the matter of a person signing.... Everybody else has to sign at the same time, so it shouldn't be a very difficult thing for the staff or the crews to deal with. The real question is: is that minister on that flight? Is his spouse flying, maybe, or is his child flying in his place? We don't know. These are all possibilities, because there is no signature to prove that that person was actually there.

Hon. L. Boone: Obviously it seems to be a concern to the hon. member, so I will look into it.

A. Warnke: I would just like to follow up with a few short supplementary questions along the lines of what my hon. colleague has put forward. Indeed, I recognize -- and I think most members would recognize at the outset -- that when the minister puts forward the view that time is extremely important.... I think all of us do recognize -- indeed, the public does -- that the element of time is an essential factor to consider. Ministers especially have a tremendous premium on their time, I suspect more than members of the Legislature.

Nonetheless, I'm still prompted to follow through on some questions put forward by my colleague. 

[ Page 2606 ]

Indeed, in one example the minister put forward, illustrating that one way to save time.... There was an example here just recently of a situation where a person went from Prince George to Prince Rupert, rather than using some public air transportation by going from Prince George to Vancouver to Prince Rupert. Since the example was raised, I would like to ask: could the minister illustrate this a little further? What is the differential cost of the two routes, and since the rationale here is time, what was the time-line involved in this decision?

Hon. L. Boone: Our costs are 10 percent below what the ministry would be charged commercially. Are you specifically interested in the one from Prince Rupert?

A. Warnke: The one example. It should be done through the Chair.

Hon. L. Boone: I don't have the specific time, but I can tell you right now that Hon. Mr. Zirnhelt would have been on that particular flight, and it would have picked up me and the Crown counsel. As soon as we get 2.5 people -- I always wonder what happens to that other half-person -- we become cost-effective as an operation. Our goal is to make those flights as cost-effective as possible, so that we are saving the government dollars, we are cutting down the costs of maintaining and keeping our government air fleet, which we have to have because of the emergency services that we provide, and we are giving services to the government.

From Prince George to Prince Rupert, it's a matter of 40 minutes. From Prince George to Vancouver is an hour flight, from Vancouver to Prince Rupert is an hour flight, and there would be waiting-time in between. There's definitely tremendous time savings, particularly when you're dealing with people like Crown counsel. Their time is very limited, they are on tight schedules and have a lot of work to do. Prince George to Prince Rupert to Vancouver takes five hours, so we are able to save this particular government employee four hours' time and an overnight cost as well. I think that's good government.

A. Warnke: Just a supplementary. From the minister's remarks, I gather 2.5 persons, then, is the break-even point?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, it is. Now I won't try and kid you that there are not times when there are legs of the flight that don't have 2.5 people, because there are. What we want to do is try to make those flights as available as possible. They are coming up. The usage has been increasing ever since this started. We make those increases available so that we can get more people on them, save ourselves the cost of commercial flight, save ourselves the cost of overnight staying and save government money. A saving of $540,000 is expected in the first year of operation of this program.

A. Warnke: Perhaps just another supplementary. I think that the minister is quite correct to point out the differential here of flight time of 40 minutes as compared to five hours. Whom would this apply to? I suppose that question does beg itself as well, because if we're talking about ordinary government employees and public servants and so forth, then of course one could schedule flights so that the five hours are taken into consideration, if in fact there is some sort of saving. But I just want some qualification. Is the employee who is being flown from one city to another a consideration?

Hon. L. Boone: I've just been given a correction of 3.5 people, not 2.5. Sorry.

It is not being taken into consideration. It is our goal to make our planes available to everybody, so that government as a whole saves dollars. In the past, it was very much an exclusive operation. It was limited to the executive council. Government employees could get on, but they were frequently bumped off, and so they found that they didn't take the flights because they couldn't depend on them. We have put in a system whereby flights are guaranteed; they know they're going to have those flights available. They are broadly based and available to all government employees, recognizing no difference between somebody that works as a forester or the forest manager. Their jobs are equally important, their time is equally important, and they need to get back and forth and around the province.

This is a huge province. It's the size of Washington, Oregon and California combined, and we have to try and service it as best we can. I think we are providing a valuable service that will soon be recognized by all employees.

[3:15]

A. Warnke: Thank you for that particular answer. I would agree with the minister that sometimes we cannot make these kinds of distinctions, because there are certain individuals within the public service who, perhaps, are just as important as cabinet ministers or deputy ministers.

Hon. L. Boone: Probably more.

A. Warnke: Maybe even more, I would concur.

There is still one thing that needs to be followed through. I also thank the minister for making a clarification of the 3.5 figure, as opposed to 2.5. When we're exploring the differential in times, we can obviously make a fairly good judgment call that there's a significant difference between 40 minutes and five hours of flight time. But I'm wondering if the minister could tell us whether there is any criterion in which there is a difference between 40 minutes and something else -- one hour, two hours, or.... Is there another threshold of time in there? Could the minister explain that? Because that too is important in figuring costs.

Hon. L. Boone: Are you still referring to the coordinated travel flights? Or are you referring to any other flights?

[ Page 2607 ]

A. Warnke: It's unusual that the member has asked the question, but, to clarify for her, I'm referring to coordinated flights or perhaps other categories of flights as well. One flight from Vancouver to wherever.

Hon. L. Boone: The coordinated flights we have were brought about through Government Air working with the airlines to complement their services. We were looking at putting one in to Fort Nelson. In fact, we found out that there was going to be a commercial flight from Prince George to Fort Nelson, so we worked around that.

The flights are worked on a basis not so much as to improve the time.... In some cases it does improve the time; in some cases it doesn't. For example, if I take the morning flight from Prince George to here, I would get here faster using the commercial flight. But by doing it this way, I figure I'm saving the government money if it also carries Zirnhelt and Crown counsel, it picks up Miller, and Ramsey is on it as well.

The Chair: I would remind the hon. minister to refer to....

Hon. L. Boone: Names.

The Chair: Thank you. The hon. minister understands.

Hon. L. Boone: One forgets that this is the same as the chamber, hon. Chair.

If one could take the members for Prince George North and for Cariboo South and those areas, then we are in fact saving the government money, and we are committed to implementing this program that is going to save the government money. As I said, in that case it takes me longer to get here, but it's worth it if we're going to save a few dollars.

A. Warnke: I appreciate that, because we obviously are considering, I suppose, other modes of air travel where we do use commercial jets to save time. I'm interested in that, and I thank the minister for the answer.

But there's still, I suppose, a criterion which I would like to have confirmed. This is quite relevant to the debate before us in estimates, because we have to make decisions as to how we spend money -- by going either route A or route B. In particular, how would one develop a criterion for saving time closer to home -- that is, closer to Victoria, if we consider this home? It is a rather small place here, and I agree with the minister, but Victoria to Nanaimo, or Vancouver to Kelowna.... Again, commercial use obviously should be a criterion here, compared to using the various government jets. I understand the minister is selling off the Challenger and we're going to a fleet of 550s. But again, it is not very far to Kelowna and Penticton, and even closer to the lower mainland -- Victoria and Vancouver. Perhaps this is a better illustration of where the threshold of time is that is being considered, whether the minister should consider releasing a government jet or essentially suggesting that we should use a commercial flight.

Hon. L. Boone: If you're looking at the coordinated flights, we do not service the Vancouver area through the coordinated flights; nor do we do Nanaimo. A flight comes down and goes into Campbell River. We do service Cranbrook, Kamloops, Kelowna, Penticton and the areas further out -- Williams Lake and Prince George. So we do the outer areas. But the area between Vancouver and Victoria is very well served by commercial flights, both from Pat Bay and from the heliport down here. It wouldn't be sensible for us to duplicate that service. There are so many people there, as well, that our little jets, which only hold 14 people, would soon be filled up. We don't look to implementing any sort of a coordinated flight within those areas.

A. Warnke: There's still one more question, then I'll gladly turn it over to someone else.

Again, from flights originating out of Vancouver for Kelowna, Penticton, obviously for Victoria, and I'm thinking of other locations -- the minister mentioned Campbell River, and so forth.... This is still very close to the Vancouver area. Is there an emphasis here, in what I'm getting from the minister, that under those circumstances we would focus on providing members of the government with commercial flights to these places, as opposed to using government jets?

Hon. L. Boone: Again, it depends. If you are talking about regional coordinated flights, we are focusing on the regions and not on the Vancouver or Victoria areas. We're not looking to duplicate those services that already exist. We're looking to complement services in the regions that are often inadequate and make life very difficult for both members and government workers who are trying to service those areas and do their jobs.

A. Warnke: I want to follow up on one other point that my colleague raised earlier. I would like some clarification on it. I believe my colleague was trying to emphasize accountability. Somehow when we talk about cabinet ministers having to be accountable to a manifest.... We know what has taken place in the past. My colleague mentioned this, and I'm sure the minister is also aware of it. I'm wondering whether the minister, in preparing the budget for this coming year, prepared it in light of changing the policies whereby ministers are more accountable to the manifest. Perhaps there was just too much of a time pressure on the minister, but I'll let the minister explain that.

Hon. L. Boone: I don't know about being accountable to the manifest. Ministers are certainly accountable to Treasury Board, to their constituents and to the public as a whole, but I don't think anybody is accountable to a manifest. The manifest exists and, as I understand it, is a regulation of Transport Canada. We have to list everybody who is on a plane. We have to make sure that those people are there or that their 

[ Page 2608 ]

names are off. There is no accountability with regard to the manifest. If a minister chooses not to show up, his or her name is taken off that manifest. There's no way of holding him or her accountable for not showing up.

A. Warnke: Of course, when one is talking about being accountable to a manifest, one is saying so in the context that, of course, a cabinet minister should be accountable to the public and to the people, and that the manifest is a means to that. I think my colleague pointed out very clearly that there still seems to be some anomaly in the system, and so I'm simply asking the question following from the anomaly that he pointed out. The answer provided by the minister earlier is that.... Did the minister prepare the budget with some notion, perhaps in light of changing the policy, of how much more accountable the minister should be to the people through a manifest or some other means? We're contemplating also changing policy here.

Hon. L. Boone: In formulating our budget, we took into consideration coordinated regional travel, the sale of the Challenger and a number of different things. Coordinated regional travel does hold the ministers accountable to an extent. In the past a minister would be able to phone up and ask if a jet could be made available, and go to one place or another. There was no effort made to say: "You must try to fit your schedule into this coordinated flight that we have." There was none of that taking place. Now ministers are accountable. We do have to try to fit our schedules within the parameters that we have. We did go to Treasury Board, and this was brought forth. Ministries have to fit within the budget that is in my budget here. Certainly all of those things were taken into consideration.

As I stated earlier to the member with regard to the signing of the manifest, I'd be happy to look into this for the future.

K. Jones: I'd like to carry on a little bit further in this area. Earlier we asked if the minister had published guidelines as to the appropriate use of these aircraft. I can't recall what the minister said in that regard.

Hon. L. Boone: GMOP -- government management operations policy. That's where the guidelines are for the operation of Government Air.

K. Jones: That doesn't exactly tell me. Are these the printed guidelines that are issued? Could we have a copy tabled?

The Chair: It's not appropriate to table documents in Committee of Supply.

K. Jones: I see. Could the minister make them available at her earliest convenience?

Hon. L. Boone: We'd be more than happy to give you a copy of GMOP.

K. Jones: Thank you.

Ontario seems to get by with two turboprop aircraft for ferrying their Premier and cabinet ministers around and leases the only two air ambulance jets that it operates. Could you tell us in your serious review of your operations -- your air arm here -- how you can justify continuing with government-owned aircraft versus leasing?

[3:30]

Hon. L. Boone: I have been informed that some of the information that you have is not quite correct. In fact, Ontario leases -- short-and long-term -- about 20-odd aircraft, so I think we do very well with the five that we have.

K. Jones: Am I hearing that the minister has reviewed the option of going to a completely leased operation versus ownership and has come to the conclusion that this is the most economical way to provide services to the people of British Columbia?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, that analysis has been done. We've estimated that we save the taxpayers about 20 percent.

K. Jones: We've been reviewing the flight logs on a minister-by-minister basis -- I might add with the cooperation of this minister. I appreciate that opportunity and hope that we'll be able to continue monitoring them so that we can let the public be aware of how successful they are in bringing in this new program.

The only glaring thing we have found, other than skiing holidays for a particular member, is a rather frequent....

Hon. L. Boone: Point of order. The hon. member is suggesting something that he knows is quite out of order and not true. I would ask him to withdraw those remarks.

The Chair: Your point of order is well taken, hon. minister.

Hon. member, the Chair would ask you to withdraw those remarks, as they are not part of the supply estimates in the examination of the ministry and impinge on another member's character. Would the hon. member please withdraw those remarks?

K. Jones: Mr. Chairman....

The Chair: Would the hon. member please withdraw the remarks.

A. Warnke: Point of order. I believe that what my colleague was mentioning was just a brief aside, but the fact is that there still... The minister in question that my colleague was referring to.... That particular trip, as I understand it, still comes under the operations of the ministry for this year, is no doubt something that the minister should be concerned with and indeed is consistent with the line of questioning that has taken place this afternoon. Therefore I'm really wondering where specifically in the standing orders.... If my 

[ Page 2609 ]

colleague wants to withdraw that particular remark, that's fine, but that is up to the member. However, if he wants to pursue this particular line of questioning, it is entirely within his purview to do so.

Hon. L. Boone: On a point of order, if the hon. member wanted to pursue some questioning, I would be more than happy to answer questions with regard to that particular episode. For him to make a statement that it was a skiing holiday is totally out of order and incorrect, and I would ask him to withdraw that.

The Chair: To answer the question of the member for Richmond-Steveston, the hon. member in his reference to a skiing holiday is casting aspersions on the character of another member. The Chair has asked the member to withdraw those statements. Hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale, the Chair asks again: will you withdraw that statement?

K. Jones: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I will withdraw the statement that relates to a skiing holiday of a particular member.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. Carry on.

K. Jones: Is the rather frequent use of the public's jet by an interior member as a regular service...? We are still reviewing the availability of commercial flights from that community to Victoria, so I have no tough questions today.

Has the minister issued any set of written or verbal guidelines for the use of aircraft when commercial flights are available at the same time?

Hon. L. Boone: The minister has used the government operations manual. The ministers are charged to try to utilize the commercial flights if possible, but that doesn't always fit into their schedule or make it available to them. So ministers are able to request an aircraft whenever they feel that it is necessary for them in the operation of their duties as a minister.

K. Jones: Is there a set of guidelines for ministers in determining when spouses are permissible on flights?

Hon. L. Boone: That's in GMOP.

K. Jones: Has the hon. Minister of Labour indicated who he met with in Courtenay-Comox on March 20?

Hon. L. Boone: Well, that's for the Minister of Labour to know, and I'm not about to ask another minister what his or her business is.

K. Jones: In light of the fact that the Minister of Labour has failed to let us and the public know who he met with, which he had said he would, I was wondering if the...

The Chair: Order, hon. member. Your line of questioning is stretching the limits of irrelevancy in the debate in front of us.

K. Jones: I was getting to it.

The Chair: I would request that you stay within the guidelines of the Minister of Government Services.

K. Jones: If I had had the opportunity to complete, I would have gone on to say: had the hon. Minister of Labour paid back the approximately $1,400 difference between the commercial rate and the government cost for that flight?

Hon. L. Boone: No, the minister was on ministerial business. He had meetings in both locations, and I can tell you that the commercial flights returning to Comox did not leave until after the time of the meeting that was required there. As you know, he's a hard-working minister, and he tries to get around and do and see as much as he can. He is in demand throughout this province, so it's not highly unlikely that he would have meetings in Vancouver and in Comox and in numerous other places, possibly on Saturday and Sunday; but I'm not about to question the minister as to what he does. I know that he works very hard on behalf of the province, and I know that he would not -- and he did not -- use that flight for his own personal use at that time, other than to perform his ministerial duties.

K. Jones: It would appear, therefore, that the hon. minister has not made any contribution back for that flight. He has admitted that he did go skiing after the meeting -- that no one has been able to identify in searching the vicinity. He has not brought the assurance to us that he did....

The Chair: Hon. member, order please. We are not examining the Minister of Labour in these debates. Please frame your questions to the Minister of Government Services, under the estimates for her office. Thank you.

K. Jones: I'm trying to meet the deadlines that I've indicated to the minister for these estimates, but when I am continually trying to present my case and being interrupted all the time, I'm having some difficulty trying to keep within that guideline.

I'd like to turn to archives and records services. Before we leave that area, I'd like to give others an opportunity to come into the debate on air services.

A. Warnke: I just want to follow up on some of the questions posed by my colleague, to seek clarification from the minister with regard to a comment that she made a little while ago: that along the lines of government operations, she does not, as minister, question the business of the minister. I think the minister recognizes full well that any ministerial business is the business of the public. Indeed, it is our role, I believe, as members of the Legislature, to inquire into those questions. Henceforth I'd like to seek as a clarification from the minister the criteria, especially in light of the incident referred to by my colleague, with not only members of the Legislature pointing this out but also members of the public. Surely it came to the 

[ Page 2610 ]

minister's attention that this was an issue that perhaps begged some further qualification. It does therefore ask the minister to clarify the policy and criterion. Regardless of what the minister did -- and there were some questions about what that particular minister did -- what is the policy and the criterion? Rather than just assume that the minister's doing a fine job.... I hope all ministers and MLAs are doing a fine job. Therefore what it begs from the public, considering that we're dealing with the public business here, is: what is the criterion? What are some of the elements that go into deciding whether a flight from Vancouver to Comox, from Vancouver to Campbell River or from Vancouver to Nanaimo should be conducted on a government jet or by utilizing commercial aircraft? It goes along the lines of some of the questions I asked earlier. What is the time criterion by which one differentiates whether a minister should go on one flight or another? That question was not answered specifically earlier.

Hon. L. Boone: This ministry provides a service -- if you would listen at the beginning -- to government. We are here to provide services; we are not here to regulate ministers. Ministers are accountable to Treasury Board and the public. They are accountable for their actions. As long as they are on ministerial business, they are eligible to ask for the use of the government jet. It is not my responsibility to question whether they are on ministerial business, what that ministerial business is or to judge whether that ministerial business is, in fact, important or not. What may seem important to me may not be important to somebody else, or what is crucially important to another minister in the operation of his or her ministry may not seem important. It is up to the minister and the minister's office to decide if it's necessary for the government jet to be used.

I can assure you that their staff looks at alternatives. They look through the commercial flights to see if it's possible for them to go commercially. If not, then a government jet is requested. I do not intend to implement any kind of program that questions my colleagues as to whether or not they are going on ministerial business or whether they are in fact using it for any purpose they are saying. I do not intend to question them, hon. member, because they are hon. members themselves and are accountable for all of their actions. They surely aren't accountable to me.

[3:45]

A. Warnke: To make it very clear to this minister -- what is not being questioned here is the differentiation between one kind of government business that's being conducted by a minister and another kind of government business being conducted by another minister. Clearly -- and the minister knows this -- there was a public discussion as to whether there was any sort of mix of government business and private interest. Therefore in preparing the budget, I do wonder whether this minister.... I asked the question before, but it's not very clear, and indeed the answer just given by the minister is a bit disturbing. I would assume that she thinks it is appropriate for other ministers to believe that it is not the intention of this government to implement a policy to make ministers more accountable.

I think it is quite in line with this ministry that in preparing a budget it ought to consider appropriate changes so that ministers are more accountable and so that we do not get this mix of private business on one hand and government business on the other. That was the controversy. I suspect, with some of the comments made by the minister, that we're going to see more of a controversy, because now there is a grey area. There is not a clear criterion in which one minister can distinguish between private business on one hand and public business on the other. Surely this party knows as well as anyone what has happened in the past, when some ministers have on occasion flirted with the rules. Therefore I think it is appropriate that in preparing the budget for this year.... I'll give the minister one more chance: has the minister considered changing the rules in such a way that the ministers become more accountable?

Hon. L. Boone: Ministers are accountable. They're accountable all the time. We have made them even more accountable by releasing logs on a regular basis. They will be released every quarter. That was not happening before. They are accountable, then. They were accountable not to me at that point in time, but to the public. That's even more important. The ministers are the ones who have to defend their actions. It certainly is not me who is going to be questioning what a minister does on his or her travel. It is up to the minister to decide if that is important. It is up to the minister to decide the mode of transportation and how they want to travel. It is not up to this ministry and this service to question and regulate ministerial travel. That is not a part of the mandate of this minister and this ministry.

H. De Jong: It has been an interesting debate this afternoon. Certainly I have some sympathy with the minister in terms of determining which are public and which are commercial air flights and where they should be designated. However, I have some concern with the minister's statements about making this a paying proposition. I can appreciate it on the one hand. But on the other hand, when we look at those in faraway places in British Columbia who have perhaps somewhat limited air service via commercial flights -- places like Prince George are not that limited -- it would appear to me, if I get the minister's statement correct in terms of making this a paying proposition, that it could hinder the services provided by commercial airlines. We have heard all about Air Canada going into more remote areas and having had to either raise those rates considerably or cut the services. Even though ministers don't travel every day, once or twice a week they usually travel from one point to another. Has the minister considered, in light of the ministry's policy to make these things payable or to make a fair return on the air service as such, that this could have a detrimental effect on the commercial airlines going to the rather remote areas of the province?

[ Page 2611 ]

Hon. L. Boone: I think those concerns were taken into consideration when we were looking into this whole program. Dianne Lawson met with the commercial airlines to try to point out to them that we didn't want to be in competition with them. Where possible, our services complement theirs. As I stated earlier, we were looking at going into Fort Nelson but found that we were in fact going to be in competition with them. We opted not to do that but to bring our service to Prince George, which then goes out from there.

You're right, Prince George is not badly serviced in terms of airlines, but it is a centre for regional government operations. People do leave there and go outside, so you have to put your operations where the regional headquarters are. We are working hard to complement services where necessary and to provide as efficient and successful service as we can for the government. We in no means want to be in competition with the airlines.

I was wrong earlier. They said 14. Well, it's 14 seats going there and back, so I guess it's just seven seats one-way. That is not going to be a whole lot of competition in some areas, but we are trying to service routes where and when the commercial flights are not servicing them.

H. De Jong: If the ministry would take the position, though, that government air services would only be applicable when no other flights are available, would you actually need a replacement for the Challenger? Or could you simply sell it and not increase your fleet?

Hon. L. Boone: We aren't replacing the Challenger; we are replacing the 500 with another 550, which is going to be converted entirely for ambulance use. We will have the same two jets utilized for coordinated air travel. The increase will be in the air ambulance services, and I don't think many people would argue with the importance of that.

K. Jones: A few more questions have just come up that I wanted to ask the hon. minister. They are with regard to the sale price of the Challenger. It has been indicated that you are asking $6.3 million (U.S.) through the brokers. I believe that is now being brokered in Ontario. Could you give us a confirmation, from your standpoint, that that is a realistic figure for expected sale? I presume you've included that in your budget. There are indications that the more realistic figure would be $5.8 million (U.S.) or less.

Hon. L. Boone: That is an asking price. As everybody knows, when you sell a used vehicle or a car you don't expect to get what you're asking. We are asking that and expect to negotiate, but we'll get a fair price for the province.

K. Jones: I've spent five years living up in the Peace River district, and I know that many of the people there have felt that they were often thought of as castoffs from the province. In fact at one point, there was such a feeling of alienation that they actually approached Alberta for annexation. That created a movement by British Columbia -- I think it was W.A.C. Bennett's time -- to extend B.C. Rail up into the Peace River district and build the Hart Highway to give them a connection to the province. I noticed in your coordinated regional travel flight that the Peace River district -- Dawson Creek, Fort St. John, Hudson Hope and Fort Nelson -- are not included in your routing. Is this because the people who are members for that area are members of the Social Credit Party, the rest of the government workers up in that area are sort of out in hinterland, and it's not worth bothering to send a plane out to provide them with better services? Or are we just isolating that area once again? The Peace River area, in the minds of the people down here in Victoria, doesn't exist.

Hon. L. Boone: None of the above, hon. member. As I was saying to the former member, we looked at trying to limit our competition with the commercial airlines. In fact, when we met with the airlines and with the commercial industry, we discovered that there was a small airline, Central Mountain Air, that was looking to implement a service up there. It wasn't our intent to put this company out of business, so we altered our schedule and made it so that we would connect with them -- thereby complementing their service and not being in competition with it.

K. Jones: That's very good. It's good to see that coordination. Is similar coordination being done in the arranging of schedules in other parts of the province?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes. Dianne Lawson met with the commercial airlines and worked with them to try to alleviate any of the problems that they had or any of the problems they had with us implementing these services. That was the only one that resulted in a change, from my understanding. The rest of them, I think, accepted the fact that we were providing a service that they weren't able to give at this particular time.

A. Warnke: I believe my colleague -- as well as the minister, I'm sure -- would like to move on to other things. But I have one more question that really begs clarification. I want the minister to clarify and confirm, essentially, one question -- just to make sure on this point. Is there a set of guidelines to establish when government aircraft is used instead of commercial aircraft, and do these guidelines mean that such decisions must be approved by your ministry?

[4:00]

Hon. L. Boone: There is a listing in GMOP, government management operations policy, that lists the areas. They do not have to be approved by me unless they go outside the province. If there is a flight into the Yukon, to Alberta or across to Ottawa, it has to be approved by me.

K. Jones: Moving along, with regard to vehicle management, could you indicate how many vehicles are in your fleet, the rough types that are involved and 

[ Page 2612 ]

the centres for maintenance you have with regard to those?

Hon. L. Boone: We have about 5,000 vehicles. They're all light vehicles. I think there's a variety of vehicles from 2-door small cars, to pick-ups, to 4-by-4s in some cases, depending on the uses required by various ministries. We have literally hundreds of maintenance centres throughout the province. In every centre and every community, there is a garage that is licensed as a government maintenance garage.

K. Jones: You say there are hundreds of licensed maintenance garages. You are talking about private garages, not government-owned. Are there any government-owned garages in the province?

Hon. L. Boone: There's a handful of them remaining in the Ministry of Highways, but they are very few.

K. Jones: Are the ones remaining in the Ministry of Highways doing all of the vehicle maintenance for government vehicles within that area?

Hon. L. Boone: No, it's still done mainly through private centres under contract to us.

K. Jones: From a philosophical standpoint, does the minister have any plans, or is she undertaking any reviews, to implement a government-operated maintenance facility either on a trial basis or as an overall concept, to bring all the maintenance under government direction?

Hon. L. Boone: No, we're not looking at that right now. As an aside, I think you should realize just how many garages depend on government business, and that would be severely hit if we suddenly decided to do all of this stuff in-house.

K. Jones: The minister is exactly correct, and that's why we're asking the question. Those people have a great deal of concern...

Hon. L. Boone: Good minister!

K. Jones: Yes. The public has a great deal of concern about the philosophical standpoint; the NDP is generally noted for its consolidation of businesses under government edict rather than having them operated under private contract. I'm glad to see that you're going to continue that private contracting.

Could you just elaborate on the travel management services? Do you have a travel agency operation or something similar to that? Is that what you mean?

Hon. L. Boone: No. We chair a group that is currently reviewing some of the policies we have and the way we handle some $70 million of travel money in the province, to see if there is a way we can handle it more efficiently and possibly save taxpayers' dollars.

K. Jones: I will turn to archives and records services. This area is probably where a fair amount of money will be spent in the coming 12 months to prepare for freedom of information legislation. Could the minister elaborate on what the workplan is at the moment?

Hon. L. Boone: I will read this out so that you will understand it a little easier, because if I paraphrase it, you may not.

Archives and records services projects. We are doing appraisal and selection of backlogged government information, destruction of scheduled records, development of policies and procedures and arrangement and description of key archival records. That's in preparation for freedom of information legislation.

I'd like to introduce to the committee John Bovey, who is the chief archivist here. He is well-qualified and does good work.

K. Jones: I say welcome to you, Mr.Bovey. It's a pleasure having you here. From all indications I have seen, you do wonderful work, and it must be a very difficult task. The volumes you have to deal with over the years, and probably every year, must be a great burden. It's quite an achievement to keep them all in order, and it will be an even greater achievement as you now face the new responsibility of making them accessible to the public through the freedom of information legislation.

How has staff justified the need for $6 million in year one of freedom of information for mere start-up? How does the minister see that allocation being spent between the various ministries?

Hon. L. Boone: As the member indicated, that is being spent between all the ministries. I don't know how they are doing it. We are there to give advice and to assist them in their record management, but I know that many ministries have a considerable job to do in getting their records in order for FOI when it comes on line. Some ministries will not have a difficult time. They will find their record-keeping adequate and will make just a small adjustment in order to accommodate the FOI legislation. But, as I stated, some will have considerable work ahead of them getting themselves in order. I can't tell you how they are divvying up those dollars within their ministries.

K. Jones: Just further to that, I understand that it's your ministry's responsibility to actually administer that $6 million. I was just wondering. You're saying you don't know how the ministries are going to divvy it up. How do you intend to prioritize the requests from the various ministries for start-up dollars?

Hon. L. Boone: We are responsible for divvying up that money, and there is a lengthy list here. I can give it to you now, if you like, or we can make it available to you on paper later. Would you like me to read these out to you now?

K. Jones: You can go over it later.

[ Page 2613 ]

Hon. L. Boone: The money has been divided to the different ministries based on their needs. They are developing their record management, and we are assisting them in helping to develop their record management plans.

K. Jones: Just for the record, yes, you can give it to us a later time. Sorry I spoke out ahead there.

With regard to that, have you already determined a requirement for each ministry to spend a certain amount of this $6 million, so that's already budgeted and determined now? Is what you have there correct?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, that's correct.

K. Jones: What sort of priorities are being issued to the ministries for things that must be done first in this area? What sort of order is there in trying to get them on line, such as training, gathering of records and microfilming? What sort of backup preparation is being done in that regard?

Hon. L. Boone: The first priority is locating and describing the various records they have. That's not an easy chore in some cases. That's the first priority, and then there's the training with regard to that.

K. Jones: Does that mean that the ministries are going to be hiring detectives to locate the files, that PIs are going to have a big surplus in work in the next short while? What are the next criteria for implementation under your budget?

Hon. L. Boone: No, private eyes won't find much work here, but certainly good people with administrative skills who know paperwork -- people such as those who work in John Bovey's shop -- would find work here. Once we get them, it is a matter of establishing systems to deal with the whole FOI information we have: ministry automated systems, ministry policy development and training initiatives, and operational program impact.

K. Jones: Does that mean that the archives are going to be seconding staff to the various ministries? Are they hiring more staff, or are you going to train staff in each ministry?

Hon. L. Boone: It's my understanding that ministries will be seconding people from within their organization and then filling the other levels -- the backloading will be there. It will be ministries seconding within themselves, because the information records will be developed within their own ministries.

K. Jones: Who is going to be responsible for doing the training of these people? Obviously the people within the ministry aren't trained to do this type of work; otherwise that work would have been done in the past.

Hon. L. Boone: The archives will be coordinating the training.

K. Jones: How many archives and records locations are there in Victoria?

Hon. L. Boone: Two offices, and we have some off-site storage as well.

K. Jones: Could the minister indicate which other communities have storage facilities located in their areas and what she thinks about decentralization of some of the archives and records storage requirements?

Hon. L. Boone: We have one in Vancouver, and we're looking at the feasibility of establishing another one someplace in the interior. I think they're a good idea. I think they allow ministries to coordinate their efforts in storing records, so that you don't have records scattered throughout cities. It saves the taxpayers dollars in terms of the warehousing or storage facilities we have to have. Often ministries do not have enough to have a facility of their own. When you combine it all, it makes good sense to have it in one facility.

K. Jones: In a similar vein, I received a letter from the Surrey Public Library -- I'm sure other people have received letters from libraries -- indicating that they've submitted a proposal to become a B.C. government publication depository. They'd like to be integrated into the freedom-of-information-and-privacy legislation. Has the minister reviewed or received such letters? Is the ministry working on a system that would make full depository services available through the major community libraries in the province?

Hon. L. Boone: The library services branch is under the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. I'm afraid you're going to have to ask that minister.

K. Jones: This is in direct relationship to the freedom-of-information legislation as a vehicle by which people would be able to access government documentation. I don't think this is the Ministry of Municipal Affairs' area.

Hon. L. Boone: That's under Municipal Affairs -- what they do with records management, whether they would allow those libraries to become.... They're talking about the library services branches, aren't they?

Interjection.

Hon. L. Boone: Depository libraries are not something that I have any knowledge of. You'll have to talk to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

[4:15]

K. Jones: Just to clarify that, does that mean that the minister, within her budget, has no plans to make provision for making these various government documents that will be available to the general public through the freedom of information.... Will she not be making those available in community centres? Or are people all going to have to come to Victoria in order to see these documents?

[ Page 2614 ]

Hon. L. Boone: The funds for a depository system are in the Municipal Affairs budget. I don't know anything about that system. You're going to have to talk to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

K. Jones: I know that the funds are in the Minister of Municipal Affairs' budget for the library operations, but these documents have to be duplicated and made available at some place. Is your ministry, which holds these documents, going to make an expenditure in order to provide the copies that will be used on microfilm, or whatever means, to these other community locations?

Hon. L. Boone: Things in the public library would not be archival material; they would be publications. We have no moneys for any of those things. It's within the Municipal Affairs budget.

K. Jones: I'm not sure that the minister understands the question. We're talking about documents that will be made available under the freedom of information legislation, and we're talking about whether these will be made available in areas outside of the depository location in Victoria. That's all we're talking about, and that falls totally under your ministry, I believe.

Hon. L. Boone: Under the freedom of information, the applicant makes application to the government office in their location -- not to Victoria, or anything like that. There's money in the Municipal Affairs budget to deal with the depository system, as I told you. That would be dealing with some of these issues you're talking about.

K. Jones: I think we've explored that about as far as we can.

I'd like to move now to the Queen's Printer and warehousing. I don't have a lot here, except to give the minister an opportunity to let the committee know of any plans for change in operations for the coming year.

Hon. L. Boone: I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Vern Burkhardt, who is the Queen's Printer. He's here to answer any questions you have. All I can say about the Queen's Printer is that at this particular time we have no anticipated changes for the operations. If you have any particular questions, Mr. Burkhardt will be more than happy to answer them.

K. Jones: The Queen's Printer has historically offered a direct and very useful service to members of the Legislative Assembly. I'd like to thank them at this time for again carrying on with this excellent tradition of service. I'd also like to thank them for the very innovative service they've started to implement with regard to printing Braille on business cards that members and government officials are able to utilize. It has been a very positive and forward step. I think that everybody, once they've seen it, would like to have similar processes. It's been received well in the community. It shows that the people in the government on all sides who have utilized this are sensitive to sightless people and people with sight disabilities. I really appreciate the opportunity to have my own business cards done that way, thanks very much to the first opportunity we had to meet with your deputy minister and see your reports, in which the superannuation commissioner had his business cards done in Braille, and I remarked on how good it was. Fortunately, the Queen's Printer, through the ADM, was able to accommodate my interest in it, and I see that they're now doing it for others. I really appreciate it. I think it's a very commendable service to the people of this province who have sight disabilities.

Could the minister give the committee an update on how the privatized Crown Publications operation is doing?

The Chair: I would remind the hon. members again of standing order 61. We are examining those areas under the minister's supply. If the department has been privatized, I'm wondering if the minister does have influence under her ministry.

Hon. L. Boone: The only thing I can tell the member is that their contract is up in April next year. Other than that, I don't know how their business is doing.

K. Jones: Does the minister have any plans to consider bringing that currently private company, which has basically a utility operation -- that is, they primarily serve Government Services only...? Has the minister any plans, or is she working on any current things within her budget, to bring about a change in the operation, perhaps incorporating it, as some other areas have been suggested, and coming back into government operations?

Hon. L. Boone: That is future policy, and I'm really not at liberty to talk about anything in that line.

K. Jones: The minister has clarified that.

Just out of interest, could the minister comment on how the move to recycle paper is impacting Queen's Printer operations? Is the printing process working as smoothly as before? How much of the printing is done on recycled paper? What process is being used for the recycling of paper that is used within the building?

Hon. L. Boone: The process is working fine. We are currently using about 95 percent recycled paper at Queen's Printer. And as you know, these buildings and all government operations through BCBC have a recycling program, which is working very well. Even in communities such as Prince George, which didn't have recycling at all, we were providing a service and collecting paper -- something that I think the public wants to see happen.

K. Jones: Does the minister mean that the Prince George recycling program is using Government Air to bring their recycled paper down here for reuse?

Hon. L. Boone: No.

[ Page 2615 ]

K. Jones: Do any other members wish to enter into this discussion at this point? Okay, we'll continue onto protocol. There is a reduction in expenditures in the vote for protocol. Could the minister explain the change in priorities?

Hon. L. Boone: We have eliminated the hospitality grants program, which, as you may know, provided grants to groups which had government members attend a banquet -- then they received dollars from that. It was felt that in tight economic times it really wasn't appropriate for us to be spending government money to assist various groups of people, some of them fairly affluent groups of people, to feed themselves. This has been eliminated. I think it is fair to say that protocol has taken the mandate which we have given them, which is to try to scale down any of the events that are taking place, so that we are not nearly as costly -- that the events that are taking place are still done adequately, but without a lot of the pomp and splendour that costs the taxpayers a lot of dollars.

Protocol have a very good function that they have to do in providing assistance to the various embassies and to the people that come through this province. They show them around Victoria; assist them in finding areas to go to; help them out; introduce them to the various ministries; and set up meetings with the different ministers, whether it be the Economic Development minister, the Forests minister, the Premier or what have you. Their mandate, as I said, in terms of providing any kind of function is to make sure that we are providing a good function, but that it is a scaled-down function that is not seen to be an expensive one.

K. Jones: The minister has indicated that she is scaling down the functions and making them much more cost-effective. With regard to the Order of B.C. awards presentation, later in the week I believe, has there been a reduction in the process or pomp and circumstances of that event? Is there a cost-saving with regard to that? I might relate that one hon. member has stated that it was going to cost him a new suit, and his wife was going to have to buy a new dress for this event. Are there other cost-savings?

Hon. L. Boone: We did make a reduction in this, but we made it at the beginning, with a reduced number of Order of B.C. recipients. By reducing the number of recipients, we reduced the cost, because of the families and all those people that would have to be accommodated. We did scale down the Order of B.C., but we still want to provide a good service for those people who are being recognized for the service they've given to the province, and I wouldn't want to take them to McDonald's for a hamburger afterwards. But we are doing so, I think, in a good manner. If there's an hon. member who has to go out and buy a suit or a dress, well then, I think that's good for the economy, whether it be here in Victoria or in their home community. Let's get those bucks spending. There's no point in keeping them in your pocket, hon. member, especially during a recession.

[4:30]

K. Jones: It sounds like the hon. minister feels that protocol is now part of the Department of Economic Development -- another phase, along with the Purchasing Commission's development arm as well. There are lots of entrepreneurs in this socialist government.

It's a shame, you know, that we don't have something on the horizon that's truly worth celebrating. British Columbians in the past have benefited from celebrations of Canada's centennial, British Columbia's centennial, the tall ships and visits by dignitaries from around the world. Has the minister any ideas to share with the committee on the future role of protocol in her ministry, and how government might be more creative in this area of historical celebrations at less cost to taxpayers?

Hon. L. Boone: We're currently dealing with the bicentennial, the maritime centennial and a lot of different issues around this particular time, but I think the member has to recognize the sensitivity that has to be connected to the events right now. When you look at celebrating the Mackenzie Trail or Captain Vancouver's trip here, some out there would say that this was not something that should be celebrated. In fact, some of our native population would view this as not necessarily a good thing that was happening. So we are trying to work around these areas, to deal with some of these celebrations very sensitively, to recognize the variety of values out there and to take into consideration all those values when we are celebrating these events. The bicentennial program and the Sea-to-Sea program being chaired by my colleague from Prince George North are using the people in the communities to vet various events. These events are very cost-effective. There's not a whole lot of money out there, but I think they will be of great value to the community in trying to celebrate some of these areas, recognizing the variety of concerns around how you celebrate these things. I think the days when we could celebrate with a great hoopla the coming of the explorers to Canada or to B.C. are over, and we have to recognize our native heritages, the impact there and what it means to them.

There are a number of different areas. I think protocol is doing a good job of working with people in the various communities, pulling in the various people involved there and their concerns, recognizing these concerns and bringing about appropriate events that we can be proud of, but recognizing that there are limited dollars out there.

K. Jones: The minister is saying on the one hand that they're out there being very entrepreneurial, but when we come to protocol areas, it sounds in some respects like we're now cutting back in celebration areas. This would really impact on the province's economics, particularly the small business person. They gain a lot from these celebrations that we have. The multiple dollars attracted through tourism, both within and from outside, have a very positive flow into the community and into the province as a whole, and also a lot to do with just the general business flow in passing money around.

[ Page 2616 ]

The maritime bicentennial event was this past weekend. I was wondering whether the minister could share with the committee what initiatives were taken to promote this event. It didn't appear to be all that well promoted.

Hon. L. Boone: The provincial government was one of the major contributors to that event, and it was extensively promoted. Unfortunately the weather didn't cooperate, but it was a program that sounded tremendous, and as I said, it took into consideration and sensitively recognized that people coming to British Columbia at different times had different impressions of British Columbia, and that some of them had tremendously good things to say about us, but others may not have been quite as complimentary as to how they were received. The program that took place on the weekend was to recognize and to give everyone an opportunity to speak out and talk about how their coming to British Columbia affected them, and what their feelings were on this.

When I first met the organizer of that event, he was saying it was kind of interesting because a native woman said: "I'm not sure. I may picket, or I may speak at one of these events." He said: "I hope you do both." I'm not sure whether she did both or did neither, but I think that it could have been a really successful and unique event that would have brought a lot of British Columbians to view others and to see how their lives have been impacted by coming to B.C.

K. Jones: I presume that this program will continue throughout this year. I see there's a series of events, but I was wondering what part this ministry was playing in promoting this program throughout the year. The brochure that the minister sent to the members indicates.... Maybe everybody should have got a copy of this brochure. It talks about British Columbia, Washington and Oregon all celebrating together. So far I haven't heard anything in the media about Washington or Oregon in coordination with this. I haven't even seen much in the media about this event. What work is being done in that area?

Hon. L. Boone: We have about $650,000 for the maritime bicentennial and about $200,000 for the Sea-to-Sea. We are to coordinate some of the events and assist with them. It's done in cooperation with the media, and they are providing assistance in getting and promoting these various events. We merely provide assistance to the communities. The communities then take the ball and go with it and work up their various programs. A number of them have come forth. We've seen a few in the last little while, and there will be some more throughout the year.

K. Jones: Could the minister indicate to us how she is monitoring these expenditures to make sure that we get the best bang for the buck, so that we don't have another Music '91 experience, which was a bit of a foofaraw?

Hon. L. Boone: Music '91 is virtually made impossible by the fact that these funds are now voted funds. Music '91 comes from what I like to term as the "slush fund" of the Expo fund, which was used for special events. It was not voted money, so they could dip into it at any given time or go over or what have you.

Our moneys are all voted dollars. We have an advisory committee that reviews all applications for grants and then recommends to me whether they should be approved or not. They're doing a good job. It's not just a blanket approval. There are some that they are asking for more information on. They want to have a little more feedback as to how they're going to do these things, what the moneys are meant for and those sort of things. They ask for that and then come back to us with a recommendation as to whether they should be approved or not. I for one have followed the recommendations of the committee and will not override their decisions.

K. Jones: The real question was: what accountability has the minister, and what monitoring was going on with regard to the expenditure of these funds? How do you audit these on an ongoing basis?

Hon. L. Boone: They are grants. They have to report to us as to how the dollars are being used and how they were spent.

K. Jones: You say that they have to report to you after they have been spent. Is there any evaluation of the initial proposal prior to the expenditure, and is this an ongoing auditing by the ministry?

Hon. L. Boone: I thought I had explained that already. The community or the organization requesting a grant has to provide all that information to the committee. The committee can ask for as much information as they want as to how they're going to spend those dollars, all of those different things. Most of these things are small events, and not a huge amount of dollars is involved. It would not really be appropriate to ask for an audited statement. It would probably cost more for an audited statement than it would for them to do their function. Most of them are weekend events -- one or two days. It's not an ongoing thing like Music '91. They're small groups and they're small amounts of money. There's an initial request complete with financial review as to what they're going to spend their dollars on. They have to report to us after those dollars have been spent, but you can't really report in between. For example, this last one, it was a two-day event. You can't really report in between those, as to how the dollars are going.

K. Jones: Could the minister indicate to us the total dollars that are being spent in her vote with regard to the British Columbia maritime bicentennial?

Hon. L. Boone: I thought I had just done that: $650,000 and $200,000 for the Sea-to-Sea.

[ Page 2617 ]

K. Jones: My apologies to the minister. I probably overlooked that when it was being presented. There's been a lot of information going through this.

During the meetings with ministry staff I raised the question about establishing a revolving collection of Canadian and British Columbia flags for use in ceremonial occasions in communities around the province. I was wondering if the minister had had a chance to give consideration to that proposal yet.

Hon. L. Boone: No, I haven't, not yet.

K. Jones: Perhaps the minister may want to give an indication of her thinking in that regard. The concept is to recognize that it is quite expensive for a single community to put flags down its street on a special occasion. At $20 or $25 for a B.C. flag alone, this is quite an expense. The suggestion was that we could coordinate this and have a rental arrangement whereby each community could book in some of these flags for an event, and then they would go on to the next community and the next booking.

Hon. L. Boone: I'd be more than happy to look into that, and I'm sure my staff will be bringing some recommendations on those issues. One has to make sure when you're doing that, though, that the cost of controlling those things and putting in that kind of a program doesn't end up being more than just giving out the flags. If it costs more to ship them all back or to actually collect them and to get them all in, then that may not be a realistic thing to do. But certainly I'd be willing to look into it.

K. Jones: Realizing that the legislation for freedom of information is under another ministry and is before the House, I really don't have to much to ask this year. We've already addressed some of it under archives and records management. Can I suppose that this minister will participate in the debate in the House on the legislation and share some of her operating philosophy at that time? If not, I could pursue that at this time.

[4:45]

Hon. L. Boone: I'm not sure whether I will be participating in the debate or not, hon. member.

K. Jones: In that case, perhaps the minister would like to give an indication of what her operating philosophy is, and how she's approaching the responsibility of implementing this legislation.

The Chair: Hon. member, it would not be in order, as that is dealing with the legislation itself. A new question, please.

K. Jones: The minister has a responsibility to administer $6 million within her current budget, and therefore we were trying to determine what her operating philosophy is with regard to the process she will be dealing with. She is obviously going to be making her decisions this year on what's going to be done in the following years. Therefore we wanted to get an idea of what her philosophy will be with regard to it.

Hon. L. Boone: I thought we had canvassed at length the FOI $6 million. This $6 million is there so that we can implement the freedom of information legislation; so that their records are in order; so that our people have the necessary training and all of those sorts of things. As I stated earlier, the $6 million is divvied up through the various ministries. We will be working with them to help them get their records in order so that they can cooperate with the FOI legislation when it comes to pass.

K. Jones: That's basically the response I was hoping we would receive. It would indicate that the minister is in full support of the concept of open access to all legislation, and as is indicated in the philosophy of the bill, only in very limited cases would access be limited to the information....

The Chair: Order, hon. member. Again, you are speaking to the bill, the legislation itself. I would ask that you direct your questions to those areas under the minister's influence, please.

K. Jones: Does the minister anticipate that she will hold the line at $6 million in her estimates for start-up for freedom of information, or if it requires more will she feel free to return to Treasury Board? In other words, $6 million for start-up is already quite a bit. I think that people in the system should hear now that that is all there is and will be, and that they will have to be prepared to implement it on exactly that amount.

Hon. L. Boone: When Treasury Board speaks, it speaks loud and clear. We have $6 million with which to implement this and not a penny more.

K. Jones: I'd like to go on to appointments to agencies, boards and commissions. My only question here is with respect to the head of the patronage appointments within your ministry. When patronage first came up early in your term of office, this minister had some comments about the idea of having an independent commission review or make recommendations on senior appointments in the future. What is the minister's present thinking on that suggestion?

Hon. L. Boone: This is not a patronage appointment. The appointment of John Pollard to the position of agencies, boards and commissions is one based on merit, based on his ability to do the job, and that's the bottom line. Mr. Pollard has done a very good job, and his record speaks for itself with regard to the work that he's done so far in broadening the members on the boards, agencies and commissions that we already have. He's already done a tremendous job of increasing the number of women on boards; at making aboriginals a part of our boards and commissions system, which hasn't happened in the past; at increasing the number of visible minorities; and at increasing those that are disabled as well. Those people have been virtually 

[ Page 2618 ]

without a voice on boards and commissions for years. I don't think they were ever considered. John Pollard has done a tremendous job of reaching out to the communities -- his broad knowledge of all of British Columbia was one of his bases of knowledge -- to find the necessary people to fill these positions.

As I have stated numerous times, even if there are people out there, our problem is that we have a difficult time getting resumés from people. If there are people who feel that they want to participate, if the members opposite know people that they feel want to participate on these boards and if they would give us those names and get those resumes to us, we'd be more than happy to consider them in future positions.

This is not a patronage position. This is a position that is doing a very worthwhile job. John Pollard is performing it very well.

K. Jones: I certainly do not wish, at this point, to pass judgment on Mr. Pollard. Certainly, as you've said, he appears to be doing a very commendable job. I was really asking your view on an independent commission to make recommendations. I noticed that in Sunday's Province, A25, the Ministry of Women's Equality child care branch put in an advertisement with regard to a provincial child care council. Nominations are invited for women and men to serve on the provincial child care council. I think this is very commendable. I hope that this will be the trend for all appointments -- that there will be a public canvassing for people to indicate their interest in sitting on these boards, so that we'll have very sincere people being considered for these boards, commissions and agencies. Since this call for nominations is being referred to a Dawna Desrosiers in the Ministry of Women's Equality child care branch, does that indicate that they will be reviewing the candidates as an internal operation, and making choices within the ministry itself without going through the ministry for appointments for agencies, boards and commissions?

Hon. L. Boone: I'm not clear on what the minister is doing in this whole area. There is a strong possibility that she could go to John Pollard and ask for his advice, or ask him if he has any people in his bank of applications whose resumés might fit the bill or who might be strong persons to assist this council. You would really have to talk to the minister with regard to how she's going to run her council.

K. Jones: With regard to the minister's comments about representation on these boards and the desire to bring in representation of the various sectors of our community, the various ethnic and gender bases of our community, is the representation going to be done on the basis of percentage of population -- that is, the percentage of those people within the population of the area that the boards will be serving?

Hon. L. Boone: No, it's not doing that. In many cases, they're trying to find expertise, and they're trying to find that expertise throughout the province. As somebody from the region, I can tell you that I'm very aware if there is lack of representation. Those things are spoken about for the regions. Generally speaking, they try to get somebody from the region -- somebody from the Kootenays, somebody from the Island, somebody from those areas. But it certainly is not done based on population.

K. Jones: I wasn't talking about the regional representation as much as what the minister had indicated was the basis of gender and racial, cultural or religious background. It appears to be the philosophy of the government to do that, and we as members of the Liberal Party fully support the concept of better representation on these various boards. We're just asking whether the determination of that representation is done on the basis of the percentage of the population that those groups represent.

Hon. L. Boone: No, it's not.

K. Jones: Just for future reference, does the minister have anything at all to do with recommending or approving severance packages for senior public servants?

Hon. L. Boone: No.

K. Jones: Before we leave this section, does anyone else wish to ask questions in this area?

I'll go on to the government communications office. We heard quite a bit the other day about the process involved in asking for expressions of interest for reviewing the government's identity program. Can we expect that the minister will be encouraging this sort of tender proposal call for future bids?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, you can.

K. Jones: Could the minister indicate, in the way of the government communications office, how many contracts have been let under that office, for what sums, and to whom?

Hon. L. Boone: There are 14 contracts for services. I can get this information forwarded to you if you would prefer saving time rather than going through all of this.

K. Jones: Yes, it would be quite appropriate if you were to pass that information to us shortly after the session. I would appreciate that very much. Going on to the area of policy coordination, just what is the role of that office?

Hon. L. Boone: That is an easy one. The role of this office is to coordinate government policy between all ministries. Obviously, when a change of government comes in, there has to be a change in direction. A change in policy takes place throughout government operations, and this policy-coordination office works with all ministries to help develop policy and legislation and to coordinate the policies of the ministries to make sure that they recognize the priorities of this government.

[ Page 2619 ]

K. Jones: Is that strategic or tactical coordination?

[5:00]

Hon. L. Boone: Well, strategic planning is part of the things they do. Strategic and tactical -- that sounds like army jargon to me, and I don't know too much about army jargon. They do strategic planning, and they work very well with all ministries to assist them in recognizing the policy directions of the government.

K. Jones: The two terms are not necessarily military; they are used in business. They are used in politics quite regularly, and they generally refer to long-range or short-range planning. How many people are involved in this function of policy coordination?

Hon. L. Boone: There are ten people in that office.

K. Jones: Are there any persons on contract?

Hon. L. Boone: I don't think there are. If there are, I will get back to the member with that information.

K. Jones: What are the salaries of the individuals involved -- the ten you've indicated?

Hon. L. Boone: The associate deputy minister is $96,000; the director of policy and legislation is $75,900; the director of strategic planning is $75,900; the director of program management is $75,900. We have three policy analysts at $56,900, an administrative coordinator at $41,200, and two clerical and office assistant staff, who would be non-OIC appointments but would be according to the BCGEU rate.

K. Jones: I appreciate that openness.

The Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities is the next area I would like to address. One question only: could the minister state for the record what role her ministry plays in coordinating this function?

Hon. L. Boone: We provide administrative support to this group. The member is probably wondering why this is within my ministry. I did too. Why is this here? When we thought it through and it was explained to me, the concerns of the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities touch on so many different ministries: Social Services, Health, Advanced Education, Labour, Transportation and Highways. There are so many different areas. To put them in any one ministry would be really inappropriate, because it would assume that that ministry should then be responsible for taking care of all its needs. It was housed in my ministry, and we provide the administrative support for them. Where necessary, I have given the commitment that I would do what I can to assist them in getting avenues opened up to reach various ministers, the Premier's office or areas such as that. I provide whatever assistance I can to try to make their connection with the various ministries easier.

K. Jones: I'd like to go on to Inquiry B.C. I wonder if the minister could elaborate on just what volume of calls is being handled by Inquiry B.C. Has any monitoring process been set up -- such as TELCEL, used by B.C. Tel -- to measure its quality of service and how effectively Inquiry B.C. is doing the job?

Hon. L. Boone: We are having approximately 30,000 calls per month. They are being monitored by the contractor. An extensive report is given to us monthly, which gives breakdowns according to the type of calls they receive, the areas they are received from, and all the questions for the various ministries. It does provide a very good service and allows the ministries to recognize if they have a communication problem. I think it also provides a good service to the public. For example, when the gypsy moth spray was happening, they received a lot of calls on that and were able to refer people to the various agencies where they could get information; or in many cases they provided that information directly from Inquiry B.C., saving people a lot of time and effort.

They monitor the newspaper daily in the morning to see if there's a particular subject that they might get calls on. Then they put that into their computer system, so that their workers are able to refer calls appropriately and so that the public is not left trying to search through four or five different phone banks, trying to find the right person to deal with. I think their service is tremendous. As someone who has tried to find a particular person in the government phone book, or the person responsible in the government phone book, and has had to make four, five, six or seven phone calls, I can well appreciate the work this group does in meeting that need -- particularly for people in the regions, who are making long-distance phone calls. This is a tremendous support to them. It does do a good job. They are monitoring themselves, and we do get the information that's required monthly.

K. Jones: As the minister responsible for the government phone book, what's the minister doing to make it more readable and more understandable, so that she, the public and the people in Government Services can better utilize it?

Hon. L. Boone: We're constantly reviewing it to try and make it a little more readable and more workable for the public. If you have any particular questions, or if you have any particular innovative ideas that could make it work better, we'd be happy to receive them before we go to printing next time around, so that we can incorporate them.

K. Jones: Actually, I was asking the minister what she and her ministry were doing to improve the phone book. I know it's good to throw the ball back into my court, but it's really not my job to do that for you. I will be only too happy -- I'm sure that everybody in the community would be happy -- to make suggestions, if you were to open that up to them, but so far this is the first time you've actually invited other people to bring suggestions on improvement.

[ Page 2620 ]

What is your ministry actually doing to improve it?

Hon. L. Boone: As I stated earlier, the new provincial phone book has just come out, so there have been some changes. We are looking on an ongoing basis.... I can see the Queen's Printer is here, who might be able to give me a little more information, if you would bear with me for a second.

We are going to be able to make it electronic. It will be on-line, and we will be moving toward printing it twice a year so that it can accommodate changes that take place. As you know, in the past sometimes you got a phone book and it was outdated before you even got it. I think that will help us a lot.

K. Jones: You're suggesting that it will be on-line. Could you give us a time-line for this to be on-line?

Hon. L. Boone: Within days.

K. Jones: That's excellent. Good to hear. Now all everybody has to do is get terminals and get access to the central information bank, and then we'll be in good shape. Hopefully over the summer holidays we'll have everybody connected to this, so that we can all use it.

You've taken over a new responsibility in the last while with regard to registry of societies and corporations. Could you elaborate on the function of those organizations?

The Chair: I believe that question, put to this minister at this time, would be out of order.

Hon. L. Boone: We went through this last week, when I said that the responsibility and the budget for that is the Minister of Finance's. I was in the Legislature Thursday night and answered questions with regard to the registry during the Ministry of Finance estimates. The dollars have remained in his budget. His deputy is still responsible for it; they report through me. It's not appropriate to ask them at this time. It is not in my estimates.

K. Jones: That being the case, I'm sorry I was absent on Thursday. I had business on the mainland to attend to at that time and didn't hear your session in connection with that.

I'd like to just go back into one area, and that will be the end of this, as far I'm concerned. This is going back to an area of great concern to the province. I'd just like to focus on the fact that these people in Prince George are very concerned about it. That, I believe, is the minister's home riding. These are the people who have been impacted by the ministerial decision taken this year: the Canadian Red Cross; the Cerebral Palsy Association Child Development Centre; Fort George Highway Rescue; Intersect Youth and Family Services; Prince George Crisis Intervention; Prince George District Home Support Services Society; Prince George United Way; Prince George Hospice Society; Prince George Receiving Home Society; and Prince George Sexual Assault Centre. Those are all agencies that were receiving funds through the Bonanza Charities Association. In addition, there is the Canadian Diabetes Association, Prince George and District branch; Canadian National Institute for the Blind; Prince George Dyslexic Support Society; the Heart and Stroke Foundation of B.C. and Yukon; the Multiple Sclerosis Society, Prince George chapter; the Northern Association of Injured and Disabled Workers, an advocacy group funded partially by this program; Red Cross sick room equipment loan service. These were funded through the Kiwanis Club of Prince George.

These are just a small example of the number of people who are directly impacted by your cancellation of the halfback breakopen lottery program. They are hurting. I hope that you, in making your decision to turn this funding over to general revenue, really appreciate that you've hurt a lot of people in this province.

Hon. L. Boone: I thought we were over that, but it appears not. I'm glad to hear you mention all those groups, because they are very good ones. They provide some tremendous services in Prince George. They know that over the years I've worked hard with them to help them in many different ways -- not just on breakopen, but on many different projects, whether it be fund-raising or participating in direct fund-raising. Very few of them have actually come to my office or to me complaining about the process, because they know that we've treated them fairly. They have received a pay-out. I'm sure the Kiwanis, in all fairness, would pass the money on to those groups. Would they keep it themselves? I think they would give those dollars to those groups.

[5:15]

We have provided a six-month pay-out. We have purchased back the machines from those areas, and we are taking the remaining money and putting it into a community grant program, which will be available equally to everybody throughout the province. The people I know in community organizations are not particularly happy that the breakopen program has ended. Some certainly wish that it was still there, but a lot of them accept the fact that it was not a properly run program. They accept the fact that government has an obligation to clean that whole system up, and we have in fact done that.

We will be putting in a program that is fair to all groups. That is what I promised to all the organizations out there: to treat them fairly. I can't promise them anything else. It is not easy to do, but they will be treated fairly. Groups in my community know that I will do whatever I can, in any shape or form, to assist them -- as I'm sure all hon. members of this House would -- to achieve their goals through various forms of fund-raising, community grants or whatever.

At this particular time, that program is gone. It was not properly run; it was ill-conceived right from day one. This ministry did what was necessary to bring back accountability -- which you talk about so much in other areas -- to this area. It wasn't a fun time. It wasn't a decision I enjoyed making. But it had to be made, and we did it.

[ Page 2621 ]

K. Jones: The minister has certainly indicated that there is a great deal of concern. The concern is that these organizations, which had an ability to raise their head up and proudly identify their ability to raise funds, are now faced with no vehicle through which to raise funds. What is the minister planning to do to offer charitable organizations a means of ongoing fund-raising, so that they can support the various organizations in their communities with real money? I'm not talking about car washes and garage sales; I'm talking about real money.

The Chair: Hon. minister, I would caution, before we get into a protracted examination of this area, that we have extensively canvassed this particular area in the days past in the examination of these ministers' estimates. If you have new questions to the minister on this area, we will allow the minister to answer. Other than that, it is becoming repetitious and tedious, and under standing order 43 it would be difficult to allow this to go on further. Do you have a new question, hon. member?

K. Jones: At this point, I'd like to thank the minister and the other ministerial people for their participation. I think that they should be highly commended for spending time here and for their answers. I think you've got a very fine staff that will be getting even finer as the days go by.

Vote 45 approved.

Vote 46: ministry operations, $92,369,990 -- approved.

Vote 47: pensions administration, $10 -- approved.

Hon. L. Boone: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:20 p.m.

ERRATUM

Bill 54, Pension Statutes (Transitional Arrangement) Act, was incorrectly reported complete on Thursday, June 11, 1992 (afternoon sitting, volume 4, number 13, page 2544).

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada