1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only. The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 1993
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 9, Number 17
[ Page 5867 ]
The House met at 2:04 p.m.
Prayers.
M. Lord: It's an honour for me to welcome two special constituents of mine from the Comox Valley: Mayor Ron Webber and John Wilson from the city of Courtenay. Would the House please make them welcome.
V. Anderson: I would like the House to join me in welcoming Thomas Dorash from Surrey, who has come here with concerns about how we operate. He would like to see us and to understand us.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not too sure I have an answer to that question myself.
In any event, I notice seated in the gallery today a director of B.C. Hydro. I'm pleased to see her in attendance. I know that she has been here during the energy forum that's being held in Victoria. Would all members please give a warm welcome to Jean Leahy.
R. Kasper: In the gallery we have four members from my riding. These individuals are actually from the Liberal Malahat-Juan de Fuca riding association. Just to show that we're not always partisan, would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted today to introduce some grade 11 and 12 students from Gladstone Secondary School. We used to call it "Happy Rock." I know that the member for Nanaimo, who is a graduate of Gladstone, would be pleased to join with me in asking all members of the House to join with us in welcoming the students from Gladstone Secondary School.
LABOUR DISRUPTIONS IN SCHOOLS
J. Dalton: My question is to the Minister of Education. On top of the protracted strikes in Vancouver Island North and Powell River, today the Vancouver School District has been thrown into turmoil, with over 18,000 students out because of rotating walkouts. What, if anything, has the Minister of Education done to resolve this ongoing dispute?
Hon. A. Hagen: This is a labour dispute between the school board and the teachers in Vancouver. I can advise the hon. member what we have done with respect to supporting the children, teachers and support staff in Vancouver by providing additional resources to them this year, as we did last year as a government; by informing them that we as government place a priority on services for children and on jobs for young teachers and support staff; and by making clear to them that this year there was not an adjustment in our budget for salaries, so that those people who were bargaining would know that they must bargain very realistically and on behalf of the children and the workers who provide services to children in the district of Vancouver.
J. Dalton: Again to the Minister of Education. This minister -- and this government -- is so beholden to the BCTF that we continually see from the minister no measurable action whatsoever to resolve these unacceptable walkouts and strikes. What does the minister have to say to the many parents in the Vancouver district who have to find immediate short-term day care in order to look after their children?
Hon. A. Hagen: Boards and teachers have a responsibility under our system of local collective bargaining, which is the law and the practice, to sit and responsibly resolve the issues that are before them in the interests of children, respecting, of course, the concerns of parents. These boards have that responsibility. Each board at its own table, each group of teachers at that table, must look at the circumstances in the district. At this point, 50 boards and teachers' associations have arrived at agreements, most of them by realistically looking at their priorities and the needs of their districts. That's the responsible task that this board and teachers' association have, and they must exercise that responsibility and arrive at a decision in the interests of the children.
ESSENTIAL SERVICE DESIGNATION FOR EDUCATION
J. Dalton: I will now direct my final question to the Minister of Labour. As we on this side know and have continually argued, education is an essential service, even though the minister will not admit to that. Considering that post-secondary institutions require both grades 11 and 12 for prequalification or entrance, will the minister direct the Labour Relations Board to examine the grade 11 situation when they're dealing with the essential service designation?
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member should know that if any school board in British Columbia wishes to, they're entitled to make that application to the Labour Relations Board. In addition, as the hon. member should know, there is currently an application from one school district -- I'm told there's another one pending -- with regard to grade 12.
As to action that this government is taking with regard to disputes that remain outstanding, let me advise the hon. member as follows. A private mediator is endeavouring to resolve the dispute in Powell River. Just yesterday we appointed a special mediator to look at the dispute in Vancouver Island North, with instruction to make public recommendations. As I understand it, one of the parties in Vancouver has made an application for the appointment of a mediator to help resolve that dispute.
Therefore, in all three of the disputes that are currently active and outstanding in British Columbia, we are lending the assistance of the Ministry of Labour
[ Page 5868 ]
to try to help the parties resolve the dispute in an expeditious way, given the limitations in their budgets.
IMPLEMENTATION OF RECALL AND INITIATIVE
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier. Last Friday, 3,000 tax protesters gathered on the lawns of the Legislature and demanded that this government implement recall and initiative. Can the Premier tell us if he is still committed to implementing recall and initiative, as he promised during the last election campaign?
Hon. M. Harcourt: As the Leader of the Third Party is aware, when he was in government it was the stand of his government that they were going to set up a committee to examine the two ideas, which they had not fleshed out and had no public discussion of prior to the referendum that went before the public. Carrying out what I'm sure his party still wants to see happen, we have established a legislative committee to do the homework that should have been done by the previous government on this issue.
J. Weisgerber: On April 19 the NDP chair of that committee was reported as saying on Kamloops radio that he's now convinced that most people don't support recall and initiative. Will the Premier confirm that the select standing committee is only examining how to implement recall and initiative?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm sure the member communicates now and again with his large caucus, and I'm sure he's able to talk to talk to the member of that caucus who can remind him of the terms of reference of that committee.
J. Weisgerber: It's precisely for that reason that I rise in the House today to ask questions of the Premier. This government has stonewalled; it has used every trick in the book to delay implementing recall and initiative. Two months were sufficient for a select standing committee to examine changes to the Canadian constitution. Why does it take this select standing committee two years to examine recall and initiative?
[2:15]
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm sure the member realizes that the committee has been out actively seeking and soliciting the opinions of British Columbians about what other areas of recall should be added. There already are ways to recall MLAs. One of those is through elections. That happened to an awful lot of Social Credit MLAs last time. MLAs can also be recalled after committing and being convicted of a criminal act, insanity or bankruptcy.
Interjections.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I hear remarks from some members of the opposition about those criteria. We are now looking at other areas that can be added to those already existing areas of recall.
BUY B.C. PROGRAM
R. Chisholm: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Yesterday I asked this minister to confirm that a $500,000 contract was bypassing B.C. firms. The minister's response today is to finally check the facts, blame the bureaucrat and cancel the contract. The question to the minister is: with our growing deficit, will this minister now admit he should have been informed of a potential $500,000 leaving British Columbia, out of his ministry?
Interjections.
The Speaker: I ask the minister to wait until he's recognized by the Chair, which I will do as soon as we have order.
Hon. Minister of Agriculture.
Interjection.
Hon. B. Barlee: I think the research should have been done. Perhaps if the other side had done the research on the ten previous contracts....
Interjections.
Hon. B. Barlee: Hon. Speaker, we have let ten contracts since last fall. They have ranged from $1,500 to $46,500. All ten contracts have been with B.C.-based and B.C.-owned companies: nine in Vancouver and one in Victoria. This is not a departure. My critic mentioned that there was a contract. There was no contract at all; there was not even an MOU. So I don't know where he got the idea that there was a contract. There was not. It is not a departure from our stance. We believe that this is not only a buy-B.C. project but also an invest-in-B.C. project.
R. Chisholm: Again to the same minister: now that the minister has said he was wrong, in 500 words or less, will he now admit we seem to have an outright contradiction in his Buy B.C. program? How does the minister expect British Columbians to buy B.C. when this government is buying south of the border? Will his emphasis now be on British Columbia companies?
Hon. B. Barlee: Perhaps the critic would like to go down to one of the Thrifty Foods stores in James Bay or somewhere in Victoria, Colwood or Nanaimo. They were so impressed with the success of our program last fall that they are having, by their own hook, 5,000 T-shirts printed with the Buy B.C. logo on it.
Perhaps the critic has not got in touch with the restaurants of B.C. Seven out of the ten provinces in Canada have imposed a provincial sales tax on restaurants. We have not.
Finally, the door is always open in my office. If he wishes to discuss the contract with me, he's certainly
[ Page 5869 ]
welcome to come, too. All the businessmen do; I expect the opposition should as well.
R. Chisholm: My last question is to the Premier. Now that we have heard this response, maybe the Premier can clarify it for us. Yesterday your Agriculture minister completely misrepresented a very important issue -- not only to the Legislature but also to the people of the province. His restaurant program is a failure. He does not listen to his committee in Agriculture. Hon. Premier, in light of this, you have a duty to ask your minister to resign. He's incompetent.
Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, I know that the member, the Agriculture critic for the Liberal Party, just had to read the last question in his script. But if he had come to the very fine dinner that I attended here in our Legislature with the restaurant owners of Victoria, who had operated a very successful Buy B.C. program in the meals and wines of British Columbia -- it was put together by the best chefs in this area, who are not only the best chefs in Canada but are going to the world olympics for culinary arts -- he would have seen B.C.'s products, B.C.'s wines and B.C.'s best chefs in operation in a Buy B.C. program in our restaurants.
PRIVATE ADOPTIONS
V. Anderson: My question is to the Minister of Social Services. The minister has invited responses from the public with regard to her plans on adoption. One set of responses has asked why the minister does not follow the good experience of Ontario in recognizing non-profit societies and licensees regulated by the province. Why is this not a reasonable process for British Columbia?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd be more than happy to debate the issue of adoption with this member, but I'm afraid he's going to have to wait until the legislation is tabled in the House.
V. Anderson: Will the minister explain why on one hand she is inviting responses regarding adoption through private agencies, and on the other hand she is saying that this is taboo? Is she saying that she will not listen and really doesn't want to hear the people of this province?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm sure the member has a script to follow, so let me again refresh the member's memory of previous questions he has asked in this House. I have made a commitment to deal with the issue of regulating private adoptions. It's well known that this House will see a piece of legislation this spring. I also have made a commitment to the people of this province for an extensive legislative review of adoption policy as directed by the community panel -- an extensive process that has been underway in this province for the last year. There are two pieces, two initiatives, and the review of the legislation governing adoption in this policy will be conducted over the next year. We have invited public input and have invited and briefed the member on that extensively.
Hon. D. Marzari tabled two annual reports, one of the Ministry of Tourism for 1990-91 and one of the Ministry of Tourism and Ministry Responsible for Culture for 1991-92.
Hon. M. Sihota: I should remind hon. members that in Committee A we'll be having the estimates with regard to the Ministry of Attorney General. At this point, given the conclusion of Labour in that committee yesterday, I would call the summary debate on the Labour estimates.
REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES
L. Hanson: As the minister has said, we have finalized the estimates of the Ministry of Labour, and some very interesting revelations came as a result of that. We did learn that the cap on Hydro fee increases of 2 percent above inflation does have a very clear relationship to the government's interest in getting a return on the Hydro investment relative to private enterprise or to a private firm.
Interjection.
L. Hanson: I hear the Minister of Finance suggesting that that is very perceptive. I think, hon. Speaker, that we as the House members have been very aware of that, but that the public hasn't always been as aware as probably it can be now by scrutinizing the Hansard record of the estimates debate.
We also learned that the hiring of Mr. Eliesen as the chief officer of B.C. Hydro does have a bonus condition that Mr. Eliesen is entitled to. We did get the commitment of the minister that that bonus entitlement would be triggered on the basis of measurement relative to some private utilities, but we didn't really get a definitive or clear answer as to what the triggering level might be. The question of the salary payable and how the bonus was triggered is still a little unclear, but I'm sure, as the minister develops the philosophy that will trigger that bonus to Mr. Eliesen, he will inform the opposition.
We also learned that the WCB is experiencing some difficulties in terms of the length of time required to handle some of the appeals; in some cases, lengths of time that appear to be almost punitive to those people who are in need of assistance as a result of an industrial accident.
We learned also that Bill 84 is working as the government had predicted it would work and as the opposition had predicted it would work. I think, if you remember the debates that went on with that, the general recognition was that it was a bill dedicated to unionization of all workers in British Columbia, with very little influence by the employer on the outcome. We did get some figures showing that in the short time that Bill 84 has been in place, the number of
[ Page 5870 ]
certifications has been quite a number larger than had been experienced in similar periods under the old legislation.
We also learned that Mr.... What is that gentleman's name?
An Hon. Member: Mr. Brown.
Mr. Hanson: Mr. Brown. My apologies. I have trouble keeping up with all of these appointments. My computer memory only has so many megabytes, and it's all filled up.
We learned that Mr. Brown was hired as a facilitator-coordinator of the Ministry of Labour to organize, facilitate, and probably provide some policies for the transfer of the appeals that now go before the employment standards directors to transfer to the Labour Relations Board. We also learned there is a....
[2:30]
The Speaker: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but your time has expired. I now recognize the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.
G. Farrell-Collins: I want to start off with a recap of the estimates by saying what the minister has done well in the last year. The one thing he's done well within the Ministry of Consumer Services is that now the ministry is providing services and brochures in a number of different languages. That is a laudable achievement, and I'm sure that a great deal of the credit goes to the minister himself. That's where it stops. What's become clear in the process, not just in the last week but in the last year, is that this minister does not have a grip on his ministry.
Twelve months ago this minister gave me his assurance that he would send me a vote-by-vote analyses of his ministry. I received that documentation on March 19 of this year. It took the minister almost a full year. Now that he is no longer responsible for ICBC, I received the information from the present minister of ICBC only yesterday, information I requested a full year ago. How can the minister possibly expect a thorough analysis of his ministry when he can't even get his act together enough to provide information to the opposition?
It doesn't stop even there. This minister called his estimates in an attempt to punish the opposition because the opposition wouldn't give him Bill 3 on the day he wanted, and he gave the opposition five minutes' notice.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: That's not a problem because we've been ready for estimates at any time. What became clear during the estimates is that the minister himself is not prepared. The minister himself does not know what's going on in his ministry. Time after time we asked the minister questions and he had no answers for us. It wasn't until he managed to drag his people in from B.C. Hydro, three or four days into the debate, that we finally got answers on the Hydro estimates. In fact we had to adjourn the sitting early one day because the minister didn't know what was going with B.C. Hydro.
Every time this minister was asked a question dealing with issues in his portfolio that he didn't have an answer to, he would stand up and engage in personal attacks on members of the opposition. That's not good enough. The minister must be prepared. The minister must have those answers. The minister must be accountable to the people who are paying the money he is spending. Why is it that time after time in the estimates of the Ministry of Labour the minister would stand up and not have answers to questions, or give flippant answers to questions, which directly related to his responsibility.
That's only part of it. We also saw during the estimates that this minister has personally appointed Mr. Hans Brown, longtime NDP favoured son, the gentleman who ran their last campaign, to a four-month, $30,000 contract to engage in the transfer of the employment standards appeal provision to the Labour Relations Board.
We also found out that the ministry has allotted for an additional vice-chair within the ministry, a $90,000-a-year position, and the minister has no idea what the job description of that person will be; he couldn't answer. We can only presume that the minister plans to appoint Hans Brown as a full-time vice-chair of the Labour Relations Board to handle those types of things.
The minister is not being forthright with the people of this province; he is not standing up and accounting for the dollars he's spending in his ministry, and it is becoming clearer and clearer as the 18 months go by, and the future months will go by, that this minister does not understand what's going on in his own ministry. That's why he had ICBC taken away from him, and that's why this minister is not doing his job.
Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, let me thank the critics who wrote the Social Credit and Liberal Parties for their positive and constructive...
Interjections.
Hon. M. Sihota: If I may start again, let me take this opportunity, first of all, to thank members from both the Liberal and Social Credit Parties for their positive and constructive input during the course of the Labour estimates; it was a most enjoyable experience for myself. While I am positive, let me recap some of the major achievements of the Ministry of Labour over the last little while, and some of the things that we expect to do over the course of the next year.
I'm pleased to confirm that effective April 1 this government announced an increase in the minimum wage through the Ministry of Labour. We think that as a government we have obligations to the working poor in this province. Eighteen months ago, shortly after we were elected to government, we increased the minimum wage for the first time; we've increased it for the second time now; and we will increase it again before the year is out.
[ Page 5871 ]
Secondly, I'm pleased to confirm, in terms of positive developments with regards to the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services, that effective January 1, 1993, through the provisions of this year's budget, we will be able to implement the regulations with regard to pension standards benefits legislation. This means that seniors, part-time workers and women in particular, who have often lived in poverty, will now be eligible for pensions at an earlier stage in their lives, will be able to be vested into pensions at an earlier stage in their lives and will be entitled to pension benefits at an earlier stage in their lives. The regulations are progressive and positive, and it's a development which we within the ministry are very proud of.
In addition to that, I'm please to advise all members of the House that this year the Ministry of Labour, in another positive development, has put an end to 75 years of injustice with regard to agriculture workers in this province. We announced on April 30 that for the first time in the history of our province, farm and ranch workers in British Columbia, the 30,000 who work in the industry, will now have health and safety regulations. We have eliminated that black spot in terms of our history, another positive development.
I am pleased to advise hon. members that we will be doing additional work with regard to regulations, and I anticipate that some time during the next week we'll be making further announcements with regard to regulations which will cover other workers in British Columbia who have been denied coverage in the past.
There needs to be more done in the area of workersss'ompensation. I pointed that out during the course of estimates, and I wish to reiterate the commitment of this government to solve the difficulties that we have at the Workers' Compensation Board, both in terms of eliminating the backlog of some 6,000 cases, which I talked about, and at the same time bringing about some of the administrative changes that are necessary. It is fundamentally important, in my view, that working people have access to professional assistance with regard to workers' compensation cases. I am pleased to advise all members of the House that this government, as part of making those services available to all workers, has stepped beyond the boundaries of Vancouver for the first time and opened a workers' adviser office in Prince George. Allocations are also in this budget for additional offices, which we will be announcing in the weeks ahead, should the House see fit to approve this budget.
I'm also pleased to advise members of this House of another significant achievement of this ministry: we have made a commitment, as the hon. member from the Liberal Party indicated, to improving the service and the quality of programs we offer at Consumer Services. We have moved for the first time in our history, as the member pointed out, to providing those services in Punjabi, French, Spanish and Chinese. We will continue to provide additional consumer assistance for British Columbians from one end of the province to the other.
In addition to that, we anticipate, as I indicated during the course of estimates, to modernize consumer legislation in this province, and now that the House has seen fit to debate these estimates, there will be changes forthcoming in that regard, and allocations have been made in that sense as well. We will also stand up for consumers and the need to protect consumers in British Columbia. We did that yesterday with regard to the initiative that I articulated regarding Payless Gas Co. and the sale of Payless here on Vancouver Island to a major oil company. We are deeply concerned about the impact that move will have with regard to consumer gasoline prices in British Columbia. In defence of the consumer interest, we will continue to take issue with those kinds of initiatives, whether they be pushing the federal or provincial governments.
We have made some headway over the past year with regard to fair wages. We have not completed our work, as I said during the course of the estimates. I want all hon. members to know that that work will continue within this ministry, and we will have an improved, revamped fair wage policy to present to members of this House in due course.
It is true that during the course of the estimates, we discussed the progress that has been made with regard to certification -- and it has been significant -- since the introduction of the Labour Relations Code. It is true that some 40 percent of the certifications have occurred with employers with one to ten employees -- in other words, within the small business sector. We make no apologies whatsoever for introducing labour legislation which gives working people -- whether they be in the retail, restaurant or any other small business sector -- the opportunity to engage in collective bargaining and to secure collective bargaining rights. We applaud the work of unions in securing those rights, and we recognize that workers freely making those decisions are entitled to the protections provided under the code.
This year, as another of the significant and positive developments of this administration, this ministry has started a review of the Employment Standards Act. Sixty percent of British Columbia workers are not covered by collective agreements; they're covered by the minimum provisions under the Employment Standards Act. We as a government believe that the Employment Standards Act defines the minimum floor in terms of rights that ought to be available to workers. We think it's wrong when workers are not paid overtime, vacation pay or maternity benefits. We think it's wrong that there are trade unions in this province that....
The Speaker: A point of order has been raised by the hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands.
C. Tanner: Hon. Speaker, the purpose of this ten minutes is for the minister to talk about his estimates; it's not for him to stand here and boast about what he's going to do in the future. He's supposed to be reporting on the estimates that took place in Section A over the last three days.
The Speaker: On the point of order, hon. member, the Chair has no knowledge as to what discussions might have gone on during the estimates. In the absence of guidelines, time limits have been provided to the three parties to report on the discussion of those
[ Page 5872 ]
estimates. On that basis, I must ask the minister to continue on the discussion that went on during the estimates debates.
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I hope that interjection doesn't cut into my time.
Let me make it abundantly clear that there have been significant developments within the Ministry of Labour. We will continue to make that kind of progress. I don't care.... If it bothers the opposition that we provide protection in terms of minimum wages for workers who don't make enough money, that we provide protection in terms of farm health safety regulations for agriculture workers....
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands will withdraw the inappropriate language used in the chamber.
C. Tanner: I will not!
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands knows that heckling across the floor is inappropriate during debate. The minister did have the floor to report on the discussion of the estimates. A representative of the official opposition had an opportunity to comment on the estimates. The language used by the hon. member was clearly inappropriate in the House. I'm sure that it was perhaps spontaneous, but I'm sure that the hon. member, upon reflection, would now like to withdraw it so that we can continue with the reporting of Committee A estimates.
C. Tanner: Madam Speaker, I will withdraw it if the minister reports on his estimates instead of giving us some tirade.
The Speaker: Has the hon. member unconditionally withdrawn the language? If I can confirm that, then I can certainly ask the minister to continue.
C. Tanner: Is the Speaker telling the minister to withdraw the stupid comments he made or not?
The Speaker: Hon. member, the Chair is being patient. I can only deal with one aspect at a time. I'm asking the member if he has unconditionally withdrawn his language. Then the Chair will address the minister. I'd just ask him to confirm that. Thank you.
C. Tanner: No, I will not unconditionally withdraw.
The Speaker: Again addressing the hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands, the Chair has tried to give the member the opportunity. Having asked a couple of times now, I give the hon. member a last opportunity to simply and unconditionally withdraw the language, or the Chair would have to comply with standing order 19 and ask the member to leave the chamber for the rest of the day. So I ask for the final time, hon. member, if you would please withdraw the language unconditionally, and then we will continue with the debate.
C. Tanner: I'll withdraw the remarks.
The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. I would ask the minister to please continue in a moderate way to report on the discussions that occurred during his estimates in Committee A.
[2:45]
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I appreciate your intervention with regard to that issue, and I accept the hon. member's uncategorical withdrawal of statements that he made.
I would continue with regard to the work that the ministry is doing and the issues, of course, all of which were canvassed during the course of estimates. There has been remarkable progress made within the ministry.
Hon. Speaker, with that interjection I've lost sense of the time. Could you please advise me how much time I have left?
The Speaker: The Chair will check on that and advise the minister. I think there's probably about three minutes left, but I will confirm that.
Hon. M. Sihota: During the course of estimates, as I indicated, the opposition did raise a number of issues. One of those issues, of course, related to Mr. Brown, as the opposition has pointed out. I wish to advise members of the House that the contract in question has been terminated effective today, and a decision has been made to appoint Mr. Brown to the vice-chair position. The Liberal critic referred to the fact that there was one position open. I wish to advise members of the House that that one position remains open as a consequence of the decision taken today.
In addition to that, during the course of estimates we discussed a whole series of other issues. As the Social Credit critic pointed out, the issues facing B.C. Hydro are within the realm of my responsibilities. With regard to the rate increase proposed by B.C. Hydro, I want to make it abundantly clear.... I'm glad to see the Socred leader here, because I certainly think we had an enjoyable discussion regarding those rates in the course of estimates. If I may assist him in putting his argument on the record, I think he was trying to suggest that we're looking at rate increases of 25 percent -- as I would of course expect him to do, given that he's in opposition. I wish to remind hon. members that we have developed a rate structure at B.C. Hydro which caps rate increases at inflation plus 2 percent. Therefore it is impossible that rate increases be more than inflation plus 2 percent -- or this year in excess of 3.9 percent. The reason we've done that, quite frankly, is to protect the interest of consumers. Through the guidelines we've set, which go to the B.C. Utilities Commission, we have also tried to make sure that B.C. Hydro meets the same kind of tests that apply to private sector utilities within the province.
[ Page 5873 ]
So the consumer interest is protected, and we will be able to maintain in B.C. at least the second-lowest electricity rate to consumers. Manitoba has traditionally had rates lower than us; we will have the second-lowest rates. In terms of being able to attract industry and development, we will be competitive with Washington State, where rates are scheduled to go up this year by about 20 percent.
I see B.C. Hydro's key role in terms of economic development. With the structural changes that I out-lined during the course of estimates, we think we can bring about the prosperity and economic development that is so necessary in British Columbia to deal with our unemployment problems and so instrumental in the kind of role that one would expect B.C. Hydro to play.
With that said, let me conclude by saying that I appreciate the input from the members opposite. There were a number of good ideas, and some of them we'll take up. And as we said, we shall get back to members on other detailed questions.
The Speaker: That completes the reporting on Committee A estimates for the Ministry of Labour.
Hon. M. Sihota: I call committee stage on Bill 3.
BUILD BC ACT
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 3; M. Lord in the chair.
Section 1 approved.
J. Weisgerber: Just to be clear, hon. Chair, we're talking about part 1, section 1. We have now passed the "definitions" and are now on to "purpose."
The Chair: That's correct.
On section 2.
F. Gingell: I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.
My amendment to section 2(c) has the effect of eliminating from the purposes of this act the references to public sector investment. The reason I believe that this is an appropriate amendment is that it is important for this government to recognize that public sector investment should be made in reaction to needs that are required. This government must encourage private sector investment. That is the key to good economic growth in this province. We can't grow the economy in this province and deal with the deficit and debt problems that we have by increasing government spending. We simply have to find better means; that is to allow the private sector to do the job it's there for.
I therefore ask the minister to consider this amendment and to give it his support.
Hon. G. Clark: I agree with the member that private sector investment is key to economic development in the province. In fact, private sector investment is larger than public sector investment, and that's as it should be. We have lots of opportunities for more private sector investment and capital spending by private sector companies in the coming years, especially as the recovery takes hold, some commodity prices come back in lumber and a few other very positive things happen.
The Leader of the Third Party talked about B.C. Hydro, and that there were also lots of opportunities for energy projects, both public and private. You'll notice that section 2(c) says, and I quote: "encouraging public and private sector investment and job creation activities in an innovative manner." I agree that the private sector is important, but it's also true that the public sector does invest in the province, in particular through our Crown corporations. B.C. Hydro is one example. What we're trying to do here is coordinate capital spending planned by Crown corporations and the accelerated social capital spending, and to target specifically, out of the special account, money for investment in the economy and in job-creation activities.
Take the silviculture initiative as one. I'm sure the member opposite, even though he's moved this amendment, will agree with me that there is a role for public investment in the province; there's a role for the public as owner of the natural resource base to invest in the forest industry; there is a role for the public as owner of B.C. Hydro to invest in hydro construction.
In fact, if you talk to members of the business community, they will say that government is not spending enough on infrastructure, on job stimulus and on things that help build a climate for private sector investment; that they're spending too much on social projects. That was a refrain I heard over the year, and that's a refrain I heard when I went around the province to 11 public meetings. People said: "Look, you're not spending enough on the land base; you're not investing enough in silviculture; you're not investing enough in strategic infrastructure, like hydro projects."
So this is the result of that consultation. And it's important that while the private sector be a key component for investment activities, the whole notion of this is to take our public sector money, try to match it and target it with the private sector, and stimulate job growth. That's why I'm afraid I have to reject the amendment as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. It's not because I disagree with anything he said about private sector investment, but because it's important that this say "public and private sector investment." I think that to eliminate the public sector is not productive, given that there is a lot of public investment and that we're trying to target it in ways which create jobs, in ways which stimulate regional economic development and in ways which help the private sector and stimulate private sector development.
The Chair: The Chair has had an opportunity to review the amendment, and finds it contrary to the intent of the bill as passed at second reading.
J. Weisgerber: On section 2. It seems to me that the thing missing from the purposes of this bill is a clear
[ Page 5874 ]
indication that the purpose of the bill is to facilitate the capitalization of highway construction. Everything else that is proposed under this Crown corporation is already within the ability of the government to accomplish under existing legislation. The only thing that Build B.C. does is provide a mechanism for the capitalization, the financing, the deferral of payment for highway construction. It is unfortunate that the bill doesn't reflect that in its purposes, because that's the essence of the bill. The rest of it is all window dressing.
The Ministry of Forests is quite capable of silviculture activities, and it doesn't have to and shouldn't have to capitalize them. The building of schools and hospitals is already handled under the existing legislation. So all we have in this bill is a new vehicle that will enable the government to finance highway construction. I'm not going to move an amendment to that effect, because I don't agree with it. But I find it unfortunate that the government, in its drafting of the legislation, wouldn't put the purpose of the bill up front.
The purpose of the bill is to allow someone to pick it up, read the purposes section and know what government is setting out to achieve with this. I think that if the government and the minister were going to be straightforward with people, the minister would simply put the purpose there, and then we would move forward in looking at the legislation and dealing with it. Most important, those British Columbians outside this chamber who have an opportunity to pick up and examine this document would know what the government set out to achieve.
We can have, as we have had, a debate around whether or not it's appropriate to capitalize highway construction. I would enjoy continuing that debate. But that clearly is the purpose of the act, and I think that the bill should reflect that if the government is determined, as it appears to be, to push ahead with the bill.
Hon. G. Clark: I just want to comment on that, because it's not correct. It is correct that we are capitalizing some highway construction with a dedicated revenue source. It requires a bill to do that, and this bill does it. But the bill is also required to create the special account in order to spend money out of that account.
I'm surprised, given that the member was once in government, that he wouldn't appreciate that if the government gives money to ministries to administer, sometimes the ministry's priorities are different from the government's -- or at least, the ministry's priorities might be better focused for targeting purposes.
The previous government set up the sustainable environment fund so that there was dedicated revenue to spend on the environment. They could have put that money into the Ministry of Environment, but they didn't; they put it into a special account. We want to promote job stimulus, training and, in particular, regional development. We want to make sure that we're trying to move people off welfare and into work. We could rely on the Ministry of Social Services -- you're right. But it will be done much better by having a special account which ministries can compete for and through which we can put in place job-training targets. We can more aggressively drive to move people off welfare and into work through this mechanism. The member might agree that the sustainable environment fund was an attempt by government to do the same kind of thing. We've modified it, but that environment fund still exists.
[3:00]
It's quite correct that line ministries will deliver the programs, and we could put the money into the ministries' base budgets. But I think the member would agree that if you really want to drive job stimulus, and particularly training initiatives and getting people off welfare and into work, having a special account vehicle would allow us to do that. It would allow you to question more carefully the government's job stimulus initiative. Because we've made this a feature of the bill, it's now more accountable. Every year members of the opposition can ask how that money was spent and how it is different from other kinds of government spending. You will be able to make those arguments. It's significant that there's a special account. There are going to be all kinds of training initiatives and other initiatives attached to it, which are different from the line ministry functions in most cases. So we have the special account.
The Transportation Financing Authority is also part of the bill. The purpose of the bill is not to capitalize highways; it's to promote highway construction. To do that, there is a capitalized vehicle.
In addition to that, in terms of the purpose of the bill and why it's required, it's in order to coordinate capital spending by the Crown corporations. It was important that the Crowns be required to submit their business and capital plans, so we can impose on the Crowns, if so desired, training criteria, criteria for trying to get people off welfare and into work, regional development criteria -- all of those kinds of things. Can we do it anyway? Can governments simply get all that information from the Crowns? Yes. But this bill allows us to really coordinate that activity and promote economic development, particularly in the regions.
I think it's clear from the purpose of the bill that there are broad initiatives and priorities in it. It does coordinate the activities of the Crowns for the first time and has the legislative power to do that. It does coordinate social capital, although that's not in the bill; that part is done by existing vehicles. It does allow for capitalizing highways, but again, that's coordinated, and there are very tough controls over that Crown, which we'll get to later in the bill. Finally, it sets up a special account which allows a committee of cabinet and members to drive job stimulus -- not to rely simply on giving more money to ministries, but to make sure that those ministries are delivering on the detailed initiatives that the government wants to pursue: job creation, job stimulus, getting people off welfare, and training initiatives.
There has been this kind of special account in the past. They haven't always worked. I have some concerns about some that we had in the past. We've tried to set this one up fairly tightly, with very specific
[ Page 5875 ]
purposes. Each year I'm sure that we'll be held accountable in the House for that spending.
J. Weisgerber: I think we should all be a bit concerned about the response from the minister. If I heard the minister say that he couldn't always depend on the ministries to respond to the political wishes of government, he's probably correct. Let's examine highway construction, for example. There will be, as I'm sure the minister will find out, a political agenda that will drive certain highway projects. He will also find within the Ministry of Highways objective criteria about needs around the province that are driven through the ministry and, in the case of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, by the regional transportation advisory committees. There are committees in each of the eight regions of the province that examine highway needs and put those in priority. Those have been brought together, and so there is a priority.
What I heard the minister say is that you can't always depend on the ministry to follow political wishes; they may want to follow the criteria that they've established for a more objective prioritization of highways. The minister's comments go exactly to the concerns that we've been talking about in this Legislature through second reading of the bill. There has to be accountability, and there is accountability through the line ministries. We see in this Crown corporation an opportunity for some manipulation of processes, manipulation of decisions around capital spending that are not accountable to the Legislature. We should be deeply concerned about that.
As near as I can see, we're only talking about decisions around new highway construction and major upgrading of highways. Everything else is pretty much already managed under some pretty good processes -- through school boards, hospital boards, etc. Highway construction is the one thing that has been driven by the ministry, and over the last four years or so, in a very public process of priorities. I would be worried, and am worried, to think that what we're doing now is creating a Crown corporation that can more easily reflect the government's wishes and override decisions that might be made in the ministry. I hadn't expected that answer from the minister and I think we should examine it a little bit.
Hon. G. Clark: To allay the member's concern, I apologize if my words weren't chosen as carefully as they should have been.
First of all, we're talking about the purpose of the bill, not the how-to, which is what the member keeps talking about. The how-to of a Crown corporation is really a different question than the purpose of the bill.
I wasn't saying that the ministries don't do an excellent job objectively prioritizing, etc. That will clearly continue. I was saying that if we want to promote training, to promote getting people off welfare and into work, to promote regional initiatives and that kind of priority, as a corporate view, then this allows a corporate entity, a committee of cabinet, to review and reflect these kinds of initiatives with that corporate view intact.
Sometimes the ministries are diligently working and doing an excellent job prioritizing, but the Ministry of Highways may not be as concerned about training initiatives. That's not been their mandate. Their mandate is to build roads. It still will be, but we as a corporate entity, as government, may want to say that it's important when we're building these highways to use local people in building them. It may be important to have some training component if we can. It may be important that we try to promote aboriginal participation in some regions. It may be that we want to reflect regional concerns. These are the kinds of initiatives we'll be looking at. What we now have through this act is the ability to overlay those kinds of corporate priorities of government, and particularly a major training and job stimulus initiative.
I don't think there's anything nefarious in that. We'll be accountable. The line ministries are still accountable. This vehicle allows an attempt to overlay corporate objectives. That's what I think and that's the purpose of this section, if you look at what we're trying to accomplish rather than at the how-to, which we will get into later. The purpose is promoting training, getting people off welfare, and job stimulus. Those are the purposes.
The member is quite correct in saying that there is also a Transportation Financing Authority, which is how to implement that purpose, and we will get to that later on in the debate.
J. Weisgerber: It seems to me that the other purposes the minister describes are the purposes of government. That's the responsibility of cabinet, in their influence on the ministry's decisions. That's the kind of direction you would expect the cabinet table or a committee of cabinet to give to the Minister of Transportation and Highways, without needing a Crown corporation, without needing any amendments to the processes you have in place. To involve aboriginal people, to include regional considerations -- that seems like a description of the primary responsibilities of government and cabinet. So again I'm surprised that we would see the need to use a Crown corporation.
I will go back and say again that I think the purpose is pretty clear. The purpose is to provide off-balance-sheet borrowing for the construction of highways.
F. Gingell: Perhaps the minister would be kind enough to introduce us to the two gentlemen.
Hon. G. Clark: I certainly apologize to members. This is Steve Hollett, Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance; and this is Chris Trumpy, Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance responsible for Treasury Board.
F. Gingell: Under this discussion of section 2, we have moved along quite a bit, and I don't want to miss the opportunity later on to deal with many of the issues that have been discussed this early.
It seems to me that if you look at section 2, all of the five subsections describe very clearly the role of the
[ Page 5876 ]
Minister of Economic Development. It doesn't talk about building roads or schools at this point; it talks about developing the economy of B.C., ensuring that it expands and diversifies. Haven't you emasculated the Minister of Economic Development by bringing this bill forward under your auspices?
Hon. G. Clark: No, quite the contrary. That's why the Minister of Economic Development is a key person on the committee. You're quite correct, there's a variety of initiatives in the Ministry of Economic Development that will be brought to bear on this kind of initiative. Again, this is largely a coordinating approach and driving a broad, corporate agenda through government. But the ministries themselves will be the delivery vehicle. We are not setting up a big bureaucracy to deal with this; we're not duplicating Economic Development. The Ministry of Economic Development has first-class, capable staff, and they will be doing their economic development work. The committee of cabinet and caucus set out in this legislation will be drawing on the Ministry of Economic Development staff and assisting the Ministry of Economic Development in their agenda. So it's not a duplication of effort or an emasculation. In fact, it's building on the Ministry of Economic Development's work and trying to ensure that there is a consistency and a corporate agenda brought to bear on all of the activities, largely the economic development activities, of government. So I think it's really a strengthening of the role of the minister and the ministry in delivering government programs.
F. Gingell: I'm afraid, hon. Chairman, that the minister's....
B. Jones: Point of order.
The Chair: The member is rising on what point of order?
B. Jones: I know the Leader of the Official Opposition does this only out of habit and certainly means no malice by it, but I think on five or six occasions he's referred to you as Chairman. There are lots of other options to use: Chairperson, hon. Chair, Madam Chair, all kinds of things. But I think it's time that the Leader of the Opposition.... I'm sure it wasn't out of malice, but I think it's inappropriate in this chamber.
F. Gingell: I wish to assure you, with all my heart, that there was no malice whatsoever intended. Unfortunately, when I was a small boy at school -- which is a long, long time ago -- I was taught that the word "man" was short for human. Humans, as we know, come in all different shapes and sizes -- some of us getting a little larger -- but it does include both male and female; the word "human" does include both male and female. So old habits die hard. When I was on the school board and the college board, we used to refer to a female chairperson of the college board as Madam Chairman. Nobody worried about it, and I'm surprised that this becomes an issue. If, by mistake, I do say something wrong, I will promise to be a good boy and do my best.
[3:15]
An Hon. Member: A good child.
F. Gingell: Yes, a good child.
The minister's explanation gives me concern that instead of creating two organizations that will intermesh and work with each other, you're creating an additional organization that could very well come into conflict.
I believe one of the problems that all British Columbians have is the growing size of our government. It really is an important issue, and the more one gets out to talk to the public, the more one finds it is a major issue. I even had somebody come up to me yesterday and offer to join the Liberal Party if I would make the commitment that we would reduce the number of MLAs by half. You will remember that you and I had a discussion about that some time ago.
I really would like you to rethink this, because I think you are creating a set of circumstances that will add to the bureaucracy. You have been saying you will not add to the bureaucracy. Just now you said you will not be adding a big bureaucracy, so I presume that you're going to add a medium-sized bureaucracy. I would like you to talk to us and give us a little more certainty that there are, within this description of purposes, things that are clearly outside the mandate of the Minister of Economic Development.
I have one other item. Did you say, during your previous response, that the Minister of Economic Development would be a member of the committee?
Hon. G. Clark: To answer the latter question, I did say yes. It's not in the act, but you're quite correct. I'll just say for the record that the Minister of Economic Development is on the committee.
I share the member's concerns about the size of government; I know that's a concern of all of our constituents. But also a concern in modern government is that each ministry has a kind of mandate -- a kind of line mentality. Then you have other ministries like Economic Development, which are horizontal ministries as opposed to sort of vertical ministries. Oftentimes it's difficult: Ministry of Environment versus Ministry of Forests; and Ministry of Energy versus Economic Development. These kinds of questions....
Interjections.
Hon. G. Clark: We have significantly fewer ministers, Mr. Member from the previous government.
I would say that what is important to the taxpayer is not just the size of government, but improving the effectiveness of government. This bill tells people that economic development is a corporate -- meaning governmentwide -- objective, not just a line function of a ministry. We want to use the Crown's and other initiatives to promote economic development, not just a
[ Page 5877 ]
Ministry of Economic Development. This is an attempt to make government work more efficiently. I'll say one specific thing: it says training here. Training is also in the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology.
This is an attempt to overlay, particularly our capital spending and some other specific initiatives, training initiatives, regional initiatives and other broad corporate objectives.... In fact, what we have done here is say, not usurp the minister responsible for training or the Minister of Economic Development, but rather, try to pull all the pieces together, and spend smarter and more efficiently. I said not a big bureaucracy. It won't be a medium-sized bureaucracy. In fact, we'd like to have virtually no bureaucracy at all. But we will need people to help coordinate. Right now the staff people associated with this are all seconded people; we're not going to be having a big bureaucracy of any size at all. There may well be some people to help coordinate the activities on the training side and the regional side, but it will not be a bureaucracy to speak of. This is an attempt to spend smarter and to coordinate existing activities of the Crown.
The leader of the third party said: "Well, a lot of this stuff can already be done." To some extent he's right. But what we're trying to do is spend smarter and get those corporate objectives overlaid -- the objectives we think British Columbians want, like getting people off welfare and into work, to try to coordinate that activity and achieve those objectives in a way that does not set up some big bureaucratic structure. We're confident that this bill will do that. Over the coming months we'll be able to give you more updates on that, but early indications are, I think, that it will be quite successful.
G. Wilson: In light of the point of order, as it's correctly made, I will definitely have my name changed to Wilchild from Wilson so we can be completely politically correct.
I'd like to come back to the point that the minister's made, and actually elaborate a little on the Leader of the Third Party's comment. The minister said -- and I think I've paraphrased correctly here; I jotted it down -- that a ministry's priorities are sometimes different from government priorities. If that's at work in this government, then we've got a problem here, because one would assume that there is an overall direction from government that is given to ministers, that allows ministers to administer their line budgets as they have been allocated, to be able to accomplish the goals they set out to do at the beginning of each year.
I completely agree with the Minister of Finance when he says that we have to spend smarter. Everyone in this House would agree that there is a need for governments, of whatever stripe, to spend smarter. But how smart is it when we look at the purposes of this bill, and we see that it has a coordinating function, a function for economic development and diversification -- as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out just a few minutes ago -- and also to recognize that the encouraging of public and private sector investment in job creation is tied to two other components of the purposes: promotion of training and the targeting of activities under this act to disadvantaged individuals and groups?
There's nothing in the purposes of this bill, then, that speaks to the main expenditure line -- and I think this is the point that the Leader of the Third Party was getting at -- which is essentially under the proposition establishing the Transportation Financing Authority, which will create the financing of major capital projects such as roads. I wonder if the minister can comment on that in light of what was discussed yesterday in the Health estimates, when we had heard from this minister in second reading debate that the opposition holding up of Bill 3 was going to stop needed construction on hospitals in the province of British Columbia. I specifically asked the Minister of Health yesterday: what projects would be held up in the health budget? The answer was: none. There isn't going to be any financing coming out of the Health budget through Bill 3.
The question is, then: is this a job creation and training bill? If so, why don't you simply integrate ministries as has been suggested by the Liberal opposition? You would reduce the number and size of ministries by integrating ministries into larger coordinating ministries, such as the ministry of community development, which has been well articulated and well discussed. Why wouldn't you do that instead of creating another Crown agency which, notwithstanding the motives of this government...? And I'm going to take the minister at his word when he says he's not going to create a new bureaucracy. Crown corporations tend to become bureaucracies. It's the nature of the beast that they become that way.
If it is an opportunity to borrow outside line ministries.... In second reading debate the Minister of Transportation said this bill allows him to borrow money, which he can't do now. Surely there has to be a better proposition put forward in the purposes of this bill. It talks about the extent to which government will be able to commit funds outside the normal budgetary process -- which isn't even mentioned in the purposes of this bill -- yet later on in the bill there is a whole section that deals with the ability to borrow and the financial administration of it.
Hon. G. Clark: The problem is that we're dealing with the purpose of the bill as opposed to how to implement the purpose. The members opposite have concerns about the how-to in capitalizing finance. The purpose is not to capitalize highways; the purpose is to promote economic development in the region. We will get to the how-to sections later, and we can have that discussion then.
Let me deal specifically with what the leader of Liberal Party has indicated, and that is that we should merge ministries. I understand that argument, but let's deal with what Build B.C. 21 attempts to do. If we were to merge the ministries to promote economic development along the lines that this is contemplating, that means the Ministry of Health -- because it's health capital -- the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways would all have to be
[ Page 5878 ]
merged into one big ministry. I think that is cabinet's role. These are big ministries to begin with. It would be too inefficient to have all of that under one person, as desirable as some people might feel it to be.
This does something which I think makes more sense. It takes the capital spending approved by Treasury Board in the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education and says: "Instead of just shipping that out to the school boards to spend, is there some corporate priorities that we should bring to bear on that capital spending?" We say to them: "Yes -- training, getting people off welfare and working. Let's see if there are other creative ways of matching private sector funding, and all kinds of things that we want to try to bring to bear on those kinds of decisions."
While the Health capital is still implemented by the Ministry of Health -- and she's quite correct, this bill doesn't deal with the social capital side specifically, although B.C. 21 does; legislative authority wasn't required -- it's an attempt to try to coordinate those things. That is an important objective of government as we try to get bigger bang for the buck and try to streamline government and spend smarter.
What we're really saying is that all of these things that are done by different ministries are all capital spending and all promote economic development. They don't come under the Ministry of Economic Development; they sort of just happen. What we want to try to do is at least coordinate them -- if not pull them together -- and try to see if there are ways in which we can do things smarter.
Let me just give you a concrete example. It may be that for some reasons the Ministry of Health wants to build some major facility in a small town that has full employment -- if there were such a thing. At the same time, there are two schools they want built in that same region and there is a highway that's going to be built. It may be -- and this happens when you look around the province -- that certain regions suddenly have a huge amount of public investment and private investment at the same time, and prices are bid up higher than they would otherwise be. Never before, in the history of British Columbia, have you been able to determine that. The Minister of Health does her thing, the Minister of Education does her thing, the school boards are promoting it, and Highways are promoting it on their objective. Trying to coordinate that is not a huge undertaking; it's not a huge, massive bureaucracy.
We're trying to say that maybe it makes more sense to accelerate capital spending in depressed regions. These are things that have to be built anyway; they're on the horizon. Maybe we should space out some public investment in regions which are overheating -- if that were the case in British Columbia. Maybe there's some private sector spending taking place -- major capital spending in some regions -- which is taking all the employment, and any public sector investments simply overheats the economy.
Those are the kinds of things that have never been done before and that will enable government to spend smarter, to target things that have been done to some extent anyway by the various Crowns and social capital envelopes and make sure that they make sense for the region and for other priorities. That's why it's important that we don't simply say this could all be done by one superministry. This is a less dogmatic approach, one that tries more to coordinate those activities and make sure there are other priorities brought to bear, as set out in the purpose section of this bill.
G. Wilson: With the greatest respect to the minister, that just doesn't cut it at all. We're not arguing at this point on the how-to; we're arguing about what you've stated as the purpose of the act in terms of facilitating the expansion and diversification of the B.C. economy. You've set out five criteria; that's what you've talked about here. There is nothing in what the minister has just said now that couldn't be done through a simple coordinating process among ministries and within cabinet -- absolutely nothing. So if that could all be done by having a greater degree of communication and a greater facilitation of planning within line ministries, the stated purposes of this act could be accomplished by an existing structure. Why have this bill?
I think the minister needs to explain why the main portion of this bill.... This is where he's going to say: "You're talking about the how-to, so let's pass the purposes." Then when we get to the how-to, he can say: "We discussed that in the purposes, and you've already passed that, so we don't need to discuss it." We've been through that routine before.
The main purpose of this bill lies in the section that deals with the development of a B.C. Transportation Financing Authority and the ability of that authority to establish this new board with the minister and the four appointed people, which I gather will be a different committee than the one the Economic Development minister's going to be on. At least, if that isn't true, the minister might tell us that's not so.
One understands that there are going to be two different committees under this: one to provide advice to Treasury Board and the executive council; the second to have the clout to go out and borrow, spend, lend and decide where the construction of highways is going to take place. That's under the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, with the minister and four patronage appointments. That isn't even stated in the purposes of the bill. The whole section that deals with that.... In fact, of the four principal parts, the only part that's even discussed in the purposes is part 2, this Committee on Building B.C.'s Future. The rest of it's just hidden under the rug and shuffled through in the bill.
So I think the minister has to be more specific with respect to the purposes of this act. If we're forced to push this through, he should consider being more direct and forthright with the people of British Columbia and tell them that this is a borrowing authority for capital construction through the guise of a Crown corporation, and that it also has the right to acquire, hold and dispose of capital, which no agency right now has outside of the Ministries of Lands, Transportation, and Forests. I think those are the only three that can do that in government now.
[3:30]
[ Page 5879 ]
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I would have thought that we could form an internal committee to do some of this work, but this enhances the accountability in the Legislature for our actions. We now have a legislated committee on which you, members of the opposition, can then question us. Rather than a secret committee trying to coordinate this activity of the government in the back rooms, we now have a committee struck by the Legislature, struck in the legislation, which you then can question every year in terms of their plans. In addition to that, there is another reason, and that's the $100 million special account -- again, a budget item that you can debate every year. There is a requirement in this bill to set up that special account, with the annual amount that may be allocated to this, again to enhance the accountability.
There is also, you're quite correct, a Transportation Financing Authority, which clearly is part of this bill. We're going to canvass those issues and I look forward to them.
Oh the purpose of the bill, this is a broad statement of the purpose of the committee and what the government's intentions are. I would think members opposite would be pleased that we would put in legislation these purposes that you can test us against and question every year. We've set up, by legislation, a committee which allows it. The bill allows us to set up a special account, which again is subject to the appropriation of the Legislature and establishes a financing authority, similar to the hospital and other financing authorities in the House.
I reject the notion that this is simply a financing vehicle for capitalizing highways; it is not, and I'll try to convince you of that over the course of the debate on these questions. There are a variety of other things here. That is one component. I might remind members opposite that Hydro, B.C. Rail and some ministries that the member opposite mentioned all hold property as well. In order to have an income stream attached to the capitalizing of a highway, it requires the holding of that property for the purposes of capitalizing it. That's why the legislation requires that; it's the same for other Crowns and some other ministries of government. But we'll get into that later on in the bill.
G. Wilson: Let's just go through the purposes, because the minister has said that one of the purposes of this bill is this financing authority for capital construction projects and highways. That's only one of them. Well, it's not even in the purposes of the act. The purpose of the act says absolutely nothing. One of the purposes of this act is to facilitate capital financing for highway construction. It's not even in here. We have to understand that if it isn't even in the purposes of the act, we have to ask the question why it isn't a stated purpose, because it is one of the principle purposes. That's not a how-to; that is a purpose. One of the functions of this act is to establish an authority called the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority. That's one of the reasons we have this in front of us today; it's a stated purpose.
My question is: if that is one of the purposes, but is stated as a purpose rather than a how-to -- which the minister is saying -- does that mean that we are going to target an activity under this act, one of the how-tos: capital construction on highways, toward traditionally disadvantaged individuals and groups? In other words, are we going to start to have a different hiring policy for the construction of capital projects, such as highways, that will be targeted toward traditionally disadvantaged individuals and groups? Is one of the purposes of this to redirect money that would currently be administered under day-labour contract or some other kind of tendered contract work toward these disadvantaged groups? Is that one of the purposes of this bill?
Hon. G. Clark: The purpose of the bill is to try to promote the targeting of activities toward traditionally disadvantaged individuals and groups. The member is correct that we will now be reviewing capital spending by the Transportation Financing Authority to see whether it meets those objectives. That's not the sole purpose; there are others. I wouldn't expect that there will necessarily be wholesale changes with respect to the building of highways in the province, but we will now be reviewing those highway construction projects to see whether these kinds of purposes are being accomplished. One of the purposes is to try to target activities for traditionally disadvantaged individuals and groups. It is only one of the purposes; there are others promoting training and investment in people.
It's more likely that in those kinds of construction there might be some review of apprenticeship and other methods to see whether broad goals of government are being pursued in the construction activities. This bill says that these are our priorities and these are the purposes, and we will now be reviewing these to see whether they can meet some of those purposes. We certainly won't meet all of these purposes in all of our capital spending; no doubt the school boards, obviously, for example, who are administering capital projects.... We will want to engage in a dialogue with school boards, hospital boards and the like to see whether there are ways we can work cooperatively to achieve these kinds of priorities -- and similarly with construction companies and the like.
We're not at this time saying that there are going to be huge changes to the way this business is done, except that we now have the vehicle to coordinate, review it and see whether we can promote it. We think significant things can be done. In keeping with the notion of spending smarter, these are tax dollars which are going out anyway, so are they being used to the best advantage? Are we training our young people? Are we trying to target those kinds of investments for those purposes? We now will be asking those questions for the first time.
The Chair: If I could comment for a moment, member, before you continue. I'd like to take a moment to comment on the debate on section 2. This bill contains a purpose section, although bills rarely contain such a section. The committee stage is intended to provide an opportunity to address the contents of the bill, and what I see happening is a recanvassing of
[ Page 5880 ]
second reading. So I have allowed some latitude, but I'd encourage committee members to exercise some restraint in this area.
G. Wilson: I do want to talk specifically about the content of 2(e). Can the minister provide us some definition as to who are traditionally disadvantaged individuals and what groups are going to be affected in the construction of capital projects under this bill?
Hon. G. Clark: The problem with this kind of discussion is that it's a tautological one. In other words, this is a definition section, and now the minister is saying that we'll be defining disadvantaged people as those who are disadvantaged. It's a circular argument; that's what tautology is.
I will not answer that question right now. As I've said, we will be reviewing all these questions to see whether in fact there are criteria to be established. We will be reviewing them. If there are criteria established, I assure the member they will be announced in due course. They will be made available to all members of the House at the time of the announcement, and we can debate them then.
What we are saying is that there is, for example, capital construction by government in regions with structurally high unemployment; say, aboriginal people or the like. We want to take the opportunity to see whether or not it is possible to work with the local regions, with the developers or with the agency sponsoring the capital investment to see if we can maybe do a better job of incorporating disadvantaged groups or local groups in the construction of public facilities that this bill contemplates.
So there are no criteria or quotas established. None of that is in the bill. We're simply saying that there are disadvantaged groups. That's a fact. There are these regional concerns. We now want to review these projects to see whether there are ways in which we can work. There would be no blanket. In my view, it is very clear that there's not going to be any kind of diktat or standardized rules from Victoria. We're going to try to look at specific cases across the piece to see whether there are ways in which we can simply try to meet the purposes that the bill sets out.
G. Wilson: As I understand it, then, one of the stated purposes is toward traditionally disadvantaged individuals and groups, although that's not clearly defined. Yet the minister has acknowledged that capital expenditure will be targeted toward these individuals in order to be able to make these individuals and groups less disadvantaged and therefore no longer eligible for the money in the second go-round, I would assume, because they will have had the advantage of the dollars, that they would no longer be disadvantaged and therefore would be disqualified from being able to continue under the construction activities that they were hired under in the first place. That would seem to be the logical argument.
I wonder if I could just come back to the comments from, I think, the member for Vancouver-Hastings, where one of the stated purposes.... I don't want to go back into second reading debate, but this does specifically tie into this question. The member said, "I must say I'm disappointed in the opposition's failure to understand what it's all about" -- i.e., the purpose of this bill. He said that this project focuses on people, and then he talks about the fact that one of the things it will accomplish is to increase the number of women contracted into things such as carpentry, sheet metal, heavy equipment operations, mechanics and so on, which would, of course, dovetail nicely into capital expenditures on highway programs.
Can the minister tell us whether one of the things we can look forward to, as one of the stated purposes under section 2(e), is essentially a labour makeup within the traditional day labour contracting service that would provide for gender equality and other kinds of specific labour makeup in order to make contractors eligible for highway capital construction money?
Hon. G. Clark: I know that the leader of the Liberal Party is having difficulty understanding the purpose of this, because it's new and innovative and it is an attempt to move into the twenty-first century. I think the leader of the Liberal Party is stuck in the last century.
What we're saying very clearly -- and the member for Vancouver-Hastings made an excellent point -- is that there are disadvantaged groups that we want to try to help. This bill now allows us to screen and review capital spending to see if there are mechanisms we can employ to try to promote women, say, in the construction industry. We will be attempting to do that. No decision has been made as to precisely how to do it.
[3:45]
Lots of companies are coming forward and saying: "We want to play a role in promoting training, and we're prepared to take people off welfare and put them to work." We're getting lots of people who are interested in this idea and private sector people who want to work with the government on this initiative. So we will be trying to work with them and the people of B.C. in order to tailor our projects to promote women in the trades, for example. We make no secret about it. But there is no blanket policy statement saying exactly how that's going to be accomplished. We intend to try to work with private sector companies, in particular, to see if there are ways in which we can do that.
G. Wilson: Can the minister then confirm that under the comment with respect to the purpose of this bill -- and, again, I'm trying to be specific on the purposes of it.... As was pointed out, the member for Vancouver-Hastings said that the B.C. initiative has an employment equity program built into it. What we're hearing now is that under this, traditionally disadvantaged individuals or groups are going to take advantage of those capital construction programs. Will the minister then tell us whether or not contractors, who will be contracting for dollars that will be spent on capital construction programs, are going to have to have some kind of means test with respect to the employees they have within their service?
[ Page 5881 ]
Hon. G. Clark: The leader of the Liberal Party is calling for something that the federal government has had for some time, which is that all contract work done for the federal government requires an employment equity program. We haven't yet made the decision that all government work would have those kinds of strings attached to it. Clearly we are going to be reviewing it to see whether or not there are ways of promoting disadvantaged groups in capital construction projects funded by the taxpayer if in regions with high unemployment. We're going to be reviewing that. That is one option which the federal government has pursued; it's not an option which we have made a decision on. Implicit in the purpose section is the promotion of trying to use government construction projects in a smarter way. So, again, we're targeting the money to get people off welfare and into work and also to deal with disadvantaged groups in society.
G. Wilson: I think we're beginning to see a lot more clearly what this government has in mind. This isn't so much an innovative bill; it's a somewhat deceptive bill, as my colleague from the third party has just said. The purpose of this, then, is to essentially coordinate the redirection of taxpayers' money into make-work projects by the government -- albeit some of them may be necessary, and we would certainly argue that capital construction on highways is necessary. It would appear that in order to be able to benefit people and groups that are traditionally disadvantaged.... If I can just look at (d) then, and how the training component comes into this. It talks about promoting training and public sector investment through public sector investment activity. Does the minister say then that one of the stated purposes of this is to implement in British Columbia a government-driven apprenticeship program in the trades? Is that one of the bill's stated purposes?
Hon. G. Clark: Well, no. The purpose is to promote training and investment in people. But during the last administration -- when I was sitting in that chair, actually, that the Leader of the Liberal Party is sitting in -- it came to our attention that B.C. Hydro, one of the largest corporations in British Columbia, had not a single apprentice. I don't know whether that has changed in the last little while; I suspect it has, because of the government's agenda in this area. But I just say that that's not acceptable. It's not acceptable that public sector corporations -- commercial Crown corporations -- are not investing in training young people in the province. So what we're saying -- the member is correct -- is that the government is going to be looking at spending by the government. We're asking whether these private companies that are benefiting essentially from public construction dollars are doing a good enough job on training young people. I think that's an example of spending smarter. We're already spending money on schools and hospital construction, for example -- and have been for some time. We're now saying: are we as taxpayers getting a big enough bang for that? Are they doing a good enough job of training? Should we impose some restrictions on public construction, which requires an apprenticeship ratio or training component? That's precisely what this bill contemplates. The member is correct.
The Chair: The member.
G. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Oh, sorry, Madam Chairman.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: Well, I take the Leader of the Opposition's definition of a portion of "human" being man. I think we're all becoming sort of gender neutral in this world, anyway.
Let me come back to this, because this is a very important point. I'm not certain that I disagree with all of it. But it's a very important point in terms of looking at what this bill is all about, in terms of purposes. If I'm to then understand what the minister said earlier on, which was that they were going to try to target some of this public sector spending into traditionally depressed regions, because they want to do something about the regions. There are capital projects that need to go under construction, anyway -- highways, schools, whatever they may be -- and they are now saying that they are not only going to target that money to those traditionally disadvantaged regions but they're going to do so in a manner that will make those successful bidders have an enforced apprenticeship program, already have one in place or have a workforce that is made up of some kind of equity program that the government can accept. If that's true -- and I think that's a fair summary of what he has just said -- where are these contractors going to be found in the small communities around British Columbia, contractors whose livelihoods are dependent upon government contract work, who already have employees on staff, who already have capital investment in equipment and who have operators standing by? Where are they going to find the additional capital that's required to put in place the kind of additional training programs and the kind of hiring program that's going to give them that equity in order to make them a successful bidder? Is it in fact going to be a situation that will favour union contractors, who may already have that as a result of their union contract, over non-union contractors, who traditionally do not participate in those kinds of activities because they are often smaller, often not capitally financed to the same extent and often are very regional -- i.e., they operate in a very small radius in terms of their job potential. That's a very important point, because it's likely to affect the livelihood of an awful lot of small contractors in this province.
Hon. G. Clark: I don't know if it disproportionately affects one group or the other. But I'll give you the opposite argument. In some regions one of the concerns we found as MLAs -- I'm sure you have, as well -- is that contractors are brought in from Vancouver to do work, and there are contractors out of work in that region; it's a depressed region.
[ Page 5882 ]
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: No. This is the opposite. This says that we have regional economic development as a priority, as a purpose. I say that it would be better for us, as part of the criteria, to try to work with local people to get the job done. I wouldn't say, if we were to do what you suggested, that it would necessarily disproportionately favour big union companies over non-union companies. Lots of non-union companies have apprentices and apprentice training programs. Lots of local companies do as well. We're not saying this is designed to favour one segment or the other. We're saying that it is a priority for the government to promote those kinds of training and investment initiatives. This is the purpose of the bill, and we'll work with private sector employers to try to achieve those goals.
J. Tyabji: When we asked for a definition of traditionally disadvantaged individuals, the minister said earlier that the criteria for that is being set up by someone else. Could the minister be more specific? We've got here, as part of the purpose, that the activities will be targeted toward traditionally disadvantaged individuals and groups, and we have a member of the back bench indicating that those groups would include, for example, gender groups or perhaps ethnic groups or however it would be. Who is setting the criteria? Is it the Minister of Women's Equality in conjunction with the Minister of Economic Development? Who is drawing it up? Is this minister having some input? If this minister is having some input, what kind of direction is this minister providing?
Hon. G. Clark: The member is quite correct. The Minister of Women's Equality will be involved in this. This is a broad government initiative. Anything to do with employment equity or that kind of initiative is the Minister of Women's Equality's area. Government personnel services division, which is my responsibility, also has some expertise in this area. These would be the people reviewing any B.C. 21 initiatives we do in this regard. We're not duplicating work that's already been done. In fact the ministries themselves will be feeding into the B.C. 21 committee to see if there are things that we can work on.
J. Tyabji: Does that mean the committee for B.C. 21 will actually be drafting the criteria to define this, or will the criteria be drafted by the ministers? Do the criteria exist somewhere but are not ready for public consumption? We know the Minister of Women's Equality is involved. Do we have the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism involved? Do we have the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs involved? I see the minister shaking his head. Maybe the minister would put that on record. Are the criteria being drafted or are they currently drafted and just not being released? To what extent is the implementation of those criteria, through the purposes, viable with the private sector? I know we're dealing with public sector investment but, obviously, if we're talking about government contracts, we'll be dealing with the private sector.
Hon. G. Clark: This is public sector investment, but almost all of it is carried out by private sector employers and there won't be any change in that. Clearly we'll want to be working with those private sector employers in any of these initiatives. No criteria been developed at this stage. We simply have this as a purpose. We'll be involving various groups, and particularly the Minister of Women's Equality, in reviewing the capital spending to see whether there are things that we can do to promote activities for traditionally disadvantaged groups.
F. Gingell: Just following on, will the Minister of Labour have input into those that are traditionally disadvantaged. If one listened to his report from his estimates debate, he certainly seemed to indicate that anybody who wasn't unionized was disadvantaged. Will this purpose section be used to assist the Minister of Labour in what he sees as a desirable effect -- the unionization of the B.C. labour force?.
[F. Garden in the chair.]
Hon. G. Clark: This line of questioning points out the desirability of this approach to development, because these initiatives are underway. I'm not talking about the latter comments by the Leader of the Opposition but initiatives with respect to training in the Ministry of Advanced Education. All of the spadework will be done by the Ministry of Advanced Education and Training. But the committee is trying to draw on that expertise and feed it into capital planning, so the Minister of Labour would likely be involved in areas which affect his jurisdiction; the Minister of Advanced Education would be involved in areas which affect his jurisdiction; and the Minister of Women's Equality likewise. We're trying to streamline and feed those into the mix. So he will be involved in areas of his jurisdiction.
C. Tanner: When I first read this piece of legislation.... Before we came into the debate on the second amendment and before we made our amendments, and since we've got into the committee, I was nervous, but now that we've had an opportunity to listen to the minister, I'm terrified of what he's going to do. He's dispensing with Treasury Board, he's dispensing with the departments, he's dispensing with the control that he has as a minister and that government has over the various departments of government, and he is taking unto himself -- because through this bill he's going to chair the committee -- and four other people, authorities which rightly belong to the Legislature and to this cabinet.
[4:00]
The minister scared me even further, because when he was talking about who was going to participate, he inadvertently mentioned the cabinet and caucus. He didn't mention anybody over on this side of the House, so it's very obvious which way he's going. He's going to
[ Page 5883 ]
take a select few people out of his cabinet, and he's going to run the various projects around the province for the benefit of whom? Not school board, because the school board already does it; not hospitals, because the hospitals already have the authority to do it.
Why can't this minister do exactly what he's doing here with a committee of government? Why does he have to take it out of the Legislature and put it in a Crown corporation? The minister keeps telling us that we get to see the Crown corporations. We get to see them a year and a half after they've done it, when they want to report to this House. We don't get the same opportunity to offer criticism with a Crown corporation that we do now with a minister. In my view, the minister hasn't given any reasonable explanation for separating this from government into a Crown corporation. Why can't he do it with a committee of government?
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, it's not really the purpose of the section, and I disagree with most of the member's comments. This notion that you can't question a minister responsible for a Crown corporation doesn't hold up under any scrutiny. Last year in this House the leader of the Liberal Party spent about three hours on the Ferry Corporation. They were excellent, thoughtful and constructive questions on the Ferry Corporation. It was a good discussion, one of the best discussions we've had in criticism and construction. That kind of debate is encouraged, and I think it is useful.
Because there is a Transportation Financing Authority, no doubt the Minister of Highways will be accountable in this chamber, and all those questions can be asked for the public record. There is no material difference between the questioning that the leader of the Liberal Party undertook last year on the Ferry Corporation and my opposition spokesperson for Finance on the financial questions. We are all open and accountable on that question.
C. Tanner: If that's the case, would the minister tell this side of the House -- and the public, I guess, for the same reason -- why you can't get a coordinating committee of departments to do exactly what you're doing here? Raise the money through Treasury Board, which is the right way to do it. You still haven't said why you've got to take it outside of government to do it. Why can't you do it within government? Why can't you do it in the normal process of government, which you were used to and we were used to? You criticized the previous government for doing this very same thing. You were most critical of them when they set up a separate fund to do some of these things. Why can't you accept your own criticism of the previous government and do this within government?
Hon. G. Clark: I think we're getting a little bit repetitive. I'm not criticizing the member, but we've had this discussion at some length.
The member is correct. There could be a committee coordinating this without legislation. We thought it better to put it up front in the House so the public could see exactly what we're doing and the purpose of what we're trying to accomplish. That's number one. Second, we did need legislation for the special account in order to try to make sure that that money goes to job stimulus and job creation initiatives. And third, we needed legislation for the Transportation Financing Authority in any event. So we thought it best to be up front with people, put it all out in the legislation and encourage this kind of debate and discussion so that we could be up front about the purposes and what we're trying to accomplish, rather than doing it in the back room as a little committee that no one gets a chance to debate in the House.
C. Tanner: The minister is making my point for me. That's what I'm saying. In my view, up front means the cabinet sitting down, making a decision and appointing a committee which answers to cabinet. That's the way it's been done in Canada for 100 years. The minister is saying, under this legislation -- not only this, but in other parts of this legislation -- that as few as three people can buy and sell and administer public funds. I'm saying that that is not up front; that's in the closet. Well, you yourself can do it; that's even more worrisome. But you're doing it in the closet; you're not doing it up front; you're not doing it in the cabinet process.
Hon. G. Clark: Treasury Board still approves all spending from the special account. So there's no diminution of the authority in the bill. I want members to know that. It happens at this time that the chair of Treasury Board and the chair of this committee is the same person. It needn't be so. Treasury Board still has the authority.
G. Farrell-Collins: I can probably answer the question from the member for Saanich North and the Islands. The reason the government is doing this is that just forming a cabinet committee and getting together in some room and making these arrangements and agreements isn't glitzy; it isn't sexy. It's not something you can take around the province and market as a big re-election campaign. Quite clearly the strategy of the government in this bill is to do those types of things that we're talking about but to put it in a package and give it a nice name. In fact they've tried three different names in order to come up with one that they thought would market. I imagine there was a bit of polling that went into that, too. Then they'll take that package around the province and sell it as some wonderful new program that the government's been doing -- this wonderful thing they are giving the people of the province. But the part that he's not going to tell people about is that somewhere along the line they're going to have to pay for it. Clearly it is a step backward for the government to.... In fact, I suppose we're looking at vote-buying at its best, in the old political way of doing things.
But if I can ask the minister a question -- it does tie in fairly well, and I'm glad we're doing it today. The Minister of Labour stood up about an hour or so ago in this House and stated that non-unionized employees
[ Page 5884 ]
were disadvantaged; that if you weren't part of a union you were disadvantaged. That may be his philosophical point of view; I'll let him have it. I don't tend to agree with him. I think it's the employees that choose whether they want to be unionized or not.
But if non-union employees are disadvantaged or underrepresented.... In the construction industry we know the views of the minister -- in fact, we know the views of the government. The union sector of the construction industry, according to the minister, is underrepresented to the point where, he said last year, he had trouble finding a union company to build his house. My question to the minister is: is there going to be any preferential treatment given to union or non-union under the purpose clause of this bill when it comes time to look at some of those disadvantaged groups?
Hon. G. Clark: No. As you can see from the purpose section, there's no reference to union versus non-union. The purposes of what we're trying to accomplish are very clear. If it means that it can be accomplished with a non-union employer in certain cases, clearly that will be desirable. If it can be accomplished with a union employer, that would desirable as well. The purposes are clearly spelled out, and there's no preference with respect to union versus non-union.
G. Farrell-Collins: I just want to get the minister on record saying quite clearly that there will be no provision in this bill, or in any of the expenditures of this bill, stating a preference for union or non-union companies and whether or not they may be involved in the process of construction that goes along with the expenditures of this authority.
Hon. G. Clark: That's correct. We have some clear priorities, and the purpose section of the bill spells them out very clearly. It may be that from time to time a unionized employer would best be able to accomplish those purposes, or it may be that a non-union employer would best be able to accomplish those priorities. I suspect that there would be regional variations on that, depending on the project. We have nothing in here which biases one way or the other. Our objectives are clear.
One member stood up -- I can't remember who; maybe it was the leader of the Liberal Party -- and said that apprenticeship programs, which are a priority of the government, may advantage unionized contractors. I don't know the answer to that. That may be the case. But if that is the case, it won't be because we're trying to promote unionized contractors; it will be because we're trying to promote apprenticeships. To be honest with members, in the 1990s there were lots of apprentices working for non-union companies. So I would not say categorically whether that would benefit one or the other. Our purposes are very clearly spelled out in the bill.
G. Farrell-Collins: I don't believe that the purposes of the bill are as specifically and clearly spelled out as the minister would like us to think. In fact, there's only one statement, section 2(e), which says: "targeting activities under this Act toward traditionally disadvantaged individuals and groups." Quite clearly, we've had numerous statements, not only by the minister himself but also by his fellow ministers, to the effect that traditionally disadvantaged groups in this province include the union sector of the construction industry. The minister has said that even the employees of the non-union construction firms are disadvantaged, and they have actually brought in a fair wage policy to try and deal with that.
There are quite clearly some very strong feelings among the ministry staff and members of this government about who is and who is not disadvantaged as it relates to union and non-union employees, particularly within the construction field. While it doesn't state union and non-union construction workers, it's quite obvious that the government can pass this type of bill and then come back and set policy under section 2(e) and say: "The reason we have to expand the fair wage policy to include all these other things, and the reason we have to include union labour as opposed to non-union labour on this project, is that we're trying to ameliorate the traditional disadvantage of the union sector as a group, a union company or non-union employees in another firm." Does the minister agree that that's certainly a possibility? If it is a possibility in his mind, will he give us some clear guidance on that today -- much clearer than he has so far -- that those factors are not being taken into consideration?
Hon. G. Clark: I think the member is reaching to say that traditionally disadvantaged individuals and groups are unionized construction companies. I guess as we move forward, if there are agreements to deal with apprenticeships and the like in public construction, then those will be scrutinized by members of the opposition of the day. We will make the case, based on the principles and priorities laid out here, that they meet our objectives for the bill. I guess it will be up to the public to decide whether in fact we're doing that. But we have not specifically biased the bill in favour or against unionized or non-union construction companies.
The Chair: The hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.
G. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That brogue sort of makes me want to ask you to beam me up; I'm just a Trekker fan at heart. The real question is: beam me up to where?
Coming back, if I may, to 2(a), where it talks about coordinating activities. I understand the minister first started off to talk about this as a coordinating function, that this is going to have an activity to be able to coordinate. I think I understood, when the leader of the Third Party was questioning the minister, that this was not only going to coordinate government activities but would have an opportunity to coordinate the Crowns.
If that's the purpose of this act, can the minister tell me whether or not this is going to fall under the Crown
[ Page 5885 ]
corporations secretariat, and if it does what's the relationship between the Crown corporations secretariat and the control over this project?
Hon. G. Clark: An excellent question -- although I'm not sure your time couldn't be more productively employed, to the leader of the Liberal Party.
The Crown corporations secretariat will be precisely the body dealing with the coordination of the Crown corporations capital, and then it will feed into B.C. 21 as we try to coordinate all the activities, including the Crown's.
Again, there's no duplication. There will be no staff people hired. There are some staff people hired at the Crown corporations secretariat, and they will be the people doing the work in terms of reviewing business plans and the like.
But now what will happen is we'll be asking the Crown corporations secretariat to review the business plans of the Crowns and capital spending plans of the Crowns, in light of government priorities, and report to the B.C. 21 committee with that so that we can again try to not just coordinate activities between the Crowns but now coordinate activities of the Crowns with the overall government objectives that are laid out here -- training and economic development, and the like.
G. Wilson: I know when we get way back to the end of the bill -- and I don't want to jump ahead because I realize we're only dealing with the purposes -- but I think it is important that under the consequential amendments.... Section 30(2.1) deals primarily with the reporting function of the Crown corporations, and it amends by providing an addition that says that there now has to be business plans, strategic plans, and so on.
Does that mean then that the Crown corporations secretariat essentially becomes the driving agency for the expenditures of Crown capital. If it isn't that, does it mean that the Crown corporations secretariat is going to become the project -- under the purpose of this act, and we're coming back to the purpose of this act just in case there should be an attempt to foist this off to some other debate later on when we've already passed this and then we're told we should have brought that up when we were in the purposes section.... Is it the purpose of this act, in that coordinating function, to integrate an overall strategic plan for Crown corporation expenditures that will be facilitated through this bill, and if that's the case, who from the Crown corporations secretariat will control that process?
[4:15]
Hon. G. Clark: No, that's too strong. It's not a centralizing strategic plan for all the Crowns: it's merely the capital spending of the Crowns. Their business plans with their board of directors, their ministers, will now be reviewed. Remember I said earlier that we may find there are some regions that -- for a series of unrelated initiatives -- have a lot of capital spending, and we want to try to coordinate that. But it's more information and coordination; it's not direction to the Crowns, except in a cooperative way working with the Crowns to try to achieve these kinds of objectives. There's no kind of super control mechanism.
I'll say for the members that one option for the bill in its early stages was to have the capital spending by Crowns approved by this committee, and you'll notice that's not in there. This now simply says that capital spending will be reviewed by the committee. So there's not an approval or veto approach. That's quite properly up to the Crowns, their boards of directors, management and the ministers responsible. We simply want to get the information about their capital spending plans, see how they overlay the social capital and other initiatives and then talk to them about training and other initiatives on which we can work together in those regions.
Again, I'd prefer it if we could.... We've been a long time on the purpose section. That is obviously a very important question, which we will get to later on in the consequential amendments. It might be more appropriate to have a discussion then.
G. Wilson: I don't want to belabour this to the point of repetition, and I'm really not trying to do that. I am trying to understand, though. The difference between approval and review is an important one, and I guess we can debate that at a later time. But when it says that it's going to coordinate "the government's activities to achieve the...economic development and job creation goals," does that mean that in that review process.... The purpose of this bill is essentially to target capital construction projects or expenditures under the Crowns to meet criteria that are set out in these purposes. So you're not saying they have to get their expenditures approved, but how they spend their money is going to have to meet the purposes of this bill. B.C. Hydro, in its construction projects, for example, is going to have to meet the same kind of apprenticeship and pay equity program targets, whatever those targets are that are brought out by this committee. So this won't only apply to line ministerial expenditures, but it will now also apply to every Crown corporation. Is that correct?
Hon. G. Clark: Essentially, that's correct; a bit overstated, but correct. The criteria will be established by B.C. 21, and then the evaluation of that will be done by the Crown corporations secretariat. It's more a guidance to Crowns. Again, I don't think there will be blanket rules applied to everybody in every sector. It's more trying to work with the Crowns to see what's doable. But we will expect our Crowns -- not simply the line ministries and private sector development -- to be leaders in training, apprenticeship and those kinds of objectives. We want to see the Crowns do that job.
J. Weisgerber: Indeed, we now have embarked on a discussion regarding Crown corporations that a reading of this bill would not indicate. I've just thumbed through again all the sections of the bill, and I don't see any reference to Crown corporations.
Hon. G. Clark: The consequential amendment.
[ Page 5886 ]
J. Weisgerber: A consequential amendment, the minister says. What we are talking about, then, is not a purpose for a Crown corporation, but a bill which will amend the Financial Information Act and have an influence on all the Crown corporations. The minister says such things as that the committee, which we will be investigating in a moment or two, will examine and review the capital spending plans of the Crown corporations but not require the Crown corporations to take action.
We have large Crown corporations now -- B.C. Hydro, B.C. Rail -- that have legislation and are administered by boards of directors that involve ministers of the Crown. I think that we are putting the employees and executives of these corporations through a great deal more uncertainty than they are used to. I don't think there's going to be a very clear understanding of the reporting relationship or the responsibility of the Crown corporations. It seems to me that what we hear in the purpose of this bill and the consequential amendments that follow is very much a continuation of the consolidation of power that we first saw under the Crown corporations secretariat. We now see some legislation which will give more authority, whether it be moral or implied, to the Crown corporations secretariat and those people who are obviously of influence in it. Should we once again mention your mentor, Mr. Williams? We see very much again the spectre that we've seen all through the administration of this government here again in this bill, although it's done in a way that is circuitous, to be kind. The Crowns don't quite get mentioned, but by a consequential amendment through the Financial Administration Act, the reality is that we're just bringing in a bill that has implications for our Crown corporations far beyond what I think most of us anticipated in second reading. I really believe that at least I entered into second reading debate believing that we were talking about a new Crown corporation and borrowing to an extent that I didn't agree with, but I didn't believe that we were once again seeing Bob Williams, the Crown corporations secretariat and this increasing influence over the lives of British Columbians coming by way of this Build BC Act.
I'm disappointed with it. If that's the intention of the government, they should be more forthright in stating their objections and identifying the Crown corporations that they apply to. They should name the Crown corporations and clarify if there is a reporting relationship between the Crowns. It's important for the benefit of directors of Crown corporations, like the ones that were here visiting us today. Coming, as that person did, by way of an election defeat, we know that this person is not likely going to understand the reporting process of Crown corporations very well, which is going to make it even more difficult for those people to follow.
Hon. G. Clark: The member's characterization of this as just a big bill to capitalize highways was incorrect, but he's also now incorrect in saying that this is some kind of centralizing authority. What the leader of the Liberal Party said is closer to the truth: what we're having with this B.C. 21 committee is the establishment of criteria for public investment, which includes Crown corporations. Training, as I said.... I don't know if you were in the House when I said that B.C. Hydro had no apprentices at all a few years ago. Now, after a change of government, they have some apprentices.
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Chair, I'm being a bit unfair, but there was a period of time a few years ago when they had no apprentices at one of the largest corporations in the province. That's not acceptable, and I'm sure the member opposite agrees. We're saying that if we're going to require training of, say, construction companies doing public construction, then we should require it of our Crowns as well. We are going to be simply reviewing their.... We're establishing criteria and asking the secretariat to review the plans to see whether they're meeting it. But it's not a heavy-handed approval mechanism; it's simply reviewing and trying to work with the Crowns to do a better job on training and some of the other purposes. That was made clear.
By the way, I'll say to members that every member of the House, including the members of the opposition, got a whole package on the B.C. 21 initiative which clearly spelled out the Crowns' involvement in this, and I'm sorry if the member chose not to read it.
J. Weisgerber: Well, just to set the record straight, and for the benefit of those who didn't have the opportunity to be aware of the conversation that was going on across the table, the minister knows that B.C. Hydro has had apprentices for most of its existence. He also knows that the reason there were no apprentices at one time at B.C. Hydro was because of the requirements of the union agreement. It was not there by the wishes of the board of directors at B.C. Hydro or the management at B.C. Hydro. They didn't want to be in the position of having to lay off all of their apprentices.
So if we're going to talk about the lack of apprentices and the responsibility for that, then let's put it out on the table and be forthright and upfront about it. There were not good reasons, but very real reasons, why at one point in its history B.C. Hydro didn't have apprentices. Nevertheless, let me finish again by saying that I am concerned that what we see is this continuing concentration and centralization of influence.
I'm delighted that I've had an opportunity to take part in this debate, because if there was material that came out from the minister -- and I'm sure there was -- it probably got lost in one of the 28 press releases that came that day, or it probably got sandwiched in something announcing some small grant or other that the minister might have given to somebody or other. Anyway, I don't approve of but now understand the growing influence and centralization of control over the Crown corporations.
G. Wilson: I only have a half dozen or so more questions on this. I would like to very thoroughly canvass the purposes of this act. It was through this
[ Page 5887 ]
canvassing that we have discovered this is a much different creature than some had originally believed it to be. To give some credit to the minister, I think that this was a very clever manoeuvre to try to get this through. But careful and close reading of what has come forward does demonstrate that this Crown corporate entity was in this bill. It's around this that I have a couple of other questions.
[4:30]
With respect to the overall goals of government with Crowns, and how this coordinating function is going to work in expenditure of dollars, I'd like to know to what extent there will be an involvement of the chair of the Crown corporations secretariat. We notice that two committees will be struck. I understand the first committee is the minister and other members of the Legislative Assembly, which would presumably preclude the chair actually sitting on that committee. However, there are some connections that can be made with respect to assisting staff.
With respect to the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, it's possible for there to be delegation of authority to the board and appointment to the board. Given that this is going to be a Crown agency, what will be the involvement of the chair of the Crown corporations secretariat? What role is Mr. Williams going to play?
Interjection.
G. Wilson: Excuse me -- Bob Williams. I stand corrected. I've so long believed that Bob Williams is the chair, the secretary and the board of directors that I just had forgotten, in fact, that it's the minister who is the chair.
What role will Mr. Williams play in this particular agency?
Hon. G. Clark: I don't mind answering, though it has nothing to do with the purpose of the act. But if the member is talking about the Transportation Financing Authority -- no direct role. It is a Crown corporation or financing vehicle, and so it will be expected to meet criteria set by B.C. 21. The Crown corporations secretariat will evaluate the capital spending plans to see if they are meeting that criteria. That's all.
G. Wilson: The role that will be played, as I understand it -- if we can take it beyond.... I disagree that this has nothing to do with the purposes of this act; I think that it in fact speaks to the heart of the purposes of this act. Outside of just the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, Mr. Williams and the Crown corporations secretariat will act as an agency that essentially will review all of the plans for expenditures through this Crown agency of all the Crown corporations. It is going to be his job, or the job of his staff, to make sure that the assignment of contracts meets the new standards of employment, training and other regional economic and overall economic development goals that are spelled out in the purposes of this act. Is that correct?
At risk of pushing the minister on this point, I think it speaks to the heart of the purposes of this act. If the purpose of this act is to facilitate the expansion and diversification of the B.C. economy by five methods, then presumably we need to know what those five methods are with respect to the functioning purpose and how those purposes are going to be defined, so that we understand what the purposes are about. What is the measurement for the implementation of those particular criteria? If the purpose of the act is to be accomplished, it has to have that agency to make it work. Otherwise it would seem to me that all kinds of other things could be brought in here that aren't spelled out under those five particular criteria. I think the role of Mr. Williams is pivotal to the purposes of this act, because it's going to be under his administration that these criteria are going to be reviewed and applied.
L. Fox: I've been listening to this debate and becoming more and more educated on the contents within the purpose section. I had some questions with respect to what this review process would mean to other corporations under the purpose section -- one corporation in particular is BCBC. I would like to know what kind of delay in the process the minister envisions this review would cause on projects that BCBC would be taking to Treasury Board, and how long a process this review might be.
Hon. G. Clark: We will deal with that when we get to that specific amendment, if it's okay with the member. This is the purpose section, as opposed to the consequential amendment section, which is at the end of the bill.
L. Fox: I don't want to miss the opportunity, because having been through this process before -- and especially with this minister -- I found that in thinking that something was going to be reviewed in a later clause, I was only referred back to the fact that it should have been dealt with in the purpose clause. With your indulgence, let me then go to one further point that concerns me. The minister will be aware that the BCBC has had a policy.... I'm not sure what it is under this government, but the policy under the previous administration was that it encouraged many of its projects to go on a proposal basis. Would this review include, for instance, a policy of whether or not that proposal should be a government-funded project or whether or not it should be a private-funded project, or go on a proposal basis?
G. Wilson: I'd like to move on, having canvassed (a), (d) and (e) under the purpose section. I wonder if we could just get some clarification on sections (b) and (c) so that we're fully apprised.
With respect to, "ensuring that all regions of the Province benefit from economic expansion and diversification," under the criteria that we talked about -- and we now understand the apprenticeship and training and those kinds of criteria under (d) and (e) -- does that mean that there is going to be a regional bias provided, under the purposes of this act, to the
[ Page 5888 ]
expenditure of capital in the province of British Columbia? For example, if we're talking about capital financing for highways, let's take a look at the Island Highway. Is Vancouver Island a region that would seem to be getting its fair share, given that the expenditures on that project are going to probably detract from the ability to do construction work elsewhere in the province? Is that the kind of regional diversification we're talking about? Under the purposes of this bill, how does that fit?
Hon. G. Clark: This is a general statement of purpose. What we're seeing is very much the development of two economies: the lower mainland and southern Vancouver Island on the one hand and the rest of the province on the other. The lower mainland has a certain driver and a lower unemployment rate. As the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, I know that it has other problems. But outside the lower mainland, particularly in the regions, there are some structural unemployment problems which are quite significant.
We want to make sure that the scarce government resources are targeted to regions of the province which have not recovered fully from the early 1980s, for example, or have persistently high structural unemployment. We wanted to make sure that one of the purposes was to try to ensure that we're targeting resources there, but not solely there, because obviously there will be things on southern Vancouver Island, as well as in Vancouver and in the lower mainland region. We want to try to focus as much as we can trying to deal with regions which have, say, chronic unemployment problems. That's the broad statement of purpose. There's some detail in section 5 of the bill.
G. Wilson: I can appreciate that, and I know that there will be a much more intensive debate on some other sections, section 5 being one, in terms of the advice and so on.
Nevertheless, the purpose of this, then, is to more equitably distribute the capital financing, as I understand it, so that regions where there's a chronic unemployment problem or regions of the province that are chronically depressed can benefit from government expenditure. Is that what the minister is saying under this bill?
Hon. G. Clark: Yes, but that's not quite right. There are a lot of growth pressures in the lower mainland which will benefit from school construction and the like. So we can't simply say that we're not going to build any schools in Surrey because it's in the lower mainland and it's doing better. That's not our intent at all.
However, we want to try, particularly with the discretionary dollars that the $100 million special account targeted.... Silviculture is such a nice fit, because (a) a significant portion of the workers will be people on social assistance in the regions, and (b) it's investing in the land base, which in the long run creates jobs in the forest sector in the regions. That's one of the best examples of this initiative -- that it's targeted outside the lower mainland; targeted to a particular group, social assistance recipients; and targeted to capital investment, which lays the foundation for positive growth in the future. One of the purposes is to try to promote that kind of diversification and economic development in regions of the province which have not done as well in recent years.
G. Wilson: I don't want to belabour this unnecessarily. It is a fascinating subject, outside the general line of politics, to somebody who is involved as a regional economist, an economic geographer and an academic. The regional diversification of the economy in a province like British Columbia is an enormous challenge. While we may want to move capital expenditures out of the lower mainland, which includes the fast-growth areas, we find that some of the chronically depressed regions are depressed because they lack the skilled labour and the training as a result of a lack of investment -- a chicken-and-an-egg kind of problem.
I wonder if the purpose is to diversify into the regions. Let's use silviculture as the example. As I understand it, right now silviculture contracts are in fact administered through the Ministry of Forests. I understand that isn't going to change under this bill; they'll still be administered by the Ministry of Forests.
However, it would seem to me that the standards being put in here, in terms of targeting activities toward traditionally disadvantaged individuals and groups, may put in jeopardy those agencies, groups or contractors that have existing tenure to go into those regions and essentially engage in the work. A lot of those people are university students who depend on that work during the summer, and they obviously come from all over the province.
Is the purpose of this act to redirect those dollars away from those existing contracts into these new projects for the disadvantaged, unemployed and welfare recipients?
Hon. G. Clark: No, not at all. The reason I can say that with some comfort is that in the Ministry of Forests' budget there is a silviculture component for as much as it was last year. The money which we will be allocating out of the special account is a genuine, incremental, new and additional expenditure in silviculture. All of the existing silviculture work that's being done by university students and existing contractors will continue unchanged, and there will be a new, rather major initiative targeted to deal particularly with social assistance recipients. There is genuine incremental funding, rather than taking funding away from one sector and shifting it to the other.
G. Wilson: I am a little bit confused by comments made by the Minister of Finance a few days ago. He lamented the fact that Bill 3 wasn't going to pass; we needed to get it passed in order to get the silviculture underway in the province; we were losing the planting season because of.... Now we're hearing that in fact that money already exists in the Ministry of Forests, and therefore is going to be allocated, notwithstanding Bill 3, and that what we're talking about is additional
[ Page 5889 ]
dollars in silviculture. It's not going to stop the planting of the forests as much as it's going to stop the new initiative -- or delay it, if we go on to the fact that government is going to pass this. In respect to that, the immediate passage of this isn't going to impact on the silviculture program that the province has administered by the Ministry of Forests. Is that correct?
Hon. G. Clark: Let's be clear. It doesn't impact on the ongoing work of the Ministry of Forests in silviculture. That's correct; that's happening anyway. It happened last year; it will happen this year. This initiative is an incremental additional silviculture initiative, which is still dealing with planting trees, etc. Even though the existing amount of work would continue without the passage of this bill, the significant additional silviculture work which is targeted, as I said before, still requires passage of this bill before we can do it. The planting season is still critical. It does not mean there will be no silviculture if this isn't passed. There is a good, healthy silviculture budget in the Ministry of Forests which will continue. But a significant expansion of that -- targeted for social assistance recipients, NSR land and all kinds of interesting work; I think the members will be very impressed by the project -- requires passage of this bill.
[4:45]
G. Wilson: I would like just a very quick clarification on that point. Is that additional money in the line ministry budget for the Ministry of Forests? If so, I missed it in the estimates.
Hon. G. Clark: No, it's in the special account. Of the $100 million in the special account, there will be.... The Ministry of Forests is essentially bidding on it, saying: "Here's what we're trying to accomplish." They will then ask for access to this special account, which requires Treasury Board approval and B.C. 21 committee approval. As I said, we've already made that decision. An announcement will be made shortly -- as soon as the bill is passed -- that a portion will be spent on this new initiative.
G. Wilson: Given that the purpose of section (b) is to ensure "that all regions of the Province benefit from economic expansion," and given that the minister has already made the determination -- or the committee has, or whoever over there did this -- that of the $100 million of the seed capital that is going to go to the Ministry of Forests, given that they are the successful bidder.... I would assume that they are going to be the successful bidder, given that the decision is already made. What regions will benefit by the expenditure of that money? If that's been determined, can the minister tell us how this group -- or committee or whatever it is over there that isn't passed yet but should be passed, because it must have made some decisions, so it's probably already met -- determines the regions in which that money would be expended?
Hon. G. Clark: When an announcement is made of an expenditure from the special account, the member will then be able to see which regions benefit from the various announcements and how they fall within this section.
This is the purpose section of the bill. It has nothing to do with specific details of spending out of the special account. We're still on the purpose. If the members are opposed to any of these purposes, this is the place to register their concern.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: I would just like to clarify the question from the Clerk. No, this isn't second reading. I understand we are in committee.
I have only a couple of other questions on it. I wasn't trying to entrap the minister. What I was trying to do was to establish, given the stated purpose of "ensuring that all regions of the province benefit," what the measure is going to be with respect to this particular account that provides that assurance. If that's the stated purpose of the bill, how is that feasibly going to work, given that you're talking about additional dollars over and above an existing budget? How do you ensure that?
Hon. G. Clark: These are the purposes, and when we make the announcements, you will then be able to judge whether we've met the purposes which we've laid out here before you. This is a broad purpose section to promote regional development, and we'll be trying to engage in that in all of our expenditures under this bill.
G. Wilson: I have another question on section 2(b), and then I'll get to a couple of questions on section 2(c) and yield to whoever else may want to question on this. I note with interest that the Minister of Health is here today. That's useful, because my question deals with a comment that was made yesterday in the Health estimates. For the record, I want to compliment the minister on being very forthright and direct, because she has allowed me the opportunity to now ask this minister the same question. Recognizing that expenditure of moneys on capital projects for health care is going to be administered out of the health care budget and there is a criterion for approval of those budgets established in it, yet noticing that the stated purpose of this bill is to ensure that all regions benefit from this economic expansion diversification, will the minister tell us whether or not there are additional criteria under the purposes of this bill that would allow for any moneys expended on things like a community health centre or other facility that would normally fall under the Ministry of Health and that will be determined through this act as a result of the purposes stated here?
Hon. G. Clark: I'd say the short answer is no. Health care initiatives governing things like community health care are the prerogative of the ministry and the Minister of Health, but the capital envelope is approved by Treasury Board. As we move forward with this B.C. 21 initiative, we will be taking a look at the capital spending plans and trying to see whether they fit with what's happening in the regions, whether there's some
[ Page 5890 ]
coordination between capital spending to make sure we're not overheating one area -- there may be some ability to affect that -- and whether there are other things we can overlay on the health care initiative to try to promote training and the like.
Essentially, the Ministry of Health's prerogatives in this regard are the ones that prevail. It's the same in Education; they come up through the school boards. The quantum is determined by Treasury Board and that is still the case. Over the course of the next few years, we will be trying to see how this initiative fits with other things happening in the region.
I guess one of the things that happens when you travel the province and meet in small towns and communities in particular is that if you ask them about economic development, often they'll say: "We need a new high school," or "We need a community health centre," or "We need a new highway."
G. Wilson: We need a new ferry dock.
Hon. G. Clark: Right, or they need a new ferry or something. That kind of public investment is important to fit into the economic development.
G. Wilson: The last question, on section 2(b): if that's true in terms of the priority of spending for health and education, is that also true for the allocation of those dollars for highway construction, given that there are already regional highway priorities established for those regions? If that's so, can the minister tell us how the purpose of this act can be satisfied as a result of that?
Hon. G. Clark: Essentially, yes, there are all kinds of work done on highways and priorities. But there may be some timing questions which can be impacted when we review all of the capital spending in regions. There may be ways we can expedite some and slow down others for public policy reasons. There are other things that we talked about earlier, like training, that we want to try and overlay, but essentially the transportation planning and priorities are initiatives of the Minister of Transportation and Highways, and we're not trying to artificially impose other things. That's particularly true in things like health care, where you want to make sure that it's a proper health care decision. Health care is part of economic development, which is what this says, but you don't want to substitute economic development criteria in place of more legitimate health care initiatives. And the same is true, I think, of Transportation and Highways.
G. Wilson: Then we can have some assurance from the minister that the purposes of this act -- I would just like to get this on the record for future reference and future quotes -- under the question of regional economic expansion and diversification would not, this minister would agree, be used to direct money, for example, into specific ridings at particular times prior to particular events -- like possibly a provincial election or something like that.
Hon. G. Clark: I can assure the member that the people of Powell River, which, in fact, had some difficulties in terms of unemployment.... I hope the member will support this initiative, because we think that the constituency the member represents will benefit by that. We certainly won't be playing politics. Although I will say this: given that 50-odd seats out of 70 seats in the House are government members, one has to remember that we do represent most of the province, so there will clearly be investments made in government members' constituencies as well as in opposition members'.
G. Wilson: I can assure you I'll be there to fight for every dollar I can get for my riding, as I'm sure all MLAs will.
The last set of questions comes with respect to (c), the encouraging of public and private sector investment. The purpose of this bill, then, is presumably to encourage -- it would say -- both public and private sector investment and job creation activities. Can the minister outline what public sector and private sector job creation activities are envisaged in the purpose of this act? If we were to use silviculture as an example, is silviculture going to be a private sector investment through existing private contractors, or is it going to be a public sector investment through a government make-work project?
Hon. G. Clark: I don't believe that it's appropriate to get into that kind of detail in the purposes section. We're getting into some hypothetical questions. But I want the member to know that we're going to be doing everything we can, particularly with the special account $100 million, to match private sector spending. We want to try to lever initiatives as much as we can. In the silviculture area there is no intent of the government to create a corporation to go plant trees. It'll be existing private contractors or new private contractors, or whatever.
This section is a purpose section, and we want to encourage both public and private sector investment in job creation activities in an innovative manner. We're really looking for that. I think you'll see -- at least, I hope you'll see -- that with the silviculture initiative it really is innovation in terms of some of the ways in which we'll try to do that. But again, not all of them will be brilliant innovation. We're trying to work with the private sector and the government ministries to do that, and we'll be judged at the end of the year in terms of those expenditures.
G. Wilson: What I should have emphasized, rather than the public and private, was the "and" -- public and private -- as a matched kind of grant program. Is that the kind of thing envisaged by this minister under the stated purposes -- to try to put in matching grants? Did I understand the minister correctly?
Hon. G. Clark: I think it's both. That's part of it, but at the same time there may be private sector capital investment in a community, when the private company might say: "We don't have the skill set." I think the
[ Page 5891 ]
member opposite mentioned this point. Maybe the government can do a training initiative, and then we'll invest in the community, in a factory or project. So it's more of a partnership. I, personally, would like to match every dollar of public sector spending with private sector investment. We'd like to do that. That's not always possible and not always desirable, but it's a matter of trying to do everything we can to encourage public and private sector investment in an innovative way to create jobs.
G. Wilson: So now the comment from the member for Nanaimo, who heckled, "Read sections (d) and (e)," makes sense to me. I understand that the purpose of section (c) is, essentially, the vehicle by which the government can spend money to help promote the stated objectives of (d) and (e), by providing additional dollars to private contractors who may need public sector capital to put in place job creation, or pay equity or the kind of employment standards that they will require if they're to be a successful bidder for the contract. Is that correct?
Hon. G. Clark: I wouldn't say categorically that's always the case. That's an option, and one that might be preferred, but it's not always going to be the case. But yes.
G. Wilson: So this is essentially the door through which we can start to wheelbarrow money into private sector investment in order to get the job apprenticeship programs, training programs and public sector investment activity going in areas for traditionally disadvantaged people, or who have been traditionally disadvantaged economically. Is that a fair assessment of the purpose of that section?
Hon. G. Clark: No, it's not. There are four components to B.C. 21, and one of the components is the discretionary new spending of $100 million. One of them is existing spending, and it's a matter of trying to do a variety of things to encourage public and private sector investment in job creation; to pursue training initiatives; to pursue activities directed towards disadvantaged.
You're saying: "Well, in every case we're going to have all of these happening at the same time." That's not the case.
We have some discretionary dollars in the special account which we'll be spending, investing; and we have some existing dollars; and there's some private sector money.
G. Wilson: If I'm misrepresenting the purpose of this section, I know the minister will correct me, but it would appear that section (c) effectively becomes the mechanism by which the review from the Crown corporations secretariat under section (a) can make a recommendation for the spending of public money to assist in the promotion and training under (d), and under the targeting activities toward traditionally disadvantaged individuals, (e). Is that a fair assessment of how that money would work if that was deemed to be desirable? In other words, the Crown corporations secretariat has a mechanism to make those recommendations for the expenditure of public capital?
[5:00]
Hon. G. Clark: The answer is no, that is not correct, and I don't know where the Crown corporations secretariat comes in. This committee will set criteria, and we'll be coordinating the government's activities to achieve economic development job creation; ensuring all regions benefit from trying to promote regional economic development; encouraging public and private sector investment in job creation activities in an innovative manner; promoting training and investment in people; and targeting activities for disadvantaged individuals and groups. Those are the purposes.
If there is an occasion that the member talks about, or implies in one sense, that we can do all those things all at the same time, then that may be the case; it is allowed. It will unlikely ever be the case.
It's a matter of trying to use all those components to try to achieve all these purposes. They are separate, discrete purposes, and you can't read them all together. It's unlikely that one project would satisfy all these criteria; similarly we have four components, and they are discrete, separate components which we're trying to coordinate, and it's unlikely we'll have them all coordinated and all these purposes met in any single project.
G. Wilson: The minister is sort of sticking to the script, and I understand why he would want to, because under section 2, it says: "The purpose of this Act is to facilitate the expansion and diversification of the British Columbia economy." Then there are five ways in which that can be done. We've already canvassed (a), which essentially did involve the Crown corporations secretariat by way of review of the expenditures in the Crown corporations to meet the kind of criteria that were outlined in sections (d) and (e). Therefore we're now hearing that in section (c), through the question of investment and job creation activities, there may be some kind of capital made available -- I think the minister volunteered this information himself -- in order to facilitate companies that are bidding on contracts which don't meet the employment mix that's required, or that may require an apprenticeship program, or maybe be encouraged to engage in apprenticeship programs to meet the criteria of government. Therefore the purpose of (c) would be to allow the government the mechanism by which that can be facilitated -- which, of course, is dealt with under the B.C. special account later in the bill. So that is how those would come together. The Crown corporations secretariat does have a role to play, to the extent that we're dealing with Crown corporations involved in the expenditure.
My next question, then, is will (c), the encouraging of public and private sector investment, allow this government, as part of the stated purpose, to spend public money, directed through the Crown corporations, for apprenticeship programs?
[ Page 5892 ]
Hon. G. Clark: Would this permit that to happen? I guess it would. I guess we could give money from the special account to a Crown corporation to pursue a training initiative. It's not contemplated at the moment, but that would be one option. It's more likely we'd be driving a more aggressive approach to training, certainly with our Crowns, and trying to ensure there is no incremental cost to government for pursuing a broader training initiative.
The concern I have with the member is that it's more complex, and you're trying to construct something which involves all of these things at the same time. It is possible, I suppose, for some of that to happen, but the purposes are discrete purposes. We are trying to encourage all of these things. They are not all likely to come together at the same time.
G. Wilson: I understand that and I appreciate that it may be difficult to get the five coordinated into one particular project. That doesn't mean it isn't possible. It does, I think, clarify the stated purpose of the bill much more directly, certainly in my mind and hopefully in the minds of those following this debate, than initially had been discussed.
The real emphasis in this is the matter of (d) and (e), essentially training and investment programs: the creation of apprenticeship programs and the movement of capital through public sector financing projects towards traditionally disadvantaged groups. The authority to borrow, spend and acquire land under the powers that are envisioned in the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, and the moneys have been allocated in the B.C. special account, are simply a product, one would argue, of the desired purpose: to start to funnel or direct or in some way invest, to use it in a more positive light, taxpayers' money into government-created make-work projects or training projects or apprenticeship projects which deal with capital investment. Is that a fair summary of what's stated here?
Hon. G. Clark: Well, it's closer, but it's not a question of funnelling money into make-work projects. We're really not interested in that more liberal approach to job creation. We want to promote long-term investment in capital facilities and try to train people so they can go on to do productive work. I don't think you'll see us throwing money at make-work projects. We want to use existing government spending on capital to try to lever that to create more training initiatives. We want to use a small amount, $100 million -- relatively speaking, a small amount, although it's a large amount -- to do some specific projects which enhance our capital base and enhance the ability of the province to have economic development in the long run. In this one case in forestry it's targeted at getting people off welfare and working and trained so they can go on to work for other silviculture initiatives and the like.
You were maybe putting it in a bit more pejorative light than I would, but some aspects of your characterization are valid.
G. Wilson: A final question, then, for this round at least. One of the principal agencies through which this is going to be created under the purposes of this bill is through the filing of business plans by the Crown corporations to direct Crown corporations to meet the criteria established here, and that the agency that will review that is the Crown corporations secretariat. Is that correct?
Hon. G. Clark: The criteria will be established by B.C. 21. The Crown corporations secretariat already reviews the business plans and capital plans of Crowns. That's what they're trying to do, impose some business discipline on the Crowns and coordinate their activities. If there are other criteria which we develop at B.C. 21 to promote training, etc., then the Crown Corporations Committee, which is already reviewing the business plans, will review the corporate business plans to see whether they're meeting criteria that we have established.
J. Tyabji: Following the line of questioning by the member for Powell River, my first question is: why, after enumerating (a), (b), (c), (d), does it say "and (e)" rather than "or"? If the minister is saying that it can be either (a) or (b) or (c) or (d) or (e), why it would be.... The reason I'm asking that is that it gets to the point the opposition has been trying to make: the actual agenda for the entire bill, as fulfilled through the purposes, is inclusive. It's not something that's an either/or. It's (a) and (b) and (c) and (d) -- which would very specifically say that the employment equity things, where we're using public money through the private sector to advance the ideological goals of the government.... Those are obviously outlined because of the choice of a very simple word. But as anybody knows who follows law, the most important thing is the wording of the bill. In the wording of the bill, the use of the word "and" rather than "or" is very important.
Hon. G. Clark: About this time of the day, I'm almost ready to amend the thing. I don't want to be nasty, but it seems to me to be a ridiculous question. It's not the purposes of the bill; it's the purpose of the bill. All of these, collectively, are what we're trying to accomplish. Will every project meet all of these criteria? No, but this is the purpose of the bill, all of these five sections. We hope to achieve them, and that's why it's the purpose of the bill.
J. Tyabji: It seems the minister doesn't understand or at least doesn't have the same interpretation of these implications as we do. Since we've been canvassing this for two and a half hours, the question I'd like to ask the minister is: to what extent did the minister have input? Before going further and asking him some of the hows, wheres and whys, if this minister doesn't have a basic understanding of what the purpose of writing this section was.... To what extent did this minister have authorship of this section? If this minister wasn't the prime author, who was? That's something we've been trying to get to for the last couple of hours.
[ Page 5893 ]
Hon. G. Clark: The bill came forward in a normal way. There are some broad parameters, and then it goes to legislative counsel for legal drafting.
J. Tyabji: Let me perhaps be more specific. Let's look back at (e) again, where we've got a very nebulous statement: "targeting activities under this act toward traditionally disadvantaged individuals and groups." Who wrote that? Who's decided that's important? For example, "traditionally disadvantaged" -- in what way? Economically? In a discriminatory way because of gender, ethnicity? What exactly is meant by this? If the minister doesn't know, who does?
Then we see: "The purpose of this act is to facilitate the expansion and diversification of the British Columbia economy by...." What I find interesting is that we haven't had a lot of debate on the fact that it is virtually impossible to take public money -- and not just public money, but public debt -- and use public debt to diversify and expand the economy, expecting that economy to be a true economy. So we understand the purpose of the bill is to create a false economy through public debt to help in the short term to create jobs.
Who's authoring this? Who's driving this purpose? It is important, because this purpose of the bill represents a restructuring of the way we've done things. That's why I want to know to what extent the minister had input into this. If he didn't, who did? How do we get answers to these things? It's not enough to sit here and say to keep reading over the words. The words are here. We all see it; we can all read it. What's the background to it? How do we get a better definition of what's on the piece of paper?
Hon. G. Clark: The bill is under my name in the House, and no doubt I had some input into it. So did cabinet in the normal way. I would encourage the member, if she doesn't agree with the principle of the bill, to move an amendment.
J. Tyabji: I don't know that it's very helpful for the minister to suggest that I move an amendment when I can't even get to the definition intended by the purpose.
For example, we were talking about section (e). We still don't have any clearer definition from the minister as to what was meant by that. Section (a) says: "coordinating the government's activities to achieve overall economic development and job creation goals." When we say "the government's activities," who is defining that? How is that limited? Are we talking about interministerial activities? Are we talking about government activities in a general way? Does anything qualify? And what job creation goals?
What we need to know is, if job creation goals are referred to, who's defining them? Whose goals? What job creation goals? Can we write them up? If the minister doesn't have the answers, maybe the opposition will draft some job creation goals and present them for the purposes section of this bill. Then, since there isn't a definition handy, that definition will do. If the minister can't give us any better clarification, who can?
I understand that someone from the government side is prepared to answer until the minister comes back.
B. Jones: It's quite clear that we have before us a government bill that will represent the priorities of the government. If the opposition doesn't like that bill, then they have the opportunity to vote against it. They can also vote against the individual projects, like a cancer clinic in the Okanagan. They might want to vote against that. That would certainly fit the criteria of the kind of thing that was done in this bill.
[5:15]
If the member doesn't like the bill, they can amend it. They can vote against it. There are all kinds of options. But there's no problem with the drafting of the bill or the minister responsible or the government. The problem is that the opposition wants to stall the bill. That's clearly what's happening here, and it's typical of the dilatory actions that we've seen for months with this opposition. They delay. They stall. They complain. They whine. They cry. They do all kinds of things, but they can't even come up with a constructive amendment to reflect their concerns. If they're not happy with it, vote against it.
J. Tyabji: The member for Burnaby North is saying that the government's priorities are the purpose of the bill. Thank you.
What I was getting to is that when we talk about job creation goals and traditionally disadvantaged groups, I'm assuming that we're referring to the government's agenda as passed at the NDP convention in the fall. That's the kind of thing we need to know.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: If it is not, as the member is saying, please help us to understand, because we still have no clear understanding, this far into the debate, of what these job creation goals are. I'm not talking about the ones outlined here. I can read this. I can see regional diversification and all of that. But I still can't see, for example, if there's an ideological agenda attached to this with a lot of things in it that the minister is not talking to. Those are the kinds of things I think we need clarification on.
Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry that the member doesn't have a better appreciation of this after three hours of discussion. If it will help her, I will assure her that there's no ideological intent behind the bill.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
F. Gingell: During the course of earlier debate on the objectives, the minister indicated that the members of this committee were going to be appointed by the Legislature, which surprised me. As I understand it, it indicates here that it will be done by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and one presumes
[ Page 5894 ]
they will then be order-in-council appointments. Was that a slip of the tongue?
Hon. G. Clark: I apologize if I misled the member. The appointments will be made by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, as is the normal approach. I guess I meant that the legislation would be passed by the House to give authorization for the appointments to be made by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.
F. Gingell: That, of course, leads to the next question. We have been told that it's the intention of the government to appoint the Minister of Economic Development to the committee. Perhaps the minister would be good enough to indicate the size of the committee that he anticipates.
Hon. G. Clark: We have a slight problem with that. The bill hasn't passed, so there is no committee. I'm not trying to dodge the question. I can give you a sense of who will be on it, but they haven't really been appointed yet, because there is no committee. It would be a bit presumptuous of me to do that. But broadly, it will be the Ministers of Women's Equality, Economic Development, Social Services and Finance, and there will probably be about three MLAs on it as well.
F. Gingell: Sitting in my name is an amendment that I would like to now move: "Not more than 50 percent of the Committee on Building British Columbia's Future" -- that really is quite a wonderful phrase -- "may be members of the party having the most members in the Legislative Assembly."
We all recognize that the people of British Columbia are looking for less confrontational politics. Clearly this is a matter that is of concern to all members of the House, whichever side they may sit on. The minister has just given us an assurance that the purpose of this bill is economic development, not ideology. So it would seem to me that this would be a very good opportunity for the minister to bring into practice some of the matters that we've all spoken about regarding a more productive House. Perhaps this is the place. I would urge you to support my amendment.
On the amendment.
Hon. G. Clark: Of course, the act is permissive in that regard, and it doesn't prohibit the appointment of members from the other side. I will say that that's unlikely, because it's clear from the comments of the members opposite that they're not supportive of this initiative. We certainly can't accept this amendment. Of course, we are fully accountable to members of the opposition, in the House, as we are seeing today.
J. Weisgerber: What we see here is a model that I can't relate to any other existing model. If the government wishes to form a committee of its own members, then it certainly doesn't have to bring legislation into the House, and it doesn't have to have a model for doing that.
On the other hand, if the government wants to create another committee of cabinet, it has the option of doing that either by legislation or regulation or on an informal basis. But it seems to me that if the government is going to create a committee that includes both members of government and elected members that are not members of cabinet, then there's an obligation for the government to ensure that those members are taken from the various parties. With the exception of members of cabinet, we are all independent members of the Legislature -- some sitting in support of the government, some sitting in opposition. But I don't believe that it's proper to create a committee, under legislation, consisting of independent members, and exclude those members who sit in opposition to the government. I don't think it's proper process.
Interjection.
J. Weisgerber: The cabinet minister-in-waiting from Burnaby says that we never did that in government. Well, the reality is that we never created a committee, under legislation, that was a mix of legislative cabinet ministers and backbenchers. I'm saying to you: have all the committees you want. We know that the NDP swamps itself in committees, and I would be the last to suggest you shouldn't have half a dozen more if that's what you want. Have a committee to consider the future of the member from Burnaby -- I couldn't care less.
But if you are going to bring into legislation law that is going to include members of cabinet and independent members sitting in the Legislature, then I believe there is an obligation of the government to ensure that independent members, regardless of where they sit, are represented on the committee.
Hon. G. Clark: It's disappointing that members take that tack, because I think this is a positive reform initiative. The member is correct -- it is unusual to create a committee by legislation that includes members of cabinet and members not in cabinet. I think that's positive. We've got outstanding talent on the government side who are not in cabinet, and we want to involve them more in these kinds of discussions. I think that maybe it doesn't go far enough in terms of including members of the opposition -- and that's what they're saying -- but I think it's at least positive that we're trying to involve more members who aren't members of the executive council in these kinds of decisions.
J. Weisgerber: Having spent some time in government, I understand the need to keep busy hands -- not in and out of cabinet -- in cabinet. I understand that you have to keep the back bench busy. I understand that idle hands get themselves into all kinds of trouble. So I understand the government wants to bring in.... It could be a little training ground, a kind of halfway into cabinet.
In any event, if the minister is sincere in saying that it's a progressive, positive measure, then he would not be so blind as to believe that you can create a committee
[ Page 5895 ]
made up of cabinet ministers and backbenchers from the government side only. That isn't reasonable. There's no precedent for it.
Interjection.
J. Weisgerber: The minister says he won. The fact of the matter is, he won with fewer votes than he lost with in 1986. He won with about 3 percent less of the popular vote than when he got trounced in 1986 with Mr. Skelly and those other discredited members of that time.
Interjections.
The Chair: On the amendment, hon. member.
J. Weisgerber: In any event, I believe that if the minister wants to talk about making some progressive, important new steps, then he will talk about involving the Legislature or simply decide to create a committee of cabinet. I don't care about one more cabinet committee. But I think you're fooling yourselves if you think that people will believe you're doing anything other than trying to put some idle hands like that of the minister or the minister-in-waiting -- the minister-in-hoping from Burnaby there -- and get him into a little committee, keep him out of trouble and keep him from grizzling on the back bench; that's an undertaking, particularly for those people who were overlooked and thought they should have been in cabinet. You've got to find ways to keep them occupied. I'm sure that the member for Nanaimo, who anticipated being Minister of Transportation, would be given some token role as a member of the committee.
Let me ask the minister if there is any precedent in this Legislature or other legislatures across the country for creating a committee under legislation that has a mix of government backbenchers and cabinet ministers and does not include the opposition.
Hon. G. Clark: I don't know the answer to that, but frankly, I don't care if no one else has done it. It's a positive initiative to involve members of the government who aren't in cabinet in this kind of decision-making.
There are committees like the transit commission that are appointed by government. They are not MLAs, but they are in the legislation. There have to be elected people from various regions, and we should use the talent in the government on select standing committees. We're doing more of that in the first year than in the last four or five years of that discredited administration. Using members who aren't in cabinet is legitimate.
The bill is permissive. It is possible that members on the opposite side could be appointed to this at some future date. That won't happen; it's not contemplated at the moment. But members opposite, sometime down the road, will see the wisdom of their ways and maybe there will be that opportunity, so it doesn't preclude the options that the members opposite were saying.
J. Weisgerber: It's precisely that kind of arrogance that will make sure the NDP takes its traditional role back on this side of the House. The minister might want to have a little spot staked out on a committee, because after the next election, members of his party aren't going to be very busy. They are going to be over here in diminished numbers and may even want to make a provision for a third-party representation, because indeed it may be in his interest and that of the one, two or half-dozen other members who get elected.
[5:30]
Obviously the government has made up its mind. Let me say that I think you have made a mistake. If you want to form a committee, it should be of cabinet or reflective of the makeup of the Legislature, as select standing committees are. It is the process, precedent and accepted procedure in this House.
I will accept the fact that the minister is not going to change his mind. It is a display of a degree of arrogance by this government to say that with the puny mandate they did get from the people of British Columbia, they now have the right to do whatever it is they wish. That will only speed their demise.
Amendment negatived on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 17 | ||
|
Chisholm |
Gingell |
Dalton |
|
Farrell-Collins |
Wilson |
Stephens |
|
Hanson |
Weisgerber |
Serwa |
|
Neufeld |
Fox |
Symons |
|
Tanner |
Warnke |
Anderson |
|
Jarvis |
Tyabji | |
|
NAYS -- 39 | ||
|
Petter |
Perry |
Marzari |
|
Boone |
Priddy |
Edwards |
|
Cashore |
Barlee |
Jackson |
|
Pement |
Beattie |
Schreck |
|
Lortie |
Hammell |
Giesbrecht |
|
Miller |
Smallwood |
Hagen |
|
Gabelmann |
Sihota |
Clark |
|
Cull |
Zirnhelt |
MacPhail |
|
B. Jones |
Copping |
Lovick |
|
Ramsey |
Pullinger |
Evans |
|
Dosanjh |
Hartley |
Streifel |
|
Lord |
Randall |
Kasper |
|
Simpson |
Brewin |
Janssen |
On section 3.
G. Wilson: Mr. Chairman, I understand it's the first time I've had a full House, and I'd say it's the first time that the members opposite have been playing with a full deck, so there we are.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please. Will the members come to order. Hon. member, continue.
[ Page 5896 ]
G. Wilson: With respect to this committee, the minister has on a number of occasions referred to this committee as being one of the functional parts. Under the rather extensive audit that we did just now on the purposes of looking after traditionally disadvantaged groups and so on, can the minister tell us if the purpose of the committee that's going to be struck, with several members from the Legislative Assembly...? One assumes that ministers are going to be there, and I think some were alluded to already. Is that going to include the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs? The minister has mentioned that the aboriginal community in B.C. is a traditionally disadvantaged community, or that some members of that community have been seen that way. If it is going to include that, is this where the functioning comes into the bill? If not, where does it fit?
Hon. G. Clark: When the bill is passed, the Premier can make his decision on who's on the committee, and we'll take the lobbying from the member opposite for the Aboriginal Affairs minister. I'll pass that along. It's his choice, of course, through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, to establish the committee.
I might take this opportunity to say that it was encouraging to see members opposite move a motion to be able to sit on this committee. I know that some of them are interested in participating in building British Columbia, and that's a good sign. If they were supportive of the bill, it would be easier to include them on the committee and we could have a more productive arrangement. But of course, they're opposed to this bill. So it seems puzzling that they would choose to sit on it.
The Leader of the Liberal Party has asked that the Aboriginal Affairs minister be on this committee, and I will pass that along to the Premier. It's not in the legislation. The legislation is permissive and allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to appoint the minister, in this case the Minister of Finance, and other members of the Legislative Assembly designated by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It may be the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs -- or members opposite, for that matter. If they make a particularly compelling case to the Premier, then the decision will be made. At this time, this section simply is permissive.
C. Serwa: Hon. Chair, noticing the lateness of the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
D. Streifel: Committee A reports progress and asks leave to sit again.
As we make this report, hon. Speaker, the sessional orders that were amended this year permitted the minister in estimates to defer to a deputy, and we established that precedent in Committee A this afternoon. I would just like to report that to the House with our report.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Sihota moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The Committee met at 2:34 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
On vote 19: minister's office, $419,486
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's been my intention to make some comments in advance of the estimates, and maybe get an indication from the hon. members opposite if they would like me to do that, or if they would like to get directly into this question-answer and accountability session that we're embarking upon. I'm quite prepared to make a few comments for just five or ten minutes if you like.
As members know, I made some comments in the throne debate about the activities of the Ministry of the Attorney General, but because of the long-winded nature of my speaking style, I didn't get finished. What I'll do now is recap very briefly some of the issues that I had talked about, and then maybe give a bit more detail on a couple of issues that I didn't get to.
One of the things that we're trying to do in this ministry as part of an ongoing process, that frankly didn't begin with me but I hope is being accelerated by my approach to justice issues, is to try to move the justice system to a more open system than it has been traditionally. The public, I think, quite properly sees the justice system as one that is foreign to them; the procedures are difficult to comprehend, and they don't seem at all sympathetic to people who end up dealing with the justice system. Victims, in particular, have traditionally been victimized twice: victimized by crime or an activity that occurs; then they run the justice system and often get victimized again. We're really very determined to find ways of dealing with those issues, of opening the system up and integrating the justice system with the life of British Columbia.
We need to plan ahead more than we've done traditionally in this ministry, and we're trying to anticipate future needs. We're trying to prepare the
[ Page 5897 ]
infrastructure so it can, in fact, not only deal with the needs we have today, but deal with the needs that are developing -- for example, the development of court facilities. Where are you going to build courtrooms? How many are you going to have in particular communities? I discovered that was something that hadn't really been done particularly effectively. We're faced always with decisions to replace a particular courtroom when it gets rat-infested, or whatever else we've had examples of. Then you discover there's no proper long-term planning to sort out where the facility should be located and how many courtrooms it should have, and that kind of issue. So we have in the past year embarked on some serious planning with respect to that kind of issue.
I also want to make sure when we look at building courtrooms that we think about police stations, jails and the other elements of the justice system so that we don't have a fractured and fragmented system. We are planning, in terms of the technology now available, to try to move ahead in making the justice system much more responsive to the available technology by ensuring we don't use a multiplicity of paper systems. We end up delaying the processing of cases, and handling them many times over, often with too many people involved, and too often -- not frequently but occasionally -- with not all the information being in one place at one time where it's needed to make informed decisions. So we're looking at a pretty extensive integrated case-processing system using modern technology, and that whole issue is proceeding.
We're trying to involve the community in all our discussions. I've met in the last year and a half -- I haven't counted -- maybe more than half the municipal councils in British Columbia. In every case, mayors and councillors raise issues of justice concerns in their community, often relating to youth crime, often relating to -- at least perceptions of -- increased criminal activity. They're talking about what they can do about it and how they can be involved. The first response is often: "We need more police officers, we need more judges, we need more of everything in the system." My response is: "We don't have any more money for more of everything." What we have to do is find different ways of solving these kinds of problems. Even though it sounds like a bit of a clich�, the solutions inevitably involve the community, so the community itself can participate with the whole range of activities in the justice system. We can try to work together to provide solutions, because we're never going to be able to put a cop on every corner, nor are we going to be able to put a jail in every community -- nor do we want to do either. We have to find ways of ensuring that that doesn't become the kind of response that seems inevitable.
I talked in the House in the throne speech debate, as I mentioned, about freedom of information, and I'm prepared to talk about that further if members have any questions. We talked as well about the Law Society report done by Ted Hughes and a larger group dealing with Gender Equality in the Justice System. Members should know that at the same time as reviewing Mr. Hughes' report, we are also looking at proposals that were done by a federal/provincial/territorial working group on gender issues. Our ministry is involved in those initiatives, and I believe that we will have some discussion about those at a justice ministers' meeting in Quebec City at the end of May.
We have significant program development on stopping violence against women. Again, members will know there's a new policy now in place entitled "Criminal Justice System Response to Violence: Violence Against Women in Relationships." This is a policy that was first initiated in 1985-86 by the previous administration. It didn't have a lot of attention paid to it, nor a lot of resources, but nonetheless, it was a good initiative of the previous administration, and one that we have advanced by updating the policy, by strengthening it, and by indicating to police and prosecutors around the province that we in the government place a very high priority on dealing with the issue of violence against women in relationships. We are continuing policy development in that whole area.
Legal aid: as members know, last year we were very concerned about the escalating costs of legal aid. I was concerned about the underfunding on the family side of legal aid. We are trying to do several things in our revamping of the legal aid system. One, we are trying to make sure that we have some ability to control costs and that the legal aid system provides service to those individuals who most need it. We are trying to find ways of involving the community in governance and in the day-to-day activities of legal aid.
We are still, as is the Legal Services Society, dealing with the report on the review of legal aid services that was done by Mr. Tim Agg last year. Out of that report, we are looking at potential legislative action dealing with accountability, structure of the board, the community-based service delivery and the proposed mixed service delivery. In other words, we are looking at not relying almost exclusively on tariff for legal aid, but trying to mix, where it's appropriate, staff lawyers and tariff lawyers.
We are working on the development of new guardianship legislation. Under the rules we're not to talk about it, but I think it would be more effective to talk about it when we introduce legislation in the very near future in this session. We've long needed improved legislation to care for and protect the rights of dependent adults, and we will bring in legislation that I think will move us a long way in that direction. We have involved quite a wide variety of people in the community to help us develop that legislation. I'll just leave that for the moment.
[2:45]
Members know that the track, horse racing, is under my responsibility. We've made a commitment to stay at Exhibition Park and refurbish the track. We've already invited the thoroughbred industry to participate in their future in a way that will ensure we have an active, vibrant thoroughbred racing industry in this province. It's
[ Page 5898 ]
astonishing to learn how many jobs in British Columbia are actually dependent on the racing industry. Altogether probably 7,000 people make a living from thoroughbred racing in this province. It's certainly an industry we want to enhance, and I'll be prepared to answer questions on that issue.
The Emergency Program Act is also under the Ministry of the Attorney General. Emergency Preparedness Canada tells us that we're the most hazardous province in the country. PEP itself handled 4,000 emergencies in B.C. in 1992. We obviously have the potential for more disasters, and we always have looming over us the threat of the big one someday, hopefully not in our term in government, but nonetheless something that could happen any day. Some members of the Liberal Party might think it happened today in Vancouver, but I'm not sure.
It's clearly time for us to update the legislation. Again, we're not supposed to talk about legislation here, but I think we can be informal and relaxed about these matters. The existing act, the Emergency Program Act, is very dated and we will again bring in legislation to deal with that.
Our estimates this year, to get to the numbers, as everybody knows, is $822.1 million. That represents about $46.1 million, or a 5.9 percent increase, over the restated '92-93 budget. The reality is that the actual increase over what we spent last year is less than that, something in the order of 2.3 percent.
In this ministry we are trying to manage a really complex justice system with an increase in funding which is less than the population increase in the province, and certainly less than the increased activity in and around justice issues. So we are having to cut back like everybody else in the services we deliver. We are not able to increase the number of RCMP officers in the province; and we are not able to do a number of things that I would like to do. We don't have nearly enough probation officers; we don't do nearly enough victim assistance, and so on. The list is almost endless, but we try as best we can to allocate the limited -- and I think they really are limited -- dollars that we're given in as an effective way as possible. I look forward to hearing from members who may have suggestions about how we may be able to allocate better the resources that we do have. And I'm certainly hoping to hear advice on that.
Just a word on the court backlog in the small claims area. There's been some commentary on this lately, and I'm not sure how well understood what we've done is. We have increased the fees in the small claims system. They're still a lot cheaper than having to go to a lawyer and go through the regular court system. It's a very nominal charge. But we've done that deliberately in order to be able to fund five additional provincial court judges who have now been appointed, and most of whom are now in place, I think -- at least four of them are. We are also, at the same time, using on an ad hoc basis some retired provincial court judges to help with the small claims backlog. The delay in the small claims system is unacceptable. We have not been able to fund that by robbing the general revenue. We've had to do that by trying to find some money within the system, and we've done that by increasing the fee marginally. Our priorities this year, as well as that, are to deal with family violence initiatives, to deal with the new adult guardianship legislation and to deal with native justice initiatives, which I think are really crucial.
I think I'm going to leave it at that, Mr. Chair. I'm going to take a moment to introduce everybody from the ministry who is here, starting with Brian Neal, the Deputy Attorney General, who is on my right. On my left is Rick McCandless. I have to have the paper because they all have such exotic titles, and I can never remember their titles. Rick is the acting executive director for the policy and resource analysis branch of the ministry. Ben Stobbe is here from the corrections branch. He is a northern regional director. Jim Graham is the ADM for corrections but is away at the present time. Patti Stockton beside Ben is the acting executive director for the public safety and regulatory branch of the ministry. Bob Simson is the acting general manager for liquor control and licensing. Ian Munroe is the general manager for the liquor distribution branch. Sandra Evans is the acting executive director for management services in the court services branch. Ernie Quantz is acting -- we've got lots of acting; we've had a few changes -- ADAG in the criminal justice branch. Mark Medgyesi is the executive director for policy and planning in the motor vehicle branch. Craig Morris is the executive director of management services in the motor vehicle branch. Brian Morin, at the back, is director of facilities services. I deal with Brian on capital projects every few days. Bill Scigliano is a manager in management services, and Mary Beeching in the middle is the executive director for the communications branch. I think members have met my two assistants, Michael McEvoy and Joan Young, who are also near the back. With that, hon. Chair, I hope I haven't been too long, and I look forward to comments.
The Chair: Before we recognize the critic, I'll just reaffirm your statements, hon. Attorney General, in regard to the legislation: it's not appropriate to examine legislation in estimates.
A. Warnke: With your indulgence, I too would like to make some opening remarks, which I think are appropriate because we are at the committee stage of estimates. One thing members perhaps neglected last year, but that certainly has come to my attention, and I think is appropriate to discuss at this particular moment, is a reminder about proper decorum. I'm sure the hon. Chair, especially, would like to hear about that.
There is, operating in estimates -- the committee stage of the budget -- something that's a little different from what most of the public is exposed to. I think the public really feels that this stage is where there is some real yelling and some real debate. I want to make it very clear that there is a decorum that's attached to the standing orders that makes it very clear that the conduct of estimates is quite different from the kind of debate that takes place in the stage of second reading. It's maybe redundant to members who are acquainted with the standing orders, but in this age of television the public is becoming more aware of our conduct in the House. Therefore I think at the outset -- and I know that at least one member.... A few people have brought this to my attention in letters, asking why I don't attack
[ Page 5899 ]
the Attorney General more than I have. One was even suspicious that I was NDP, and I took that as a real insult.
D. Lovick: What about decorum?
A. Warnke: One can be partisan, but it's extremely important to get the information to the public that there are different stages, in which there is appropriate conduct. I thought it was useful to say that for the record, and those who read Hansard might appreciate that.
Last year, as we embarked on a discussion of estimates, we proceeded, I think, ministry by ministry, but it's my recollection that under the Ministry of the Attorney General we took an exhaustive approach to examining a whole host of issues, and there was a very good reason for that. The Attorney General had initiated a reorganization and restructuring of the ministry, and I believe also conceded that perhaps this is the first phase of what we might see in the future -- and indeed it has been that. But it was a new administration, and in a sense a new opposition as well. With essentially a new chapter in British Columbia government and how it's to be administered, I think it was appropriate -- and I mentioned in my opening remarks that perhaps it is worthwhile -- to re-examine the ministry, to sort of get a sense of how the ministry is organized and whence we come, so as to get some idea of where we're going in the future.
This year I prefer to embark on a different approach, and that is to be quite a bit more selective in terms of the areas that affect the ministry in the estimates before us. Obviously the reorganization of the ministry is still occurring. This is something we will want to examine at the outset in a more general way, because I think that is extremely important to review and get a sense of where we're going. And occasionally it is necessary to look at some maybe sensitive issues in terms of that reorganizing of the ministry.
Essentially I will be targeting on particular areas at the outset; then from there on perhaps other members would want to take up particular questions, and so forth. I want to assure the Attorney General at the outset that my intention is not to do the kind of exhaustive thing I think we did last year: more or less to qualify everything to get a sense of where we're going.
I do have a number of general questions. The first question that obviously comes to mind is the general organization of the ministry, as announced by the Attorney General on March 24, in which there has been another restructuring. And this in turn will have perhaps some very profound implications as to how the ministry will conduct its expenditures in the coming year. Therefore at the outset this is what I would want to explore.
Before I get into that, there are a number of areas the minister has raised. I actually share some of the concerns, and I think this will be obvious during the course of these estimates debates. In particular, I'm somewhat acquainted with the ministry's thrust on guardianship, recognizing once again that it is legislation that might be coming forth. I am following that very closely. I would encourage the minister to proceed in that direction, because this is an exciting area with a lot of potential which we would welcome on this side of the House. I, in particular, am looking forward to that.
[3:00]
Perhaps the following comment is necessary as well. Regardless of what kind of letters I get claiming otherwise, I want to thank the ministry and the Attorney General for the cooperation shown by his staff, not only in the preparation of the estimates, but, I believe, for the fairly good cooperation between the ministry and the people around me, my assistants and myself in particular. At this stage, I want to extend thanks to the ministry for that. I think it does illustrate that, in the last analysis, what is essential to make government work is a certain kind of cooperation that is in the best interests of the people of British Columbia. Sometimes this is rhetoric expressed by people serving, but I would like to think that in our case it's way beyond that. It is a good working relationship, since we have a fairly good idea what is properly partisan. We're still going to take partisan shots at one another; that is essential to outline the differences between the opposition and the government. By the same token, I suggest that the kind of cooperation that we received from the ministry has been for the benefit of the people of British Columbia. So I would also like to thank the Attorney General and, of course, the staff that is with him.
As I mentioned at the outset, there was the general organization, or perhaps reorganization, as announced March 24 of this year, of responsibilities within the ministry. I wonder if the Attorney General could answer why the restructuring and reorganization of the ministry was done. Recognizing, by the way, that the deputy minister's appointment will not take effect until later this month, why the allocation of particular duties to the Deputy Attorney General and the deputy minister?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Before I begin that, I would just like also to introduce Barb Kiway, the manager for resource analysis in the ministry. If there are any questions relating to numbers, I will turn to Barb for help in answering those questions.
With respect to reorganization, I think the first thing we need to remember is that in November of 1991, when we came in, the decision was made by the Premier in structuring cabinet to create one ministry where two had existed: the Solicitor General and the Attorney General. So the first job that had to be done by the ministry staff was to organize that integration, to put together different systems that were in use in each ministry and to grapple with a whole series of difficult issues. They did that very effectively and without a lot of dislocation. It went very smoothly indeed.
What I learned during the first year in the ministry was that we have an extraordinarily large and complex ministry -- such a wide variety of issues we're responsible for, and in many cases very technical and difficult issues. I also gained a better understanding of the unique nature of some parts of the ministry. To cite
[ Page 5900 ]
a couple of examples of that: first, the role of the legal services branch of the ministry, which is, in effect, a branch that provides advice across the government, and is a service to the whole government in a way I hadn't fully understood, even though I'd been in these buildings for many years. In addition, we have responsibility for the criminal justice branch, which arguably has some significant independence from government. I say arguably because it does have some significant independence from government, but in some jurisdictions it has even more formal, structured independence from government. Those two branches are not typical of the run-of-the-mill branches of ministries in government, and therefore there's a unique kind of role that they play. And the minister obviously has responsibility for overseeing their activities.
I guess it's a long-winded way, but I'm coming to the point: if the entire ministry were only the criminal justice and legal services branches it could occupy the full time of a deputy and a minister. The issues are complex, significant and important, and require close and very detailed attention. But beyond that we've obviously got responsibility for the court system, for police, for corrections, for a whole variety of other areas, including -- this is not an exhaustive list -- emergency programs, liquor distribution, liquor licensing, gambling, and on and on.
So it really became clear to me that the ministry would function more effectively, and justice in this province would be delivered more effectively, if we made a sort of division in responsibilities by creating two deputies. The Deputy Attorney General would be responsible for the legal side of the ministry -- and members, I know, are aware of what we've done. That deputy would be the senior legal adviser to government, as well as the deputy for that part of the ministry. And then another deputy would be appointed; as you know, Maureen Maloney will take over that responsibility on May 17. That position would be more akin to deputies as they exist in all ministries. That deputy would chair the executive committee of the ministry. That deputy would participate regularly in the deputy ministers' meetings that occur -- the council of deputy ministers. And that deputy would be responsible for the day-to-day functioning of the ministry -- the finances, the planning, the policy, the routine matters we deal with daily.
On the non-legal side -- what I would characterize as the justice side -- I don't mind saying we even gave some thought to doing what other provinces have done: to rename the ministry, calling it something like the Attorney General and the Ministry of Justice -- which is, I think, what they've just done in one of the Atlantic provinces in the last few days. Frankly, I had advice to do that. I rejected it because I thought it was a little bit too pompous for me, and I didn't want to be given a fancy new title. So I thought the one I've got is quite fine, thank you, and we'll get along just swell without renaming it. But if we had done it, it would have characterized and illustrated what the changes are about. They are about trying to deal with the legal issues that the government faces, whether it's the criminal justice system or advice to government on the one hand, or the running of the justice system on the other hand. I could go on for hours about why we did it, but that's a basic overview of it.
A. Warnke: A number of, I suppose, areas of responsibility have come to my attention that perhaps need some clarification. If I could just, for clarification purposes, go through a number of items seriatim, one at a time, perhaps the Attorney General could clarify just whose responsibility the following lie under.
The first one I've got here is some concern about the corporate and community programs as indicated under the justice support system in this whole allocation breakdown. I wonder if the Attorney General could indicate where the responsibility here lies, in corporate and community programs, and maybe some of the other following programs, which are indicated under statutory services: the Criminal Injury Compensation Act, the Crown Proceeding Act, the Flood Relief Act and the Election Act. Perhaps the Attorney General could go through those.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Inevitably there's going to be some confusion, given that the blue book was printed and the estimates were established prior to the reorganization. There's going to be some confusion for all of us in trying to sort through it. There is no attempt to try and prevent information from coming out, but we're going to be a little bit unclear as to what's where.
First of all, on the question of community programs, if that was the member's question, that's in the community justice branch, which -- I know you have an org chart there -- is in the middle on the top line. Criminal injuries compensation is also in the community justice area. Elections is in the public safety and regulatory branch, and I think you mentioned floods and emergency programs -- that's also in the public safety and regulatory branch. If the member mentioned Crown proceedings, that's in the legal services branch.
One of the things we're going to do in these estimates -- I just want to get him all psyched up for this -- is to ask Mr. Brian Neal to answer the odd question. Some of the questions don't have any politics attached to them whatsoever, and the deputy can answer them more effectively than I can. I really believe in moving toward that kind of system, and I understand we haven't quite got there yet. So I would just put everybody on notice about that.
A. Warnke: I have no hesitation -- and perhaps the critic of the third party could respond as well -- in moving to have the deputy minister or others respond to particular questions. However, I think it should also be made very clear for the record that this is somewhat experimental as well. If we could have that entered in the record, I think that would be an excellent idea -- to experiment. We tried one experiment last year. Let's see if we can experiment on to make the system far more effective and efficient.
The answers provided by the Attorney General certainly cover a few of the areas. I would also like to
[ Page 5901 ]
clarify some other areas that have been brought to my attention. Could it be indicated where the responsibility lies, let's say, with regard to the superior and provincial courts within the judiciary allocation? I can provide a list: emergency assistance, and under special accounts such things as the corrections work program, the forfeited crime proceeds fund and what not. Would the Attorney General or his adviser also indicate the purpose of the forfeited crime proceeds fund?
[3:15]
The Chair: Before I recognize the Attorney General, I think I will read, for the benefit of all the members of Committee A, the section in the sessional orders, which were amended this year, that permits the answering of a question by a deputy minister. I think that would clarify things and aid the whole committee. It's under point 1 in the sessional orders, amended April 21, 1993. It reads: "The standing orders applicable to the Committees of the Whole House shall be applicable in both sections of the Committee of Supply, save and except that in section A a minister may defer to a deputy minister to permit such deputy to reply to a question put to the minister." That is a step along the road of progression in the examination of ministry estimates, and it was so voted on by the House.
C. Serwa: I just wanted to say a few things with respect to the new opportunities. I'm very optimistic about the small step, or the stepping stone, that we're using at the moment. The opportunity of having a deputy minister also address some of the questions -- as the Attorney General said, the non-political aspects -- is a major step, and it's a very positive step. When we had a caucus budget review committee we had the minister, deputy ministers and ADMs, as well as directors.
I think it's incumbent on all of us, not just the government members but certainly the opposition members, to have a more in-depth, objective information opportunity. It is a very complex ministry. As a matter of fact, all ministries are very large and very complex, and it's not possible for the minister himself to answer all of those areas, because he's primarily involved in policy development and that aspect. The overall responsibility will continue to lie with the minister, and we all appreciate that. But I think that if we are going to do a better job, if the credibility to the public out there is going to be enhanced and improved, then not only the credibility of politics and politicians, but also the credibility and accountability of the civil service, will also certainly be up.
I am confident that this particular initiative, while in the experimental stage, will indeed prove beneficial and fruitful, not only for ourselves -- as legislators, as MLAs, as representatives of the people -- but also for the public at large. I also think that it will impart a greater sense of proprietorship to the staff who work within the various ministries. So I'm very positive about it, and I certainly welcome the opportunity and compliment the government for a very major and positive initiative.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think I missed some of the question from the member for Richmond-Steveston. He did ask about the corrections work program, I believe, and the forfeited crime proceeds fund, and where they're located. The first is in the corrections branch; the second is the responsibility of the Deputy Attorney General. That's something that's dealt with directly between the Deputy Minister of Finance and the Deputy Attorney General. I think there were some other questions, but I was doing too many things and I missed them, so if I've not answered something, please repeat it.
A. Warnke: Prior to asking about those two aspects, I have a question related to your answer. Would the Attorney General indicate the purpose of the forfeited crime proceeds fund? That's something that bears some elaboration.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think this is an opportunity for us to begin this historic new process, and I'm going to ask Mr. Brian Neal to give us a technical explanation of that.
The Chair: The Chair has the privilege of being one of the first in history to recognize a deputy minister to reply to a question in Committee of Supply. I feel quite privileged.
B. Neal: Thank you, hon. Chair and hon. members. I trust that the response will be in keeping with the moment of the occasion. The forfeited crime proceeds fund is established as an outflow of an initiative that the federal government has taken to force more of the results of criminal activity to generate more pain for the perpetrators. As I'm sure you know, it's a relatively new initiative on the federal scene for there to be consequences associated with the forfeiture of the proceeds of criminal activity in situations where that can be clearly established by the courts.
That is a relatively new initiative, and on the federal scene there are still a number of challenges going on to the federal legislation that will provide the basis for this kind of fund to be generated. In the United States this has proven to be an extremely effective tool in combatting crime. I'm sure you're all aware of the zero tolerance program that is taking effect there on a number of fronts, in terms of drugs, tobacco and other illegal actions.
The forfeited crime proceeds fund has been created in this province as a receptacle for funds that may be generated in the context of joint operations, to provide a place for those moneys to be specifically allocated here in the province in order for the province to take advantage of the results of those proceeds. There are still protocols to be established with the federal government in terms of how the moneys will ultimately flow in. But at this point in time we're confident that the fund will prove to be an effective part of the tools to deal with criminal enforcement in this province.
A. Warnke: Considering the implications of an initiative such as this on the estimates that we're facing,
[ Page 5902 ]
perhaps the deputy minister could elaborate a little on the prospects of the financial implications. What has been the experience? If the deputy minister wants to refer to other examples where there has been an experience of this kind, such as in the United States, perhaps there could be some indication of what we might expect in terms of the financial implications of this initiative.
B. Neal: At this point we have very preliminary information, but I can share with you that at the present time the federal coffers have some $60 million that has been generated thus far, which is being used for a number of federal programs. I think you'd appreciate that there are still some outstanding court cases that will be challenging their ability to deal with those proceeds. I think that gives you a very real indication of the magnitude of the potential recoveries that are available out there, which have occurred in a very short period of time. I don't have any specific information about the numbers in the American program, but I'm sure we can make those available for you if you request them.
A. Warnke: I want to thank the deputy minister for the very useful information, and I would appreciate the information being passed on to me. I'm quite interested in the variety of aspects involving crime, and this kind of initiative is one that I'd like to see. So I'm very interested in it, but I won't bog down the estimates debate with this.
I also mentioned the emergency assistance program, the responsibility for the emergency assistance program and the responsibility for the superior and provincial courts within this judiciary allocation. Perhaps there could be a response there.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The emergency program is within the provincial emergency program branch of the ministry. If it's a question about the organization, it's in the public safety and regulatory branch of the ministry. You know where it is, so we've got that clear.
In terms of the judiciary, the first thing I need to say is that members know the judiciary doesn't report to anyone -- it's independent. When the judiciary needs to have dealings with the ministry, they will deal directly with the Deputy Attorney General, and that's the linkage. On occasion they will deal directly with the minister as well, but it's not a reporting or accountability relationship in any way. It's one of dealing with issues as they may arise.
Court services, however, are another issue. The routine functioning of the courts, as opposed to the judging, is in the court services branch of the ministry, and will be under the responsibility of the deputy minister.
C. Serwa: I have a few questions for the Attorney General. Perhaps the Attorney General could inform me of the rationale for taking the Solicitor General and the Attorney General and integrating those two, because there was quite an amount of searching to create the two from what was formally one before, and now we have the integration. I recognize that the Attorney General stated that it was a statement from the Premier, but I would like him to elaborate on some of the rationale.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Premier felt -- and I can say that I very much agree -- that it was important to have an integrated justice ministry. However intended, what we had with the Attorney General and the Solicitor General was a split between components of the justice system that work together on a constant basis. They might, in fact, have different directions, with components of the system reporting up through different bureaucracies, using different systems and perhaps occasionally with even different policy -- at least in the nuances of policy. To try and create a unified justice system that presents a single face to the community is more difficult if you do it through two ministries. There was a desire to integrate the components of the justice system.
I think the Premier added -- I may have said this last year -- a few other areas of responsibility that are not part of the justice system. Liquor distribution is the best example of that. He also added to this ministry issues around gaming and the track. He decided that I should get all the vice and all the sin and be responsible for it so that, when something goes wrong on the vice and sin side, it's only one minister who goes down. I suppose that was part of the reasoning.
You could make arguments for an appropriate structure for the ministry; there are parts of it that could fit elsewhere. I would strongly resist any temptation to split police from prosecutors from the courts from corrections. I think all of those elements of the justice system, and more, need to be together in one ministry so that there can be a coordinated single justice system. That's basically what it's about.
C. Serwa: Does the Attorney General see any inherent conflicts in the melding or the integration of the two units? Is there any inherent conflict between the enforcement aspect and the judicial aspect of the ministry? I'd like to hear about that. I'm also interested in hearing about the efficiencies. I imagine there is a substantial cost associated with the integration of the two former ministries, and I'd like to hear a little bit about that. I doubt very much that we've seen any reduction in staff. So, while we may improve efficiencies simply by reducing the interministry talk, I'm wondering if there was actually any dollar savings incurred in the integration, or whether we've simply brought it under the control of one minister; and with reorganization, whether we still have virtually the same cost and the same -- even increased -- staff. Perhaps the Attorney General would respond to those questions.
[3:30]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member for Okanagan West knows me better than perhaps the other members do, and he knows that I'm very sensitive to those kinds of questions. I don't see any conflict that has developed at all from an integrated system. I think the area that
[ Page 5903 ]
potentially could be a problem is the independence of the criminal justice branch, and that's solved by the statutes. There is a clear statutory independence that we adhere to scrupulously, and I think that prevents any potential problems that people might be concerned about.
On efficiency, or the savings that may have occurred as a result of the amalgamation of the Solicitor General ministry and AG, I don't have a list in front of me. This was really last year's issue. But just off the top, it is about three-quarters of a million dollars annually in computer costs alone -- I guess these are B.C. Systems costs for the most part. There were other savings as well. We haven't saved the price of two deputies, because we've gone back to that division. So that's a loss. But there will be other, regular administrative savings such as one office for personnel -- that kind of savings. But the reality is that what we try to do -- and what I'm determined to do -- is make sure that we don't load up at the top; that we try to find ways of getting the money we do have available for programming and for delivery of service. That's the priority, and I'm more interested in that than in having a big superstructure.
A. Warnke: There is still an aspect that has to do with the reorganization of the ministry, I suppose. I want to pursue something that we discussed last year and that obviously needs some explanation in this year's estimates. Last year during the estimates the Attorney General did indicate that plain language improvements -- I believe I'm quoting him here almost word for word -- are essential to the public's ability to make real connections with the justice system. Therefore I believe the Attorney General had given some strong indication of supporting the plain language improvements. And I believe the Attorney General was quite committed to at least making an attempt to put some sort of legislation into plain language. I must admit I was quite surprised, hon. Chairman, when the Minister of Finance announced that esentially his government was eliminating what the minister called "redundant agencies" of government, one of which was the Plain Language Institute of British Columbia. Therefore I am somewhat puzzled, and I would like to have some elaboration on this by the minister. Given the Attorney General's apparent commitment last year to the improvement of the understanding of the law by the public, why, a year later, has this particular program been done away with? I believe that the allocation for the Plain Language Institute would have been originally around $150,000.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Plain Language Institute was established a few years ago by the former administration. They had a particular time frame in mind when it was established: it was a project as opposed to an institute that would be established forever. The institute did excellent work. It advanced the cause of plain language. It put the whole issue on the agenda in this province in a very effective way, and I was delighted to be able to participate with them at a conference, in fact, last fall.
We made a decision as part of two processes. One is how we can make the plain language initiatives more effective in the government itself, and -- as we went through the budget -- how we can deal with budget trimming. When we looked at the budget -- and we went through every dollar we spend -- and when we looked at the Plain Language Institute, we had a happy marriage of the two issues, inasmuch as we felt that there was a very real need in the government to try to focus on plain language, not just in statutes, which we had been working on -- I think members would agree that the statutes read much better now than they used to -- but also in the regular forms and materials that go out to the public from the government, so that when people go into a government office or are filling out a government form, they don't have trouble with it. We felt a real need to try to focus on making that language plainer and more understandable.
The decision was made to wind down our contribution to the Plain Language Institute -- which, incidentally, was funded jointly, if I remember correctly, by the government and the Law Foundation. The Law Foundation's revenues have plunged dramatically as a result of the drop in interest rates, so there were some significant problems in funding for the Plain Language Institute. We couldn't pick up the difference, so we made the decision to transfer the responsibility for plain language in government to the Government Services ministry. We also decided to reduce the budget that we had last year, by $100,000, and move the difference into the Ministry of Government Services to enable that ministry to run a government-oriented plain language program, which is what we're now doing.
We'd all like to have Cadillac programs and do a lot more, but in this instance we're running a basic Chevrolet here. But it's very focused; it gets you from point A to point B, which is the real objective.
A. Warnke: Punning for a moment, in plain language it seems that the Attorney General found implementing the program far too expensive. What may we expect in terms of a relationship or a tie between the ministry and Government Services in dealing with plain language?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Government Services, with respect to plain language, will deliver the program to the whole government; they will assist every ministry of government in trying to make forms and other material more understandable. We will continue our initiatives through legislative counsel in terms of statute writing, to make sure that we continually work at making the language plainer and more understandable to ordinary folk -- and we will benefit from the plain language program in Government Services. We will, in the Attorney General ministry, benefit in the same way as every other ministry: we will be a user of their service.
A. Warnke: We're still dealing with the reorganization of the ministry, and the next set of questions I really want to take up is, in a way, a clarification of the controversy that has emerged with regard to the hiring
[ Page 5904 ]
of personnel -- I suspect it will be rather contentious. We are moving into a reorganization period which demands, not only restructuring and reorganization of the ministry, but in fact, reorganizing the finances and administration of the ministry.
I think it's extremely important, for the time being -- because there has been so much controversy -- to explore for a few moments the appointment of the deputy minister, which is to take effect, I believe, May 17. If you would allow, hon. Chair, I would like to elaborate on this just a little bit. The appointment of Maureen Maloney certainly has been well advertised. It's certainly been in the press quite a bit. Along with such controversy, naturally there's going to be some distraction of attention as to the nature of that kind of appointment. But for our purposes, as we face the reorganization of the ministry -- because we have been distracted by what has been presented in the press, and by questions the opposition has put forward in question period, and so forth -- perhaps it's useful for us to make a few things very clear.
The appointment of Maureen Maloney as the deputy minister is controversial in one kind of context. First of all, it's not in the context or in terms of her background. Certainly, being dean of the University of Victoria law school carries with it certain kinds of merits that I believe are fairly obvious. But what has stimulated perhaps some of the controversy is some of the articles -- not just one article, but several -- which have stimulated quite a reaction, insofar as there are certain statements made in the articles that reflect a certain kind of premise or approach. Let us not explore that here, hon. Chair. That has been explored, I think, adequately. Or -- one never knows the future -- maybe it'll be taken up once again in question period. That's not what I'm exploring here.
But nonetheless, in posing questions to the Attorney General, I noted one of the responses was that Maureen Maloney was hired on the basis of what she could contribute to the Attorney General's department. She was hired within the Ministry of Attorney General, and had nothing to do with tax law or anything like that. I understand the distinction. At the same time, this is a person who has developed a reputation -- regardless of the differences of opinion about some of her statements in a number of her articles and so forth -- as a taxation expert. I found it a little bit interesting. And I think it is appropriate here to perhaps pursue that, while we are in the midst of reorganizing the ministry and in the appointment of the deputy minister.
At the outset it begs one to ask the question: what qualifications were considered by the Attorney General in the appointment of the deputy minister, considering the responsibilities under the deputy minister as outlined in the reorganization chart and as outlined by the Attorney General. There are a number of areas: motor vehicles, corrections, liquor distribution and many more, of course. I'd be most interested to hear the response of the Attorney General as to the criteria by which Maureen Maloney was appointed to this posting, because the deputy minister has pretty wide, diverse responsibilities. That should certainly be examined. It's just one concern that I have. In so doing, were there other applications considered for that appointment? What would make the distinction between the two?
[3:45]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, I think it's really important for me to say, as I've said in other places, that when Maureen Maloney agreed to accept our invitation to take this job, I was thoroughly delighted. I say that quietly, but I mean it strongly. She's an outstanding individual with a wide variety of abilities, accomplishments and interests -- some of which have received public notoriety recently.
You need to understand the process. The appointment of deputy ministers is not the prerogative of the minister. Deputy ministers are appointed by a process that includes the Premier, the cabinet and the minister responsible. We were all were looking for an individual who could help us to integrate the justice system, open the justice system and make it more closely connected to communities around this province. I don't mind saying -- I haven't said this to Maureen -- that in the course of searching for an individual, there were a number of excellent people who could have filled the job well. In making an assessment about how to fill the position at the time, it was absolutely my conviction and conclusion, which was shared by cabinet, that she was the best person to meet the goals and objectives the ministry had for dealing with the reorganization and the challenges that we see ahead.
While she's had a lot of notoriety on taxation matters recently, she has also had a lot of plaudits across the country on her skills and abilities in taxation matters. But that was not what she was being hired for. She will have no participation in those kinds of issues. She is here because she is highly respected in the legal community. She has been -- I'm not sure if it's an honorary bencher -- a bencher of the Law Society in her capacity as dean of law, as is Lynn Smith. She's highly respected by her colleagues in that forum, by lawyers who know her across the province and by people in the justice system who have heard from her in a variety of ways in respect of her thoughts about access to justice.
Her focus is very much like mine. We need to make sure that the system works for ordinary people. We need to make sure that the system is open and understandable to ordinary people and is not the preserve of a particular group in our society. Her goals, agenda, values and ideas are consistent with mine and with the government's. In the final analysis, it doesn't matter what she thinks about any issue. What matters is that I take responsibility for all decisions that the ministry makes. I take responsibility for, in our system of ministerial accountability, all issues, and she may give me advice. I might take it and I might not take it. It is up to me as the minister to make those kinds of judgments. She will round out a very competent senior group within the ministry, and I'm just delighted that she agreed to work with us in attempting to create a better justice system in this province.
A. Warnke: I appreciate the Attorney General's remarks, but I did not receive the particular features about her career that would lend themselves to her
[ Page 5905 ]
being deputy minister of a very complicated area in the administration of justice. What I heard earlier is that she has gained notoriety in taxation matters -- her one area of specialty. I was looking for further clarification that she has the administrative skills to handle quite a difficult portfolio.
As the Attorney General and all members know, I have a high regard for people in the legal community. I do not have a disdain for lawyers -- I wonder why. The respect of the legal community may apply to many individuals, and while being the dean of any law school is, no doubt, an admirable position, my familiarity with law schools leads me to conclude that it's not an administrative position akin to that of a deputy minister. It demands different kinds of skills altogether. I certainly would not want to question any person who has been promoted to dean of any law school, because the criterion is often quite different. It is academic, but it also has a very narrow kind of experience within the academic and university community. It is not akin to what we see when we hire someone to handle a particular branch of the ministry.
Therefore I would like to pursue, in more concrete terms.... It is not necessary to put forward a full or a comparative r�sum�; I'm acquainted with the r�sum� of Maureen Maloney. On what concrete basis does a minister responsible for hiring and the Premier's office recruit someone to this particular post? Beyond the one about being highly respected in the legal community, I don't really see anything in the answer here. Taxation matters, by the Attorney General's own statement, do not apply in this particular case. So I would like another chance for the Attorney General to outline specifically what the Premier's office and the cabinet had in mind when they hired her.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm going to answer the question a little bit more. But before I do I need to say this. I'm not going to rely on it, because I don't want to be seen as defensive; it's not my style. This is the first time since 1972 that I can recall a debate in estimates revolving around the credentials of a public servant. It may have happened, and there were any number of times in the last decade when there was a temptation for it to happen. But I don't recall members ever doing that. I need to say that, because I don't think it's appropriate to discuss the merits of people in the public service. However, I have answered questions in the House, the hallway and here earlier, because in general terms my philosophy is that if you're open and you answer the questions, the issue goes away eventually. If you stonewall behind some grand principle, which I think this happens to be, then the issue will be around forever. I think it would be very unfortunate if this issue were around for very much longer.
Having said all of that, I'll say a couple more words, and hopefully we can put the matter to rest. When one looks for a deputy minister in any ministry of government, one looks for a variety of skills. Among those are issues around perspective and strategic vision. In our ministry that's very important, when we are involved in a justice system that is exceedingly expensive and which, if taxpayers are going to be given any relief, needs to have carefully managed dramatic change fuelled by a vision and by opening up to different perspectives. Maureen's role with us will be to help the government, the ministry and the justice system to deliver our services in a better, friendlier and, hopefully, cheaper way. She's here for those purposes, and you can't list on a curriculum vitae, a handout or a press release the history, the background, the activities or the skills that meet those needs. People either have it or they don't. There are people around who have those kinds of skills and advice to give government. In our judgment she was the best we could obtain for the particular job that we want done. In terms of the day-to-day administration, she has been an administrator at the law school, which is no mean feat -- trying to administer a law school that contains, on the one hand, a bunch of lawyers who are teaching and, on the other hand, a bunch of people who want to be lawyers. You can imagine how difficult that might be in terms of being an administrator.
Leaving that aside, we have very competent administrators in the ministry, who manage the systems, personnel, money and all the things that require day-to-day management skills. We have those people in place, and they are excellent. Her job will be to provide more of a strategic vision, rather than day-to-day, hands-on management, which is being done by other people in the system.
A. Warnke: I would agree with the minister. It is a rare occasion indeed when a member of the public service actually goes through such a controversial period. On the other hand, in some respects maybe it's to that person's benefit as well if we can put the matter to rest. I want to assure both the Chair and the Attorney General that I don't plan to belabour it this afternoon; I just want to flesh out some aspects of the controversy. As the particular person does take up the post later this month and is charged with the responsibilities of administering this part of the Attorney General's ministry, perhaps it would be best to have that put to rest in a definitive manner. Only time will tell whether that's really the case.
[4:00]
Nonetheless, while the last answer did not provide us with concrete items, I will lay that aside for the time being. In his answer the Attorney General has at least said that essentially the deputy minister provides a sense of direction for other personnel and components of the administrative system to embark on. By strategically placing a person who can provide that kind of direction, you can make for a very dynamic ministry that way. But I think we are beginning see where the problem lies when a particular appointment is being made that is perhaps perceived or construed as partisan.
Somewhere along the line, in the whole administrative mechanism of government, there is going to be a contact point between the partisan or political side of things and the administration of a government ministry. Usually it's acknowledged that that collision, if it takes place, occurs with the minister himself. The minister is a political person on the one
[ Page 5906 ]
hand, and yet the head of an administrative arm on the other.
Part of the problem that has stimulated the controversy is that the particular deputy minister being hired is also seen as partisan, and perhaps seen by some Canadians as a departure from past practice. The deputy minister is, ideally, a neutral and non-partisan arm of the government, and therefore as administrative head. All that that person does is administer the policies of the cabinet, the executive council.
One thing the Attorney General has mentioned that's reassuring is that the decisions will still be made by the minister and the executive council, and those decisions will rest with the minister alone. The minister may take advice from the deputy minister, and that is extremely important; that fits the ideal of what a deputy minister does. A deputy minister provides advice and the minister receives it, but it's up to the minister to accept or reject it. It's reassuring for the Attorney General to at least make specific mention of that.
But I do want to point out that there is a problem of appointing someone who is maybe not seen as non-partisan or neutral, because controversy goes with that. On that note, I will attempt to summarize where we are. I gather from the Attorney General that the decisive criteria for the choice of this particular person as deputy minister, even if we do not look at other factors or features, are the direction and -- I realize this is something that's sometimes difficult to express -- charisma, or whatever you want to call it. The minister referred to strategic vision, or at least a vision, as the impetus for providing a direction as far as the ministry goes. That appears to me to be the decisive criterion. Can the strategic vision -- the eidos as the Greeks would call it -- or the drive, to use another word, be provided? Is the minister satisfied that this, as the sole or leading criterion, is enough?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I want to make one substantive comment and two asides, and hopefully the asides won't lead us astray. First, and this may not be the case now, I notice often in public life that when women have strong views, somehow it attracts more attention than men having strong views. I know both critics are not really happy to hear that, but I think an objective evaluation of public commentary about the increasingly important role that women are playing in leadership positions in society will bear me out. However, that's not worthwhile pursuing at this point. I just felt a need to say that.
Second, in terms of partisan activity, I will be the only partisan in our ministry; I'll be the only one doing the political stuff. There is a clear distinction between the public service, who do not play and will not play a partisan political role.... When it comes to that, that's my responsibility. In fact, one of the problems we've got in the ministry is that, because it is so big and there are so many issues, I don't even get a chance to play very much politics and do much partisan activity. Certainly there isn't time for anybody else to do it, and I don't even have time for it -- and that bothers me some days.
But the substantive thing in all of this is that I think it's fair to say that the ministry has not had a strategic plan in place. One of the most important priorities for Maureen Maloney in this position is in fact to develop a strategic plan. She will work with people in the ministry and in the justice community so that we can in fact have a plan in place which everybody will understand, and which they will be able to reference when they do their work for the ministry. So with that, hopefully we can move on.
A. Warnke: I just want to make one quick comment. In my remarks, that I just outlined, I certainly didn't make any reference to gender. I thought I was trying to be very clear as to the nature of the controversy -- that had nothing to do women with strong views and so forth. So I'll just have to take exception to that. I still want....
Interjection.
A. Warnke: Very good. I think there was a qualification that the Attorney General was not thinking specifically of me. I thank him for that comment. I appreciate it.
I want to establish -- it's very rare, but it has happened -- that deputy ministers and other members of the public service have been controversial. Indeed, I can think of examples in this province when deputy ministers and other members of the public service have been viewed with suspicion as being allied with the governing party and being partisan in their behaviour.
As I review that record not only in B.C. but, to be fair, in other provinces.... I can think of the federal level as well. As an example, Mr. Pitfield comes immediately to mind. In spite of the fact that Mr. Pitfield's qualifications were tremendous, Mr. Clark, the newly sworn-in Prime Minister, thought that he should be replaced. When there has been controversy involving a public servant or a deputy minister, that person is viewed with suspicion as being partisan. I want to make it clear for the record that as critic for the Attorney General, I'm not going to have my eye out for the deputy minister and watch every move she makes when her responsibilities are taken up on May 17. If nothing else, when the responsibilities are taken up, the deputy minister must feel that there are already two strikes against her. There may be one strike, but what the heck -- there are four balls in which to get to first base, to use the old sports metaphor.
There has been a controversy, and I'm sure it's evident not only to government members but to the public at large that this is what happens when an appointment is made that may be construed or interpreted -- and it may be real, too -- as a partisan appointment. That's the point I want to make. It has happened before with other public servants and deputy ministers, and it's an experience that we should take into account.
One last point. As the Attorney General knows, with the appointment of Maureen Maloney, controversy has recently developed as well about the involvement of the deputy who's with the Premier. I believe his name is Mr. George Ford. So that this thing doesn't go on and on -- I'm afraid that one little bit of a problem leads to
[ Page 5907 ]
another problem, and then the first thing is stretched out over a period of time -- I'd like to provide the Attorney General with the opportunity to respond to some of the statements that have recently appeared about the involvement of the Premier's office in the appointment, in particular in the terms of the contract. Some of the suspicion around that is that Mr. Ford may be responsible. I want to assure the Attorney General that I don't see anything concrete in that. Perhaps the Attorney General could respond.
The Chair: Order, hon. member. The Chair will intervene at this stage. We are examining the Attorney General's estimates, and only those items that come under the direct purview and administration of the Attorney General's office. Mr. Ford definitely does not come under the Attorney General's ministry.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Chair is absolutely right. But just for the record let me say that, because of the potential for a seeming conflict, all of Mr. Ford's arrangements with respect to his leave were dealt with by the associate dean. There were no dealings at all with the dean of the law school, just for that very reason. In fact, Mr. Ford and the dean and the associate dean handled this in an exemplary way, and anyone commenting on it publicly should have given us plaudits for recognizing the potential problem and avoiding it.
[4:15]
D. Schreck: I feel compelled to participate in this debate, hon. Chair, for I feel the tone and quality of opposition criticism of a public employee smacks of the worst McCarthyite witch trial. I think I would be negligent in my responsibilities were I not to object to what I find so fundamentally offensive. I congratulate the Attorney General on hiring a person who is recognized as having the highest credentials across the country. I congratulate the Attorney General for being able to recruit someone of such calibre as the former dean of law. And I express my total indignation at the suggestion that anyone who has ever expressed a thought in an academic paper that is to the left of Attila the Hun, or who maybe once had blinked at an NDP organizer on their door, should somehow be blacklisted from the public service. The suggestions being brought up by the opposition are not far different than the worst witch-hunts of the McCarthy era, and I think it's time this is stopped.
C. Serwa: I certainly will jump into this in spite of the Attorney General's wish that we proceed. The type of intimidation that the hon. member has implied.... He's completely missed the boat. As a matter of fact, he sounds a few bricks short of a full load. It is the worst possible form of intimidation, certainly in the area we're discussing.
We're also not discussing simply a public servant, an employee of the Crown. We're talking about a deputy minister in the Attorney General's ministry, and if anyone here knows how important perception is, it is certainly the Attorney General in this particular case. The Attorney General, as I've said in the Legislature, is an honourable man and an honourable minister, and I acknowledge both. He's carried out his responsibilities in that particular vein. I thoroughly appreciate that.
What the hon. member has missed, clearly, is that the reputation of the deputy minister -- the storm of controversy -- has preceded her arrival in the ministry, like leaves flying before the wind. She's starting out amid a storm of controversy.
Justice has to be for all. It doesn't matter whether you're poor, or whether you're a single woman with children, or whatever the situation is. The rule of law and order has to be available for all people on an equal basis.
The concern I have, and the concern the hon. opposition critic has voiced, is real and valid in this particular case. I have no difficulty understanding what the Attorney General said with regard to some of the parameters. Nor am I thoroughly familiar with the credentials of the arriving deputy minister. But I am very concerned about her radical statements -- not only about taxation, but also about the legal profession and the legal system -- and her coming in as a deputy minister in the one ministry in government which has to be not only seen but perceived as apolitical, without a hidden agenda. The hon. Attorney General has carried out that responsibility very ably. But I am very concerned that that perception will start to be eroded. This is the one ministry where we can't tolerate any erosion of philosophy, principles or that sort of apolitical stance. The Attorney General has fundamentally restricted himself in the partisan nature of many of the debates in the House, in respect of the role he has as Attorney General.
The deputy minister, regardless of ability or qualifications, comes with suspected conflicts -- obviously with the deputy of the Premier -- with a variety of associations that are somewhat suspect and partisan in nature. All I can say is that the association in that high-ranking role is improper. Some individual who had come in through the ministry, through the civil service, who was well aware of the limitations and who didn't have that type of reputation, would have been a better choice in this particularly sensitive ministry. I know that the Attorney General is aware and is as concerned as we are, but that is a suspicion we have. The form of intimidation -- trying to silence the voice of honest critics -- is most improper in this or any other place in the political forum.
A. Warnke: I too am somewhat puzzled by the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, but I actually like to spend more of my time directing questions to the minister rather than responding. I thought I made it very clear that the perspective of the articles -- and published articles obviously add to one's academic credentials, whether one may agree or disagree with them -- can certainly be construed as partisan. This is not to mean that those kinds of articles are not to be published, but that they are written to reflect a person's point of view, and that, when brought into the ministry, contributes to the controversy. I think this is where the controversy originated. That's why one goes out of
[ Page 5908 ]
one's way, as much as possible -- ideally it's not always possible -- to pick a person who is neutral and non-partisan for the post of deputy minister.
To suggest that we're picking on someone because of a particular view that is "left of Attila the Hun" is a statement that suggests the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale just hasn't followed the debate very closely, or certainly doesn't understand the nature of the controversy. Perhaps it would be advisable for him to sit down and think more seriously on just the comments that were presented by the hon. member for Okanagan West. I think the member for Okanagan West pretty well definitively established the nature of the controversy before us.
Let's move on. If that wasn't bad enough, this may also be somewhat controversial. Once again, just so as not to create a particular kind of impression here, I may have to preface my remarks. There has been controversy. There is a view in the public that has been expressed, sometimes in the newspapers or in other public forums -- and these matters have to be flushed out.... It's a very simple question, and I suspect we do not have to go very long on it. Mr. William Stewart, the former Assistant Deputy Attorney General of criminal justice, was appointed as a judge of the Provincial Court of British Columbia, effective April 28. There was some question earlier in the year as to whether the advice provided by Mr. Stewart to the Attorney General with regard to the Bishop O'Connor case was in fact problematic. That has stimulated a perception in the public -- correct or incorrect; the Attorney General can respond -- that the appointment of Mr. Stewart to the bench was a response to his involvement in the O'Connor case. One view puts it crassly that it is a convenient way of removing Mr. Stewart from his position as ADM. This in turn promotes a bit of controversy within the ministry itself. I would like to give the Attorney General the opportunity to clarify the nature of this question.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Until the O'Connor matter is no longer before the courts, I intend to make no comments about it anywhere -- directly or indirectly.
As for Mr. Stewart's qualifications to sit on the Provincial Court, like all the other appointments, he was a recommendation of the Judicial Council. He was very highly recommended, and I was thoroughly delighted to be able to take to cabinet the recommendation that Mr. Stewart be appointed to the Provincial Court. I am certain, as I am sure everyone who knows him will agree, that he will make an outstanding Provincial Court judge.
A. Warnke: I take it from the Attorney General's answer -- I think it is actually reassuring -- that the initiative did not come from the Attorney General but by recommendation.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Can I just take a moment, hon. Chair, to briefly explain how the process for appointments to the Provincial Court works? I think it is an excellent system. It ensures that the appointments are made of the very best people in a way that doesn't allow partisan politics to be injected.
The Judicial Council has on it representatives -- that includes the chief judge; I can't remember the list at the moment -- of the judiciary, the bar and the Law Society. Both are represented, and it includes two lay representatives appointed by cabinet on the recommendation of the Attorney General. It is a mix of people who provide a good balance and good experience in terms of the qualifications one would need to go on the bench. Individuals who are practising law in British Columbia and have practised for five years or more can make application to the Judicial Council. I think it's five years provincially; it's ten federally. The Judicial Council does an exhaustive interview with the candidates and provides a ranking to determine whether or not individuals should be recommended. That list is rotated or turned over every couple of years. So if you don't get appointed, you can apply again, following that two-year period. So what happens is that the Judicial Council makes recommendations to the Attorney General when vacancies occur, and the Attorney General takes the names to cabinet. We have appointed 15 individuals since we came to office, and any member of the public or of the House who looks at the list will see that it is an excellent list of appointments to the Provincial Court bench.
A. Warnke: I would like to turn my attention to one point that was raised in the minister's opening remarks -- and I think it's worth elaborating on here a little bit -- with regard to family maintenance enforcement.
[4:30]
There was some criticism recently that a move by the provincial government to give women on welfare the choice of pursuing support payments from the fathers of their children is costing taxpayers more money. I wonder if the Attorney General would comment on whether the change in legislation last year has had an impact on the number of cases that family maintenance has received.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I understand that there has been no discernable impact on the number of cases, and the change in policy should be directed to the Minister of Social Services. It came out of that ministry.
A. Warnke: I just want to have it clarified. Is the allocation of this fund to the program for this year coming from the Ministry of Social Services and not the Attorney General?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, I was referring to the change in policy in respect of social service recipients in respect of FMEP. The family maintenance enforcement program is an Attorney General program.
A. Warnke: I would like to ask the Attorney General: what is the allocation of funding to the program for this fiscal year?
[ Page 5909 ]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The first briefing note that I had actually had to do with the stats and the enrolled numbers and all of that, but I do have the budget for the family maintenance enforcement program for this year that we're now debating: it is $7,377,500. Last year the blue book was -- this is restated, I assume -- $6,573,725, so there has been an increase of approximately $800,000 in allocation to FMEP, which is greater than the across-the-board increases. It reflects the priority for the issue. Effectively it deals with the volume increases in real terms. I think it's the best way of answering that. This is an exploding area, and it is significantly more funding, but it actually provides about 1 percent -- which is less than inflation, obviously.
A. Warnke: So on the surface there doesn't seem to be a great change from last year.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Not in the numbers.
A. Warnke: Not in numbers. I understand that the waiting list consists of approximately 13,000 women. However, as of October last year women who have enrolled in the program have been allowed to opt out and make their own arrangements to collect. What impact has this had on the program, and is there any indication as to whether those women opting out have been more successful in collecting?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I indicated a few minutes ago that there was no discernable change in numbers as a result of that policy change. So that's the answer to that question.
In terms of the total enrolled debtors, last year the number was 17,751; in 1992-1993 the number was 21,273. Our forecast for this year is 25,170. There is a significant increase each year in the number of enrolled debtors.
A. Warnke: On the same subject for a little while. The minister indicated last year that the ministry was considering a tougher approach to the system of collections. I don't know if there was reference to Ontario or not, but there was reference to something similar to that. A number of American states and, I believe, the American Congress have enacted legislation that requires every state to have an automatic support-deduction system in place by 1994. Would the minister indicate whether there have been any changes to the system of collections -- for example, attachment of wages -- and what options are being considered for collections?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not able this year in these estimates to talk about the changes. We don't know yet what the recommendations are going to be or, therefore, the conclusions that I'll recommend to cabinet. We haven't got that far yet. There is a review -- and I keep using that word. We're evaluating the program we have, we're examining programs elsewhere, and we're trying to see what kinds of changes would be useful to improve the system.
It's true that in the estimates last year there was reference to the Ontario system. Their system isn't perfect, either. They have a series of problems with their system, so simply adopting their system would not put us far enough ahead to make this worthwhile. We're examining that, we're examining other programs and we're examining all options. Hopefully in the not very distant future, we'll be able to bring some improvements to the program.
A. Warnke: I believe during the debate last year the minister indicated that the intention was to reduce the number of cases per enforcement officer to approximately 900, I think it was. Has this changed since last year?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We're keeping the caseload at status quo, so the number of cases that each officer handles is at a constant number. As the enrolment increases, we obviously have to add additional resources to service that.
A. Warnke: I have a couple of questions regarding gender equality in the justice system. However, at this particular time, the member for Okanagan East has some questions, and because of the time problems we have between the two Houses, I would like to defer to the member now.
J. Tyabji: I would like to talk a bit about CORE, because it comes through the Attorney General's ministry. First of all, could the Attorney General give me a general overview of CORE? Is this still under your jurisdiction? Is the spending still going to come under the Attorney General, or is it all going to be directed through the Ministry of Environment?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I was responsible for shepherding the legislation through. That was the end of my responsibility in this matter. There is no allocation within our ministry for CORE.
J. Tyabji: Is it in Environment?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't answer your question. I assume it's in Environment, but it's certainly between the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment, and that's where questions around this issue should be directed. When the Ministry of Environment estimates come up, I'm sure the member would get better answers than she will from me.
A. Warnke: As I mentioned just a moment ago, the report on gender equality in the justice system indicated that one of the problems with the program is that the program has three regional offices -- in Burnaby, Kamloops and Victoria. Has there been any consideration to opening up more offices and perhaps reducing the caseload per regional office, thus reducing the process, which now takes between three and six months?
[ Page 5910 ]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm tempted to say that if we start spending more money, the member might accuse me of running up the deficit, so I'm trying to keep the costs down.
An Hon. Member: Government is a tough position.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's fun to be in opposition: you can scream for both lower expenditures and more programs at the same time. We did it for years. We can recognize it for what it is when we see it now.
There are no significant changes in the operations of FMEP while we conduct the evaluation of the program. There's no point in making changes now and having to make them again later if we see that others are needed.
A. Warnke: If I may ask the Attorney General, has there been any discussion with the Minister of Women's Equality for joint funding? I'm not exactly sure that's in her purview, but perhaps the minister would respond.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There are a variety of initiatives between our ministry and the Ministry of Women's Equality that involve funding arrangements that go between the two ministries, but not in connection with the FMEP.
A. Warnke: I also notice that the report recognized a lack of multicultural services. Simply put, has there been any consideration to perhaps address these specific concerns?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: You're off FMEP now, and you're onto multicultural services. I wonder if....
A. Warnke: The report did mention that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In respect of the justice system?
A. Warnke: Yes.
The Chair: Through the Chair, hon. members.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is easier this way, Mr. Chair -- until you rule us out of order.
The responsibility from a cross-government perspective for multicultural issues is with the Minister of Education. If there are any specific questions to do with the justice system, I will try to answer them. I'm not sure that I can in this general way.
A. Warnke: I want to pursue some aspects of the operations of the ministry itself. I've noticed that the allocations for salaries and benefits have increased by 15 percent, so this does beg the question, I suppose -- especially given that the Attorney General has mentioned, quite correctly so, that governments are facing some difficulties with regard to budgetary constraints and so forth. Many members of the public, I suppose, and other kinds of think tanks obviously focus in on salaries and benefits as one area. So when the allocation of salaries and benefits has increased 15 percent, it sort of puts some pressure to explain why the increase here. Also the allocation of other expenditures has increased by a phenomenal amount. I'm just wondering if the Attorney General could clarify that. I'll ask one question at a time.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not entirely clear, and I may need to hear more from the member about what it is he wants to determine. In our budget, 2.3 percent of the increase is for salary increases negotiated. I'm not sure....
A. Warnke: I was not clear.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The wage increase in our ministry that came as a result of the BCGEU agreement, and the management increases, amount to about $25 million. I think what the member may be doing is looking at the Supplement to the Estimates and drawing conclusions. This whole issue -- trying to sort out blue book versus actual versus restated versus projected -- gets complicated. It allows for any number of answers. So the questions have to be really quite precise, I'm afraid to say.
A. Warnke: Actually, it's with regard to "Administration and Support Services" under "Ministry Operations." This is something that just stuck out at me on page 79, if that's any help: "Salaries and Benefits," under "Administration and Support Services," under "Ministry Operations."
Just to fill in while the Attorney General is looking up those numbers, I believe administration and support services provide for ministry management, policy and program development and administrative support, as well as information systems, audit and communication services. Perhaps it's too much at this stage to ask for a breakdown, but is there any one of those components that maybe stands out? But nonetheless, I'll wait for an answer from the Attorney General.
[4:45]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's going to be interesting to see if I can explain this. Treasury Board gave the ministry an additional amount of money this year to deal with court backlog issues. That money isn't identified specifically, because it was part of the regular budget process but not part of the numbers you have here. So that money gets distributed within these numbers in various ways. Look, as I think you are, on page 79 in the top line of figures: "Salaries and Benefits" under "Administration and Support Services." If you're asking me the difference between $13.68 million and $15.76 million, and why that's such a large amount, some of that additional money -- which will be allocated during the course of the year for particular programs that get developed on court backlog -- is actually identified in there. Some of the money that would be used in that inevitably will end up being spent on some salary items.
[ Page 5911 ]
A. Warnke: Since we're going through this -- no doubt many people are going to spot this, and it doesn't involve millions of dollars -- there is quite a jump under "Other Expenditures," from $9,298 to $343,618. There's no use giving the percentage of that; I think it's incalculable. But I'm just wondering what might account for that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Again, I'm not sure I'm going to be able to explain this to everyone's satisfaction. But as I understand it, it's part of an undetermined expenditure. In other words, we had some money allocated for the court backlog issue, and it had to go somewhere, but it hasn't been identified yet in terms of an expenditure. I had tried to persuade Treasury Board -- and was successful -- that we could in fact design programs to deal with court backlog issues that could save the justice system money over the longer term. For example, maybe there are some areas where we can do alternate dispute resolution, and we need to find ways of doing that other kind of activity. So moneys were allocated. Treasury Board has to give us approval before the money can be spent. The money shows up in a variety of ways in this budget, and as a result it appears to distort some of the actual numbers. That's the best I can do.
On the earlier question, more specifically -- going back to that top line, the three-quarters of a million dollars -- there is actually the salary-related part of the court backlog issue that I explained earlier.
A. Warnke: Since we're on that page, we might as well stick with it for a little while. Again, percentages sort of stand out. I suspect I know the answer, but there are salaries and benefits under "Legal Services," and salaries and benefits under "Criminal justice," which, prima facie, looks like quite a sudden increase. Is there anything that stands out that can help us there?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is yes. I think members will remember that there was a "negotiated salary adjustment and classification adjustment" with the prosecutors and lawyers in the ministry. The first stage was concluded in December, and then it was finally put to bed in January or February of this year, which accounted for some costs in the current year and for additional costs that are reflected here. I might just say that prosecutors in particular, at some years of call, were paid at a very poor salary level. It was clear that adjustments had to be made, and those adjustments were made, as well as the classification changes that had to occur. It totalled $7.5 million in the criminal justice branch alone for the 320 prosecutors who work for the government.
A. Warnke: It may be appropriate just to touch on one aspect of legal services here that the Attorney General introduced in his opening remarks. This involves the Legal Services Society. Legal aid has led to all kinds of accelerating costs, and earlier this year we had to explore in another budget to make up for the shortfall on funds allocated towards legal aid. The Agg report recommended that a more coordinated and more cost-effective method of delivering legal aid services in British Columbia should be embarked on, but it also identified serious organizational management and service delivery problems, without legal aid. I wonder if the Attorney General could clarify what steps have been and are being taken to improve the operation of the Legal Services Society, and whether there is anything that is being embarked on to try and get a handle on the whole financial administration of legal aid, because it does seem to be running out of control, as the Attorney General mentioned at the outset. How can this be kept under control? Or what steps are being taken to check any accelerating rate of increase here?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The first thing that we all have to remember in respect of legal aid is that the Legal Services Society is independent; it makes its own decisions. Effectively, we have three control mechanisms: we control the budget amount, we control the legislation, and we can appoint up to half the members of the board of directors. Beyond that, the Legal Services Society is free to operate within the legislative and budgetary constraints that we give them.
To answer the question, several things have happened. As a result of the review, we are looking at the possibility of legislative changes. We have provided $85 million for this fiscal year, which compares to the almost $87 million that we anticipate will have been spent in the last fiscal year. So there's a constraint there, simply from a budget perspective.
In responding to all of this, the Legal Services Society took some initiatives of their own. They had a 15 percent reduction, I think it was, on December 1, for the criminal tariff. They have made other changes in respect to payments for particular services that are rendered, and have tried to tighten up their own operations. Beyond that, the caseload projections that were coming through in June, July and August of last year led to some frightening numbers. That tailed off over the course of the winter, so then the projections actually decreased month by month, for whatever reason. So we didn't have the extent of the nightmare that we feared in respect to costs getting out of hand.
The Legal Services Society board knows very clearly that I want a tighter control over expenditure. I want a system that delivers more family law and one that is far more integrated with the community, and they have to do it in a tighter, more effective, cost-controlled way than they've done in the past.
A. Warnke: What we on this side of the House were concerned about was that there was an allocation last year of $71.5 million, and then later on it required a special warrant in addition to that allocation. As we prepare for this fiscal year, we're quite concerned that maybe there will be some requirement for additional funding later in this year.
I agree with the minister's priorities regarding family law. I seem to recall some discussion last year that one of the areas contributing to problems associated with legal aid had to deal with criminal cases and that sort of thing. Perhaps a comment this year would be most appropriate. The Attorney General also
[ Page 5912 ]
mentioned the move towards community-based priorities. I certainly can understand the direction of that, but I'm wondering if that is a factor contributing to increased costs.
[D. Symons in the chair.]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the member's question is about influences on the demand, I will first of all tell you what the demand increases have been. In a six-year period from '86-87 through to '92-93, we've gone from a 44 percent increase per 1,000 population. So on a static number we've gone 44 percent, and during that period the population increased by 16.7 percent, on top of that. So we have had really dramatic increases in numbers.
Why? In April '90 flexible eligibility tests for legal aid were introduced, which had an impact on who was eligible. The recession always plays a major role in this kind of issue. Next to Social Services, I suspect this ministry is impacted more directly by the economy than any other. Legal aid goes up, the jail population goes up, and the court system gets additional work during bad economic times. It's just one of the realities.
In December 1989 there was a court decision which allowed refugee claimants to be entitled to legal aid. Just that one decision brought the number from approximately 300 up to approximately 2,650.
[5:00]
There are other issues as well, but to summarize -- I actually prefer not reading the notes -- my sense of it is that more people have become eligible. There is more immigration availability, and there is more demand on family law than there used to be, as a result of a lot of societal issues. There is more demand because of poverty and unemployment and more criminal activity. All of those kinds of pressures lead to more demand on the system. There is probably a greater public awareness of the availability, as well. And in addition to all of that, more and more lawyers are referring clients over to legal aid.
A. Warnke: Some of what the minister just stated indicates where the trend of the demand continues. I also want to explore whether there has been any change in or consideration to change the eligibility requirements to get assistance through legal aid.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's an issue for the Legal Services Society board -- to make determinations about eligibility. They have to make determinations about how they're going to function in the context of the legislation which guides them and the budget which constrains them.
A. Warnke: Earlier this year legal aid lawyers had intended to strike. Presumably it was a protest against a plan by Legal Services to make changes in the current system by hiring extra staff lawyers -- 70, I believe -- to deal with caseload. Is the hiring of staff lawyers still being considered as an option to reduce legal aid expenses?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes. The Agg report recommended that there be a mixed model. That would include relying less on tariff services and more on staff services, which are demonstrably and clearly cheaper in many cases -- not in all. Nor is it appropriate to go to staff in all cases, but the recommendation of Agg -- and it's an issue that the Legal Services Society board deals with regularly; probably at every one of its meetings now.... They are moving toward adding additional staff. At one point the association of legal aid lawyers contemplated expressing their concern about this by way of strike action, but I think cooler heads have prevailed and we are all getting along quite nicely now.
A. Warnke: The following question is related to this. The Agg report strongly opposed the public defender system. I've heard the Attorney General on this on at least two occasions -- and I think even once privately -- and yet it keeps coming up. For some reason many members of the public have expressed concern about that, so I'm wondering where the minister stands on the public defender system, since the Agg report is strongly opposed to the system.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I haven't used the term "public defender" since February 9, 1992, when I used it at a meeting and was thoroughly chastised. That was, I guess, three months or so after I had taken on the responsibility for this job. I used the term in a way that I understood it, but clearly my understanding of what it meant and the bar's understanding of what it meant are different. The term "public defender" doesn't pass my lips now, because what it refers to is an American model, which has the state hiring lawyers to act as defenders in the court system.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
Agg very clearly recommended against a public defender system. I am against, or not in favour -- however you want to put it -- of a public defender system. We are not moving and will not move toward a system where the state hires defence counsel. We will continue with an arm's-length arrangement similar to the one we have in place now.
A. Warnke: That, believe me, will be most helpful, because for some reason.... I guess the Attorney General has given the reasons why it keeps coming up, and it does come up now and again. I'm most appreciative of that statement. It's most helpful for me.
The Agg report also recommends the increased use of paralegal and increased collaboration, even the support of lay advocates. Are changes in this direction being implemented, and what would be the effect of the cost of legal aid if this were the case?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I see you've had an opportunity to go down the hall, which I haven't had. I don't know quite how to organize that, either.
The Chair: Arrangements could be made, hon. Attorney General, if it's necessary.
[ Page 5913 ]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There's clearly a role for what the member describes as lay advocates or paralegals; clearly a role for some of that kind of delivery in the legal aid system. When you look at, for example, the New Westminster community legal services society and their operation in the New Westminster-Surrey area, they have a number of people who work on staff who provide advice and counselling on various matters that come under a general rubric of legal aid, who are not lawyers -- these are paralegals -- and in a limited way there is some room for that. Clearly there is the ability then to save some money as well.
Interjection.
A. Warnke: As a matter of fact, I'm suffering from a cold, and I wouldn't mind a recess for five minutes if it were permitted. I have no objections to that. Is there any possibility?
The Chair: There is a definite possibility. The Chair will recess the committee for relief for five minutes, and we will reconvene in five minutes.
The Committee recessed at 5:08 p.m.
The Committee resumed at 5:13 p.m.
The Chair: That was our second precedent-setting manoeuvre this afternoon. To have recessed like that was rather interesting. Thank you. Committee members, please come back to order.
A. Warnke: I sure appreciated that, and I hope others did as well.
I'll continue for a little bit; I don't want to lose my voice. Continuing with the Agg report, I actually have one more question. The Agg report recommends reducing the criminal tariff by approximately 10 percent, with savings allocated to improving family and human rights tariffs. The report also recommends the establishment of tariffs for civil cases and for seniors. Are these changes being considered, and what percentage of cases do these types of cases account for?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The changes that have been made by the Legal Services Society -- let's remember that it's they who make the decisions, not the minister -- were, as I mentioned earlier, the 15 percent reduction in the criminal tariff on December 1 and a 10 percent increase in the family tariff effective April 1, which is now in place.
Those are the two changes. I know there were other considerations raised in the report, but I think those are the two significant issues in respect of the tariffs. I think there were other changes made as well in fees for things such as failure to appear and other issues that had particular fee schedules attached to them. I can't give you details about that at this point.
[5:15]
K. Jones: Hon. Chair, I just want to explore some of the plans the Attorney General has. Last year the Attorney General was talking to us in estimates about the Fraser Valley youth detention facility. I believe it was proposed to be in Aldergrove at the Gloucester industrial park, or something like that. Could you tell us what happened to that?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There was a suggestion by the community of a fear that it might be proposed for the Gloucester estates site. It's in Langley, actually, rather than Aldergrove. Our concern all along in respect of facilities -- jails or whatever -- is that we make those decisions with the cooperation and support of the communities. Clearly there was not a lot of support for that suggestion.
The ministry, together with BCBC, sought other alternatives. The other alternative is north of the river, which doesn't affect any members of the Liberal caucus. That should probably put an end to the question.
K. Jones: We have concerns for the rest of the province.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There are discussions quite happily underway with the Maple Ridge municipal council about a site in their municipality, and things are going very well.
K. Jones: Thank you to the AG for that response. Could the minister tell us where in Maple Ridge it is proposed to be? There goes his help.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's a quarter of a mile from the old Haney Correctional Centre site. Does that help? If you want more, I'll get more.
K. Jones: So it's going to be in the vicinity of the old correctional centre. When you talk about the Haney Correctional Centre site that was taken over by PVI and....
Interjection.
The Chair: Through the Chair, hon. members.
K. Jones: I'm just trying to clarify without a lot of problems. I'll just leave it at that point.
I'd like to go on to another thing that we talked about, which is to do with the liquor branch. So release your support there, and we'll go into the question that we brought up in estimates last year with regard to a program that is provided for people who work in the bars but at that time was not available. It was intended to keep people who are perhaps intoxicated from being served, and to deal with them appropriately. Were those programs extended to the wine and beer stores and also to the liquor stores themselves -- the ones operated by the government?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We're talking here about the responsible beverage-service program that is operated essentially by the industry -- the bars and
[ Page 5914 ]
people who serve the liquor directly. Restaurants were not included in the program simply because there are about 25,000 restaurants in this province, and it's a big undertaking. I indicated last year during estimates that we were working with the industry to examine those questions. Nothing has changed to date. The program still continues in the licensed facilities, and that's it for the moment.
K. Jones: I should have Hansard directly in front of us, but my recollection is that with reference not to the restaurant industry so much -- although I think it would be an appropriate thing to get a similar program going with restaurateurs -- but to the wine and beer stores and also the actual government liquor stores and their vendors, that is a much smaller program. I believe you indicated last year that you would be looking very seriously at establishing a program in this past year to bring that in, because you felt it was such an important area to be addressed.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We have a very extensive orientation program in the government liquor stores that deals with the issue that would be dealt with by the responsible beverage-service program that exists in the bars. So the liquor store employees actually get trained in that respect.
As far as beer and wine store employees are concerned, I gather there are discussions now with that sector of the industry to see whether we can accomplish training programs in those stores as well. But it wouldn't necessarily be part of the responsible beverage-service program, which is aimed at bars where drinks are actually poured and consumed as opposed to where containers are bought and taken out -- if the way I put it makes sense.
K. Jones: Then can we assume that the minister is taking this on as a program to control the sale of liquor to persons who are intoxicated and that the policy of the ministry is to do something about this problem?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This feels like d�j� vu all over again. We had this discussion last year, and I remember telling the member that it's an offence under the Liquor Distribution Act to sell to a minor or an intoxicated person. You don't need a program of how to sell to this person. You just don't do it.
C. Serwa: Just a few questions while we're talking about beer and wine stores. Last year there was a departure in the program, in that cold beer will now be sold through government liquor stores, as well as chilled wines perhaps. Can the minister indicate the cost of that particular program and the extended hours? With all of the costs that have gone in, have volumes increased? Has profitability increased? What is the net result of that particular initiative? It has put a great deal of pressure on the private interests that had made substantial investments in capital there.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: By agreement with the hotel association and the neighbourhood pub association, we have identified 14 government liquor stores in the province that will have cold beer available. Only one is up and running; that's Park Royal. The capital cost for doing this was about $22,000. There is a surcharge on a dozen beer of $1.20, which will, we project, pay for the cost within two years. So there is no cost to the taxpayer, except for those taxpayers who buy cold beer, because they pay for the costs of making this change. But I reiterate that only 14 stores have the cold beer, and it's by agreement. We also have the wine dunkers for people who want to wait three minutes to allow their bottle of warm white wine to get cold.
C. Serwa: The stores were going to go to extended hours, I understand. Has that in fact transpired? What has happened with the actual cost of operation and the volume of sales with those expanded hours? Has it been a worthwhile venture?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There have been adjustments in hours both ways. Some have curtailed hours and some have expanded hours. My preference is that where we have liquor stores adjacent to supermarkets, or in shopping centres where the entire shopping centre is open until a certain hour, it makes sense that the liquor store be open until that hour as well. That's the general kind of direction I have given. There are different circumstances in different stores in different communities, and we are not doing a policy like that blindly. As they say in the jargon, it's a one-off -- each case is looked at independently. To answer the question directly, so far there have been no additional costs, because the adjustments have been minimal and they've been both ways in hours.
C. Serwa: So in fact, there has been no evaluation of the benefits either to the consumer or to the profitability of the stores?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We don't have a rule that allows the manager of the liquor distribution branch to answer, otherwise I'd let him try to answer the question. I didn't understand the technical language. But there is a store-by-store analysis of the volumes, presumably, and of what's happening in respect of sales. We're not going to keep a store open certain hours if nobody comes to buy anything.
The other directive that I've given to the liquor distribution branch is that I want them to run it like a business. I want them to be out there in an entrepreneurial way. I don't want to go back to the old days of the liquor stores that were so intimidating and frustrating that you thought you were a criminal while you got your case over the counter. We've said to go out there and play by the market rules. If it's appropriate to be open longer.... If the grocery store is open, then we should be open too, as long as there's a business case for being open. But there has to be a business case.
C. Serwa: Is there an actual foundation for doing an accurate cost analysis? Your stores are not responsible for the same taxes, for example, as another commercial establishment is. There are a number of opportunities
[ Page 5915 ]
that you have that a commercial venture does not have. Are those taken into consideration in determining a cost analysis as to whether the whole venture is worth continuing? There are many opportunities. I again refer to New Zealand, where much of this is done through privatization of government liquor stores, rather than the continuing evolutionary progress here. We've had great growth, but is there an accurate cost analysis that is comparable? I applaud the minister when he says that it must be run as a business. But if it must be run as a business, it must be faced with all of the same costs.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Every store does a profit and loss accounting. So that is first of all. The taxation portion of the revenue is taken out of the calculation. So it's the price of the product less the tax that's used for calculating that particular profit-loss basis. Plus, we pay property taxes. In 1992 liquor stores paid $4 million in municipal property taxes in this province. So in that sense it's very much run like a business. I think that suppliers and everybody who deals with the LDB will echo this comment. It is a very professional, very businesslike operation that's run very efficiently.
[5:30]
In terms of philosophical issues, there are decisions that governments make. We've made a decision to continue with government stores, but we want them to be consumer-friendly, and we want the people who work in the stores to be well informed so that they can give good advice to customers. It would be simple to provide no advice; it would be simple to do no training in that line. It would be simple to do all kinds of other things, but we do them because we believe that we have to operate in that competitive atmosphere, even though we may not have a competitor for a lot of the products. Nonetheless, we try to operate in that way.
A. Warnke: The next issue I want to take up is pretty short, but I believe it should be addressed. It is a difficult one, in one sense, because it relates to Bill 8, and we don't want to get into any area of prospective legislation and whatnot. But I want to just touch somehow on the tax on legal fees, which is related to the generation of revenue. So the way I'll put this question together is that there is a proposal that lawyers pay 6 percent tax from May 31, 1992, and the 7 percent tax on services provided March 31, 1993. Would the Attorney General indicate the amount of revenue that is to be expected from these taxes.
The Chair: Hon. member, it would appear that that is under the Finance minister's jurisdiction -- the revenues attained from that tax. It's not within the administrative capacity of the Attorney General's ministry.
With an eye to the clock, hon. members, we are approaching the half hour as per the sessional orders -- if we could keep that in mind.
A. Warnke: It was a question for which I had some problem finding the exact direction as well. Upon further reflection, hon. Chair, I believe that your ruling is quite appropriate. Perhaps in this particular case it would be more appropriately put to the Finance minister.
Nonetheless, I have one quick question which does not relate to the Minister of Finance. Could the Attorney General comment on whether the revenue generated from the tax will go towards legal aid and not towards general revenue? I think that's appropriate.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'll answer the question, although it really should be for the Minister of Finance. The revenue from the sales tax goes to general revenue, and from general revenue, moneys are allocated to various programs, including legal aid.
The Chair: The Chair would at this time entertain a motion to rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The Committee rose at 5:34 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]