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)
FRIDAY, JUNE 25, 1993
Morning Sitting
Volume 11, Number 16
[ Page 7875 ]
The House met at 10:01 a.m.
Deputy Clerk: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised of the unavoidable absence of the Speaker.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
Prayers.
Hon. M. Sihota: It is my privilege to advise members that in the gallery today is Elizabeth Kernaghan, who is a Member of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of New South Wales and the member for Camden in that assembly. It's always a privilege to have people come and visit us in this beautiful locale of Victoria. Would all members please give Ms. Kernaghan and her two guests from Monterey, California, a warm welcome.
Hon. B. Barlee tabled the annual report and financial statement of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the period from April 1, 1991, to March 31, 1992.
Hon. L. Boone tabled the annual report of business done in pursuance of the Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act, part 2, for the year ended March 31, 1992; the annual report of business done in pursuance of the Pension (Municipal) Act for the year ended December 31, 1991; the annual report of business done in pursuance of the Pension (Public Service) Act for the year ended March 31, 1992; the annual report of business done in pursuance of the Pension (Teachers) Act for the year ended December 31, 1991; the annual report of business done in pursuance of the Pension (College) Act for the year ended August 31, 1991; and the B.C. Buildings Corporation annual report for the year 1992-93.
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I'll take this opportunity to advise all hon. members that Committee of Supply A will be meeting immediately to deal with the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services.
With that said, I call members' statements.
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
L. Reid: I rise today to make a private member's statement on the issues surrounding violence against women. There are countless situations where a woman has obtained a restraining order in this province and her husband has violated the order and come to her home and assaulted her. When the woman reported this to the police, they told her they could not arrest her husband because he had child visitation rights and that gave him the legal right to be on the premises.
People have been exploiting each other for as long as human records have been kept. It has been estimated that during 1990 in Canada, an average of two women were killed by their partners every week. In addition, it is estimated that each year one in eight women living in a relationship with a man is assaulted. Research indicates -- and frankly, this is the alarming statistic -- that as many as 35 violent episodes occur before a woman seeks police intervention. These numbers are taken from the Attorney General's report on violence against women.
Violence in domestic situations has been reported to be issues about blame and fault, but mostly it is about someone achieving power over someone else. Spousal abuse is generally defined as the physical or psychological abuse directed by a man against his female partner in an attempt to control her behaviour or to intimidate her. Physical assault -- and we've seen many episodes of that in our newspapers recently -- involves the use of weapons, such as guns, knives, axes and crossbows. Those are situations that certainly we as an opposition find intolerable. Psychological violence includes making threats against the victim, making degrading comments and putting her and her loved ones in compromising situations. It also includes controlling resources: depriving the woman of money or not even allowing the ordinary acquisition of a driver's licence.
Abuse is used to control a partner's actions. Yet it may be difficult for the woman to leave the relationship. Certainly there a number of situations where cultural or religious values, socioeconomic conditions, fear or even a denial of violence in the relationship have intervened. Past studies have indicated that women are in abusive situations as a result of their spouse or partner being involved in some kind of drunken or stress-related behaviour. Certainly we no longer accept the notion that those are reasons for any kind of abuse. In the 1990s the situation is a lot more complex.
Problems relate to personal characteristics, circumstances of the individuals involved and factors operating in the families. Each time the public has become aware of a different form of family violence, resources have been mustered to provide as much protection as possible for the victims. A recent study conducted by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women showed that violence against women was their number one issue, and certainly all British Columbians recognize that that issue is on the rise. Yet the funding is barely there. What must change, however, are attitudes towards family violence, because if the attitudes do not change, there will never be enough money to combat some of these problems.
We must have all levels of government committed to ensuring that the resources are in place and to taking some proactive, preventive stance. Frankly, the time has come to stop the excuses. We need to address the problem of violence in relationships -- not only against women, but among all individuals. The time has come to get tough not only with abusers but also with the system. The system is the issue that I will be addressing in more detail today.
It is currently estimated that wife assault involves one in ten women in Canada. Assault is a crime; it is not
[ Page 7876 ]
just family dynamics gone wrong. That has been the discussion that we've been engaged in for the last 20 years: that somehow the dynamic of the family was at fault; that somehow it was possible to justify any type of abuse. Over time the frequency and severity of battering increases. The woman and her children show psychological disturbances and at the end can be involved in murder or suicide situations. It is likely that between 50,000 and 70,000 school-age children in B.C. have witnessed violence directed against their mothers. Children who live in a family where the man abuses the woman have an 80 percent chance of witnessing the abuse. The behavioural effect of the abuse is estimated to be the same as if the child had been physically battered.
In 1992, the report on shelter for abused women and children in British Columbia, prepared by the B.C. and Yukon Society of Transition Houses, indicated that in 1990 and 1991 the number of women using transition houses and emergency shelters in British Columbia during the year totalled just over 5,500. The more alarming statistic is that the number of children in these houses of shelter was almost 5,300. We had children at risk, as well as their parents, and again the psychological damage is significant. What must also be considered is the total number of women and children turned away because the facilities were full. In fact, 4,500 women and children were turned away during the same year.
[10:15]
I want to touch on education and attitudes as being the order of the day. I'm optimistic. In fact, in today's Vancouver Sun, a gender equality club in Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, attracts young males. They talk about pay equity and violence against women as not being women's issues. They talk about them as human rights issues that we need to advance and understand. The fact that these high school students are discussing those issues and coming together, both men and women, in grades 9, 10 and 11 to look at them is something that we need to applaud as a society. If this is about changing attitudes -- and I believe it is -- and about education, we need to ensure that our children are brought up in homes that understand and demonstrate gender equality on a daily basis. There is tremendous research that talks about people living their experiences from their childhood in their own relationships. Some of those experiences have obviously not been the best for children, and we need to be very proactive in terms of how we handle these cases, because at the end of the day, the point I made earlier will be the one that rings true. If we don't take a proactive stance and look at prevention, there will never be enough money to handle all of the cases of abuse that are going to come forward.
J. Pullinger: The member opposite argues a good case and certainly lays it out very clearly in terms of what comprises violence against women and what some of the issues are. It's a commentary on far how we have come that there seems to be a growing understanding that violence against women is not an aberration, it's not unusual and it's not random, nor is it separate from who we are and what we are as a society. There seems to be an understanding that violence against women is the most extreme, reprehensible and damaging manifestation of sexism in our society. Violence against women is qualitatively different from other forms of violence in our society, although all violence is to be deplored. But the motivation for violence against women is different. The people, the interaction and the way it happens are significantly different in violence against women.
As the member points out, other violence is more often than not perpetrated by strangers in public places for a wide variety of reasons, whereas violence against women is more often than not in the home by someone the woman knows and cares about, and it is most often about power and control. It is often characterized as a women's issue, but I would argue that it is not. Every woman has a 1-in-4 chance of being abused. We have two women a week die; we have Marc Lepine; we have so many incidents of violence -- and it's growing in our society. I think all of us have good cause to be concerned.
While violence on the immediate and personal level is between women and men, sadly, on a societal level the issue is about those who recognize the problems at their deepest and most profound extreme and are willing to work towards change, and those who are not. And I would argue there are men and women on both sides of the line.
At its root, as the member says, violence against women is systemic. It's the result of a collectively held set of values that say women are less, that women must do certain things and not do other things and that women are, by definition and by gender, excluded from positions of power primarily -- although there are growing numbers of us in this Legislature, I am pleased to say. The majority of women tend to stay in undervalued or unvalued jobs and tend not to be among those in our society who make decisions. It is important that we recognize what that violence is, where it comes from and the extremes of it; that violence in fact begins at one end of the continuum with a sexist joke that denigrates and stereotypes women, and goes to the other end with a Marc Lepine.
I am happy to say that this government takes that issue seriously. We have argued the case for a long time, and we have moved forward more in the last 18 months than we have seen in the last 18 years. This government hasn't given medals; this government has put $10 million into specific programs to stop the violence -- not to diminish it, but to stop it. And this government wants to see the violence stopped. We are including women in decision-making positions in this province in a way they have never been included before; we are supporting women in a way they have never been supported before; and we are taking deliberate, specific action to end the violence. There is a great deal of literature on it. We've done a great deal.
I want to end with one final comment to those who are starting to call this government politically correct and starting to argue that because we are including women, appointing women and doing all of those things to change social attitudes -- from changing the
[ Page 7877 ]
language of the statutes in this House to taking direct, concrete action against the other extreme, violence against women -- somehow we are politically correct. That is wrong. Those people who are arguing that are part of the status quo; they are part of the problem. I would like to suggest that those people who are kicking at this government for being politically correct had better, if they are women, consider their own safety and their lives; and if they are men, consider the consequences of sexism in our society on their sisters, wives and daughters, because that's what it's about.
L. Reid: The hon. member who just spoke knows that I support the initiative of stopping the violence. There are issues that we must address, and as the member stated, this is not about being politically correct; this is about being decent human beings, at the end of the day.
The Liberal Party is firm on our position of zero tolerance towards violence, whether it be towards a woman or towards a child. We contend that a policy of mandatory prosecution must be adopted. Enforcement officers across this province need to have the legal authority to arrest and press charges against offenders in cases of domestic violence or in cases in which domestic violence is likely to occur. Preventive policing is the policy that must be implemented if we are to move forward in this regard.
A woman at her most vulnerable should not be put into the position of deciding whether or not she wishes to press charges. Being proactive against the abuser, as well as the obligation of the peace officer to inform the victim of her rights and support systems within the community, is essential. I acknowledge that there might be disagreement with a mandatory arrest policy if a peace officer makes an arrest in a potentially violent situation in which there is no evidence of physical violence. Our current federal laws and provincial arrest policies stipulate that arrest can only be made once an incident has occurred or there is evidence of physical violence. These policies are referred to as preferred, pro-arrest, or presumptive. They authorize an element of officer discretion in defining and deciding how to handle situations. This exposes preferred policies to the criticism that responding officers can be influenced by personal or historical aversion to arrest and that only the most severe or blatant cases will result in arrest.
Comment has been made that arrest without evidence is against the Charter of Rights, as an individual is innocent until proven guilty. Six thousand incidents of spousal abuse occurred in 1992 in this province. That alone is clear indication that our current system is not working well. The policy of arrest after assault is blatant neglect in protecting the victim.
I will speak of history in this case. Mandatory arrest has been enacted since the early 1980s in some states in the United States. Under these laws, police who have probable cause to believe that a felony or misdemeanour domestic assault has occurred must arrest the primary physical aggressor. Police departments in cities such as Concord, New Hampshire, Duluth, Minnesota, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, implemented mandatory arrest policies without waiting for their states to enact a mandatory arrest law. Mandatory policies have an absolute quality. The policy requires the arrest of offenders under applicable situations. A system of mandatory arrest provides a solution to many of the problems found under systems in which arrest is discretionary.
I spoke earlier in my statement about the system. We must correct the system. We must begin to look at a woman who has been violated as a survivor, not always as the victim.
Deputy Speaker: I regret to advise the member that her time has expired.
D. Jarvis: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
D. Jarvis: I'd like to introduce two guests from North Vancouver: Ms. Nancy Henderson and Mr. Guy Heywood, who also happens to be the president of the North Vancouver-Seymour riding association. Would the House please make them welcome.
THE CHALLENGE OF A CHANGING ECONOMY
M. Farnworth: Today I want to talk about the challenge of a changing economy. Many areas of the society we live in are in changing times. The hon. members for Richmond East and Cowichan-Ladysmith talked about changing attitudes toward women. I'd like to talk for a few moments about changing attitudes toward training and the economy, and toward a host of things. What works today might not work ten or 15 years from now, and what worked ten or 15 years ago doesn't necessarily work today. Society is in a constant state of flux; it seems to be gathering at an ever-increasing pace.
Nowhere is this more important than with the skills we give young people today to carry them forward to tackle the problems of tomorrow. The old attitude that you didn't need an education doesn't wash anymore. People realize that there aren't the jobs in the forest industry that there used to be, in part due to technological change and in part due to the radically different way in which we view our natural resources. We see a much more balanced approach today. We don't see them as strictly to be plundered, but more to be managed and sustained over the long term so that our children can enjoy in their lives what we have enjoyed in ours. It has involved making some painful choices, choices that involve bringing different groups together to decide avenues not only on how we manage change but also on how we plan for it and predict it. We need to ensure not only that we benefit today but that we benefit tomorrow.
Our society is changing, not just our attitudes. We have more and more people coming to British Columbia not only from across Canada but from different nations around the world. They bring their own values, ideas and initiatives with them and different ways of looking at problems and solutions and, in fact, often different
[ Page 7878 ]
ways of arriving at those solutions. It's changing our province quite a lot more than many of us realize.
The fastest-growing occupations are in information; we live in an information age. That's going to continue. More and more people today have personal computers and are becoming computer-literate. They're being exposed to a wider range of ideas. That's a really good thing, because one thing people have to realize is that their occupation today may not be the same as the one they will have ten years from now. In fact, it may be in a totally unrelated field. One of the most exciting things that we can do in our education system, in our workplace and in our private lives is to expose people to as many different avenues and ideas and as many different ways of looking at things as we can.
I know from experience that one of the best initiatives any province has undertaken has been the Knowledge Network. Apart from the regular networks that show the same banal, mundane programming, it gives a wide range of programming on a host of topics that not only inform but can spark imagination and interest. They show people different avenues, options, opportunities and fields that they may never have considered, and it brings them into their home.
Industry is taking a dramatically different approach. They're seeing the value of training employees; they're seeing the value of different approaches. Part of that involves working with government and government working with industry and labour. One of the most important things we as a government can do is facilitate business, labour and the education community coming together to discuss the skills and training that will be needed five, ten, 15 years down the road.
[10:30]
That's why I think it's important that the Premier's Summit on Education and Training has been taking place at BCIT over the past few days. It's one of the things that this government can be proud of. We're bringing together 120 people in business, labour and education from different parts of the province. They are sitting down and discussing where we are today and what we need in order to compete five and ten years down the road -- where our society is going. That is perhaps one of the most important things a government can do. If we don't get business and labour talking to each other, if we don't get the academic community involved, then we're going to stagnate, and we are denying potential opportunities for people. It doesn't always revolve around money; it revolves just as much around attitudes. If we are open to change and open to dialogue and to encouraging people, we're well on the way to creating the type of future that can provide future generations in this province with the same standard of living that we have enjoyed.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. It has come to my attention that the Minister of Labour has issued a press release regarding legislation not yet tabled in the House, regarding expanded coverage for workers' compensation. Further, the minister has commented to the media, and further to that, reports are on the radio as we speak. Given that this has just come to my attention, I reserve the right to raise the matter at a later date.
Deputy Speaker: It shall be so noted, hon. member.
The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock responds to the statement by the member for Port Coquitlam.
W. Hurd: The changing economy and the importance of industrial competitiveness is an issue that I've raised in this House on many occasions, and I welcome the opportunity to address it today.
We need in this province a three-pronged approach to addressing the issue of a changing economy. We have to look at our educational system and compare it to what is happening in other jurisdictions in the world. We have to look carefully at the kinds of government policies that come forward with respect to this global economy. We also have to look at retraining, apprenticeship programs and secondary training once people have entered the workforce. This issue is of vital importance to the standard of living of every British Columbian. We live in a world not of our own making. It's a world of increasing global economic rationalization and global economic competition. It's a race that every country in the industrialized world is involved in, and a race that we have to prepare ourselves for in B.C.
I recently had the opportunity to attend an educational workshop at the University of Washington at which I was asked to present the views on education in British Columbia. Also on the roster at that conference were speakers from Japan and various school districts in the United States. I was struck by the amount of determination for educational and training reform in those countries. I was struck by the dedication and the interest, and by the acceptance of the fact that there was an inextricable link between the quality of education and training and industrial competitiveness.
Unfortunately, in this province we have operated for too long on the basis of two or even three solitudes. We have seen an education system that is divorced from industrial competitiveness issues. We have seen industry itself operating in splendid isolation. To some extent we have seen government drafting policies without a firm knowledge of which direction the world is heading in. A recent study in the forest industry, which is something I have some involvement in and knowledge of, focused on the literacy abilities of people who work in the primary sawmill industry, and it noted that upwards of half of the workforce had difficulty understanding and interpreting written instructions. It creates a grave problem when the economy turns and those workers then have to be retrained, as they are in other countries. It creates a great deal of difficulty. This, I think, speaks volumes about how industries and government have to help in retraining workers who are the victim of changing industrial processes and face a lifetime thereafter of underemployment.
Clearly we need an industrial strategy in our province. We need governments, unions and our educational institutions, as the member has stated, working together on ways to foster industrial competitiveness in
[ Page 7879 ]
B.C. Other countries are aware of the stakes in this race. They understand the importance of tailoring educational programs to the economy at large and ensuring that once workers have entered the workforce, the opportunity exists for them to be retrained
In Japan, the average industrial worker is retrained three times in a lifetime. In our province, if a worker is the victim of a changing industrial process, the programs are not available to induce that person to embark upon a career change to get back into the race with a high-paying, productive job. Governments put forth glowing statistics on job creation in B.C. Yet when we analyze where the jobs are being created, they're jobs that do not allow most people to buy a home and participate in what we all take for granted in this assembly.
M. Farnworth: I'd like to thank the hon. member for his remarks. He raised a number of interesting points about what is being done overseas. He's quite correct that in Japan and Germany workers are retrained two or three times. That process didn't evolve overnight. It evolved because nations and governments recognized the importance of training and skill development. For too long in this country we have relied on our skilled trades people coming from overseas and have not encouraged enough of our own homegrown talent. That has to change. It changes because governments sit down with business and labour and academics, as I stated. But it also has to be an ongoing process.
Last year we had the Premier's Summit on Trade and Economic Opportunity, and this year we're looking at skills and training. They're flowing out of each other. We're establishing a pattern and process so that it's not something that happens once every three or five years but something that all three parties expect. We're not only establishing the format; we're establishing relationships. People begin to feel comfortable doing this and understand that there's a direction we need to go in. Out of this come ideas, solutions and hopefully a commitment.
The process will not happen overnight, because quite often there are years of mistrust that have to be overcome. Summits such as we've had in the past few days can break down that mistrust, and attempt to get people to think long-term as opposed to short-term. That's been one of our failings as a province. Too often we've taken a short-term approach. As a result, we've ended up with problems like the hon. member raised, whereby half the people in a particular industry have trouble reading or understanding basic documents. What do you do with those people when the economy takes a downturn? That's got to be one of the fundamental issues we have to address, and it can't be done in isolation. That is why I think the Premier's summit is such a significant initiative for British Columbia.
GOVERNANCE BY REGULATION
H. De Jong: The title, "Governance by Regulation," of course, begs the question of whether democracy is actually vanishing in British Columbia. There are some frightening signs that show that the government is not democratic in its sympathies. We have seen recognition of freedom of expression expunged from our laws, ironically in the name of civil rights. Over time we have seen the rights of individual workers to complain about abusive practices by trade unions watered down in the name of solidarity. And, of course, we have seen the free speech of employers during union organizing drives further restricted under the Labour Relations Code. We have seen the stalling on recall and initiative legislation, and I fully expect that the final government product will be watered down beyond recognition. We have seen the labour relations powers of colleges and universities reduced as the unions tighten their grip still further. We have seen a philosophy of health management which would dictate to local hospitals the services they ought to provide, and in the process overrule the powers of a locally elected board.
We have seen government go cap in hand to apologize to unions who held the futures of grade 12 students as economic hostages while cabinet feared to assert the public interest. Indeed, we have seen a virtual de facto delegation of lawmaking in labour relations to a small group of union bosses whose names were not on the ballot paper in the last election. We have seen the actual loss of free, secret voting on unionization -- the kind of arbitrary action for which King Charles I lost his head.
We have seen continued opposition to the inclusion of property rights in the Canadian constitution. We have seen the Minister of Finance tell us that the government will not represent anyone who is financially successful in our province. If you earn over $100,000 or if you are non-union, you are a non-person in the eyes of government. Hate is alive and completely legal in British Columbia, but only against the class enemies of the NDP.
Perhaps what concerns me most of all is the gradual chipping away at our parliamentary institutions and our ability to object to the stripping away of democratic rights from British Columbians. Clearly we are losing rights. British Columbians are losing rights; local governments are losing autonomy. The logical question, then, is: to whom are we losing those rights? We are losing them to union bosses, obviously, and to would-be social engineers, such as Crown corporations czar Bob Williams, who drive government economic policy from outside the Legislature and are accountable to cabinet alone. Indeed, one really wonders who is accountable to whom.
It has been said that rights are not given, but taken. It is pretty clear who is taking them today in British Columbia. On paper, yes, the Premier is in control. Therefore the real question is: who controls the Premier, since he obviously does not control himself? In theory, he is accountable to the Legislature, but in practice that would require acts of courage on the part of the government back benches, which we have yet to witness. It is quite clear that cabinet itself does not want statutory scrutiny of the allocation or delegation of its powers. The principle we see is nothing less than an unlimited right to delegate legislative powers to
[ Page 7880 ]
unelected appointees, who are not even from within the ranks of the province's professional public service -- at least in many instances. Land use decisions of tremendous importance, such as Clayoquot and Tatshenshini, are being made on an ad hoc basis as political decisions of cabinet. Unfortunately, again and again we see an alarming desire to remove real power over spending from the Legislature and give it to less accountable agencies.
Perhaps none of these issues makes a real case by itself, but taken together they betray an arrogance and a lack of respect for the process of democracy, which all too soon flows over into lack of respect for the substance of democracy as well. We have seen a double standard in dealing with conflicts of interest and a strange absence of leadership from the Premier, which allows these tendencies to grow and grow. Meanwhile the real power is shifting to appointees. We all know Bob Williams, but not so familiar are Tom Gunton, Wilson Parasiuk, George Ford, Doug MacArthur, Ray Payne and many more -- a long line of refugees from failed NDP regimes in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the Yukon.
[10:45]
Why could they not at least employ the local failures? Would that be too much to ask? On Vancouver Island alone, we have pensioned off Barrett, Skelly and Stupich to Ottawa. It is simply unbelievable how many imports this government has appointed. I am wondering whether these people actually knew where Hope was, because it would appear to me that by hiring these people from afar, the government placed its position totally beyond hope.
In conclusion, I suppose we had better be on the lookout for a caravan of newly appointed failures from Alberta as well.
Deputy Speaker: Before I recognize the member who will respond, I would point out to the members that it has been the policy and practice to avoid partisan statements by private members. On occasion the Chair has recognized the need for some latitude with regard to this practice, but it should be noted that while I didn't interrupt the hon. member's statement, it clearly exceeded the reasonable bounds with respect to partisan politics. The Chair simply wants to point out to hon. members that if we get into that type of debate, we will have to revisit the guidelines for this period.
B. Jones: It is a pleasure to respond to the member for Abbotsford and his topic of government by regulation. I must confess I am somewhat at a loss, given the remarks of the member, exactly how to respond. On the one hand, given that the member has outlined some of his concerns, perhaps I should commend him and admire his political courage. He has suggested that he has put his party and his political past and the history of this Legislature behind him and has discovered a new way of doing business in British Columbia and of how this parliament should operate. On the other hand, I am tempted to suggest that the comments he made were somewhat hypocritical.
I am reminded of the old adage that where you stand is determined by where you sit. I would remind that member that the kind of decision-making that has taken place in this province for most of the last 41 years -- in particular, government by regulation -- has been adopted by that member's political party, which is sitting on the opposite side in much diminished numbers. I might suggest, to mix my metaphors, that that group of dinosaurs has not changed its spots. In fact, the kind of abuse of office that this member saw firsthand in the last five years would not change were that member again sitting on this side of the House.
Instead of responding to the low level of debate that the member stooped to, I would like to deal with the question that he raised, which I think is an important one -- I thank the member for raising the topic of government by regulation, even if he didn't stick to it -- and have a look at how we draft legislation, what a regulation is, why we have regulations and the recent history of regulation in this parliament.
The Canadian Law Dictionary suggests that it is a normal practice for most modern statutes to confer law-making powers on the Governor- or Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council for the further carrying out of the purposes of the statute in question, and that such practices enable the government, federal or provincial, to act expeditiously to provide additional regulations without the necessity of enacting new statutes. Most of the member's criticisms were based on his view, which is not shared by this side of the House.... Most of those issues have been debated in the open -- in this chamber. Most of those issues were dealt with upfront.
What was implied in the member's statement is that the government carries on business behind closed doors, and of course it does. Regulations are necessary from time to time. Let me give you an example of the kind of thing that regulations are necessary for. Suppose you pass a bill that names within the legislation, rather than in the regulation, the bodies that are covered. If those bodies become defunct or their names change, then that bill has to be brought before the Legislature to be changed, and I don't think that's an appropriate use of this chamber.
But the member is correct that there are dangers in operating by regulation. It is possible for a government to avoid scrutiny. It is possible for undue influence to be brought by pressure groups. If memory serves me correctly, when we had an Environment minister whose name was John Reynolds, the Premier got a phone call from a member of the forest industry. From that one phone call we had a change in the effluent regulations for pulp mills in this province. I might say in passing that the standards that the former Premier wanted have now been replaced by a new Environment minister's standards, which are the highest in the country. I also remember a regulation by a predecessor of the member as Minister of Agriculture, and that was John Savage. I was the first one to raise in this chamber the infamous order-in-council 1141. That was the outrageous....
An Hon. Member: Time!
[ Page 7881 ]
Deputy Speaker: I regret to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.
H. De Jong: I'm really happy that the member agreed with me in some respects. He did take a few shots at me personally but not really at the content of my delivered statement. I'm disappointed that he didn't comment on the issues that I brought forward. Because of the reaction to my statement, I feel that he had little to comment on, as there was so much truth in it.
The member mentioned that issues have been debated. Yes, bills are debated, but the bills that are debated in this House often don't tell the true and the real story. Perhaps overall they do tell the true story, but not the real story. With some of the legislation that has been passed in this House over the last couple of years, I'm sure even cabinet ministers are astounded at some of the regulations that have come out of one ministry but will very definitely affect another ministry.
I can only refer to the items I'm totally familiar with, and that is those regarding the farming community. If those issues were brought up in the House, as to what those bills and regulations prepared by the bureaucrats in Victoria -- who emigrated from Manitoba and elsewhere -- mean for the people in British Columbia.... That member from across the floor, the member for Burnaby North, had better and get out into the rural areas and talk to the people and find out what is being proposed in the regulations. I'm sure that if the member did that, he would say: "Harry, you're exactly right!"
TOWARD SAFER AND HEALTHIER WORK ENVIRONMENTS
N. Lortie: I'll try to be less partisan than my fellow members across the floor.
Hon. Speaker, this week, June 21 to June 27, has been proclaimed Occupational Health and Safety Week in British Columbia -- a week to reflect on workers killed or seriously injured on the job in this and every year. In both human and economic terms, the cost is staggering. Last year alone, 161 workers were killed on the job, 3,600 workers were permanently disabled, 7,700 workers took time off because of injuries and 3.1 million work days were lost because of workplace injuries. It's unacceptable that 161 British Columbia workers were killed on the job during 1992. It's a tragic loss not only to the families, friends, co-workers and employers of that person but also to society as a whole. We all mourn them, because we know that workplace accidents can be prevented. Yet every year more lives are lost, and more workers are injured on the job.
This government, and I'm sure every member of this House, believes that this situation is simply unacceptable. It's not good enough to say that fewer people died on the job this year than last year. It's the responsibility of every one of us to prevent accidents. Each working person, each employer and the Workers' Compensation Board in British Columbia plays a role in building a safer and healthier workplace. If we all pull together and work a little harder, we can create a safer and healthier work environment, through greater awareness and education. In the logging industry 20 workers lost their lives in 1991, and another 388 were permanently disabled. I am distressed by these statistics. It is completely unacceptable that anyone should lose their life or be seriously injured. We can do better, and this government is trying to do better.
I am pleased with our government's achievements in improving working conditions for men and women in British Columbia. For the first time in history, farm-workers are covered by the Workers' Compensation Board. Some day all workers in British Columbia will be covered by that board. Health and safety regulations were especially formulated to meet the meet the needs of B.C. agriculture and its workers. There has been no greater injustice in British Columbia than the absence of health and safety regulations for the 30,000 men and women who work on B.C. farms and ranches. While workers' compensation has existed in this province for 75 years, farmworkers, unbelievably, have been excluded. There have been too many deaths on the farm; too many farm families have suffered. Many times in this House members have called for farmworkers to be afforded the same protection as all other workers. Farmworkers have been injured, maimed and killed when they work on machinery that doesn't have proper guards, when they don't wear the proper protective clothing or when they don't know the proper safety procedures. According to the Canada Safety Council, the accident rate on Canadian farms is estimated to be 20 percent higher than the national average for all industries. Farming claims five lives per year in British Columbia.
We are pioneering a new process for implementing health and safety regulations on the farm. The Workers' Compensation Board along with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and the Canadian Farmworkers' Union are establishing a Farm and Ranch Safety and Health Agency. While the Workers' Compensation Board will retain its legal right to ensure new regulations are enforced, the agency will assist in an advisory role in establishing inspection programs specifically modelled for the agricultural sector. Importantly, the agency will be responsible for developing a comprehensive range of educational programs designed to assist farmers and farmworkers to become more familiar with the regulations and to use them to their advantage. All materials that they will use will be available to those workers in Punjabi, Chinese, French and Japanese.
We are addressing the issue of violence in the workplace. A full review of the Workers' Compensation Board regulations affecting health care workers, service industry workers and others affected by violence in the workplace is currently underway.
[11:00]
We have other achievements. In the industrial, forestry and construction sectors we have made good progress in reviewing and updating safety regulations during the past year. The Workers' Compensation Board is doing more than ever to crack down an unsafe worksites and unhealthy environments. They're doing more safety inspections than ever before and issuing more compliance orders; penalties against employers
[ Page 7882 ]
who fail to meet those compliance obligations are being increased.
But the best way to save lives and prevent injury in the workplace is to give workers the skills, knowledge and direction to prevent accidents from happening. Prevention starts with education and getting the message out to employers and workers. Our task for the future will be to reduce the number of accidents on the job and cut down on the number of occupational diseases in the workplace.
In the months ahead I look forward to additional changes in both regulations and procedures at the Workers' Compensation Board to better protect and serve the interests of the women and men in British Columbia workplaces.
A. Warnke: It's a pleasure to respond to the member for Delta North. I noted that his primary focus was on farmworkers and agricultural industry workers. Although that was the primary focus, in the context of the length of time we are allotted, I appreciate the remarks that he extended. I would agree that having farmworkers covered by the Workers' Compensation Board is long overdue, for the accident rate among farmworkers is more than 20 percent higher than the overall average. I would say that also applies to heavy industry, where accidents and deaths from the work environment are also higher than the average.
But it is also important to point out that we assume that as there is technological development and our economy develops, somehow we're developing a cleaner, safer and healthier environment. This may not be the case. Even in my former profession of teaching university and college, it is surprising to note the number of very dangerous substances and dangerous chemicals that one can be exposed to even in that environment, which we would normally categorize as healthy, safe and all the rest of it. Until we are educated, perhaps we don't realize it. Fortunately, when I taught university and college I had been educated about the amount and range of dangerous substances even in that kind of work environment. Indeed, while we embrace computers, microwave ovens, xeroxing machines and so forth, there is also a load of materials, electro-magnetic forces and so on that could contribute to an unhealthy and more unsafe environment. It's far more complex than we think. When we move towards a healthier and safer environment, we have to keep in context the complexity that we have in our work environment. It embraces not just what has occurred in agriculture and heavy industry; as the economy develops, all of us are more exposed than we have been in the past. There is the appearance of a safer environment, but that appearance may be misleading.
I would agree with the member for Delta North that what is needed is to transmit knowledge, to educate and train people more. As people are being hired, we need to make sure to advise them what the work environment is comprised of. Indeed, many employers and governments have responded in that direction. Hopefully, the number of deaths and injuries will decline, but it may not be simply as a result of knowledge and the attempt to prevent them. We also have to keep in mind just how complex our work environments are. It may well be that we cannot totally get away from it, but I would certainly suggest that we have to promote knowledge of what is in our environment. We have to advocate safety and health. We have to get a notion of what our work environment is all about and examine the implications of new innovations. While we may embrace new innovations, we have to be constantly aware of their health and safety implications as we move into the twenty-first century. This is most important.
Those are aspects, I suppose, of a healthier and safer environment that I'm sure the member for Delta North probably wanted to touch on, but I also recognize the shortness of his time. Lastly, it is a continuation of what the member for Yale-Lillooet was pointing out just a few weeks ago: justice in the workplace. All of this is combined.
N. Lortie: I thank the member across the floor for helping this House focus in on this important week in British Columbia, Occupational Health and Safety Week. I and other members I have talked to have found, in dealing with our constituency offices, that the Workers' Compensation Board problems of our constituents are the most difficult to solve and deal with.
The Minister of Labour and Consumer Services has announced the opening of a series of offices in British Columbia for injured workers. We must promote safety in the workplace, but it will never be down to zero. We must also have a system that properly services the people who are injured in their occupation. The minister officially opened a regional office for workers' advisers in Saanich, and he has announced that offices will soon be opened to service clients in Kamloops and Nanaimo by the end of the year, and other communities in British Columbia later on. This expansion is part of a larger government commitment to improve compensation delivery in our province, and to serve workers who suffer workplace injuries. This expansion will provide injured workers with increased access and better understanding of the workers' compensation decision system in British Columbia.
The review board recently cleared up 1,000 of the 6,000-case backlog. The review board cleared up these cases between May 10 and June 4 of this year in a drive that intensified and focused the resources of that board. The review board has initiated a new format that separates the notice of appeal into two parts. The parties file one appeal to indicate they are ready to appeal the Workers' Compensation Board decision, and a second to indicate that they are ready for a hearing. The time lost to parties not being prepared will be substantially reduced.
We have new goals to eliminate the backlog of cases. These goals are to provide a hearing date within 30 days of the parties being ready to proceed, and to provide a finding of an appeal within 60 days after the last submission is received. The Minister of Labour has also announced his intention to add 12 members to the review board to further reduce the backlog and expedite new hearings.
[ Page 7883 ]
The workers' advisers are independent of the Workers' Compensation Board. They provide free advice and information to workers on WCB matters, and advisers will conduct training seminars to help workers and advisers understand their rights and responsibilities under the Workers Compensation Act.
WORKERS COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993
Hon. M. Sihota presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 1993.
Hon. M. Sihota: The legislation I am introducing to the House today is a bill that will extend workers' compensation coverage to virtually every worker in the province, and will eliminate discrimination in the payment of survivor benefits. There are also some housekeeping amendments.
At the moment, approximately 85 percent of the province's workforce is covered by WCB legislation. Those who are not covered include workers in the financial sector such as banks, insurance companies, medical-dental offices and law offices, where the workforce is largely female. The universal coverage in this bill means that these workers will no longer have to use their savings to cover work-related injuries.
The other significant highlight of this legislation is the elimination of gender discrimination in survivor benefits. Surviving spouses of deceased workers who remarry will no longer suffer financial penalties. Because the vast majority of surviving spouses in the province are female, this bill will eliminate a source of gender bias in the legislation. The new legislation regarding surviving spouses will be retroactive to 1985, when the equality provisions of the federal Charter of Rights came into effect.
WCB reform is a priority for this government. Other important initiatives that have been brought to the attention of this House include new regulations for farmworkers, regulations regarding violence in the workplace, new workers' advisory services around the province and new procedures to reduce appeal backlogs. With its expansion to universal coverage and elimination of discrimination, this bill marks the most significant step in the government's commitment to WCB reform.
Hon. Speaker, the bill was delayed in its arrival this morning. I wish to advise the House that staff, in anticipation of the bill being tabled at the normal time of 10 o'clock, of course, issued a press release. I take some comfort in the fact that this is not the first time this has happened in this Legislature. As you are well aware, it goes back to 1973; and in the Canadian Parliament, from what I can determine, as far back as 1909. The release of the press....
Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove rises on a point of order.
G. Farrell-Collins: I believe the member is delving into an area that I have in fact reserved for a point of privilege. Certainly the debate can take place at that time. I imagine the minister would like to get on with moving the bill.
Deputy Speaker: The point is well taken. I would ask the hon. minister to now put the question.
Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I just wanted to clarify the issue for all the members. I move the bill be read a first time now.
Bill 63 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. M. Sihota: I call Committee of Supply.
The House in Committee of Supply B; M. Farnworth in the chair.
[11:15]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS
(continued)
On vote 35: minister's office, $335,102 (continued).
Hon. G. Clark: I would just advise the House, as per discussions with members of the opposition, that for the hour and 15 minutes or so that we have this morning we will be discussing Transit estimates, although obviously all members are free to discuss anything within my jurisdiction. But I have Transit staff here today, so we're hoping we can deal with any Transit concerns people have and move on to other matters another day. Since Transit is a major responsibility of mine, I will make a few introductory remarks for members of the House and for posterity.
The government of British Columbia will contribute $232.74 million in 1993-94 for transit services in British Columbia, representing the provincial share of a total of $521.18 million for the B.C. Transit operating budget. As we know, that distinction is somewhat artificial because most of the non-provincial or local share comes from provincial taxes; in fact, almost all of it comes from provincial taxes. This expenditure of almost half a billion dollars in British Columbia for public transit demonstrates the government's continued commitment to provide the best and most innovative transit system possible within the constraints of limited financial resources. We've undertaken a number of new initiatives during the past year and will undertake several further improvements in the coming years. The level of provincial funding provided this year to this rather unique provincial Crown corporation, B.C. Transit, will allow us to make very interesting improvements in a number of areas around the province.
I say B.C. Transit is unique not because of the chairperson, Eric Denhoff, but because it's the only such Crown corporation in Canada and the only provincial,
[ Page 7884 ]
or state-run, public transit system in Canada. This has provided some advantages and some disadvantages. On the plus side, more than 50 smaller communities around the province, outside of Vancouver and Victoria, can count on a provincial Crown corporation to help them plan transit services in their cities and towns, help them market their services and even help them with their purchasing power by using the provincial Crown to buy or lease buses. Of course, it means that British Columbia citizens have come to expect a relatively -- in fact, very -- high standard of service and standard of uniformity around the province which exists in no other jurisdiction in North America.
In the lower mainland, however, this provincial Crown corporation is the cause of some concern; it is a legitimate concern about the local jurisdiction governing transit. In most jurisdictions around North America, a city or a region like the Greater Vancouver Regional District would control its own transit system. So while the transit commission controls the routes and service plan, etc., it's still in fact a provincial Crown corporation. That causes some tension and concern. We are prepared, of course, to discuss moving toward more local autonomy, but frankly, I think it'll have to wait until after the municipal elections in November. Mayor Campbell, unfortunately, said that he didn't see any progress this year, so we'll have to wait until he's gone.
At any rate, the government of British Columbia will continue to provide the highest contribution of any provincial government in Canada toward public transit. For example, in Vancouver and the lower mainland we will provide 46 percent of the costs of public transit this year, although, as I mentioned, virtually all of the funding comes from provincial sources. That is much higher than in places like Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Ottawa or Montreal. In fact, in Montreal the provincial government recently withdrew a $150 million subsidy to the Montreal metro transit system, and in Ontario there have been recent dramatic restraint measures. I'd be interested in the comments of members of the opposition on this, because I know that the Social Credit Party has been calling for dramatic cuts. Other provinces have pursued dramatic cuts to transit funding -- and we have not. We've restrained the rate of growth of transit funding, but we've not engaged in massive cuts, as we've seen in other provinces, such as Quebec, and with the recent measures in Ontario.
Frankly, we haven't done that as a conscious policy. It's because we have a vision for public transit that seeks to protect our enormously successful system and all the gains public transit has made against automobile pollution in the last decade. B.C. Transit is one of the most successfully integrated transit systems in the world -- with SeaBus, bus and SkyTrain systems complemented by a handyDART system for disabled passengers. We have a much higher share of the travelling public using transit in Vancouver than in most North American cities. In spite of difficult financial times, we have protected Vancouver and Victoria against big cuts. As a result of people like the current Premier, who was mayor of Vancouver, and others.... In fact, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena deserves some credit for this as well. He was part of a reform-minded civic government that stopped freewayization -- is that a word? -- the proliferation of freeways that we see in other North American cities.
R. Neufeld: We've heard just about everything....
Hon. G. Clark: And we have one of the most innovative public transit providers anywhere.
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: Do they have a transit system in Dawson Creek? I'm not sure. Is it Dawson Creek? Fort St. James -- sorry.
R. Neufeld: Fort St. John.
Hon. G. Clark: In Fort St. John they have one. I know it would be interesting to have a discussion of the smaller systems around the province.
B.C. Transit has pioneered some innovations, such as the Ballard fuel cell, which is basically a cooperative effort between the Ministry of Advanced Education, private business, the federal government and B.C. Transit. Many members know that the first hydrogen fuel cell bus is now in operation -- not in commercial operation, but it works well. I took my young children down to Science World a couple of weeks ago, and it was out front on display for all. I think there is great promise in that Ballard fuel cell bus both in a business sense and environmentally, in dealing with pollution problems.
We have the second-largest fleet of electric trolleys anywhere in North America. It is so successful that Adam Clayton Powell Jr. and other New York City councillors were here recently to view our trolley system, with an eye to re-establishing a trolley system in New York. It's so successful, in fact, that B.C. Transit is providing assistance to a Vancouver firm bidding on contracts to re-establish trolley systems in Seattle and California.
Ours is the first jurisdiction anywhere in North America with a complete transit system that is fully accessible to those individuals who are physically challenged. That system is in Penticton. As a member of this government, I was very proud -- and the member for Okanagan-Penticton is quite correctly proud as well -- to have an entire system accessible to physically challenged people. That's the first place in North America. That community's bus system has low-floor buses allowing disabled seniors and other passengers complete ease of access. Early on in our administration, we had the first low-floor buses in Victoria, of which there are 20, outside in front of the parliament buildings here to demonstrate, again, that pioneering of technology by B.C. Transit.
The funds that the government of B.C. will provide B.C. Transit this year will allow the corporation to continue the current level of service in Vancouver, with the exception of a very small reduction in routes where the average rides were $20 to $30 apiece, and to start on a dramatic and very positive 25 percent increase in transit services in the Victoria region. Services will
[ Page 7885 ]
increase by more than 10,000 hours in Victoria this year as the first stage of a five-year program to dramatically improve transit service in the capital region. I might pay a compliment to the local transit commission for making this possible. It's an excellent example of the provincial government and the local transit commission working closely for the good of public transit.
Starting September 1 of this year, we will provide an additional 4,450 hours of transit service in the Cowichan Valley -- part of an increase of almost 8 percent in services to small communities around the province. I know the member for....
R. Neufeld: Peace River North.
Hon. G. Clark: I get Peace River North and South mixed up, hon. Chair.
I know the member for Peace River North and other members of the House will like to hear that in a very tough financial environment, B.C. Transit has decided to squeeze out as much as it can -- an 8 percent increase -- to improve services in those smaller communities. So we've protected the Vancouver system from cuts, we've dramatically expanded the Victoria system, and we have a fairly significant expansion in public transit in the small communities. I mentioned Cowichan Valley, but there are others. Altogether, we will add more than 100,000 hours of service for 1993-94: the 14,500 hours I just referred to and about 86,000 hours of service that were begun late last year and are annualized in this budget.
We will be making these improvements and others, while at the same time holding down provincial expenditures to about what was projected in the 1992-93 estimates: $232.74 million. We've seen the requirement for only a modest increase in local shares: a 0.3 percent increase overall from the original 1992-93 estimates. We've done this in great measure by appointing a fiscally prudent board at B.C. Transit, which has cut unnecessary expenditures and pared the fat -- rather dramatic cuts in overhead at B.C. Transit from what we inherited. I invite the members opposite to question Mayor Campbell, who was on the previous board of B.C. Transit, as to why they would allow the corporation to get that fat, but that's for another day. Nevertheless, the new administration and new board have cut quite dramatically the administrative side of B.C. Transit. We were also fortunate to negotiate what I think is a very fair and innovative agreement with members of the Independent Canadian Transit Union and the Office and Technical Employees' Union which essentially calls for a 2 percent increase in each year.
Falling interest rates, of course, have helped as well. I commend the board of directors of B.C. Transit for being an active and activist board. They have done just a superb job. I'm very proud of the work they've done. As you know, they recently appointed a very able chief executive officer from the private sector. The board has also launched an outreach program where board committees met with the board of trade, a coalition of small businesses, unions and community groups. There is a further series of meetings planned with environmental groups, seniors and the disabled community. I hope to appoint someone from the disabled community to the board of directors of B.C. Transit shortly, because that is a good signal and it would also be a positive development. I have asked for nominations from community groups in that regard.
The corporation launched a very significant safety initiative. We have had some problems, and the corporation met those head-on this year with Mr. Paul Williamson, who was appointed to inquire into improved safety. There is a whole range of safety initiatives underway. Of course, B.C. Transit was recently awarded two safety awards. Victoria's transit system was named the safest of any in North America, and the B.C. Transit handyDART system was named the most improved safety winner in Canada.
The board's finance and audit committee is chaired by the treasurer of B.C. Gas, Valerie Lambert, and has overseen a reduction of expenditures -- some $6 million in savings alone this year. However, although we've achieved greater administrative efficiency, it's important that we have a clear vision for public transit for the next decade. That's probably more important, so while we want to get the operating side down and get efficiencies, we also need to say to the public that there's a vision for public transit over the next decade.
That's why I've asked the Richmond rapid transit advisory committee to finish its work and report out. Despite misgivings that members had about the makeup of that committee, which included some predecessors of members over there, Mr. Nick Loenen, Social Credit MLA, did very good work on behalf of the community, I might say here for the record. Even though they were appointed by the previous government, I asked them to continue and report out, and they've done that. I asked a group of citizens from the northeast sector to give us their advice on transit improvements in that area, and they have reported out. Those two groups have provided an excellent basis for us to examine the alternatives that are available to the government.
As you know, there are a variety of alternatives. Some are very expensive, like the SkyTrain to Richmond and the SkyTrain to Coquitlam; some are less so. Some are very intrusive and disruptive; some are less so, like commuter rail. Each of these has benefits; they certainly have costs or problems. They have different capital and operating costs, carrying capacities and revenue potentials. I have asked B.C. Transit staff to evaluate these various alternatives using objective criteria in order that I might be able to compare the alternatives and advise my colleagues as to the most promising solutions.
We know that much more must be done for the northeast corner of the lower mainland, and also for Richmond; however, we also know that unfortunately, the government's resources are limited. Therefore we've begun to explore whether there is potential to work with the private sector in building these solutions: working with CP Rail or Burlington Northern on commuter rail, for example, or with the development industry, builders and operators of other large rapid transit systems, to help defray some of the operating costs. We have had interesting proposals from some
[ Page 7886 ]
major developers for them to borrow the money, do the financing and in fact run parts of the system. We're actively exploring that. I might say to all members that the government intends that by the fall it may be possible to provide a direction on a transit vision for British Columbia, taking into account the work being done by the GVRD, the work by the Ministry of Highways under their 2021 project and the work I mentioned earlier.
[11:30]
Public transit is critical to our future if we are to have clean air and if we are to allow those on limited or fixed incomes to get to work, health care appointments and school. While this year's spending provides for a very modest overall increase in B.C. Transit's budget, it reflects the fact that this government perceives transit to be an extremely important public service and, perhaps as important, as a part of the infrastructure that keeps Vancouver competitive and allows for wealth creation as well. I look forward to debate on the estimates.
A. Cowie: I listened with great interest to the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for B.C. Transit. The Liberal opposition would like to explore a number of transportation questions, particularly policy-oriented questions, regarding the 1993-94 estimates. But first I'd like to say that our leader and the critic for Finance, the member for Delta South, is very interested in this subject and will undoubtedly want to ask some of his own questions. So if the minister could respect that.... That member will want to delve into funding and tax legislation, particularly the social service tax and whether it's targeting the right people and doing the job it aims to do. I personally would like to know whether it's really the right tax or whether we should have gone to some enviro-type tax that's fair to everyone and where we can really let taxation legislation work for everybody. I'll be asking some of the first questions today, and my colleague from Richmond Centre, with whom I share the Transportation function in our caucus, will also have some questions.
As the minister said, B.C. Transit will spend over $500 million this coming year on improvements in operations. Generally, I think British Columbians support that expenditure. I'd like to be really upfront as far as answering the minister's question on whether we should have transit cuts. Certainly we should have improvements in efficiencies, but I do not think we should have transit cuts. If anything, that's the area where, by spending money now, in the long run we can get some cost efficiencies. From the environmental point of view, I think it's the way we have to go, especially in the lower mainland and the greater Victoria area. I believe I speak for our entire caucus that this is one area where we feel it's important to spend money -- but frugally; let's spend it carefully. I'm really surprised at the Social Credit caucus if they have in fact said that they want to see cuts in this area. That's one area of difference we might have with Social Credit.
I'd also like to say that from my own experience, especially with SkyTrain.... I've heard many visitors to the Vancouver area say how efficient and clean and wonderful SkyTrain is. Friends of mine have actually moved to New Westminster because they wanted to be on the waterfront and they could use SkyTrain to get into Vancouver. SkyTrain was in fact implemented by the last government, and I have to give them credit for it. It was a brave thing to do. It's efficient and it works well. I hope that this government, if it is exploring systems, will continue along the lines of a system that's at least as good as SkyTrain.
A number of issues face the residents of the province, particularly, as I say, in the lower mainland. I'll start by getting into one question that I know my hon. friend from Richmond will want to elaborate on. A year and a half ago, I think, we had the report of the Richmond rapid transit authority advisory committee. I know how important it is for Vancouver and Richmond to decide exactly where that route is going to go. Essentially, we've got an Arbutus option and a Cambie option. I don't see how we can move along with planning in Vancouver without knowing where that route is going to go. It's vital that we know, especially with Vancouver going through a planning stage right now and going out to the public. I think this province owes the citizens of Vancouver a decision on where it's going to go. If the province feels they can't tackle the whole thing, maybe they can at least get on with the line. I've heard that in many cities they actually put buses on the line. Maybe the eventual system is not going to be in place for ten years, because it does take five or ten years to implement a system, but we could at least know where it's going to go and the citizens could do some planning. As I say, I know that my colleague from Richmond Centre is going to ask more questions along those lines.
As for the Coquitlam area, a large number of people are now settling in the Westview Plateau and in those sorts of areas. Congestion is just bewildering when coming in by car, so some method of transit has to be decided on. Perhaps the minister could just elaborate as to when we can expect some answers regarding those routes which have been studied and for which reports have been submitted.
Hon. G. Clark: Good questions. Of course, my critic across the way and I share the same educational background in planning. So if over the course of this debate we start to use some of that jargon, you'll have to call us to order, hon. Chair.
Actually, the member is incorrect in saying that Richmond reported in a year and a half ago; in fact, they reported in about six or eight months ago, in terms of their final report.
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: In '92. So about six or eight months ago.
The northeast sector community advisory committee reported in in just the last month or two. We are now having an objective analysis done as to the highest need -- what is the number one priority for transit? -- between Richmond and the northeast corner, frankly. I
[ Page 7887 ]
want to be clear about this. There is no question that we require transit in both those communities. We want to keep working on both of them, but obviously in a limited fiscal environment we have to move one ahead a little faster than the other, in terms of our ability to pay. We will be getting an objective view of that over the next month or two, and then I'll be in a position in the fall to make some specific announcements along the lines the member suggested.
I agree that it is a bit disconcerting for the member's constituents in Quilchena. They'll be quite concerned about the Arbutus line. I know that there is lots of apprehension about that, even though there was a train, of course, that went down there regularly. I think it maybe still goes down there.
An Hon. Member: Twice a day.
Hon. G. Clark: It still goes down there. A huge locomotive goes down there, and it makes a bit of noise. That hasn't bothered people in that community. At least, people moved in expecting it to be a live railway. But I know that there is lots of apprehension. Similarly, there is lots of concern around the Cambie corridor, and members in this House who represent those constituencies are quite concerned about anything that would be disruptive.
I might say to that member and the member from Richmond that there are some interim options that we are also exploring, and that is to look at ways in which we can use the bus system to alleviate some of those concerns. Because these are major capital items, whether it's the northeast corridor or the Richmond corridor, we don't want to say that we're going to be spending $1 billion on both of those corridors without obviously giving a lot of thought to the priorities and other alternatives. We are doing that.
The target is to present cabinet with a transit plan which has some of these well thought out, before the fall and before subsequent announcements, so we can get on with the job. We really have done a lot of work; it's not wasted work. We want to make sure that we get on with the job as soon as possible.
A. Cowie: I thank the minister for his kind comments regarding the profession we have shared over the years.
I would like to explore the relationship between land use and transit. I personally feel that that's very important and that it has been overlooked for years. It's the key to getting livable communities and clean air and really making sure that we have population located in the most efficient areas and where people want to live. Vancouver, in particular, has been a leader in planning with transit in mind. Vancouver has been brave. It did a very good job in planning the False Creek area, where I think reasonable densities have been achieved within a very livable environment, and it's a delight. I even lived down there for awhile, and I'm looking forward to the development on the North Shore, which is very close to transit facilities. Other communities in North America, such as Seattle, have the same problem. That community hasn't grown anywhere near as much as Vancouver, and it has spilled out into the surrounding areas. It hasn't been able to get its transit in line, although Seattle has other excellent programs, and I wouldn't want to criticize it as a community.
However, transit is facing a dilemma. The real dilemma at the present time is that we don't have decisions on the northeast corridor and we don't have decisions in Richmond. I know that we are studying it through the GVRD, but we don't have those decisions. So you are getting communities sprawling up the valley and in Surrey. I know it's very difficult to get a subdivision through in Surrey.
Interjection.
A. Cowie: No, not personal experience. The problem is that people are still building ticky-tacky boxes, one after another. We're not really building communities. I know we talk about it a lot, but when I drive through Surrey, through Langley and up the valley, all I see is ticky-tacky boxes. There's the occasional good project where you get a mix, and Matsqui is a good example of that. The mayor of Matsqui is really promoting the idea of community. But you can't have these large subdivisions being built without transit in mind. Many of them don't even have bus access into the major systems.
Can the minister tell us whether his ministry...? I sometimes wonder why transit even comes under his ministry. There must be some reason why transit comes under Finance. I suspect that maybe the minister wants to keep control of it or something; he's a little worried about Highways and Municipal Affairs getting control of it. They might get too excited and it might run away on them. I wonder what his ministry is actually doing on the initiatives of making sure that we have proper land use planning mixed with proper transit planning.
Hon. G. Clark: I think the member and I agree on this topic quite a bit. It seems to me that the success in Vancouver is partly because of land use planning; there is more densification and more ridership. There is an interesting article -- I'm not sure if the member opposite has read it -- by John Sewell, former mayor of Toronto. He pointed out that most municipal transit systems that were urban-based actually made money. They were self-sufficient until about the late 1960s, and then they all started losing money. Of course, you can see the massive subsidy we provide -- and every jurisdiction provides. Former Mayor Sewell suggested that the determining factor was suburban growth and providing transit service out to the suburbs. We find the same thing is true in B.C. Transit, and it concerns me greatly, particularly as a Vancouver member. Our transit commission sets service levels, so I haven't necessarily been successful in convincing them.
[11:45]
I'm digressing a bit from the main point, but I will say that there are routes, particularly on the east side of Vancouver, that actually make money. The routes that go out to some of the suburbs lose a lot of money, so you can see right there that the pattern of land use has a big impact not only on the quality of transit but also on the
[ Page 7888 ]
financial viability of transit. As there is urban sprawl outside Vancouver and you get less densification and more houses spread out, over long periods of time, servicing that with transit becomes extremely challenging. First of all, you can't compete with the automobile. Secondly, the financial consequences are significant, and that's what we're struggling with.
The planning document around 2021 isn't finished yet, but I'm very pleased to see that in all of the work there's a real understanding that land use planning is critical to the success of transit and that transit infrastructure is critical to the success of land use planning. I am a bit concerned, I don't mind saying, that some municipal governments are not going to have the political will to try to make some of those changes, which can be very challenging in terms of public opinion, but clearly there is a relationship.
In answer to the member's specific question, we've recently been in discussion with Municipal Affairs staff to begin discussions with municipal governments to either voluntarily or by legislation require transit planning to be an integral part of official community planning. We've explored that with them, and they're very cooperative, so Transit and Municipal Affairs are working jointly on this question. We've received positive feedback from the Municipal Affairs ministry on it. That's first. Secondly, over the next few months Transit staff will be meeting with every municipal government in the Greater Vancouver Regional District, and with the Greater Vancouver Regional District itself, as part of the exercise to voluntarily, I hope, incorporate transit planning into land use decision-making in municipal government. I think the member agrees with me that this is absolutely essential.
The challenge, of course, will be the political pressure on municipal governments as they try to balance people's concerns about growth and densities against the livable region plan and ways in which Transit can accommodate the livable region -- less congestion, less pollution -- in a fiscally affordable way. In the last few months we've had a series of initiatives, internally with Municipal Affairs in terms of their work and externally in terms of us working with other municipal governments, not to require transit planning to be taken into consideration but to work with them cooperatively to ensure that transit needs and concerns are at least considered in the official community plans of various regions.
A. Cowie: I thank the minister for his comments, which lead me into the next question. I agree with him. I can't see how you can possibly do transit in the greater Vancouver or greater Victoria area without the full cooperation of the local municipalities. We recognize that you can't provide sewer and water and other facilities...and surely transit is even more vital. It has to be planned. We have a number of communities, of course, that don't want to change. They like it the way it is. I frankly don't know how you get them to change along those lines without going to some kind of metropolitan or regional government. Whether we want to say it or not, I think that's the direction we're going in. At the same time, we have to give local communities some kind of autonomy on what their future is going to be like so that they can protect their vital local facilities and continue to be livable. There are some fine communities surrounding Vancouver, and I personally don't think they should be threatened.
Back in the early sixties I visited Sweden. I don't know if the minister has ever been just outside Stockholm, but what you see there is a public transit system where there's higher density along nodes, with everything from apartments to townhouses to single-family. It's planned very well, and while I don't particularly agree with the socialist aspects of it, physically it's very appealing. I think it could be used somewhat as a model, although it doesn't quite fit into our society.
That leads me into my question on SkyTrain. I know there have been some attempts to get private industry involved with SkyTrain. The Whalley station is an example of that; I know it wasn't totally successful. One of the points I've been making for years is: why don't we pre-zone? There would be no objection to this at all. I can't see how anyone could possibly object to it. You pre-zone according to the transit plan. When you put a transit line through and you know where the stop is, you pre-zone that land in such a way that the developers have to pay a more reasonable cost to build in that area. Right now we don't take advantage of the up-costs that go on; we leave it to land speculation. While I don't mind speculation to some extent, I don't see why we have to leave it entirely to that, when huge amounts of money could be funnelled back into transit. While that might appear to be too socialistic, it seems good common business sense to me. I think that's what we should have been doing.
Developers are complaining that they're going to leave the province -- Bosa Bros., for instance. I think they're one of the better developers, although I've had some rough comments from the president at times. They have done some very nice developments, and they are threatening to leave the province because there's not enough certainty and too many taxes -- all that side of the business.
I'd like to know what the minister thinks about making sure that we keep private business. After all, government can't build everything. In fact, government can't do the building. They should provide the incentives and the guidance. What does the minister think about making sure we work with business?
Hon. G. Clark: That's an interesting topic. There has been some progress. Singapore developers are building 2,000 units adjacent to the King George station. Intrawest has got some development. We have received some money from developers for the privilege of having the station on the site, which obviously greatly appreciates its value.
I think the member agrees. But even though we can agree philosophically on this, we have to be very careful about moving in this direction. There are a couple of options. You could do a benefiting area tax; lots of jurisdictions do that. I think it's fair to say that I've been reluctant to, for some of the reasons you
[ Page 7889 ]
mentioned in terms of the tax load question, but it certainly should be looked at.
Another would be to expand the development cost charges to include transit. That's clearly not the case. I must say that I'm rather keen on that, but the Minister of Municipal Affairs, municipal councils and developers say: "Wait a minute. We're overusing that, and now development cost charges are getting quite high." Even though I'm quite keen, and I might be inclined to rush into it, it's legitimate to pause and say: these are new initiatives that make sense in terms of user-pay and there's some logic to them, but we don't want to kill the development industry by imposing the overwhelming costs associated with them. We have to be careful, although I still am sympathetic because there's a logic to it.
Finally, another option, which Transit has done a bit in the past, is outright purchase of land. It is the most passive option in a way. Transit, by virtue of its knowledge, makes strategic purchases in the areas where there are likely to be transit stations, and then the increased value of the land accrues to the Crown corporation itself. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. The value of the property is rising for one reason -- because of the massive investment of public dollars in infrastructure in that community. For Transit to get some of that upside makes sense to me. Again, we have to be very careful how we do that.
The Bill Bennett government initiated the first very modest attempt to get some revenue from development around a station; that was at the Main and Terminal station. Frankly, I'm not sure if we're getting any revenue yet. At the time, I remember that the negotiations involved a bonus. Transit would receive increased revenue if the developer was successful in getting increased density adjacent to the SkyTrain site. It was very modest and the first time ever done in British Columbia. The Bill Bennett government did it around the time of Expo. It didn't prevent speculation. When the station was announced, I think Mr. Docksteader made $1 million or so in 24 hours. We understand that. So it didn't prevent the land speculation, but it did say: "Look, this investment of public dollars in this massive, billion-dollar SkyTrain system is going to have an impact on that site." It's not unreasonable for the government investing that kind of money to get a modest share, if nothing else, of the increased value associated with the densification around the site.
In Japan, for example -- not a socialist country -- they almost fully pay for their massive investment in infrastructure for their bullet trains, the Shinkansen and those lines. Much of the capital costs is paid for by a benefiting area tax -- or taxing around the station -- because the land value has gone up as a result of that. It's an area that I know the member and I find professionally interesting and attractive. We haven't done anything precipitous in this regard. We've explored some of the options, and there are a variety of incremental moves. I think that further moves could be made in this regard, and we're certainly prepared to entertain them -- again, while being cognizant of the development community, the municipal governments, etc.
With respect to the private sector, we are working with private developers at some of the Surrey stations and around the site, and it has been quite successful, although there has been some tough bargaining. There are also some other areas for private involvement which we are exploring, although I don't want to mislead anybody and say there's anything imminent. It may be that if we were to do a commuter rail route, a railway might like to build and operate it. I'd certainly be prepared to entertain that. If we were to build a SkyTrain route to Richmond, there may be private operators prepared to finance and operate that -- or to finance and lease back to provide some debt financing. There may be pension funds interested in financing transit options -- either building to suit or building and operating.
Again, there is a lot of private initiative taking place around the world, and a lot of new initiatives -- as governments deal with some of their debt problems -- for private companies to come in and do some kind of arrangement, whether it's financing or operating with an operating agreement with the province. I want to assure members that we are not taking an ideological position on this. We're actively exploring all of these options. If it makes sense -- and I frankly think that some of them may -- we're quite prepared to do that.
It's quite interesting to see the kinds of private proposals we are receiving. I'm not really at liberty to discuss them in the House today. But we are receiving private proposals which, I think, are an attempt by the private sector to say: "Look, we know you're going to do this. Let us do it." They obviously want to make a profit on it. We have to balance that against the option of doing it in-house. We're engaged in those discussions and debate now. In the fall, when we make some announcements about which transit options we intend to proceed with, I suspect there will be heightened activity on the private front to see whether they can make the case to the government that they are in a position to assist government in moving forward with some of the transit options that I hope to announce in the fall.
A. Cowie: I appreciate the minister's clarification. I think that long-term people in the building business are there to stay, and they recognize that government should give the certainty. Then they can play any game that's put forward. If it's not going to work out for them, they're not going to do it. I'm saying that if government will plan ahead and stabilize the situation, then the businesses will come along. In the past, especially in some of the suburban areas, huge profits have been made in speculation. But the legitimate builder and developer really buys to build; that's his business. He's in the building business, not in the speculation business.
As far as the unions go, it's great to see the unions getting involved with the development business. I think the Vancouver Land Corp. is an excellent example of how union funds have gone in there and worked with the banks and with private developers. We have to work together. These are huge projects. If it gets too political -- I think the unions might be a little scared of
[ Page 7890 ]
Bamberton right now -- maybe the unions will get scared off. Maybe the answer is for politics to stay out of it.
[12:00]
In terms of public transit, what has been going on in Vancouver in particular.... I know the minister and I might appear to be getting too chummy here. So I have a question that I feel I have to ask for clarification. The minister mentioned that we've had endless wrangling among the province, the Greater Vancouver Regional District and the transit commission. I think it's been over the last year and a half, and I don't think that can be blamed on any one person.
The current Premier, when he was mayor of Vancouver, did say that B.C. Transit would be turned over to the regional transit authority. That was one of his platforms; he vowed that was going to happen. But it hasn't happened, and I'm really quite surprised it hasn't, because it was one of his strong points. As for public transit being accountable to local taxpayers, I would think this is one of the strong points of the NDP. The NDP often argues that you have to leave it to local people to make those kinds of decisions. Public participation is one of the strong points of the NDP; in fact, in Vancouver it sometimes gets absolutely ludicrous. They want public participation even before there are any options considered, and that's going a little too far, as far as I'm concerned.
I'm really surprised that transit hasn't been turned over to the local transit authority in Vancouver. I wonder if the minister would like to say a few words on that; I know he mentioned it briefly. Is there a timetable when we can really get transit back to local decision-making?
Hon. G. Clark: The member is correct: that was the platform of the mayor of Vancouver who is now the Premier. When we get a more cooperative mayor in Vancouver, I'm sure we'll be able to complete the devolution. I look forward to working with Mayor Davies after November to try to do that.
But seriously, right after the election I met with the transit commission and others, and I've been pursuing this option. The only dilemma, of course, is that if one wants regional control, one has to take responsibility for the expenses associated with that. Many people will say yes; but when you put it to them, it becomes a bit more challenging.
There's a bit of a complication; let me try to explain it for the members. We have a Crown corporation, B.C. Transit, and we have a regional transit commission that does the service plans. It's hard to devolve that power to the regional transit commission. We've been discussing with them and with the GVRD, but it's harder because we're providing all the funding. In Montreal they had a regional transit service, a complete operating regional transit unit, with a huge amount of funding from the province. Then the province of Quebec pulled out of that funding arrangement. That left the region with complete control to manage it, and they're managing quite well. Here, we can't turn it over to anybody, because we're actually the operator as well. So we have a bit of a challenging hybrid in British Columbia.
We have been exploring several options and talking intensely about one with the GVRD, the transit commission and others. There's some debate as to who we should be talking to, which is not particularly helpful. As I said earlier, Mayor Campbell has already said that this should probably wait until after the fall election. But we are continuing to talk. One option would be to abolish the transit commission, fold that into the board of B.C. Transit and have a subcommittee of the B.C. Transit board do the service plans. Immediately, by doing that, you'd at least have one entity. Then it would be much easier to transfer that entity over to regional control. That's one that we've actually floated, if you will, with the transit commission. They're kind of intrigued by it. But there wasn't support for it, so we have to keep talking.
I want members to know that with an operating utility in a region like Vancouver, I think it really does make more sense, in principle, to have local control of that operating utility. But we don't have an operating utility. We have a Crown corporation that has all these little regions and small communities around the province. We have a Victoria region and a Vancouver region with a hybrid model. So we're taking some time to get there. We're working very hard on some options. We have been exploring with the GVRD. We've talked about 2021, the planning document. We've talked to the transit commission. We haven't made a lot of progress; I'm not going to try to mislead anybody. But we have floated what I think are some innovative ideas, and perhaps after the election.... I'm not saying this to criticize the mayor of Vancouver; I'm just saying that maybe when there's some new faces at the table we'll try again to drive some kind of option which gives more control to the region, if not completely devolve it to the region. I am not opposed to it, but it means an incremental cost associated from here on in that has to be picked up by local taxpayers, and that's causing some problems.
A. Cowie: I'd like to thank the minister. I think what I heard is that there is an objective to move toward regional control, and that could happen very shortly. I can't help but say that I can't see how the present mayor can be blamed. Personally, I've had nothing but cooperation from him over the last 20 years. He shows great leadership and he is well liked. So I don't understand how the minister could have any other opinion than that.
Interjections.
The Chair: Order! We are on estimates.
A. Cowie: I am just responding to what the minister said. If I could be allowed just one small comment, I think it's going to be Mayor Owen.
Interjection.
[ Page 7891 ]
A. Cowie: Are you? I can imagine! Well, I think it's going to be Mayor Owen.
Getting back to transit and getting back to the work of the day, on a more serious note, I have another question I would like to ask the minister. I wonder whether the minister could enlighten me as to the role of the Crown corporations secretariat concerning transit. I have been concerned with this for quite a while. Bob Williams was appointed to head this group. The minister told the House and the public that his job in the secretariat was going to deal with Crown corporations and their performance. The job was going to deal with their efficiencies and budgets. I don't want to comment too much on this, but perhaps getting someone like Bob Williams in there for a short while -- I want to stress short -- probably was a good idea. He's got the energy, knows a lot about it and would get some things done. He is known in the business for kicking butt, if you want to put it that way.
The real question is: what is he doing now? What really bothers me is that he has been out there directing and making deals with developers, such as the King George transit station. He has been out there doing deals on commuter rail. The minister did mention commuter rail, and I can't help but think that this is some kind of private thing that Bob Williams or the minister -- or whoever -- has got going. Bob Williams doesn't seem to be doing the job he was hired for. By and large, according to what I can find out, he is out there doing deals.
Can the minister tell me why the appointed B.C. Transit board that...? He's got a hand-picked board that appears to be very business-oriented. He's got Frank Dixon, with 25 years' experience with the CPR. I really have to say that you couldn't get a better person. So at this point, why can't he tell Bob Williams to stay home and do his business and let these people get their work done?
Hon. G. Clark: Of course, Mayor Campbell did show great leadership when he nominated Bill Vander Zalm to run for mayor of Vancouver. But I guess members want to forget that.
I take the question very seriously. The Crown corporations secretariat -- which reports to me -- has saved the taxpayers millions of dollars. I think the member is correct that early on it was important to have the secretariat move in there. The member is correct in saying that we have a board which is functioning very well. We have a new CEO who has a lot of experience, and clearly it is going to be B.C. Transit's job to pursue commuter rail, if that's an option chosen by government. There's no mistake about that.
But the member is mistaken in assuming that it's a black-and-white situation. There is some expertise, which was commissioned jointly by B.C. Transit and by the Crown Corporations secretariat to pursue this project early on. You're correct, we have an excellent CEO there who has a lot of experience with this. Believe me, that individual will probably be the key person dealing with commuter rail, if that's an option. But he's only been there a few weeks, and it was important that we have a team in place. The team was paid for largely by B.C. Transit, and it has some expertise working with the secretariat to pursue that option diligently, to provide the numbers, and to work with 2021 -- the project review, the GVRD and other municipal governments and the northeast sector advisory committee.
So it's not the Crown corporations secretariat against B.C. Transit, or vice versa. In fact, working with B.C. Transit early on -- at my instructions -- we put together a project team and a secretariat to pursue commuter rail. Lots of work was being done. Transit now is in very good shape, and I'm very impressed with the board, the chair of the board and the new CEO. Gradually that work will then move into B.C. Transit, and there's no intention of duplicating effort. It's just a question of functioning and trying to get things moving as quickly as possible.
The people working on the commuter rail project, who are jointly paid by the secretariat and B.C. Transit, are people who have commuter rail expertise noteworthy throughout North America. In fact, the main individual doing a lot of work recently is Carl Englund, an older gentleman from New Hampshire who is acknowledged as the foremost expert on commuter rail in North America. That ability to attract, on contract, people like that to put together a team makes this project look much more attractive because of the practical experience.
The member may have referred to this, I'm not sure. Last Saturday, hosted by CPR, I took the train out to Mission and back. With me were some of the MLAs along the route: an NPA councillor from Vancouver, MLA Lynn Stephens and other municipal politicians. The CPR was very complimentary about the work being done and about Carl Englund's experience in actually implementing commuter rail, largely on the east coast. So it was interesting to see the wealth of experience that people brought to bear on this subject. It's really proving to be fascinating, interesting and instructive -- I think even CPR would acknowledge that -- in terms of trying to deal with the technical questions about whether this makes sense or not.
B.C. Transit, the Crown corporation secretariat project team, CPR and Burlington Northern, the municipal governments, etc. -- there has been remarkable cooperation. on this project. It may have something to with the fact that CPR is looking for other financial market opportunities. I have no personal experience with this, but I know they have a legendary reputation for being very tough to deal with. I certainly haven't experienced that at all. They've been nothing but cooperative. Again, we've brought in our railway people who have expertise in this area, so that may have helped as well. So there's been lots of progress.
No decision has been made. I just want to advise the members on commuter rail: we're just doing the work to see whether this is financially viable, and whether it makes sense for the government to pursue it. It is a very low-cost alternative, but it's not high-volume. It's the opposite of SkyTrain. SkyTrain is fairly low-volume but high-frequency. So you get these incredible turnovers because in rush hour you get two-minute intervals between SkyTrain units and they clean out the station very quickly. Commuter rail is very low-frequency and
[ Page 7892 ]
huge-volume: you can carry 600 or 1,000 people on one train, but the train may only come every hour or even less frequently over the course of the day. That could cause some problems.
[12:15]
For example, if commuter rail was coming in down the Burlington Northern, down the Grandview cut -- a choice I'm quite attracted to -- one option would be to put a station at Commercial and Broadway. I think it is the most heavily used intersection for transit in British Columbia. You've got SkyTrain there. You've got bus changes there. So as a layperson, I think there's a real synergy here. Unfortunately, the technicians say that is not necessarily the case. I shouldn't preclude it, but it causes some real operational problems. If you dumped off 1,000 people at Broadway and Commercial, all coming out of commuter rail, and they went to get on SkyTrain, it would take an hour and a half for SkyTrain to clean that out, because SkyTrain is running at almost full capacity. So in some respects, they are mutually exclusive systems; they are not complementary. SkyTrain is quite different. It is a very efficient operation that works very well for what it does. That makes it more likely that what you do with commuter rail is service, directly, destinations only -- say, downtown to Port Coquitlam. You would have integration with SkyTrain, but you would want to make sure that, of the people who got off commuter rail, there was a high degree of ability to walk to destinations from the end point. I have digressed a little bit, but I'm finding it quite fascinating.
The Crown corporations secretariat is involved in a cooperative way with B.C. Transit on this. There are no turf battles, and there is no question that eventually -- and probably fairly soon -- most of the work will be B.C. Transit work under the direction of the board and Mr. Dixon. I am very pleased with the work the secretariat has done to date in getting us to the point where we are very close to making a decision in the next few months on whether or not it makes sense to proceed with this project.
A. Cowie: I thank the minister for explaining. He did a very good job of explaining the difference between light rail and a commuter system. Personally, I hope the minister looks at that very carefully because, even if he has Carl Englund, I think he'll find that Vancouver just simply doesn't have the population to support a commuter rail system. It's more suitable for London, England, or New York, or some place where they have higher densities and a bigger population.
Give Vander Zalm credit for this one thing, no matter what you feel. He occasionally picked a winner, and he did pick the SkyTrain system that we now have in Vancouver. I have to give him credit for that, and what we really should do is look at that very carefully and see how far we can go with it rather than try to go to a commuter system.
I have a great fear about this particular commuter system. Every time I think of it, I think of the PNE and of plans that Bob Williams or the minister might have for it. I know it might be ridiculous, but I can't help but think about it. And what kind of government do we have in Port Moody? That happens to be an NDP area. What kind of government do we have in Port Coquitlam? At least for a while, they happen to be NDP governments.
F. Garden: What about the rest of the province?
A. Cowie: We are talking about the lower mainland, and B.C. Transit. It's a different problem in the rest of the province, and I'm sure we're going to get to that later on.
Perhaps what I should do -- and I did say that the hon. member for Richmond Centre and I were going to share this -- is ask one more question and then turn it over for a while to my colleague. My question is a very broad one. Perhaps the minister would answer it for me -- and we tend to agree on most things. I would like to see some indication, on the subject we talked about earlier when we started off this conversation.... Transit planning and land use planning have to be worked out together. We just have to get that together. At the present time Municipal Affairs seems to be expanding its role. They at least seem to be quite broad-minded about housing, and getting municipalities involved in that. We talked about transit being a part of OCPs, official community plans. I feel very strongly on all those points. I want to have some idea of when, instead of having three ministries or ministers -- the Minister of Finance; the Minister of Highways, who seems to be losing a lot of his jobs and looking for work; and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who seems to be getting more brave about new ideas.... He doesn't seem to have any real methods right now of implementing some of these housing ideas. But until we get all this together and until we are really working together, can we look for a period when the Minister of Finance will pass at least Transit over to one of those ministries, so that we can have closer coordination with them?
Hon. G. Clark: When the Liberal Party has one critic for Transit, then maybe we should consider that. I will just say that in the end those decisions are obviously mine. I think that the experience before we took office is instructive: they were housed in one ministry, but there was absolutely no coordination taking place. You might assume that that is the case, but it isn't always.
Secondly -- and I have to be careful with this -- coming from the lower mainland, I think, gives me a unique perspective on transit needs in the lower mainland. There are lots of things that B.C. Transit does, and I am very proud of the small-communities projects. But this is a big, expensive problem in the lower mainland that we have to come to grips with. I personally feel that there is a kind of logic to certainly having a Vancouver member and, secondly, the Minister of Finance try to deal with some of these questions. My planning background maybe helps or maybe hurts anything I might bring to bear on that subject. In any event, even if you did have one minister responsible, you would probably still have the Municipal Affairs ministry and other ministries to deal with cooperatively on the subject. I am not sure that you can put them all in
[ Page 7893 ]
one ministry, or that it would be desirable to have Municipal Affairs and Highways and Transit all together. I am not sure that that would be the best solution.
D. Symons: I thank the minister for that answer. We had felt -- and that is how I got involved in this -- that the government had finally seen the light and put Ferries back in the Transportation ministry. We were very thankful for that. We are now waiting to see if maybe Transit would also fit in with Rail and Ferries and Highways. That is how I am involved here. Just to fill you in on this, we also have our critic for Finance involved here, since the Finance minister has that portfolio right now for B.C. Transit. He will be doing the financial aspect of it on some other day.
What I would like to get into, to begin with, is the Transit board itself. Your administration has increased the number of members from 12 to 19. I understand the idea of being more inclusive or getting a larger group. Within caucus and other places my experience has been -- as I'm sure your government's has -- that when you get to a certain size it becomes more unwieldy than effective. I think that 19 goes beyond the number that produces the greatest effectiveness. Number ten or 11 is pushing the upper limit if you want a board that is going to be effective and valuable to the management of B.C. Transit. You might comment on that.
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, there is a vacancy which I haven't filled; I'm considering downsizing it a little bit. The member is correct. The main rationale for it was that in the past it was not just a political board, but it was only elected officials. There's some attraction to it because of its nature. We wanted to expand it, so that's why it's expanded. Secondly, in most transit systems there's a growing tradition of activist boards. This is not different in terms of expansion and activism. Finally, what the board has done is not dysfunctional at all. In fact, because it has a larger membership it has the ability to have subcommittees of the board. We have subcommittees dealing with finance and audits, and the environment. The size is sufficient to allow for more activism at the board level on some of those important issues and some consultation with various community groups, environmental groups and municipal governments.
Frankly, it's actually worked quite well in terms of size. I acknowledge that numbers could go down one or two, but it's not dysfunctional. It has allowed for a more developed committee system and a more activist board. The chair of the commitee here is one of the members of the board. It's worked very well and it's not out of line with other transit jurisdictions, where the boards are trying to become more inclusive and activist.
D. Symons: The other committee has adjourned; I assume we will be doing the same. I will just finish with the board, and then allow you to move adjournment.
You mentioned the business of the board being elected officials. I think there was some merit in the fact. I believe the GVRD has actually recommended that that be the way of electing people to the board: through the municipal officials. I notice that on the board now you have quite a -- I guess it's the kindest word to describe it -- smorgasbord of people on the board, from part-time elementary music teachers to a wide variety of occupations not too related to the task at hand of running a large multimillion-dollar transit system throughout British Columbia, and even in the Greater Vancouver Regional District. So I'm just wondering again. The type of people that seem to be appointed to this board don't always, in my mind, seem to be the type that I think should be there for the function they have to perform.
Hon. G. Clark: I grant you that this is not a rubber-stamp, all-male, older board of directors like we used to expect from the Social Credit Party. This is not the old boys' club. We now have 50 percent of the board of directors women, more representation from the regions, and people from the business and labour communities. This is a very representative board. Yes, we have someone who is a part-time teacher. That person was also the chair of the Richmond School Board, an agency that employs thousands of people. I think to have that diversity on the board is very helpful. To have that regional, ethnic and gender diversity and an all-inclusive board is very positive and doing a good job for B.C. Transit.
With that, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Clark: I want to wish every member a restful weekend, for long work on Monday. With that, I move this House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:28 p.m.
[ Page 7894 ]
The House in Committee of Supply A; W. Hartley in the chair.
The Committee met at 10:17 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES
(continued)
On vote 43: minister's office, $350,717 (continued).
K. Jones: With regard to B.C. Systems Corporation, is there any connection being provided by B.C. Systems Corporation to B.C. Lottery Corporation?
Hon. L. Boone: Any assistance, did you say? I'm not sure what you were asking.
K. Jones: The term was "connection." Is there any service connection or relationship between B.C. Systems and B.C. Lottery?
Hon. L. Boone: Not that I know of.
K. Jones: Does B.C. Lottery use any of the facilities of B.C. Systems Corporation?
Hon. L. Boone: They may use some of the network facilities, I don't know. We'd have to get back to you on that.
K. Jones: Does the B.C. Systems Corporation have any fibre optics networks?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, it is my understanding that they do. The member is aware that staff from B.C. Systems aren't here, so if you have really technical questions, it might be an idea to wait until later. Technical questions can be answered at any time by the Systems people, and we'd be happy to provide that. In trying to speed things along, I would encourage the member to talk to me about policy issues with regard to Systems, which is really what.... I am involved with Systems, but I'm certainly not involved in their day-to-day operations or technical aspects.
K. Jones: I realize that technical questions are difficult for a person who is not familiar with the technical aspects of an operation, but they are quite relevant to an operation that is so much involved in technology. Its policy direction has to come with a full knowledge of that technological involvement. Otherwise, you can't really make sound policy direction without knowing what you're doing. That's why the technical questions are being asked, hon. Chair. It's important to understand that aspect of it, to be able to do the job effectively.
Could the minister tell us what the policy of the B.C. Systems Corporation is with regard to fibre optics and fibre optics networks?
Hon. L. Boone: I'll defer this until staff from B.C. Systems arrive. As I advised the member, the staff has not arrived here. We were expecting to start at 11 a.m. If you would like to ask more general questions or move into an area other than B.C. Systems -- if you want specific answers on those areas -- I would encourage you to do that.
K. Jones: Perhaps we could go into another aspect of B.C. Systems, the ProvNet network. Has the minister got a measure of the efficiency of the ProvNet network? Has it been proven over the past few years to be a cost-effective operation? And by what means is she able to measure that?
Hon. L. Boone: As I stated earlier, the staff from Systems is not here. I can tell you that yes, it has proven to be cost-effective. Your next question would be: how do I know that? I'm going to have to wait until staff get here. I suggest that you move on to something other than Systems if you want to ask technical questions.
K. Jones: Let's stand down from B.C. Systems. We're not getting anywhere without the proper staff here.
Let's bring up the Buy Smart program. It seems that may be within the realm of the minister's knowledge. Could the minister indicate which ministries are participating within the steering committee for the program?
Hon. L. Boone: The ministries are: Finance; Transportation and Highways; Education; Environment, Lands and Parks; Government Services; and Economic Development, Small Business and Trade.
K. Jones: Could the minister, then, tell us what the policy direction of that organization is?
Hon. L. Boone: Do you mean the policy direction of the Purchasing Commission? That's the only organization I am responsible for here.
K. Jones: No, on the contrary, what's the policy direction of the Buy Smart program?
Hon. L. Boone: The policy direction of Buy Smart and of all purchasing is to try and obtain an efficient way of operating in that area. Specifically, the goal of Buy Smart is to redesign the tendering, the ordering and the linkages of the payment systems for government to make them more efficient and save the taxpayers' dollars. It's a governmentwide project that is going to streamline how government tenders and how it purchases, and I think it's something that's been well received in the business community.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what monitoring process is established in order to see whether that policy direction is effectively reached?
[ Page 7895 ]
Hon. L. Boone: The steering committee is doing the monitoring. The project is still in its formative stages. We've just given a tender out for the purchase card. The rest of the program is still being developed and so isn't in operation yet.
K. Jones: Does the minister mean that she's authorized the establishment of a program that has no means of testing its accountability, its value for money or its success in achieving a benefit for the taxpayers of British Columbia -- it's just being flown out there; in the future, some guidelines may get put in place to see whether it's doing what they want to achieve?
Hon. L. Boone: I thought I already told you that the steering committee is monitoring this process. I also want to advise you that it hasn't started yet, so there's nothing to monitor at this particular time. We've only just given out the tender for the purchase card. The electronic purchasing is still in its formative stages, and we're working through that. All of this is being monitored by the steering committee.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us how much money has been allocated for this program in the present budget?
Hon. L. Boone: Actually, B.C. Systems will be providing the capital to operate this system. The project is estimated to require $4 million in upfront capital and about $1.5 million per year to operate. Within the Purchasing Commission, we have budgeted $360,505.
K. Jones: That's from your budget? Does that include B.C. Systems Corporation's contribution to the development of this program?
Hon. L. Boone: I just gave you the B.C. Systems numbers: $4 million in upfront capital and $1.5 million per year. And there's $360,505 in the Purchasing Commission's budget.
K. Jones: So we've got almost $4.5 million allocated to a project which we have been told the steering committee is going to monitor. We haven't received any guidelines, however, for the monitoring. Isn't this loose financing, without any accountability? Could you clarify exactly how the steering committee is supposed to monitor this $4.5 million expenditure?
Hon. L. Boone: This is not loose at all. I would like you to listen to me once again; this is the third time I've given you this. B.C. Systems has $4 million upfront costs and needs $1.5 million per year to operate it. Ours is $360,505 within the Purchasing Commission. It is being monitored very well by both B.C. Systems and the team. The upfront costs are in terms of capital. The operating costs are $1.5 million -- fourth time. It is well monitored, well received and will save this government a lot of money.
[10:30]
K. Jones: I stand corrected. We're really talking about almost $6 million rather than the $4.5 million I originally indicated. It's an even greater amount of money in operation, without an accountability process in place to prove by what means the steering committee will determine whether success is being achieved, whether extra costs are being incurred and whether the public accepts the concept. What methods are being used?
Hon. L. Boone: Each part of the program has a pilot program which will be assessed. As you know, I was talking about the purchase card -- a pilot project for that. Our ministry is involved, as well as the ministries of Transportation and Highways; Education; Environment, Lands and Parks; Economic Development, Small Business and Trade; and Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources; and B.C. Hydro, B.C. Transit and B.C. Ferries. This is a pilot project which will be monitored and assessed to make sure that everything is operating fine and is cost-effective to the public.
This is being very well received in the business community, hon. member. If you were to talk to any of the business people out there, you'd see they are clapping their hands with glee at the thought that, through the purchase card, they can receive payment much faster. They will not be facing the usual 90-day delay in payment that government does. It is being well received by the electronic community, who see this as B.C. being on the leading edge and moving into this technology in a way that companies will have to do very soon. The federal government is putting their purchasing on a similar footing. Companies will soon have to be electronically hooked up if they intend to do business with the federal government. It's good for B.C. to nudge our companies in this direction, so they can get into the twentieth century and can operate in a competitive way. The Independent Business people, such as Kathy Sanderson, are all very excited about this project.
I would encourage the member to get on-line with this and recognize that we're changing the way we're doing business. We're making things more efficient and getting into the modern-day world here.
K. Jones: The minister is trying to imply that I'm not "on-line." She's picked up a bit of the jargon of the industry to try to sound like she knows what's going on.
I think the real question is not whether the speculative involvement, desires and attention of this are going to be successful. Really, you're just measuring what people's anticipation of it will be. But you haven't indicated that you have in place any program to monitor or measure the success of this Buy Smart program, as to how good it is, how effectively it serves the public and how cost-effective it is. All these factors should have been in the original plan, laid out before the approval for an expenditure of almost $6 million was authorized. That doesn't show very good accountability on the part of the minister.
[ Page 7896 ]
Hon. L. Boone: You know, I really do get a little weary sometimes of repeating the same things. We have a steering committee that is reviewing and monitoring the project. We have a special joint executive committee with the Purchasing Commission and B.C. Systems to monitor the project and to look at the technical directions. We have pilot projects out there that will be monitored. We are not jumping into this without looking at it. This has been well received and well thought out. It will be monitored at every stage of its development. As I stated, each one of these things will be introduced on a pilot project basis and will be monitored to make sure that there are no problems, and that the costing and accountability are there.
This thing is monitored to death, hon. member. There are special committees, there are steering committees, and there are pilot projects. So don't tell me that there is no monitoring going on, or that there is no accountability. This is a very highly accountable section. In addition, OCG and the Ministry of Finance have also been involved. We have involved everybody in this whole thing to make sure that it meets the guidelines and the specifications of Finance, and to make sure that it's going to be cost-effective.
We are not doing this, hon. member, just to change things for the heck of it. We are doing this because one, we want to save government money; and two, we want to make things better for the business people out there. Those are two very worthwhile goals of this government and this ministry, and we hope to achieve them through this project. But if we should find that things aren't working out, then we can alter it, or we can adjust it; or we can even abandon it, I guess, but I don't think we'll take that route. I think we will come out with a successful one, and one that meets all of our needs.
K. Jones: I'm just using the minister's own words: "hoping to achieve," "we can abandon it at some time." But if we don't have accountability or a specific plan of measurement, we don't have a vehicle for knowing in advance how successful this is going to be on a month-by-month basis. How long is the trial period for this program? What's the measure at that point, and what's the measure, as we go along month by month, to know whether this expenditure should be terminated? After all, we've already expended -- or will have, by the time this is in operation -- the $4 million in upfront money, the initial part of the $1.5 million from B.C. Systems, plus some of the funding from the Purchasing Commission. Those moneys can't just be tossed away; that doesn't sound reasonable. It doesn't sound at all like good use of taxpayers' money. There has to be a system by which you measure this -- not just by hoping to achieve something.
Hon. L. Boone: You know, I can stand here and tell you that we have effectiveness -- and we do have effectiveness and efficiency measurements built into every pilot project. I can tell you all of those things. I have until 1 o'clock today to tell you in great detail. Go talk to the staff, hon. member. They can tell you exactly what it is. Look at the plans we have. They can tell you the monitoring steps there. We do have pilot projects; they are going to be monitored at every step of the way. I don't see that it's of much use for us to stand here. I can tell you we've got it. You're just going to stand up and say we don't. We can do this until 1 o'clock, if that's what you want. But I think there are more important things within the ministry that we can do, rather than argue about whether or not there are efficiency steps in here.
K. Jones: I have no intention of standing here and arguing this with the minister, because it's really not productive. We asked for a specific accountability process. The minister has not been able to give a specific process at all. All she has to do is tell us what the specific process of accountability is. I get the impression that the answer is that there is no specific process. She's just trying to talk in generalities by saying that there is some monitoring, but she doesn't know what that monitoring is. That's the real fact; that's the real concern I have.
Hon. Chair, I think I'll just continue in this area, but in another line of questioning. I realize that there conceivably could be a tremendous saving to government due to much-reduced paper trails accompanying government purchases. The auditor general made some references to the misuse of government credit cards in his most recent report to the Legislature. While I'm confident, as I am sure that the minister is confident, that the vast majority of government employees would not consider abusing this card, the opportunity may arise. What provisions has the government taken to minimize the possibility of fraud or some other form of misuse taking place in this Buy Smart program?
Hon. L. Boone: For those who want to abuse anything, the paper process can also be abused. The credit cards will be monitored, and there will be limits on them. They can be monitored at the source or at the credit card. We can cancel a card; it's very difficult to cancel the LMPOs. There are masses of LMPOs out there that people can put forth. We can actually monitor a credit card better than we can the paper lineup that's out there. And it does cost a tremendous amount of money: it costs us $100 to process the paperwork we do to purchase something that may cost $25. In some cases, I have seen LMPOs go through for $10 or $15, and it actually costs us $100 to process it. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But there are monitors on the card, we have the ability to track all those things and there are limits on them.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us an idea of what the estimated projected costs are for the processing of a single order under the credit card system, so we can have a comparison to the $100 that is being spent to handle an LMPO?
Hon. L. Boone: Our estimate is that it would be under a dollar as compared to the higher cost on the others, but we can look to see if we've got the exact under-a-dollar figure.
[ Page 7897 ]
K. Jones: Who picks up the servicing costs, the 2 or 3 percent that the card companies charge? Is that also included in that figure?
Hon. L. Boone: It would be the supplier.
K. Jones: The supplier of the card? Is the person purchasing the article going to be picking that up as an extra cost? How does that work? I'm not quite sure.
Hon. L. Boone: It's the same as a regular purchase card. It's the vendor that would be picking up the charges.
K. Jones: With the ordinary card, the party issuing the card is the one that picks up the cost of the servicing. That's us, the government. The Purchasing Commission in this case would be in a similar situation. Are you saying that they are not going to charge? How is this going to be charged to the person who is supplying goods the government is paying for?
[10:45]
Hon. L. Boone: You've got this wrong. The situation right now is that the vendor picks up the costs of the card. You are not charged every time you use your credit card. You are charged, but the vendor pays for that. You pay your credit card costs, but the vendor pays the usage costs.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what the card limit is?
Hon. L. Boone: It would be based on whatever is approved within that ministry's spending authority; that is what would go on that card. The spending level would be on a card-by-card basis based on what that ministry wanted to set it at.
K. Jones: Does that mean that there is no maximum at all on these cards -- they could be $100 million?
Hon. L. Boone: Right now it is $1,000. Later they will be matched to the spending authority, and there are limits on everybody's spending authority.
K. Jones: What is the maximum limit on the spending authority available for these cards?
Hon. L. Boone: It is whatever the various ministries set, but we expect that it will probably be $1,000, in keeping with the LMPO level.
K. Jones: Will the request-for-proposal system still be used for purchases over this threshold of $1,000 that you have indicated for the card, or is the minister satisfied with continuing the present system?
Hon. L. Boone: The cards are only to replace LMPOs in the regions for the small purchases that people require. The tendering process will stay in place.
K. Jones: Does that mean that this will be a miscellaneous shopping or petty cash operation? Is that really the intention of it? With a $1,000 limit I don't think you are going to even get the office supply of printing paper for the year. You are obviously going to have to pick it up each month. Is that the idea? Are the sales slips being assessed and the statement sent to the government ministry on a monthly basis?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, to the last question. To the other one: it merely replaces the LMPOs out there -- the paper trail. The levels are set by the OCG; we don't set those levels. We are merely providing an alternative way of purchasing. We are not providing a level of spending or any of those things. It is a more efficient way of purchasing.
Currently, if an employee in the field wants to buy something and does not have the time to order it through the Queen's Printer, they have the option of purchasing it on an LMPO -- a local minor purchase order -- which has four copies to it. You give one copy to the store person and they give you the product. Then the store people have to send this back to the government and wait 90 days until the cheque comes through -- until all the paper goes through the processes. It costs the company a lot of money; it costs the government a lot of money. We are providing a credit card so that somebody can go in and purchase something upfront. That company can then be paid, theoretically the next day if they choose to submit their bill to the credit card company at that point in time.
There are companies that will not deal with government LMPOs because of the bother of going through the processes and waiting for the money. This credit card is good news for the small business person and for government. We will have more control and a faster and more efficient way of paying.
C. Tanner: I have two questions on this subject. First, has the government been asked to compensate or found any way of compensating the supplier for the 2, 3 or 4 percent that he is paying to use the service? Second, if a supplier has reason to doubt the validity of the person making the purchase, is there any responsibility or liability to the supplier?
Hon. L. Boone: The last question first: no, the supplier will not be held there. It's the same as any other credit card: you have a signature on the back, the same as a credit card does now; a supplier would check that through and ask for identification, the same as everybody else.
The cost for the supplier: no, there's not any.... We're not looking to reimburse them, because in fact it's probably going to cost them less money to deal with one little piece of paper than it does to process the current paperwork they have. They will have their cash flow through faster. It's the same as dealing with any other credit card. That's all it is. I'm sure the suppliers would far sooner deal with a credit card and get their payments the next day, rather than wait for the paperwork to go through a system for 90 days.
[ Page 7898 ]
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us when this program's trial period is going to be over, and when the full, scheduled implementation is proposed?
Hon. L. Boone: The credit cards will be starting this summer. The other two pilot projects on the electronic catalogue and electronic bidding system will be starting early next year. We will be reviewing the credit cards in December of this year; it's actually quite a short period for a review of the first pilot, but the second pilot starts in January l994.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us how many people are involved in this project in her ministry, and also in B.C. Systems and any other areas where staff have been added to handle this?
Hon. L. Boone: Two full-time from Systems and five from the Purchasing Commission.
C. Tanner: The government has instituted this system, and I've got to tell you that I'm pleased they have. But the government was having a problem paying their bills to the suppliers before. I know for a fact that it can take quite a considerable time, and for small business it's difficult. So this is an improvement.
On the other hand, the government has now assumed another obligation -- to pay their credit card bill in time. Otherwise, they're going to be paying interest. Why is it that you can pay the credit card bill on time and you couldn't pay the suppliers on time?
Hon. L. Boone: It has to do with the paper trail. The paper trail in government costs a lot of money and takes a lot of time -- things sit there. But we've consolidated the billings for gas credit cards and what have you. We've managed to reduce the cost to government considerably, and save a lot of money by doing that. I anticipate it is going to be one piece of paper coming to government with documentation on it, similar to what you get when you pay your Visa card or what have you. It's going to be a lot faster and easier for government to pay.
The tender went out, and I think the CIBC got the tender. They recognize that government may have some delays, but they also recognize that it's of considerable value to them. They will be billing us electronically as well, so I guess that answers the question with regard to how we can get it done faster.
K. Jones: I just want to clarify something with regard to staffing. The minister indicated that there were two people in B.C. Systems and five in the Purchasing Commission. Are there only two people involved with writing all the software for this and setting up the networks to process it?
Hon. L. Boone: It's not even guaranteed at this time that we will be writing our own software. It could be packages off the shelf. If that's the decision, they will be tendered.
K. Jones: If the payments are made by the government to the card company within 30 days, will that mean that the card company will not charge the government any interest for its services?
Hon. L. Boone: It's being negotiated.
K. Jones: It's still under negotiation, then. What exactly is being negotiated? Is it whether they will be paid or how long the government has to pay?
Hon. L. Boone: Those negotiations are being taken care of by the treasury branch of the Ministry of Finance.
K. Jones: Along with the Buy Smart program, there is also a program to put out an electronic bidding process. Could the minister give us an outline of what the status of that is and where the cost is coming from? Who's paying for it, and what sort of time line do we have to get through a trial period? I presume there's going to be a trial period on this. How long will it be before that will actually be in the stage of design so that it can be implemented?
Hon. L. Boone: We have been talking about this. That's part of the B.C. Buy Smart program, hon. member. It's not a separate program. The figures I have given you include the figures we have with regard to the electronic bidding process. There's the electronic catalogue and the electronic bidding process, and as I stated earlier, they are due to have a pilot project in January in both those areas. We are currently working to develop the transition and to complete the business case, a master project plan, and project control and reporting. The pilot project for this will not start until January of next year. All three parts -- the purchase card, the electronic catalogue and the electronic bidding -- are included in the B.C. Buy Smart program and in the cost I talked about earlier.
[11:00]
K. Jones: It's good to know that they are all within those budgetary amounts. Again, we have a lot of dependency on the ability of our B.C. Systems programmers to write the programming that will be necessary to make this work, I understand. Without that, there really won't be a system; we won't be able to function. You did mention something about of-the-shelf possibilities. Was that just for the card system, or is that for the cataloguing and the purchase ordering?
Hon. L. Boone: That's for everything.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us an indication of the type of off-the-shelf products she's talking about, and would that be all-encompassing? Would she find something off the shelf that would do this whole program? If not, what portion of this program would be utilizing off-the-shelf software?
Hon. L. Boone: No, I can't give you an idea about those things. As I stated earlier, we haven't made a
[ Page 7899 ]
decision as to whether we are going to go with off-the-shelf software or develop our own package. Once those decisions are made, we would go out to tender on the whole process. At this point, I can't tell you what type of software they're looking for.
K. Jones: This program has been announced as being implemented in a pilot process, yet the minister doesn't know which sections they're looking at for off-the-shelf software and which they're going to have to design themselves. Really, how can the minister announce a program like this without even having an idea of where the components are coming from or how long it's going to take to develop it? It doesn't make much sense if you don't know.
Hon. L. Boone: We're developing this program. We don't have all the answers right now. They're coming to us. We're working on it in joint committees, steering committees and executive committees. You name the committees, we're working on them. We're developing a program, and when we have all the answers, then we will give them to you. At this particular time we don't have all the answers, and for me to pretend that we do would be very foolish indeed.
K. Jones: Then maybe the minister should have announced in her press release that there was a theoretical proposal coming forward, not an implementation of a program that's got everybody ready to move into it, because this program may not even get off the designer's floor. It's really still a pie-in-the-sky concept. The minister hasn't been able to identify an actual system like this in operation. There hasn't been any defining of what type of software will be required or how it will be developed. This really is a lot of hot air and very little substance at the present time. I would suggest that the minister should take this whole concept back, prepare it properly and bring it forward when she's got the proven information she needs to show that she has an implementable program. But at the present time, there is no implementation capability in this program at all.
I think that we'll go on from that one to B.C. Lottery Corporation. I would like to start off with.... Have we got Lottery staff here?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes.
K. Jones: Could the minister introduce the staff representing the Lottery Corporation?
Hon. L. Boone: Representing the Lottery Corporation is Gail White.
K. Jones: In what capacity is Ms. White with the Lottery Corporation?
Hon. L. Boone: She's in charge of the Victoria branch.
K. Jones: Is this member of the staff in a position to answer policy questions and to advise the minister with regard to the Lottery Corporation?
Hon. L. Boone: Staff members don't answer policy questions, I do. She's here to give us technical information.
K. Jones: If the minister answers policy questions, does that mean that she supersedes the Lottery Corporation board in development of policy?
Hon. L. Boone: No, the board develops policy. But I think it's fair to say that there are a lot of things that government has to make decisions on with regard to policy, before the Lottery Corporation can proceed with some of their policy issues. But government has to have an overall policy on gaming and on the policies that come from the Lottery Corporation board with regard to how the Lottery Corporation functions. Those decisions are made by the board.
K. Jones: Could the minister describe the policy position of the minister and the government with regard to the Lottery Corporation and gaming?
Hon. L. Boone: As you know, there has been a technical review taking place of the Lottery Corporation and gaming. Information was requested by Streifel and Lord, and that report is currently being reviewed by government. With regard to any increases in gaming or any of those things, decisions have not been made about any changes in gaming.
The policy, as it stands right now, is in keeping with the federal law. The corporation is the only body that operates any kind of electronic gaming. The government controls gaming. The gaming aspects of casinos and bingos and all those things are the Attorney General's department, so you have to talk to him about those issues. The Lottery Corporation works within the Lottery Corporation Act and within the existing law, which merely states that the Lottery Corporation is the only corporation that can have electronic gaming. The act requires that the minister approve any new games that come about. For example, there was a pilot project introduced several years ago with regard to electronic bingo. That came about with the approval of the minister of the day -- that is how that would have taken place. The Lottery Corporation could not have done that without the approval of the minister.
K. Jones: Does the minister have any role in development of the gaming policy?
Hon. L. Boone: As it affects the Lottery Corporation and games, as I said, there is a review of gaming that has taken place, and we are waiting for government to review that and to come up with any decisions or changes or anything like that. But at this particular time there have been no changes.
K. Jones: Am I reading the minister correctly? Is she saying that she really has no say in the development
[ Page 7900 ]
of the policy with regard to gaming; that some other body is determining what that will be, and she will take direction from that to determine the direction of the Lottery Corporation and any other agencies under her?
Hon. L. Boone: No. I am saying that government as a whole -- cabinet as a whole -- has to review these things. We will be taking recommendations to cabinet. Changes in gaming policy in this province would certainly not be done by an individual minister. It is a very touchy issue, and you can find an equal number of advocates for expanding and for decreasing gaming. It is not an issue that any one minister would be responsible for. This would be a governmentwide policy decision with regard to any changes in how gaming operates in the province.
K. Jones: Does the minister sit on any committee related to determining the policy direction of gaming?
Hon. L. Boone: There has been a joint review taking place between me and the Ministry of Attorney General.
K. Jones: Is there a question included in that review of bringing the Lottery Corporation and the Gaming Commission operations together under one ministry?
Hon. L. Boone: No.
K. Jones: Does the minister receive input in the form of advice from the Lottery Corporation board with regard to the future of gaming in the province of British Columbia?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes.
K. Jones: Could the minister elaborate on what sort of advice she's getting on the role of the Lottery Corporation -- in essence, the policy direction in which it is heading?
Hon. L. Boone: Are you asking what advice they have given me with regard to changes to the gaming policy? If you are, I can't respond at this time, because cabinet is still reviewing those issues.
If you are asking me what the goals of the Lottery Corporation are, I can tell you that the goals of the corporation -- these deal only with the corporation, which is, of course, lotteries -- and to enlarge their share of the market of secondary games while sustaining Lotto 6/49 and instant wins; to continue to lessen their reliance on national games by increasing the market share for B.C.; to develop niche games and expand undeveloped markets; to identify and occupy new markets for electronic gaming; and to effect the migration of all lottery retailers to an on-line network system. Those are the goals and marketplace objectives.
Their corporate objectives are to maximize contributions to government revenue within the bounds of social policy, recognizing that there are social consequences to gaming; to maximize contributions to the economic growth of British Columbia; to be innovative leaders in the lottery world; to continue to be respected in the public as a trustworthy, well-managed corporation; to be recognized by players and retailers as a superior marketing and customer service company; and to be one of the best employers in British Columbia. Those are good corporate objectives, I would think.
K. Jones: Yes, those sound like pretty good corporate objectives. I don't think I heard anything in there suggesting that they should be involved in other aspects of gaming besides lotteries. Is that an oversight in those objectives?
Hon. L. Boone: B.C. Lottery will not be able to get involved in any of those items until government has made a decision as to whether there will be any expansion of gaming. At this particular time, as I said, there has been no decision to do that.
K. Jones: The Lottery Corporation is a public company, is it?
Hon. L. Boone: No, it's a Crown corporation.
K. Jones: It is owned by the people of British Columbia, though. That's what I meant. I'm sorry, I used the wrong terminology with regard to the corporation. It is owned by the people of British Columbia, and its information and practices are open to the scrutiny of the people of British Columbia.
Hon. L. Boone: We wouldn't be debating it here if it wasn't a Crown corporation, hon. member.
K. Jones: Could the minister provide to this committee the report the B.C. Lottery Corporation made to the Lord-Streifel fact-finding committee?
Hon. L. Boone: The Lord-Streifel report has not been made public yet. The document has gone to cabinet, and when it's released from cabinet we'll be happy to table it.
[11:15]
K. Jones: We're not asking for the Lord-Streifel report, because we realize that it is a cabinet document. What we're asking for is the submission to that commitee made by the B.C. Lottery Corporation.
Hon. L. Boone: I would be happy to ask the chair of the Lottery Corporation to make that submission available to the hon. member.
K. Jones: Going back to the direction of the Lottery Corporation, if it is not the intention of the Lottery Corporation to be involved in forms of gaming other than lotteries, why are they involved with electronic bingo, which has gone well beyond a trial period? I think it has been in operation for three or four years or more. Therefore it is really -- under the guise of a trial -- a vehicle to get around the laws of Canada that prevent electronic gaming without the authorization of
[ Page 7901 ]
the federal government, as I believe is the case. How is it that the minister and the Lottery board can justify continuing to be in that field, other than the fact that it's a very lucrative field for both the people who are operating it and the government?
Hon. L. Boone: We are within the Criminal Code, which limits electronic bingo to being operated only by the Lottery Corporation -- by the Crown -- and they are entirely within the law in their operation of electronic bingo. You are right, it was a pilot project -- a very long pilot project -- which I inherited. We are currently reviewing it. That's one of the issues that we are reviewing with the Attorney General, and no decision has been announced on that issue yet.
K. Jones: Has the minister authorized the Lottery Corporation, or has the board of the corporation authorized the administration of the Lottery Corporation, to proceed to move into the video lottery gaming area, such as blackjack, poker and other forms of electronic gaming?
Hon. L. Boone: No.
K. Jones: Could the minister then explain to us why trial units are already being shown to the media at the Lottery's Richmond headquarters, showing that they have the capability and very easy functioning of lottery gaming terminals? There seems to be a clear indication that that is the direction they feel the government should be going. Are they going contrary to government policy, and therefore going above the government in their operation? Is it out of the control of the minister?
Hon. L. Boone: No, it's not out of the control of the minister. The Lottery Corporation, in its capacity as a corporation, has to be prepared to move in that direction should government make a decision to do so. They are not marketing and they are not moving in that direction whatsoever, but they are prepared to do so should government make a decision that that's what they wish to do.
K. Jones: Would the minister know if the Lottery Corporation has terminals in storage at the present time, with the purpose of being able to move into the market very rapidly the moment the government makes the decision to allow video lottery terminal operations in the province?
Hon. L. Boone: There are some test machines, but no, there aren't machines ready to move into the marketplace at the drop of a nickel. It would be a lengthy process if government did decide to do anything in those areas. The Lottery Corporation does not have a warehouse full of machines.
K. Jones: Could the minister then tell us why the Lottery Corporation has people going around to various bars and public facilities ordering people to get rid of privately installed gaming equipment? That equipment is not gambling, and yet it is providing a very small revenue to the vendor and to the party whose premises it's located on. The places are being threatened that if they don't pull that equipment off their walls or counters, the Lottery Corporation will take away its much bigger revenue from break-open equipment and lottery terminal facilities? What's going on here? Is the minister really aware of what's going on and what appears to be -- I'm trying to choose my words carefully in regard to this -- a rather heavy-handed operation? It's an operation where government representatives, through the Lottery Corporation, are going to businesses in our communities and telling them, or threatening them, with the removal of Lottery Corporation equipment if they have anybody else's on their site. Is this the way the Lottery Corporation is going to ensure that when the government gives the authorization for video lottery terminals, they will have those key locations guaranteed for exclusive usage?
Hon. L. Boone: As the member knows, there is a problem with illegal gaming machines in this and many other provinces. It is illegal for anybody to operate a gaming machine in this province. The machines out there are grey machines; they are very hard to control. They are in operation illegally. Surely the member is not suggesting that we turn a blind eye and allow what happened in the Maritime provinces, where they expanded to such a degree that you had gaming machines in every corner store and Laundromat.
The Lottery Corporation is acting in the best interests of the public when it tells companies that if they want a break-open machine, they must not have illegal grey machines in operation. I know this is happening; I see nothing wrong with it. It is a way to try to control the proliferation of the illegal grey gaming machines in this province. Both the Attorney General and I are concerned. It's very difficult to monitor. By doing so, we are ensuring that those people that have break-open machines are not involved in any way, shape or form with the illegal ones. Wherever a company is, it has the option of not having a break-open machine. We are not telling them that they must have a break-open machine. It's entirely up to them.
K. Jones: The minister must be aware that when a business has a break-open machine on its premises, there is revenue to the vendors, the people who are looking after it -- the people whose premises it's located on make a revenue. The fact that the government chooses not to allow other competition in, where they have any of their equipment, seems to me to be a restraint of trade. What's the minister prepared to do about that?
Hon. L. Boone: It's not a restraint of trade at all; it is not in competition. I made it quite clear that there can be no competition in gaming machines. The Criminal Code states that only government has that authority. This government or the Crown has given that authority to the Lottery Corporation -- only they can operate gaming machines. In essence, gaming machines are illegal if they are operating; but if there are fun
[ Page 7902 ]
machines on a site, that's fine and dandy. Those are two different things. We will not put our gaming machines into a site that has an illegal gaming machine. I am surprised that the member would even suggest that the Crown would put their machines side by side something that is illegal.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what she means by an illegal machine? I think she also used the term "grey machine." What does she mean by that?
Hon. L. Boone: Gaming machines that give prizes or money are illegal machines.
K. Jones: So any machine that doesn't give out a prize is a legal machine. Is that correct?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes. If you don't win something, that's not an illegal machine. I thought I had made it quite clear that amusement machines are not illegal.
K. Jones: So why is it that Lottery Corporation staff are going into businesses that have legal machines, by your definition and the generally accepted definition, and telling the people that they have to take those machines out because the Lottery Corporation says they don't want any competition?
Hon. L. Boone: Well, that's not the information I have. My understanding is that they are only saying they will not put their machines in where there are gaming machines -- machines of chance. If you have some examples where they are merely amusement machines, and the Lottery Corporation has refused to put their machines in there, then I would urge you to let us know so that we can bring that to the attention of the Crown. But at this point in time my information is that they just don't put machines in where there are gaming machines.
K. Jones: I definitely do have examples of it. The minister and the Lottery Corporation have also received correspondence from people who operate these machines, who are finding it very difficult to continue to operate. At every key location where they would make a little revenue from their machine -- which is only taking quarters and giving people a little entertainment; there is no pay-out from it -- they are being stopped by the Lottery Corporation. The people whose premises they are located on are being threatened by the Lottery Corporation that they will take away their equipment. Surely the minister has had this correspondence and has had the opportunity to address it. Why hasn't she taken charge of the situation to tell the Lottery Corporation that they have to stop this harassment of fair, open competition? The fact that there are two businesses on one premise shouldn't mean that the Lottery Corporation, with its greater revenue to the premise's owners, should be allowed to force a small entrepreneur out of business.
Hon. L. Boone: My information is that that is not happening unless they are gaming machines. If you have a specific example, please bring it to my attention later -- not now, because the clock is ticking here -- and I will ask the Lottery Corporation to look into it.
H. De Jong: On that particular point, is there not a certain amount of return expected by the Lottery Corporation from each machine in a certain area? From time to time are there not situations where a machine has even been removed because of lack of take? Perhaps the member is concerned about some stores not being able to get it, but I am not so sure in my own mind whether it is because of the other machines or because within a given area there are already X number of machines, and it doesn't appear to be feasible to have another one.
Hon. L. Boone: You're talking about two different things here. The member for Surrey-Cloverdale is talking about the break-open machines in adult-only settings. The hon. member is talking about the machines that sell lottery tickets in 7-Elevens and elsewhere. Yes, you are correct: there are times when a machine is taken out because there are not enough sales, and it doesn't warrant the cost of having the machine there. It actually costs the corporation more to leave it in than to take it out.
[11:30]
K. Jones: The lottery ads continue to become more and more creative as the proceeds of lotteries become more integral to the funding of government programs. Could the minister tell the committee what studies have been undertaken to address the question of whether the less-well-off members of society are being targeted by this advertising?
Hon. L. Boone: I don't think there have been any studies to find out whether the less-well-off have been targeted by the advertising, but we do know that the poor do not make up the majority of the lottery players. Research clearly shows that it is the middle-income earners who play lotteries. Over the decades, studies have shown that people who have difficulty meeting their daily needs are aware that lottery tickets are long shots indeed -- as we all know. They are not seen as being the majority. Obviously, there could be one or two lower-income people who spend dollars on lotteries that they shouldn't. But all the studies we have indicate it is the middle-income earners who purchase lottery tickets.
K. Jones: I'm sure that the minister probably has had discussions with her colleague the Minister of Social Services, and is aware that there may be concerns in that ministry that money is going off into the lottery area. Is there any study to indicate whether or not lottery advertising increases in conjunction with the Social Services payment schedule?
Hon. L. Boone: No.
K. Jones: I take it the answer to that was no, there are no studies?
[ Page 7903 ]
Hon. L. Boone: That's what I said, yes.
K. Jones: Is the answer that there is no indication of any relation between the increase of lottery advertising and the payment schedules?
Hon. L. Boone: No, there are no studies.
K. Jones: Could I ask the minister to look into the connection between the lottery advertising expenditures and the social services payment schedules?
Hon. L. Boone: Our advertising is purchased a year in advance. It has to do with coinciding with when new programs or games are announced; it has nothing to do with payments to welfare recipients.
K. Jones: Has the new board given different direction to the administration of the Lottery Corporation with regard to target advertising? Or are they presently going on the same practice as before, where segments of society have been targeted with the intention of covering almost all potential sources of revenue that the Lottery Corporation can obtain funds from? It is a form of taxation.
Hon. L. Boone: This is a marketing company, and they have niche games -- obviously, The Sports lotto is a prime example. It would appeal to those who are jocks. It doesn't appeal to me because I don't know what they're talking about. But obviously they have to target their advertising to the market they have out there.
K. Jones: Has either the Ministry of Government Services or the Ministry of Social Services done studies to qualify exactly which segments of society are playing these government-sponsored, government-financed lottery programs? If there has not been any type of study, I'd certainly like to know why, in this age of growing reliance on social assistance.
Hon. L. Boone: There are ongoing studies on the aspects of gaming all the time. In fact, research just recently showed us that 63 percent of lottery players in B.C., among winners, have a yearly income of more than $40,000. Internal studies go on constantly to find out who's buying the lottery tickets and what impacts they're having.
The Chair: The hon. member for North Saanich and the Islands -- Saanich North and the Islands, sorry.
C. Tanner: I'll answer to both, Mr. Chairman.
The minister said that one of the objectives of the Lottery Corporation is to expand local lotteries -- to protect the federal lottery, but to expand the one in B.C. What success has the Lottery Corporation had in that endeavour?
Hon. L. Boone: We'll try to get some information here for you, but I do know that they have had some successes. In fact, the Lottery Corporation is looked on worldwide as one of the most successful operations. We've had some successes in moving some things away from the national and into some of the local ones here. As for our local products, as stated here, the instance is nearly half the amount of the larger one, which is the national one. So they've managed to pick up a lot of players there.
The committee may be interested to know that, when I was at a Lottery Corporation function with one of Guy Simonis's video displays there, I happened to notice a picture of the hon. member in his own retail outlet as one of the retailers of lotteries. So I am sure he has some knowledge of how well lottery tickets sell.
C. Tanner: If I'm blushing, it's because that picture was taken of the cat, not of me. I was holding the cat. I would also point out for the benefit of the committee that it's my wife's lottery, not mine.
The Lottery Corporation understands that there is some risk when you change your market -- in this case, to a narrower population of 3 million from 25 million across the country. There is a risk that the corporation could lose business, should it be a fad that they've developed. The general consensus of lotteries around the world is that the larger the market, the more successful they are. While it might be commendable that the Lottery Corporation wants to keep as much money as possible in B.C., there is a risk in that philosophy.
Hon. L. Boone: I am sure the risks are recognized. As I said, this is a strongly market-oriented company that has, even in the recession, increased the revenue to the province. It never ceases to amaze me, actually -- as somebody who's not prone to buying lottery tickets -- that even when times are tough, the income of the Lottery Corporation increases.
K. Jones: Has either the ministry or the Lottery Corporation received any letters of displeasure with the advertising system?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, I've received some letters from individuals who didn't like a particular ad or found a particular person not too nice. Some felt that we shouldn't be advertising, and that we're wasting government's money by advertising these things. The reality is that advertising does increase the amount of money that comes into lotteries. Some individuals object to advertising because they don't think we should be in the gaming industry at all, and they feel we shouldn't be encouraging people to gamble. Of course, if that is your philosophy, that is a valid consideration. The reality is that lotteries will bring in over $200 million as revenue to this government this year. I don't know where we would find that revenue to support our programs if we were to suddenly cut back on the advertising for lotteries.
K. Jones: The minister says that advertising increases the return or the participation -- I'm not quite sure which. Could the minister tell us how the Lottery Corporation or the ministry measures whether that
[ Page 7904 ]
advertising does increase the return to the province? Could she tell us how much money is being spent on advertising by the Lottery Corporation?
Hon. L. Boone: The total advertising budget is $10 million. All the advertising is tracked within the Lottery Corporation. They do a very good job at tracking everything, so they know what the sales per game are and what the sales at a particular time of year are. They know how the sales coincide with the advertising. So they are able to judge whether sales go up or down and what happens according to which game.
Some games are suddenly very popular and take off, and others are not so popular. Those things are tracked, and games that aren't very popular are eliminated. The same goes for the advertising. If advertising works, they can tell by the sales. There are a lot of marketing skills within the Lottery Corporation that have made it a very well-run corporation.
K. Jones: Is the purpose of the Lottery Corporation to make money or to provide entertainment?
Hon. L. Boone: The Lottery Corporation doesn't provide entertainment. Obviously its purpose here is to make revenue for government.
K. Jones: It's interesting that different parts of the administration of the Lottery Corporation, up to the vice-president level, have made it very clear to me that their primary purpose is to entertain people, not to be the primary fund raiser for the government.
Hon. L. Boone: As I said, the major objective is to maximize gaming revenue for the province of British Columbia. I read through those objectives, and it doesn't say here to provide fun for people. That's not one of the objectives of the Lottery Corporation. They may seek to do things in a fun way in order to gain more revenue, but their objective is not to provide entertainment.
K. Jones: Would that mean that perhaps the advertising is misleading, and that the advertising, which focuses on having fun rather than on bringing revenue to the province, is contrary to the objectives and the policy of the ministry and the board of the Lottery Corporation?
Hon. L. Boone: No, it's not deceiving or misleading or whatever. Advertising is there to sell the Lottery Corporation's product; that's what every advertiser does.
[11:45]
H. De Jong: Has the government changed direction? I understood that in years past the sales and revenues from the Lottery Corporation were mainly to be put back into community initiatives and so on. We've heard very little about that. The minister said last year that a program was going to be announced last fall to replace the previous programs, but I haven't heard or seen much of any money from lotteries going to communities in the last fiscal year. Is it now considered to be simply a revenue source for the government?
Hon. L. Boone: The Lottery Corporation was never involved in providing dollars to communities. The dollars came to government, and then government, through the Lottery Fund, used to provide dollars to communities. In the past year, $40 million was spent through the community grants branch in meeting commitments of the previous government. You guys did a good job of committing us to a lot of money, hon. member. We're having to spend all of last year's budget just meeting your obligations. As I stated last year, we had some difficulties, because we found that the previous GO B.C. grants were coming in faster and more furiously than we expected. We had about $2 million set aside last year, and by September we realized that we were not going to be able to put in a new program due to previous commitments. We are still looking to have a new program this year. We are working on the guidelines with the B.C. 21 committee to see how we can cooperate with them. Hopefully, we will have some announcements in the future.
There is money in this budget, and we have maintained a lot of different programs. There are dollars going out through my branch, but they don't go through the Lottery Corporation. People always think: "Lottery Corporation, this is voted money now." But the moneys from the Lottery Corporation go into general revenue and come back into all ministries. There are still moneys going out through recreation and fitness, tourism and culture, and on travel grants. You know, Timmy's Telethon and any number of different organizations still get annual grants. Soon, hon. member, we'll have a new program on our community grants that we can announce to you. Don't forget the commitment the government made last year: half of the lottery money goes into health care. The other half goes into general revenue, and from there moneys are voted into programs such as mine.
H. De Jong: I can appreciate what the minister has said. However, the $40 million paid out to communities because of previous government commitments is a bonus -- not only to having made those decisions by the previous government, but to the communities. Some funds probably went to ice arenas and recreation facilities. The communities are really looking forward to the re-establishment of a program such as that. The point is, though, that this government has been bragging about having brought down its deficit operation. In reality, this $100 million can be seen as another deficit operation. Without Lotto funding, rather than having a $1.7 billion deficit, it would have perhaps been over $1.8 billion. So it's another way of hiding the real debt that this government encouraged at the cost of the communities' expectations and initiatives throughout British Columbia. I'm certainly looking forward to the program that was promised last year. The minister has reconfirmed that there will be a program coming out.
[ Page 7905 ]
K. Jones: We'll just follow along in that same direction in the area of grants, since it has been broached. Could the minister indicate how much GO B.C. grant money is still required to be paid out?
Hon. L. Boone: This is another question that I am sure you have the answer for already, because we've given it to you. That is $20,765,652.
K. Jones: I just wanted to have the record show how much money is still owing on the GO B.C. program, so that the hon. member of the third party would be aware that there is still money coming to the community from the commitments made by the previous government. How much money has the minister got for community grants, and what philosophical approach is the minister bringing to her granting program this year in her budget?
Hon. L. Boone: Ten million dollars. This is not taken as a philosophical matter. We take it based on community needs, recognizing that there are organizations out there that do require some assistance. As a government, we hope to provide that assistance to them.
K. Jones: Is that straight community grants program funding in addition to centennial, or bicentennial or whatever other centennials we've got going? Also, are the travel programs and others all going stay intact?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, except the bicentennial program won't stay intact. That's just about finished. We only had $50,000 budgeted for the Maritime Bicentennial because it will be finished this year. In-province travel remains the same. Sea to Sea is reduced to $100,000 because that is a limited event as well.
[D. Schreck in the chair.]
K. Jones: Municipalities across the province have been waiting -- some for up to a year -- for the community grants program moneys. They have had their applications in to the minister to get their funding. This is totally a result of government delays in implementing this program. These communities are in need of these moneys from the program, yet they are being forced to wait an extraordinarily long time. Could the minister tell the committee what measures are being taken to improve the program in terms of grant delivery to the municipalities?
Hon. L. Boone: We won't have a grant program that goes straight to municipalities; it will be going to community groups and municipalities. But that program hasn't been announced yet, as you know. As I explained, there is $10 million in my budget for that. We will be announcing that program in due time.
[J. Beattie in the chair.]
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what is holding up that program? Does the minister not have enough staff in her grants office to come forward with a suitable program or set of applications -- some guidelines? The minister has had over a year and a half to play with this. Why hasn't she put something forward long before this?
Hon. L. Boone: It takes a lot of time to get things right.
K. Jones: It doesn't take very long to procrastinate, does it?
Most of the questions I am looking at here have been covered. In terms of the Expo legacy, have all the moneys been expended to cover this now-ended program, or are there continuing liabilities to the ministry? If there are continuing liabilities and costs, could the minister detail these?
Hon. L. Boone: There are a few continuing pay-outs. We hope to have them finished this year. We will get that information to the member at a later date.
C. Tanner: Could the minister indicate to us whether it's the intention this year to continue the payments to the medical research program? It's my contention that the $100 million that is taken from lottery funds for that program is a mere drop in the bucket. When you're talking about a $6 billion budget, what difference does $100 million make? Wouldn't that money be better allocated to the purposes -- recreation and culture -- that were originally intended?
Hon. L. Boone: That money is not shown in my budget. The money goes into the Health budget. You would have to ask the Minister of Health. That is not in my budget.
C. Tanner: I appreciate that it's not in the minister's budget, but it is in the minister's jurisdiction that raises that money. The Lottery Fund raises that money. What I'm saying is that to spend that money that way is a long way from the original intention and purpose of the lotteries.
Hon. L. Boone: Where the money is raised is totally irrelevant. Lots of money comes into revenue from the sale of alcohol and cigarettes as well, but the Ministry of Attorney General doesn't tell us where that money goes. Half the money goes into health care. The act was changed to specify that half of it goes into health care. The other half goes into general revenue, and Treasury Board makes a decision as to where that money goes. I don't sit on Treasury Board; I have no say as to what happens to those moneys.
D. Schreck: I would like to congratulate the minister for doing such a good job of raising money to fulfil the act that was passed in the last session of the Legislature, which also fulfilled a major campaign commitment of our party in providing lottery funds to health care. The member was probably present when
[ Page 7906 ]
that act was passed. The question now being raised in estimates was thoroughly canvassed in the House in the last session.
C. Tanner: I get tired of this member trying to get himself credited in these estimates merely because he wants to get his name in the record. What he just said is totally asinine; it has nothing to do with what I said. I said the money is raised by this minister's responsibility for lotteries.
D. Schreck: Point of order, hon. Chair. Clearly, unparliamentary language was used, and it requires a withdrawal.
C. Tanner: No way.
The Chair: Hon. member, the point of order seems to address the language that the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale feels impugned his motives. If the member, through his words, was suggesting some characteristics that are not in the tradition of parliamentary language, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw those comments.
C. Tanner: What comments?
The Chair: The Chair requests an unequivocal withdrawal of the word "asinine."
C. Tanner: Mr. Chairman, the remarks that the member made....
The Chair: Hon. member, the ruling of the Chair is not debatable. Either you make the withdrawal, or further action will be required.
C. Tanner: Then you better take some further action, Mr. Chairman, because I don't consider any of my remarks to be improper.
The Chair: Hon. member, I would ask you again to withdraw unequivocally the term "asinine" at this time.
C. Tanner: Can Mr. Chairman point out to me what the authority is for making "asinine"...?
The Chair: I'm sorry, hon. member, but this is not debatable. Hon. member, please sit down. This is not a debatable item. Questioning the Chair is not appropriate in this House. I ask you again to withdraw the term "asinine."
C. Tanner: Mr. Chairman, I refuse to withdraw the word "asinine." The only thing that's asinine around here is the ruling.
[12:00]
The Chair: Hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands, you leave the Chair with no choice but to ask you to withdraw from the chamber for the balance of today's sitting.
C. Tanner: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw under protest. I don't think that I impugned the member's reputation. The remarks and his behaviour are asinine.
The Chair: Are you withdrawing the comment unequivocally?
C. Tanner: No, I'm not withdrawing anything, Mr. Chairman. I'm leaving the chamber -- under protest.
K. Jones: I'd like to ask about pensions. With regard to government policy on the payment of moneys into government pension funds, during last year's estimates the minister indicated that while the government was not paying the amounts of determined underfunded liability, she and the Minister of Finance were reviewing the problem. Could the minister indicate what the results of these discussions were?
Hon. L. Boone: As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we have approached the plan member groups to open up discussions with them. This is under the new governance model, which is proceeding very well. Hopefully we will have a forum where we can address some of these issues.
K. Jones: During the last year the minister has not taken any direction in the area of the underfunding of liabilities. Is that correct?
Hon. L. Boone: During the year we came to grips with the idea of governance and made substantial gains in the whole area. The governance issue was difficult but will provide a forum to talk to the plan members. Up until now there was no vehicle to have any kind of discussion on pension issues with them. We are working with them. There are eight different plans and about 700 different employers. We and the commission chair have done a tremendous job at working with these groups to give them a vehicle. It's not easy, when you're dealing with such a variety of groups and employers, to provide a vehicle so that they can deal with some of these issues.
K. Jones: The minister indicated to the committee in last year's estimates that, while she could not guarantee that the government would have a policy out in the next few months, she certainly would be having some direction. Here she comes today, a year later, and she still has no direction. Could the minister, if she is either unable or unwilling to indicate to the committee what the actual policy is, perhaps indicate what the direction of her government is in regard to this important issue?
Hon. L. Boone: Government is managing the unfunded liability to ensure that it doesn't grow more rapidly than the growth of the workforce. As a percentage of payroll, unfunded liabilities have in fact decreased over recent years. In other words, the current and projected unfunded liabilities represent no threat to the pension funds. We are working with the various groups to find ways and means of dealing with the
[ Page 7907 ]
unfunded liability. The member may not be happy with it, but that's the reality.
K. Jones: In addition, during last year's estimates debate, the minister indicated the review was underway which would look at the question of early retirement, and specifically that a new formula was in process. Has this review been completed? If so, could the minister indicate what results and recommendations have come out of the review?
Hon. L. Boone: It's in the same form that all these other issues are. As I stated before, there was no vehicle for anybody to discuss any improvements or changes to the pension plan. It has taken us a lot of work, working with groups. It's not easy to do that when you have eight different plans, 700 or so different employers and numerous unions to deal with. But we are working with them to provide a vehicle where they can bring issues, such as early retirement options, and get discussion and hopefully some resolution on some of their desires.
K. Jones: Has the government received a copy of the Korbin public sector report yet?
Hon. L. Boone: No.
K. Jones: Has the government received a copy of the public service report yet?
Hon. L. Boone: The government receives a copy, but it hasn't been released yet. Sorry, I would like to correct the other one. It is the same with the public sector report: government has received it, but it hasn't been released yet.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us when the public sector report was received?
Hon. L. Boone: That report has been received by cabinet. As you know, cabinet information is not public information, so I am not at liberty to tell you.
K. Jones: The Minister of Finance was more forthcoming when he was asked that same question last week with regard to the public service report. I am sorry that the minister isn't willing to tell us when the public sector report was received.
Hon. L. Boone: The Minister of Finance was within his jurisdiction. It was a report that was received by him, and he is at liberty to release those remarks as to when it was received. It is not in my jurisdiction, and I am not at liberty to give that information to you.
K. Jones: Are either or both of the Korbin reports being awaited in order to make decisions with regard to pensions programs? Is that what is holding up the process?
Hon. L. Boone: I explained to you that I am not at liberty to discuss the Korbin report with you. It has not been released to the public, and I can't answer questions with regard to it.
The Chair: Hon. member, please keep your questions within the minister's jurisdiction.
K. Jones: I believe the question was within the minister's jurisdiction. I will elaborate on it a little so that it can be understood.
The pensions modifications are being held up for some reasons. Is one of those reasons that the committee or the group that is studying the revision of the pension program is awaiting the recommendations of the Korbin commission? I believe it was in their mandate to look at the area of pensions, severance and various negotiated benefits.
Hon. L. Boone: No.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what is holding up the ability to come forward with a recommendation with regard to modernizing the pension program?
Hon. L. Boone: I thought I already told you this. There is a vehicle now in place -- a members' plan that is a governance model -- with plan members and members of government coming together to discuss these things. Those things are currently happening. The government model is being put in place, and those things will take place when the plan members and the government members get together, but not until then.
K. Jones: Is there any connection between the pension program and the need to bring employee participation into the administration of the pension program?
Hon. L. Boone: I thought that's what I've been telling you. We've got a governance model now that brings in the employees. It brings the members into a space where they can actually participate. It's not in the administration, hon. member. That will still be done by the Superannuation Commission, but it will give them an opportunity to discuss their concerns and issues. Up until now there was no avenue. People would come and talk to me about pensions, and I would say: "It's not my jurisdiction; I can't do anything because the Minister of Finance is the investor here." We have now pulled together people so that they have a vehicle and a place where government members, Ministry of Finance people, superannuation people and plan members can actually sit down and talk about some changes to the plans that they want to see. Those things are going to take time. They are not going to come about overnight. It takes time to do things in a method that involves people, and that's what the Superannuation Commission is doing now. It's actually a very unique idea to allow plan members to be involved and have a say in what takes place with their pensions.
K. Jones: You are talking about a governance model. Could you describe it? What's the makeup of it? You also talked about the Superannuation Commission.
[ Page 7908 ]
Who is on the Superannuation Commission? Do you have a body of appointed people to administer the various pension plans?
[12:15]
Hon. L. Boone: I can't give you the exact structure, because we are currently working on this with the plan members to bring to government a model of the structure that will be workable. As I said, it's not an easy process. You have your Superannuation Commission and your various ministries that are involved. You have your Ministry of Finance, your employee members and the employer groups as well. All these various people have a say, and we are currently working with them to develop a structure for the governance model that will meet the needs we want to meet. But when you are dealing with all those players, it's not an easy thing to pull them all together and get some consensus as to how things should work.
K. Jones: I want to repeat the last part of the question that the minister was probably unable to hear because she was getting advice on the first part, and that was with regard to the commission's makeup. How many members are there on the Superannuation Commission, and whom do they represent?
Hon. L. Boone: There is no commission. There is just a commissioner. It's actually called the superannuation branch. I think we use the term "commission" wrongly. It's the superannuation branch.
K. Jones: Thanks for that clarification. I'd like to get a little insight on why the superannuation commissioner would report to the Minister of Government Services, and not the Minister of Finance, even though the Minister of Finance is responsible for the payments and the investing of the funds?
Hon. L. Boone: I think there would be a real conflict if it was the other way around. The superannuation commissioner is responsible for looking after the members and making sure that their funds are administered and run properly. The Minister of Finance, on the other hand, has to look after the taxpayers' dollars, and sometimes there is a conflict between what the plan members want and what the Minister of Finance would like to see happen. So I see myself as working to support and to advocate on behalf of the plan members to make sure that their plans are administered properly. The Minister of Finance, of course, is concerned with the taxpayers' dollars -- as everybody should be. If he were to be the advocate on behalf of the plan members as well as the advocate on behalf of the taxpayers, I think he would sometimes be in a conflict.
K. Jones: I guess the policing responsibility of the Gaming Commission would be in the same category with regard to the Attorney General's responsibility for administration. To avoid a conflict between them, you would want to have them separated, but presently they are blended together. As they seem to be functioning that way, is that the best way of having them?
Hon. L. Boone: I can't answer for the Gaming Commission -- that's the Attorney General. I'll talk to you about the superannuation branch, but not about the commission.
K. Jones: I just thought that there was a parallel between the two operations. If it is good for one, maybe it would be good for the other, and so maybe we have to decide which is the best model to use.
I wonder whether the minister could give us an indication of her policy direction with regard to the fact that many private pension plans today involve their members in the administration of investments, and in actually determining, through trustee appointees, the investors who would look after the administration of the pension fund. Is the minister considering bringing the government's pension plan into a similar democratic process, where the members have more say in how their money is being invested than in the present process?
Hon. L. Boone: You'd have to talk to the Minister of Finance about that. He does the investing, and he definitely would be interested in this.
K. Jones: Then I just want to clarify the function of the superannuation commissioner. Is the superannuation commissioner not responsible for determining how the funds are going to be administered?
Hon. L. Boone: Yes, administered. He is the trustee and has the fiduciary responsibility for and administration of the funds, making sure that all the plan members are well taken care of. But the investment of the money is done by the Ministry of Finance.
K. Jones: Therefore of the operation is fiduciary in the hands of the commissioner, and under other circumstances there would be a board of commissioners or trustees that would do that administration. What process has the minister put in place to bring about member participation in the administration of their plans?
Hon. L. Boone: We've gone full circle. I started out talking to you about the governance model, and how we are working right now to establish a governance model that gives members some participation in their plans. The Minister of Finance is part of that. We are working closely with that ministry to make sure that these things take place. But that's an issue we've gone through several times, hon. member.
K. Jones: Actually, we haven't, hon. minister. We are trying to define the roles of the commissioner now, whether the commissioner should be not one person who is literally an employee of the government, and whether the pension plan should be made more democratic and given trustee direction from the
[ Page 7909 ]
representative pension groups, so that they would have a direct say in how their pensions -- and it's their pensions, not the government's -- are administered. All of the constituent groups truly are and should be involved, although under this present process we have a very paternalistic operation of the administration with one person making all the decisions. There is no democratic representation from the constituent employees.
Hon. L. Boone: I just told you that that's what we're working on: a change of governance model that gives members an opportunity and a say. I don't know how many more times I can tell you this: we are working to establish a governance model that gives the members a direct say in how their pension funds are administered. We are working on it. We are working on it. We are working on it.
K. Jones: I have one final question: when are you going to stop working on it and implement it?
Hon. L. Boone: When the process is finished.
K. Jones: I think that we have pretty well covered the Superannuation Commission area.
I would like to go back to lotteries with one quick question. The Sports Action game run by the Lottery Corporation causes a little concern in some of the leagues over their product being used in any form of lottery or gambling program. Specifically, the National Basketball Association is extremely concerned about any reference to or use of its game in the gambling program. What correspondence has there been with any of the major sporting associations with respect to the continued use of their games by the Lottery Corporation?
Hon. L. Boone: None of them have contacted me.
K. Jones: It has been hypothesized that the Northwest Sports Enterprises bid to attain a National Basketball Association franchise for the city of Vancouver could be in jeopardy because of the continued use of NBA scores by the Sports Action game. Has there been any discussion between the B.C. Lottery Corporation and Northwest Sports about the discontinuance of basketball in the lottery game?
Hon. L. Boone: I have received no information from any of those individuals or companies. They may have contacted the Lottery Corporation -- I don't know. I would suggest that the member contact the corporation about that.
At this point in time, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The Committee rose at 12:25 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]