1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD


The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.


Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)


MONDAY, JUNE 28, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 11, Number 17

[ Page 7911 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. D. Miller: In the members' gallery today we have a prominent member of the British Columbia's consular corps, Mr. Tony Joy, the consul general of the United Kingdom. He is accompanied by his wife, Lena Joy. The Joys have been in British Columbia for three years and will shortly be off to their new posting in Rio de Janeiro. Believe me, Vancouver is a preferred posting. On a personal note, I would certainly like to wish them well. Mr. Joy has served the interests of his nation exceedingly well here in British Columbia. I would ask all members of the House to join me in wishing them all the best in the future.

Hon. A. Petter: In the gallery today is a constituent of mine, Helen Ayers, who has joined us, along with a friend of hers, Catherine Logan from Auckland, New Zealand. I would ask the House to make them both very welcome.

J. MacPhail: I am sad to rise to say that a group of people who have been with us for the last several months are leaving us today. The legislative interns finish their session with us at the end of this month, on Wednesday. I know that I am joined by my colleagues across the floor when I say how wonderful they have been to all of us, in the assistance we have received. While they have gone through a great learning experience, so have we from them. To all of them, I say thank you very much.

C. Serwa: Today I have the honour to introduce two friends from Kelowna: Jacqueline and Jack Pinder. Jack works with Western Star Trucks. He's the contract manager for the NATO light-service vehicle, a Department of National Defence contract. He shared some good news with me today. Western Star is up to 12 trucks in production and is shipping them all over the world; and the testing for the prototype NATO light vehicle is progressing very well. Would the House please make them welcome.

N. Lortie: We have two visitors in the House today from my constituency of Delta North. They are two very active constituents: Eliza Olson, president of the Burns Bog Conservation Society; and Jennifer Lee, an active member of that organization. They're here today to witness me table a petition on their behalf. I hope the House will make them very welcome.

D. Mitchell: There is a group of individuals who work much harder than any of the members in this chamber. They are our constituency assistants. I have the pleasure to introduce my constituency assistant, who is here for the first time today to observe the proceedings in this House. Would the House please welcome Mr. Adam Korbin.

K. Jones: Visiting in the precincts today are 14 members of a delegation from the Republic of China. They are from the city of Taian in Shandong province and are with the Taian Association for International Exchange of Personnel. I'd like the House to give greetings to these people. They are somewhere in the precincts at the moment.

F. Gingell: I rise in the House today to speak to the memory of Douglas Turnbull, a former Liberal MLA and cabinet minister, who died last Wednesday, June 23, at the age of 90. Originally from St. Mary's, Ontario, Douglas Turnbull and his wife, Elsie, settled in Trail, British Columbia. He became involved in politics, was first elected as the provincial candidate for Rossland-T rail in 1948 and became a Member of the Legislative Assembly in the general election of 1949. Serving under Premier Byron Johnson's coalition government in the early 1950s, Douglas Turnbull was appointed to a number of high-profile cabinet positions. As Minister of Health and Welfare, Minister of Municipal Affairs as well as Minister of Trade and Industry, his potential was recognized early. He was chosen to move the throne speech reply at the opening of the House on February 15, 1950. In his various portfolios, he spoke out on the importance of health care as well as the need for British Columbia to develop secondary industries in order to capitalize on the processing of our own natural resources. He was also an advocate of Buy B.C. as a means of creating employment and stimulating local industry.

On a more personal note, Mr. Turnbull was a longtime member of the Victoria Natural History Society and is recognized for his contribution as one of the founding presidents of the Friends of the Provincial Museum. An honorary member of the Liberal caucus, Mr. Turnbull has visited our offices on a number of occasions, and his picture remains in longstanding memory of his political and personal contributions. I would ask the House to recognize the achievements of Douglas Turnbull and to take a moment to acknowledge his passing.

Hon. B. Barlee: That was a glowing tribute to Douglas Turnbull. His wife Elsie is not well, as you probably know. They are longtime residents of the Kootenay area. He worked for the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company. A man with a very wide-ranging intellect, he was, I think, a very rational and well-respected politician -- which is unusual sometimes in this particular business we're in. We add our sympathies to Elsie, who, as I say, is indeed not very well.

Orders of the Day

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. M. Sihota presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Employment Standards Amendment Act, 1993.

[ Page 7912 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, the bill I'm introducing to the House today corrects a ten-year anomaly in the Employment Standards Act that made British Columbia the only province in Canada to allow parties in collective bargaining to contract out of the employment standards legislation. These amendments are based on a report by Prof. Mark Thompson, which is also being released today. As Professor Thompson notes in his report, it is highly unusual for any government to permit parties to negotiate away the basic protections of social legislation, but that is precisely what was done ten years ago by the then government when it allowed, under section 2(2) of the Employment Standards Act, for collective agreements with provisions less than the minimum standards required. The amendments in this bill correct this anomaly, so that parties to collective agreements will no longer be able to negotiate standards less than the minimum requirement set out in the Employment Standards Act. The amendments return integrity to the act and ensure that all workers in British Columbia will receive a basic level of protection in the workplace. I'm sure all members will agree with the important principle behind these amendments to preserve the autonomy of collective bargaining relationships while at the same time providing a minimum floor on employment standards for workers.

Bill 65 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.

[2:15]

Oral Questions

CLAYOQUOT SOUND DECISION

A. Cowie: My question is to the Premier and comes under the category of peace in the valley. We see that blockades are being constructed in the Clayoquot Valley by pro-logging groups to prevent anti-logging groups from setting up blockades. It's called blockade equity, I guess. Was this the fair, balanced decision the government was so proud of?

Hon. D. Miller: I don't know at all how the question relates to the very fair and balanced decision that was made with respect to land use in Clayoquot Sound. The Share groups, according to the information we have received, are setting up not road blockades but what they describe as checkpoints. They are doing that, rightly or wrongly, because of the announced intention of some environmental groups to indeed blockade the roads on July 5. My office has been in touch with the RCMP. These issues are a matter for the RCMP to deal with, and they will do so.

A. Cowie: Supplemental question. I guess we may or may not be able to get the Premier in for another press conference in the Clayoquot. But is the Premier prepared to address the first of many Clayoquot demonstrations on the lawn of the Legislature on Canada Day, or will he try to avoid the occasion or send the Forests minister?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I will be enjoying Canada Day, as a number of you in this Legislature will be doing with your citizens. As a matter of fact, I'll be helping to swear in a number of new Canadian citizens on Canada Day.

SAFE-COMMUNITY STRATEGY

A. Warnke: My question is for the Attorney General. Richmond City Council tonight joins several other city councils in seeking a safe-community strategy to combat increased crime and antisocial behaviour. What steps are being taken by the Attorney General to develop a specific strategy to help cities and municipalities get tough on crime?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm happy to answer the question. It really is an estimates-style question, because it will take me some days to get through the number of steps that are underway. I did share with members in estimates some parts of it. We're developing a variety of strategies as part of our new emphasis through the newly established community justice branch of the Ministry of Attorney General. I've frequently opened my office to municipalities with respect to particular strategies that they may wish to adopt, and I would be delighted to meet with members of the Richmond council to do the same.

A. Warnke: As a supplementary to the Attorney General, what is the message in terms of a potential report or some sort of commission to deal specifically with how this government is going to get tough on crime for, perhaps, Mayor Halsey-Brandt, Mayor Campbell and other mayors throughout British Columbia?

The Speaker: The Chair recognizes that the question is, again, very broad. If the Attorney General is going to comment, I would ask him to keep his comments as narrow and as brief as possible.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: One thing we don't need on this subject is another royal commission. There will not be one.

ABORIGINAL RIGHTS

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Last Friday's decision in the Delgam Uukw case was a foregone conclusion. It was virtually authored by this government. Does the minister understand that his government put the courts in an impossible situation to uphold the McEachern decision? The decision by the government to fire Russell and DuMoulin virtually undermined any chance of the Crown's case being upheld. Does the minister understand that this decision will result in substantially larger and more expensive settlements?

Hon. A. Petter: I understand that the decisions made by the Court of Appeal in this province are independent decisions made by the judiciary, and I 

[ Page 7913 ]

would not for one minute suggest otherwise. And I am shocked that the member opposite would do so. Furthermore, I would remind the member opposite that this government ensured the arguments of the trial judge were presented to the court through an amicus curiae. The court had before it all of the arguments and reached its decision, as a court should, based on legal considerations.

J. Weisgerber: Supplemental question. Most aboriginal communities are far more interested in land than cash and settlements. Indeed, they want an economic land base. That's why they are called land claims. Does the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs have any idea what he really committed British Columbia to when he signed the memorandum of understanding last week with the feds? Will he acknowledge that this decision on Friday will undoubtedly result in a larger land and resource component to settlements?

Hon. A. Petter: I'd be happy to share with the member what we agreed to with the federal government in the cost-sharing agreement. We agreed to a sharing arrangement in which this province would pay between 10 and 25 percent of the cash and cash-equivalent component of treaty settlements. Included within that component is full credit to the province for the market value of urban lands, full credit to the province for market value of high-value forest lands and full credit to the province for the foregone resource revenues of all other lands. That's an incredible arrangement, and as a result this province will share an estimated 17 percent of the cash and cash-equivalent component; of the actual cash, it's substantially less because of the tremendous credit this province is receiving for the contributions of land it will make.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: The reality is that the MOU requires the province to pay between 10 and 25 percent of the cash costs; provide all of the land and resources, all of the lost revenue and resource revenue; provide 50 percent of third-party compensation costs; 40 percent of the itemized negotiating costs; the vast majority of extraordinary costs to communities and individuals affected by the settlements; and a good chunk of the self-government costs. How can the minister possibly stand up with a straight face and say that the province is only going to be required to pay 17 percent of the costs? That's an absolutely ridiculous statement by the minister.

Hon. A. Petter: I know that the member likes to engage in hyperbole, but the fact is that at least 75 percent of the costs covered by the agreement represent treaty settlement costs. Those are the guts of the agreement. Within those costs, the province has agreed to contribute between 10 and 25 percent of cash and cash equivalents. The member may choose to ignore the fact that cash equivalents include major land values. I will go through them again: the full market value of urban land; the full market value of high-value forest land; and the value that the member in debate in estimates said was the most important value of all, the foregone resource revenue on all other land. That means that the province's share of cash and cash equivalents, which is estimated around 17 percent, will be substantially less in cash terms. That in turn means that for every dollar that this province will contribute, many more dollars will come into this province from Ontario, Quebec and the rest of this country.

ACTING MANAGER OF WOMEN'S EQUALITY GRANTS

W. Hurd: I have a question for the Premier. Can the Premier confirm that Agnes Ananichuk, the acting manager of Women's Equality grants, is the spouse of the Premier's deputy, George Ford?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The answer is yes. We'll have a chance very shortly for questions like that when my estimates come up. I'll be more than glad to answer them then.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

W. Hurd: That's a curious response from the Premier, because he and his government had a lot more to say in 1987 when the wife of David Poole, then deputy to the Premier, got a summer job with the government. Perhaps I can remind the Premier that the current Minister of Finance stated: "It's simply a perception of the public that brings the whole system into disrepute when you see people closely connected to the government get these kind of jobs." What's the difference between David Poole in 1987 and George Ford in 1993?

Hon. M. Harcourt: One of the differences is that the person you are talking about has been employed by this government since 1989. He was hired by the former government, as a matter of fact. [Applause.]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. The Chair will wait for order.

PURCHASE OF VEHICLES FOR GOVERNMENT USE

K. Jones: My question is to the Premier. Among the nearly 1,000 vehicles required this year for the government, will the Premier commit to purchasing economical, primarily four-cylinder vehicles?

Hon. M. Harcourt: That is an important question and I will take it on notice for the Minister of Government Services, who deals with those purchasing issues. It is an important issue, and we will give a considered response.

[ Page 7914 ]

EXPROPRIATION COMPENSATION BOARD

C. Tanner: I have a question for the Attorney General. Two new members were recently appointed to the Expropriation Compensation Board. Mr. Clifford Watt, Q.C., who passed away earlier this year, was a member of that board and an authority on expropriation law. What is the expropriation experience of Mr. Shorthouse and Ms. Walls?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Considerable, and I would be happy to share that considerable experience with the member. I can't bring that to the House right now; I don't have it on the tip of my tongue. There was a fair amount of consultation with various people in the sectors directly involved with expropriation matters. Those appointments were met with very positive reaction.

C. Tanner: Could the Attorney General tell us how many decisions were made last year by the Expropriation Compensation Board and how many cases are pending or waiting to be heard?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'll take that question on notice.

REVIEW OF BAMBERTON COMMUNITY PLAN

L. Fox: My question this afternoon goes out to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Last Thursday when the public hearings resumed in Mill Bay on the Bamberton project, many of the opponents argued that the CRD should not approve such a project without a full review of the official community plan. Does the minister agree that any project of this nature should be subject to an updated official community plan?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The bylaw, information and proposal will be subject to extensive provincial review in terms of the statutory requirements when it comes to the province. That will occur. Indeed, I fully expect that other regional districts and communities who are expressing concern will have their opportunity to express those concerns in a forthright manner.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

L. Fox: As the Bamberton project would create a virtual city of 15,000 people in a very concentrated site on the side of the Malahat, why has the minister rejected the CVRD's request to have a full economic review of those environmental concerns?

Hon. R. Blencoe: There has been no rejection of the CVRD's request. Indeed, the provincial government has granted dollars to the CVRD for a review of the planning requirements. I have indicated to them, and the information is available to you and to others, that the reviews will take place between third and fourth reading, hon. member. The information is available to you, as to others, publicly. You are aware of the way these processes go through. Your government and the former minister, Rita Johnston, actually laid out the process which this government is following.

Hon. M. Harcourt tabled the 1992-93 annual report of B.C. Trade.

Hon. C. Gabelmann tabled the annual report of the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia.

Hon. B. Barlee tabled the financial statements of the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority as of March 31, 1993.

[2:30]

G. Brewin: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Justice, Constitutional Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations. I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

G. Brewin: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

G. Brewin: At this time I would like to thank the members of the committee and members of the compensation advisory committee for the very important work they did in making the recommendations that I am tabling for the Legislature at this time.

I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

Presenting Petitions

N. Lortie: I seek leave to table a petition from the Burns Bog Conservation Society asking the government to take some action.

With permission, could I read the petition to the House?

The Speaker: The prayer only, hon. member.

N. Lortie: "Therefore be it resolved that we the undersigned" -- 5,000 signatures -- "British Columbia residents and others request that Burns Bog become an ecological reserve."

D. Mitchell: I also rise to present a petition signed by several hundred residents of forestry-based communities in British Columbia who are concerned about the interim management guidelines for the northern spotted owl and are asking the government to set aside these guidelines until more detailed socio-economic studies can be completed.

The Speaker: The Minister for Advanced Education, Training and Technology rises on a ministerial statement.

[ Page 7915 ]

Ministerial Statement

B.C. RESEARCH CORP.

Hon. T. Perry: Today B.C. Research Corp. is under new management. I ask that members of this assembly welcome the news that late last week the final papers confirming the purchase of B.C. Research by the Terracy consortium were exchanged. This is an example of a cooperative approach supporting B.C. Research -- a key element of our province's science and technology sector. Our government chose a cooperative approach that included the employees, the private sector, the University of British Columbia and government to assist B.C. Research through its recent fiscal difficulties. I am very pleased to say that the result of that approach is the purchase of B.C. Research by the Terracy consortium.

Terracy is an enthusiastic group which promotes research and development for B.C. firms who export to the international market. The three companies -- Terracy Inc., NORAM Engineering and Constructors Ltd. and Stothert Group Inc. -- bring their international experience to B.C. Research and will assure foreign investors that there is a fine research and development infrastructure available to them in our province.

To facilitate the successful negotiation of this purchase, our government supported the employees while they carried out the essential research work at B.C. Research during the trustee's evaluation of offers to purchase the company during the rather difficult period of the last several months. Today I would like to acknowledge the hard work, dedication and commitment of all of the parties who have worked to achieve this successful outcome: first, the employees of B.C. Research, who provided invaluable input and advice on the restructuring of the organization; second, the University of British Columbia for making the appropriate arrangements for the continuation of B.C. Research operations on the campus; third, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce for arranging the satisfactory financial arrangements, which allowed the various parties to come to terms; fourth, the trustee for ensuring the best interests of all parties were met, and for the trustee's patience and consideration of the difficulties incumbent upon all the parties; fifth, the staff in my ministry, particularly Ms. Shawna Meade and Dr. Deborah George, the assistant deputy minister, who assisted in the development of options for B.C. Research and patiently paved the way for a successful conclusion at every step in a difficult process; and last but certainly not least, the Terracy group for recognizing the potential of B.C. Research and for believing that this province can provide the environment for research and development to prosper. Terracy is recognized as a leader in research, technology and product development, engineering and business management.

Under their management, B.C. Research is now in a sound position to make important contributions to our industrial and economic development provincewide, and the employees will continue to supply their considerable knowledge and expertise to applied research and development projects in British Columbia. This is a fitting next stage in a long, very fine tradition that was pioneered by the scientists and engineers of B.C. Research in the post-war period. I'm very pleased that the government has been able to help see it through to a successful conclusion.

J. Dalton: I would have to say that this is belated welcome news. All of the people involved in B.C. Research have certainly been very unsettled over the last few months by the lack of action of this government. So we can belatedly applaud the minister and the government for doing today what they should have done two or three months ago.

I had several frantic phone calls over the weekend when the financial difficulties of B.C. Research came to public light. Of course, the government, as we know, did nothing at that time other than to cause further concern and controversy over this issue. We on the opposition side are grateful to see that some action has finally been taken. We are certainly pleased that the research corporation will remain on the UBC campus, which is an excellent site and an ideal place for it. But this government can certainly be accused of a lack of planning and of the financial commitment that B.C. Research asked for in the first place.

I might add that it might be advisable for this government to give some thought to setting aside and providing 1 percent, for example, in each ministry's budget to be devoted to research projects so that this difficulty that B.C. Research went through would be avoided in future endeavours.

Again, we're happy with the news, and I know the people of B.C. Research will carry on the excellent work that they have done in the past.

J. Weisgerber: I'm delighted to learn that B.C. Research has been restructured and has found a way to continue to serve British Columbia. It certainly has made important and significant contributions over the years to research and development in a whole range of fields. It is an important undertaking in B.C. and makes an important contribution to the province.

The minister has glossed rather quickly over the fact that this whole crisis was brought on in the first place by the government's withholding of modest financial support for the organization. The government created the crisis that put B.C. Research in jeopardy, so it's somewhat ironic to hear the minister stand and talk about cooperation. Indeed, it is the exact opposite of cooperation. We must have a commitment, and government must make a commitment to research and development. Because a company is structured as a private corporation, albeit a non-profit one, is no justification for removing government support. I think the government clearly missed the mark by failing to support B.C. Research when the difficulties arose.

While we're delighted that we will continue to have an important research and development facility in B.C. and at UBC, it is a tribute to the people working there, not, I think, any real tribute to this government, that a way has been found for that organization to continue to operate and contribute to the province.

[ Page 7916 ]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: I call Committee of Supply. Committee A will be meeting in the Douglas Fir Room to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Women's Equality.

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

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER AND EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OPERATIONS

On vote 7: office of the Premier and executive council operations, $4,237,000.

Hon. M. Harcourt: It's my pleasure to present the 1993-94 estimates for the office of the Premier and executive council operations and the B.C. Trade Development Corporation. Staff members responsible for the administration of these areas are my deputy minister, George Ford, as well as Lesley Wolfe-Milner, manager of finance and administration. To my right is Wilson Parasiuk, chair of the B.C. Trade Development Corporation, and Oksana Exell, president of the B.C. Trade Development Corporation.

I'd like to give you a short overview of the substantive changes that have occurred since last year to the budgets of both the office of the Premier and the B.C. Trade Development Corporation which impact on the estimates that I am presenting here today. Within the office of the Premier and executive council operations, two factors have affected this year's budget. First, five positions that support cabinet committees were transferred to the cabinet planning secretariat. Second, eight personal service contract positions were converted to employee status, consistent with the recommendations of the Korbin commission. Overall, the estimates of the office of the Premier have increased 1 percent over the restated 1992-93 budget. Even with this slight increase, British Columbia still has the lowest level of all the provinces, per capita, in expenditures on the office of Premier and executive council operations.

[2:45]

I have supplied the Leader of the Opposition with some of these opening comments, to focus on the areas of change from last year's budget to this year's.

The B.C. Trade Development Corporation has assumed a number of responsibilities and related budget amounts transferred from the Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade. These include the administration of nine international offices, the cooperative overseas market development program and Airshow Canada. The corporation in turn transferred responsibility for the business information centre in Vancouver to the Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade.

After incorporating these transferred responsibilities and budgets, the B.C. Trade Development Corporation has only increased 1 percent in its estimate for 1993-94, and that is after a 14 percent cut in the 1992-93 budget from the previous fiscal year.

Over the coming year my office will continue to take a leadership role in establishing cooperative working relationships both at home and abroad that I believe will ultimately improve both the way we do business and our standing in the global economy. With that, I'd be more than pleased to answer questions that members of the Legislature have about the estimates for these three areas.

F. Gingell: If I could sing -- and I can't, as members of this House who were at the media party are well aware -- I would start this off with a rendition of "Is This All There Is?" The Premier's office, in the office alone, spends some $4 million. It is without question the most important role in our government. It is the position of leadership, and I must admit I expected a much longer and greater dissertation on the Premier's estimates.

I know that the Premier is a very busy man, and I guess that's the reason these opening remarks were so sparse. I know he's busy because, as I understand from a review of the staffing in his office, there are five people involved in his scheduling, as well as a principal secretary, an executive secretary, an executive assistant and a press secretary. Perhaps the Premier would be willing to discuss the question of staffing -- the number of people and the number of dollars -- that are committed to just his scheduling process.

Hon. M. Harcourt: Five people are involved in the scheduling branch. This includes two people who staff the switchboards receiving the very substantial number of calls that come into the Premier's office as a first point of communication with the government. These calls are then directed to the appropriate minister or staff person who can deal with a citizen's request or suggestions offered to the government. There is a scheduling director, who has substantially expanded responsibilities from those of the person who headed up the scheduling office before. Two other staff people work with the scheduling director not just to deal with requests for the Premier to attend the many hundreds, if not thousands, of functions that take place in this province but also to coordinate travel and other commitments of the cabinet ministers with the activities of the Premier. Those are the five people. One person oversees the office; a second person deals with the logistics and advance work for specific events; a third person deals on a day-to-day basis with my schedule and with scheduling requests; and the two other staff members deal with the many phone calls that come into the Premier's office.

F. Gingell: In his response, I note that the Premier stated that the scheduling director's responsibilities and volume of work have increased substantially from those of the previous administration. I wonder if you could elaborate on that. Why, all of a sudden, would there be a greater need for scheduling? Why would there be more work than there was in the previous administration?

[ Page 7917 ]

Hon. M. Harcourt: First of all, last year there were 2,800 requests for the Premier's attendance at various functions and meetings. To deal with those requests, to coordinate travel and activities of the ministers and to make sure that the availability of the Premier and the ministers is dealt with in a businesslike way -- so that we ensure the maximum number of possible meetings with the public -- takes that level of staffing. That is no different from previous years. In some cases, previous administrations have had more staff than are presently in the Premier's office. So this is not an unusual number of people to handle not just the 2,800 requests for the Premier's appearance but, as I said, the many phone calls beyond the requests to appear at meetings or celebrations in this province.

F. Gingell: I guess I misheard you. I thought you said that the number of requests is much greater now and the scheduling director has a greater workload. Evidently it is the same as it was in the previous administration.

When the Premier was first appointed, he appointed someone to a new position called outreach director. Could you let us know exactly how that job is defined?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The outreach department acts as the liaison for the office of Premier to ensure that communication and information-sharing among the Premier's office, cabinet ministers' offices, and government caucus and constituency offices are done in conjunction with our central activities -- through the policy coordination office, the government communications office, and caucus communications and research departments. On top of that primary role, the outreach department is responsible for coordinating regular ministers' staff meetings; briefing various ministries' staff on issues, communications initiatives, the legislative agenda and various government initiatives; and arranging for appropriate resource people to brief the ministerial assistants and the executive assistants.

The outreach department is also responsible for and acts as the Premier's office designate in recruitment of ministers' staff as vacancies arise, and is involved in the interview and selection process. Further, the department has identified training needs for the staff, who are there to serve the public in the various ministers' offices. The outreach department has a number of very important functions to make sure that all staff members have the required information when citizens phone in, on either their minister's prime responsibilities or some of the cross-government responsibilities.

F. Gingell: As I understand it, the outreach department has a staff of 14 individuals -- which includes responding to your mail. Can you tell us whether that number is greater or fewer than previous years, or as compared to the previous administration?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The staff of the outreach department is three. It's the same number as last year. The correspondence branch has 15 FTEs, who are responsible for handling the many thousands of pieces of correspondence they receive every month.

F. Gingell: I do appreciate that you get a lot of correspondence, because I get copied on 99 percent of them, or so it would seem. Can you please advise what kinds of targets your correspondence group have for responding to letters? What is the turnaround time you are actually accomplishing and the turnaround time you would like to get it to?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition will agree that it depends on the type of correspondence we receive -- whether it's a petition, a form letter, a mail-in token that people have been asked to send on a particular issue, or a citizen asking for help on a specific complaint or problem, whether it's with a landlord and tenant matter or involves a woodlot. If it's an individual item like that, it's different than a major letter involving four or five areas of concern about a large land use decision like Clayoquot or Tatshenshini. So it depends on the nature of the correspondence.

The office received 120,990 pieces of correspondence last year. So you can see that we are talking about 10,000 a month that are dealt with by the correspondence unit. Petitions are received and certainly considered by the government. If it is a standard form letter, then the interest shown by citizens is noted, as is probably done in the office of the Leader of the Opposition. But in most cases a form letter or mail-in token is not responded to. A letter that involves an individual minister is sent very quickly to that minister's office for a response, and it is acknowledged in a return letter to the individual citizen. A letter that has significant complexity to it and requires research is, again, acknowledged as quickly as possible and then researched further; we would get back in touch with the citizen when we had received the detailed information.

[3:00]

So it really depends on the nature of the reply. Now that we're moving into our second year, we're trying to improve the quality of the response time. Sometimes a letter is not responded to as quickly as I would like to see, and we're attempting to address that by improving the performance of the correspondence branch, as I'm sure the hon. Leader of the Opposition is trying to do with the many c.c.ed copies that he receives of correspondence to our office. It would be difficult to give you a specific turnaround time, as it depends on the nature of the correspondence that we receive.

F. Gingell: Could the Premier please advise me of the budgeted cost for his correspondence department for this current year, including all of the add-on costs -- office space, mailing costs, etc. -- and how that compares to the 1992-93 year?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The 1993-94 estimate for the correspondence branch is $589,399, and last year it was $580,497. There's an increase of $8,902 this year over last year.

F. Gingell: Could the Premier advise us whether he has hired any summer students for this current year or is planning on hiring any summer students?

[ Page 7918 ]

Hon. M. Harcourt: No, we don't have any plans this year.

F. Gingell: Have you hired any summer students in past years? Did you have any last summer?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think one student on a co-op program worked in the correspondence branch last year.

F. Gingell: Perhaps we could turn briefly to the issue of the constitution. I would presume that all of the costs incurred in 1992-93 by the provincial government on the constitutional and referendum question were, in fact, paid through the Premier's office. Could he confirm that that is true?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The costs of the referendum were paid through Elections B.C. and the Attorney General's ministry.

F. Gingell: So none of the costs for the material mailed out or for travel to various meetings throughout the province and back east were paid through the Premier's vote?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Constitutional travel expenses for the pre-referendum activities were covered through the office of the Premier and the executive council, in the amount of $182,234. The vast majority of that involved our staff who are part of the intergovernmental relations branch -- people like Jack MacDonald, Peter Heap, Vick Farley, Claudia Herbert and Patrick O'Rourke -- and were the key advisers to myself and the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs. For the 1992-93 fiscal year, that amount was $182,234.47, and it covered many months of very intense meetings when the ministers were meeting across the country in April, May, June, July and August and the meetings of the first ministers in July and into August.

F. Gingell: The $182,000 covered travel and hotel costs but not the cost of the staff; they were on the staff of the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The $182,234.47 that I just read out was part of the Premier's estimates.

F. Gingell: I wrote down the sum of $182,000. But you named off a series of about six staff members. Clearly the $182,000 doesn't cover one year's salary for the six staff members. On top of that, there were travel costs, office costs and pre-referendum costs for the quite expensive pieces of literature that were sent out to the citizens of British Columbia selling, I think, the particular position this government had on it. I want to find out what's in that $182,000 and what costs are under other government departments. The reason I am interested in this is purely and simply that a cost was incurred in 1992-93 that you won't be incurring in '93-94. So when we look at your budget for this year, we have to recognize that there's a chunk of last year's budget that won't be spent.

Hon. M. Harcourt: The amount I've just outlined is the expenditure for staff in the inter-governmental relations branch of the Premier's office, who are our most experienced staff in terms of federal-provincial relations. The constitutional issue is a significant issue, but it's not the major part of the activities of these staff, which is to deal with the whole complex array of relationships between the federal and provincial governments, including arranging to get together with the new Prime Minister prior to her going to Tokyo for the G-7 meetings. There are a series of other very specific activities that they are undertaking on behalf of British Columbians to make sure that they are treated far more fairly by Ottawa than they have been in the past. They are working very closely with Lorne Seitz, who is the director of B.C. House in Ottawa. This amount just covers the travel expenses for those particular staff who work in the intergovernmental relations branch. The other costs that you've talked about are contained in the other estimates, whether it be the Attorney General, Elections B.C. or the government communications office, which is in the Government Services estimates.

F. Gingell: I take it that this intergovernmental relations group within your office is a clearly defined group. Could you give me a quick rough breakdown of the costs of that group?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I can, and while I'm getting that information I can say that your point on the travel is one that is well taken. That's why the travel costs for staff and others in my office in this year's estimates have been reduced 28 percent from last year. There won't be as extensive a travel requirement as we had last year due to the constitutional negotiations and discussions.

The costs of the intergovernmental relations branch, which has 15 people -- and as I described, some of those people have been brought from contract to be employees, following the very strong recommendations from the Korbin commission -- was $1,264,248 for the 1992-93 budget. This year the budget is $1,161,312, which is a reduction of about 8 percent, or $102,936.

F. Gingell: So the $182,234 that you identified earlier is simply part of the $1,264,248, and not in addition to? That's correct? Thank you. The Premier mentioned that a certain number of individuals who were on contract before have now been moved onto full time. Can you advise me on the number of individuals that were moved, and whether the change in the employment arrangement increased or decreased the cost to the government of those individuals?

Hon. M. Harcourt: As I stated in my opening remarks, eight contractors in the fiscal year '92-93 were offered and accepted public service positions. This was consistent with the overall review of service contracts under the auspices of the Korbin commission. The 

[ Page 7919 ]

increase is approximately $43,000 in fiscal year 1992-93 for the Premier's office budget.

F. Gingell: Is the $43,000 cost increase the result of wage increases for the individuals who are involved, or is it a result of them committing more time in going from a part-time arrangement to a full-time arrangement?

Hon. M. Harcourt: These positions were assessed and a classification was given to each. Some were classified downward and some were classified upward. The net result was a $43,000 increase, bringing the independent contractors into the public service.

F. Gingell: I'm not sure that told me what I wanted to find out. Coming from that response, in the instances where the determination of the classification of the position was one that was a lower-paying position than the amount that was in the contract, were they red-circled and paid at the old amounts or were they paid the higher amount related to the classification?

[3:15]

Hon. M. Harcourt: In some cases the total amount for that position was actually reduced; some were increased, depending on how they were classified.

F. Gingell: Just to finish this off and to make sure I've got the picture right, some of those individuals had their pay reduced.

Hon. M. Harcourt: Yes.

F. Gingell: With respect to the contract positions which were previously in existence, were they all converted to full-time jobs, or are there any contracts still employing individuals?

Hon. M. Harcourt: There are no full-time service contractors. A lot of these were shuffled around from various ministries and seconded over to the intergovernmental relations branch, and they were working full-time for a number of years in intergovernmental relations. As I said earlier -- given the very strong recommendations of the Korbin commission -- people who are working full-time and carrying out functions that fit within the public service should be brought into the public service. There are no full-time service contract people working in the intergovernmental relations branch.

F. Gingell: The question not only included the intergovernmental relations branch, but all of the Premier's office.

Hon. M. Harcourt: There are no full-time service contractors in the Premier's office.

F. Gingell: How many part-time people are on contract?

Hon. M. Harcourt: There are none at the moment.

F. Gingell: Recognizing that particularly with a subject like intergovernmental relations, which can deal with such a wide variety of subjects and requires a wide variety of skills, isn't it sometimes necessary to hire someone with specific expertise when it's a relatively short-term assignment? Is the Korbin commission recommendation on converting contracts to FTEs a hindrance in being able to get the right kind of people for specialty work?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Short-term contractors were hired during the constitutional negotiations. At the present time, we need full-time people to deal with -- if there is such a thing -- normal times in federal-provincial relations and to deal with hundreds of complex contracts, understandings and jurisdictions. You really need people with a knowledge of not just the constitutional, fiscal and other arrangements between the federal and provincial government but people who know those who are involved. Those personal relationships are as important as knowledge of the substance of the constitution or special areas that we're involved in as a government.

Our feeling was that these people were working full-time. They had been working full-time very effectively for the people of British Columbia. They are able, as a team, to put a great deal of emphasis on B.C.'s agenda in Ottawa, in terms of the post-referendum, post-constitution world that we're in. For example, they are finalizing the Aboriginal Affairs ministry's Treaty Commission arrangements on cost-sharing of treaty negotiations, third-party negotiations and some of the ongoing negotiations with the federal government. They are working with the federal Finance ministry and our Finance ministry to change the fiscal arrangements so we don't have more federal debt dumped onto our taxpayers. Those are some examples of the ongoing need that this government has in representing the people of British Columbia well in federal-provincial relations.

F. Gingell: Yes, I appreciate that it is an important role and responsibility.

When we are discussing a group of employees classified as "contract," does that, in your mind, include people whom we might describe as consultants?

Hon. M. Harcourt: No, it doesn't. As a matter of fact, the issue of when to use special expertise, or when you have peaks of work and need to supplement the skills of your full-time staff, is a good question. Quite frankly, the government is very pragmatic about it; there may be a need to use outside contractors or people with specialized skills.

The test is a very simple, straightforward one. The previous government was illegally contracting a number of employees classified as consultants or as service contractors. Up to 2,000 people were working with the provincial government against the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the Unemployment 

[ Page 7920 ]

Insurance Act. So the test was whether there was a legal employee-employer relationship under the Income Tax Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act. That was the basis for the decision to bring the eight, and others, into the public employment.

F. Gingell: Could the Premier please advise us of the amount spent on consultants in 1992-93, and what you're budgeted for in 1993-94?

Hon. M. Harcourt: There has been no money budgeted for contracts for this year.

F. Gingell: Can you tell me, Mr. Premier, how much money was spent on consultants last year?

Hon. M. Harcourt: It was the amount for those eight contractors minus $43,000. I'll try to get the exact amount for you. The fees were $466,625 in the 1992-93 actual expenditure for contractors.

F. Gingell: Am I hearing you say that in 1992-93 we spent $466,625 on consultants, rather than individual contractors, and we don't intend to spend any money in that area in '93-94?

Hon. M. Harcourt: As I explained earlier, that was for the eight people brought into the Premier's office. Other than that amount, there were no other funds expended for contractors; it was just those eight people who had their status changed.

F. Gingell: The reason this is becoming a rather painful exercise is our interpretation of the words "consultants" and "contractors." I was asking about the amount of money.... I was satisfied as you told me that the contractors had all been put onto FTEs. You have no part-time contractors. You don't intend to bring any people in on a part-time basis to do specialty work. But you have spent money on consultants last year. You spent a bunch of money on an image consultant. We discussed that issue in the House. I forget whether the amount of money was $12,000 or $18,000, but an amount in excess of $10,000 was spent on an image consultant.

Hon. M. Harcourt: No, there wasn't.

F. Gingell: I am confused. It was a subject of some debate in this House. But I can come back to it later on, if I need to.

On many occasions, we have tried to get the total expenditure by the British Columbia government on the Yes campaign. We have talked about this $182,000. But it sounds to me that that was much more involved with B.C.'s negotiations and not with the campaign to go to the people of British Columbia and sell the government's negotiated position. I appreciate that some of it may be in your office and some may be in the office of the Minister of Labour, but it is sometimes very difficult for us to get all of these numbers. Do you have a complete number for the spending by the provincial government on the Yes campaign?

Hon. M. Harcourt: All I can provide you with is what was spent within the Premier's estimates, and I came prepared to deal with the budgeted amount for this year in my estimates. In my earlier remarks I outlined one of the changes: the eight full-time contractors were changed to full-time employees, and there were no other private contractors used last year nor this year. That is the amount that is within the Premier's estimates. I am quite prepared today to answer any questions on those Premier's estimates.

[3:30]

F. Gingell: The costs I was talking about were the Yes campaign costs. There was a glossy brochure, the mailing of that brochure and the cost of people to prepare that brochure. The costs that we have discussed, as I understand it, were the costs that your office incurred in representing the interests of British Columbians in negotiating with the federal government and with the other provinces. The $182,000 was an allocation of salaries and travel for the intergovernmental relations branch within your ministry. Then, as I understand it, there were other costs for that same thing that were probably in the Ministry of Labour vote.

But leaving aside the issue of the province negotiating with the other provinces and the federal government, the cost that I was trying to find out about -- because it's not going to be incurred this year.... When one considers how much your office is going to spend, it's important to know what you spent last year and what you did last year that you won't need to do this year. There was the cost of the campaign to the people of British Columbia encouraging them to vote in a certain manner. There were large brochures produced that gave details of the Charlottetown accord, and there was a series of other brochures that interpreted those arrangements in the eyes of British Columbians in terms of their consequences for B.C. I don't have any problem with that; I just want to find out what the total cost of that campaign was.

Hon. M. Harcourt: None of the Yes campaign costs were paid for from the Premier's office estimates. Some of those costs were under the Minister of Labour, as I pointed out earlier, and some were under the government communications office of Government Services, but none of the Yes campaign expenses were paid for out of the Premier's estimates.

F. Gingell: Accepting then that I can't look at those costs as costs that would have been in your budget last year, but just as a matter of interest -- and I am sure that all members of the House are interested in the cost that was borne by the other ministries -- can you as the Premier advise us how much that was?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I can't. I assumed that those questions could or would have been asked in the estimates of the Minister of Labour, the Attorney General and the minister responsible for government management services. As I said, the amounts I can give you clear information about are those contained in my estimates. I have pointed out the conversion of the eight 

[ Page 7921 ]

people. I've said that because of the less onerous travel requirements from the constitutional negotiations, the cost of travel for the Premier's office has been reduced 28 percent this year.

F. Gingell: Foiled again. We tend to chase this around. It seemed to me that the Premier -- the man who's in charge -- would be in a position to advise us of that cost. I think the people of British Columbia are disappointed. The money is spent, the issue is over, the government did what it believed to be right, and I don't question that in any way. But I think the people of British Columbia would like to know what that number is.

I'm sure there are all kinds of questions on the order paper and questions that have been taken on notice, so perhaps the only opportunity I have at this point is to encourage the Premier so that this number could come out and we could get it dealt with and get it behind us. I would encourage the Premier to follow through on that.

Just coming back to the eight people who were on contract and have been converted to FTEs, can you advise me whether these contractors were hired originally under contract by your government or by the previous administration?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Five of the eight had been hired by the previous government and three by this government.

F. Gingell: Just while we're dealing with these conversions and the very strong recommendations that came from the Korbin commission, I will say that as an accountant I'm all in agreement with processes that create better accountability and a better count. We've had the first preliminary report from the Korbin commission, and we understand certain parts of it have gone to cabinet. Can you advise us, Mr. Premier, if the government is going to issue the Korbin report in one piece, or is it going to come out in dribs and drabs? Are those parts of it that are ready going to be tabled in the House within a very reasonable and short time period?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The first report on the public service will be tabled shortly, and the other report on the public sector will be tabled in the immediate future. So these reports will be coming out separately: one quite quickly, and the other in the near future.

F. Gingell: Just one last question. Which is a shorter time span: shortly, or in the immediate future?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Shortly is more immediate than in the immediate future.

K. Jones: In view of the fact that the Korbin commission has not been tabled before the House, why is the Premier using recommendations from the commission in his responses in the estimates? What type of procedure is this?

Hon. M. Harcourt: We had an interim report in December which very clearly pointed out that a number of people who had been removed, forcibly or otherwise, from the public employ were employees in all of the sense of that, particularly in regard to the federal Income Tax Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act, and that the government had been acting illegally in treating those people as independent contractors. I know that the Leader of the Opposition, as an accountant, is interested in these matters -- I am certainly interested in them as a lawyer -- and is concerned that we do not act illegally as an employer. That is why we have tried to bring the practices of British Columbia in line with the laws of this land.

K. Jones: The Premier is trying to say that an interim report is the actual recommendations of the Korbin commission. Interim reports aren't intended to be the final recommendations; they could vary, certainly, from that. But the Premier was actually stating that he was making this based on the recommendations of the Korbin commission. That would indicate that the Premier is jumping the gun on the announcement to the Legislature of the full recommendations of the Korbin commission and is therefore giving out a portion of the Korbin commission in his estimates today. Is he going to give out more of it later in the estimates if we ask the right question? Are we going to hear some other portion of it from some other minister? Is the whole Korbin commission report -- which the Minister of Finance promised to table within two weeks; the two weeks came due last Thursday -- going to be tabled in this House right now, today, instead of holding off?

Let's get this up front. Who can be believed? Two weeks ago last Friday the Minister of Finance said that he would table the report in this House. The report has still not been tabled. I requested it on Friday in his office, and it has still not come forth. When is it going to be tabled? The hon. Minister of Finance is a truthful person, and I believed he was true to his word that he would bring it forward. I would like to see it here today. If you are going to be referring to it and saying that you are implementing the recommendations, then surely to goodness we should have the whole report before us, not just dribs and drabs.

Hon. M. Harcourt: There are two or three questions and points. First of all, within the first month of the Korbin commission being established, Ms. Korbin dealt with the 2,000 positions, which I described, that were employer-employee positions and clearly within the definitions of the Income Tax Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act. Over the last year, those employees were brought into the public sector to bring us in conformance with the laws of Canada. That's one of the first tasks Judi Korbin and her commission were asked to deal with, and they have done that. Secondly, the Minister of Finance has said that the Korbin report will be coming forth shortly. I understand your impatience and eagerness to see that report. As I've said here in the House, volume 1 dealing with the public service will be available shortly.

[ Page 7922 ]

F. Gingell: Seeing that officials of the B.C. Trade Development Corporation are here, perhaps we should deal with some of those issues so that we can get them dealt with today. If your estimates go over more than one day, it will save them coming back. I'm very glad that this document was tabled today. When the reports are filed it is a great help to us in dealing with these issues and saves us a lot of time. I would have encouraged you to give me a copy before, but I've had a very short time to look at this, and therefore I hope I don't waste your time by asking questions that don't need to be asked.

[3:45]

In 1992 this government set up an amount of $400,000 to establish a program to market the services and expertise of Crown corporations and provincial ministries. Subsequent costs incurred were only $150,000, and you have returned the remaining $250,000 to surplus. Can you tell us briefly what went wrong with the original plan and why the money that had originally been set on one side to follow through on this important function wasn't used for that purpose?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think we're all aware that as a government we take deficit reduction as a very serious goal. Over the fiscal year 1992-93 we were committed to trimming the deficit, given the large size of the deficit that we found after the Peat Marwick review. As a matter of fact, we trimmed $316 million from ministerial estimates last October-November. The federal government felt that it was doing a massive cutback when it chopped $400 million out of the federal budget during that same period, which was the equivalent of B.C. cutting about $3 billion if we had done the same as the federal government.

We took some very substantial measures to reduce the deficit, to cut back on ministerial estimates, and this was one of those areas. We cut $250,000 out of the $400,000 that was set aside so that we could pay down the deficit figures. However, the $150,000 was utilized because the government feels that British Columbians do a number of services extremely well in our Crown corporations, various authorities and agencies, working very closely with the private sector. That position was also taken by the B.C. financial review conducted in February 1992. Peat Marwick and Deloitte Haskins noted that certain branches of government produced goods and services that have an economic value in the marketplace, and that we have a competitive advantage in a number of those areas: health care, education, assessment authorities, B.C. Hydro and others.

As a result of working with the Crown corporations during the last year, from the $150,000 that was remaining we were able to put $75,000 along with other funds to fund the International Geomatics Services Corp., which is a joint-venture company established by B.C. Trade and 23 private sector companies representing the B.C. digital mapping and geographic information systems industry. The corporation combines the expertise and experience of the private sector with essential expertise developed by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. B.C. Trade contributed seed capital and the Trade Corporation's experience in international marketing, finance and trade intelligence. To date, the marketing efforts of that initiative have resulted in proposals that are submitted for projects in Iran and Bolivia.

The remaining $75,000 will be used for other government marketing opportunities as they develop. Examples of opportunities presently being pursued by B.C. Trade include the marketing of the business information centre concept to Trinidad and Tobago, the formation of a fire protection alliance in conjunction with the Ministry of Forests, as well as a project to market land registry systems in some of the former Soviet republics, where it's pretty hard to introduce a market system and private property if you can't identify the property. You can't assess it, and you can't apply a property tax to it. If you don't have the hardware or software to be able to establish land title, it is very difficult for companies to go in and feel that they can put paper against it, mortgage it, describe it and have some security.

So those are some of the areas, as well as the very successful efforts of B.C. Hydro International in a large number of countries to market Crown corporation services.

F. Gingell: Just to go back over this. The original appropriation was $400,000 to market the services and expertise of Crown corporations. In the year ending March 31, 1993, you only spent $15,000. There's $135,000 that is still available for expenditures in this current year, one presumes. So this $75,000 that you spoke about for International Geomatics.... If the $75,000 was expended in the year ending 1993, it wasn't charged to this program; it was charged somewhere else. Can you advise me on where that's charged, or if the expenditure is later than March 31, 1993?

Hon. M. Harcourt: That money is currently being expended; in other words, it was part of that project.

F. Gingell: I know it's not very much, but what program in the 1993 fiscal year was that $15,000 spent on?

Hon. M. Harcourt: That was spent on the development work needed to get the project up and launched. That was the pre-proposal work.

F. Gingell: I take it this is the only one that has actually moved along to a state where you're now in the process of marketing it. Perhaps you could confirm that. Perhaps also you could advise us if the B.C. Trade Development Corporation anticipates any return from this investment in this current year. What kind of returns might you anticipate in future years, if any contracts have been signed?

Hon. M. Harcourt: We're involved with 23 private sector companies that have put forward proposals in Iran and Bolivia. I can't give you the exact details of those proposals because that's all they are right now. We have been encouraged by the response of 

[ Page 7923 ]

the private sector companies. I will be able to furnish you with that information when the proposals are accepted, and we can then see the true extent of those two particular proposals that we're working on in those two countries. With regard to the other projects, they too are advancing.

As I outlined earlier, I understand that the business information centre with Trinidad and Tobago has been purchased and that a contract has been entered into to supply this particular service. Another very exciting area, where B.C. is the best in the world, is fire suppression and fire protection. We have brought an alliance together to market that skill. We're doing that in conjunction with the Ministry of Forests. I think there have been questions about that in the past.

I also described some of the work going forward in some of the former Soviet republics, and I described the reasons why I think it's fundamentally important. In my opinion, B.C. happens to be among the best in the world with our Torrens land registry system and the computerization of public records that people can get with the payment of a small fee. The B.C. Assessment Authority, a market-based assessment authority, is again among the most accurate and best in the world. So is the ability that our municipalities have with respect to the system for tax notices and collections. If you add to that the hardware and software that B.C. Systems Corporation has, it's a very substantial asset that the people of B.C. have. The ability to take that whole concept to a modernizing country like Russia, or to some of the other former republics of the Soviet Union, is a very useful activity. We're not going there to sell a particular kind of software. As a matter of fact, that's the advantage: we're going there to help these countries modernize with something we've perfected here in B.C.

F. Gingell: When this concept was originally developed, there must have been some thoughts in the business plan for it about future revenue streams. What kinds of revenue streams do you think are reasonable from just this first one, International Geomatics, which we've been spending $75,000 on? Do you anticipate some return to this corporation in the current year and perhaps next year? Will it be in the region of recovering the investment? Can you advise what the anticipated returns are?

Hon. M. Harcourt: That's a good question, as to what a trade development corporation should expect to be able to recover in fees, in appraising loan guarantees and in providing services. We've done a study of other trade development corporations in the world, and the best at recovering costs is Hong Kong, which recovers 57 percent of its operating costs. That's with the Hong Kong government giving the trade development corporation the trade and conference centre and the revenues from that. Most export promotions, or trade development corporations, recover between 10 and 15 percent of their total budget from fees and revenue sources like that.

Money invested by the people of British Columbia in working with 23 private sector companies to form a consortium to go into a country with one united presence will bring tremendous benefits, not directly back to the Trade Development Corporation but to the B.C. economy, by those companies getting the contracts and having people employed here in British Columbia providing those services and, in some cases, providing the equipment, which could be manufactured here in British Columbia.

If you're asking about the payback on export promotion in the broader sense, Crown corporations or agencies usually target about 10 to 15 percent of their total budget revenues from fees and other mature sources of revenue.

F. Gingell: I'm afraid we've focused on the wrong question. The issue I'm dealing with is specifically what you call the special program to market the services and expertise of Crown corporations and provincial ministries. I'm not talking about the corporation market development loan fund to assist British Columbia companies to develop export markets; I'm talking about the program to sell the services and expertise of ministries and Crown corporations. With all the investment we've had in the Crown corporations and ministries developing this expertise and the programs, I would presume that we do in fact have something to sell.

[4:00]

As I understand it in this particular case, this program has taken a program and expertise developed in one of the ministries -- I presume the Ministry of Environment -- and packaged it for private enterprise corporations to sell. Surely that will return revenues to the province in excess of the cost of packaging and selling it, because the real cost was incurred in years past when the programs were being developed for use in British Columbia and in government ministries.

Hon. M. Harcourt: The advantage of the approach we're taking is that we're working in partnership with the private sector, not with just a company but with a consortium of the best and brightest companies in British Columbia, to go into a market with one presentation. For example, with the project we're talking about, the International Geomatics Services Corp. proposals have been submitted -- and we hope to hear back soon -- for projects in Iran worth $2 million and projects in Bolivia worth somewhere between $600,000 and $900,000. If those contracts succeed, that consortium then has the ability to go into other countries with a proven track record in those two countries. We will have performed a very useful service of launching them, of giving them an opportunity to get started and of having some success with these initial contracts. As a corporation, B.C. Trade has the ability to help people with international market intelligence, to put these groups of B.C. companies together where there is a market opportunity, to help open the doors for them, and to hopefully have them successfully sign contracts after the proposals are accepted. Then to be able to see them spread their wings and go into other areas of the world is worth the seed money that we put 

[ Page 7924 ]

in to get those contracts, which will then bring money back into the B.C. economy.

F. Gingell: I take it that the International Geomatics package of expertise and skills comes from government ministries and from nowhere else; that this is part of the program to market the services and expertise of Crown corporations and provincial ministries.

Hon. M. Harcourt: This partnership brings the synergy of an expertise that has been developed in the public and private sectors. In other words, a number of companies in British Columbia are world leaders in this area. We also have expertise in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, through the experiences that they have had over the last many years. We can take that experience, combine it with private sector skills and experience -- some of which they developed here in British Columbia working with that ministry -- and now export it to those other countries.

F. Gingell: I'm sorry this is taking so long. The expenditure that we have been discussing is made under special programs appropriations. If you turn to page 18 of the notes to the current financial statements, note 7(b) describes the special programs. That's what I thought we had been discussing.

Hon. M. Harcourt: In the last fiscal year, $15,000 was utilized to do the development work for these proposals. The other $135,000 will now be utilized to carry forward the remainder of the proposal to the contract stage and, hopefully, to launch the contracts in Iran and Bolivia. I think the other $75,000 will be utilized with the mixing and matching that we are getting in being able to use scarce public dollars to trigger other funds from the private sector and from the federal government, with the partnerships we are working out with them. We are also working on export enhancement to trigger contracts that are many more times the modest seed money that B.C. Trade can put in.

The other reason it's important to put in these modest amounts of money is that a lot of these countries' governments want to see that the government of the day in British Columbia has confidence in the participating private sector companies. That confidence is showing up and saying we support these companies; they have a track record here in British Columbia, and it opens doors. Going in with that kind of Good Housekeeping seal of approval of the government makes the process for these companies a lot less tortuous. So we have been able to take that $150,000 and lever a tremendous amount of private sector investment, which we hope will then bring those contracts back into British Columbia.

F. Gingell: Was the decision to reduce the original appropriation from $400,000 to $150,000 part of the decision that I seem to hear you now saying -- that you're going to bring in private enterprise partners in this program -- or was it always contemplated that private enterprise or private corporations would have a role in this marketing of expertise and skills developed by Crown corporations and the ministries?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think there were two processes. One was the cut to budgets that we undertook during the last fiscal year to pay down the deficit, and that process did take place. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition is aware that we changed the Trade Development Corporation's activities because we found a more effective way for our smaller, and in some cases medium-sized, businesses to work. It was not to work individually but together in consortia, in joint ventures, and it was to work in a partnership with the B.C. Trade Development Corporation.

What we can do best is trade intelligence, help to open doors, cut down the costs by putting together groups, cut down the travel costs, accommodation and hosting costs. Then we have the private sector do what they do best, which is to provide the expertise in the goods and services they can provide. In some cases we combine Crown corporations' goods and services with private sector goods and services.

So during the year, as the Trade Corporation was tightened up, its budget was reduced 14 percent. We found better and smarter ways of doing business. We started to move towards taking the engineering consulting businesses in British Columbia and having them work together, for example, in Vietnam, with the backing of B.C. Trade and with links into the Asian Development Bank. We are having some success now in working with the Vietnamese government on the tremendous backlog of infrastructure needs that they have in modernizing their economy.

F. Gingell: The reduction of $250,000 and its return to the equity of the B.C. Trade Development Corporation doesn't do anything for the budget reduction. It has nothing to do with the budget reduction. It's purely and simply a movement of an appropriation back to surplus within the financial statements. The only thing that would have anything to do with a budget reduction, as I understand the financial accounting system of the province, would be a reduction in the amount of the grant from the provincial government to B.C. Trade. It would only be this that would be considered a reduction in expenditures.

Was the grant to B.C. Trade Development Corporation reduced by the $250,000 or any other amount? Can you advise us how the grant changed in the past year?

Hon. M. Harcourt: That $250,000 was returned to the provincial treasury, so the budget was reduced.... B.C. Trade was reduced by $250,000. It was returned to unappropriated equity and then returned to the provincial treasury.

F. Gingell: Okay. As the Premier says, I will take the question on notice. I'm going to have to think about that for a moment.

In addition, there was established in 1991 -- I would presume that would be prior to the change in administration, because these are March 31 year-ends.... An amount was appropriated for the purpose of the market 

[ Page 7925 ]

development loan fund to assist B.C. companies engaged in developing projects for export markets. That fund, in the amount of $500,000, was also cancelled. Where is that particular function being carried out now, and how much money was expended on that kind of work in the past year?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The special programs and the market development loan fund that I talked about totalled $630,000, which is the 14 percent reduction in B.C. Trade Development Corporation's budget that took place during the course of fiscal year 1992-93.

F. Gingell: I take it you're referring to the loan guarantees.

Hon. M. Harcourt: That's another part of the activities of B.C. Trade Development Corporation. During fiscal year 1992-93 we brought in $630,000 in cuts to reduce the operating budget by 14 percent and to reduce the pressure on the provincial treasury so that we could bring down the deficit.

F. Gingell: Of the $630,000 by which you reduced it, $250,000 was taken out of special programs and $500,000 out of market development fund assistance. Seeing as we're already $120,000 over the top, what other reductions were made to make up this total of $630,000?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Expenditure savings during 1992-93 in B.C. Trade were operating and administrative savings and budget reductions of $170,000, the application of funds appropriated for the B.C. international corporation -- that's the $250,000 we spoke about earlier -- and program savings and reductions across the Trade Corporation of $210,000.

[4:15]

F. Gingell: What about the cancellation of this $500,000 in the market development fund to assist British Columbia companies engaged in developing projects?

Hon. M. Harcourt: There are three ways in which the Trade Development Corporation has tried to do its part to help pay down the deficit. First of all, the 1992-93 budget was reduced $1.599 million over 1991-92. During the year, a further $630,000 was cut from the Trade Development Corporation. Thirdly, during the year to date the Trade Corporation achieved further expenditure savings of $91,400 as of June 17, 1993.

F. Gingell: When you speak about the $1.599 million reduction in the expenditures between 1991-92 and 1992-93, how does that reconcile with the fact that the British Columbia Trade Development Corporation's expenditures were $11.914 million for the year ended March 31, 1992, and $14.118 million for '92-93? That is an increase of $2.204 million.

Hon. M. Harcourt: Those were the additional responsibilities I talked about in my opening remarks. They were transferred from the Economic Development ministry to B.C. Trade Corporation, being the international offices. I want to make the reason for those changes as clear as possible. If you have the international offices, the cooperative overseas market development program and Airshow Canada 1993 -- which used to be in the Economic Development ministry and was transferred to the B.C. Trade Development Corporation -- and you compare those two budgets as though they were in B.C. Trade the year before, you would then find that 1 percent increase in the overall budget.

The international offices, which used to be in Economic Development, had a budget allocation of $6.951 million, and the cooperative overseas market development program had a budget of $2.005 million. When you add in the Airshow Canada 1993 budget and subtract the business information centres -- which should be at the local level through Economic Development and the community-based offices we're establishing -- that is a budget of $888,800. The net transfer to B.C. Trade's budget of those functions and added responsibilities was $8.068 million.

F. Gingell: I'd just like to summarize that. In the year 1991-92, they spent a total of $11.914 million for expenses. You add to that the $8.068 million, which is the net of the additional responsibilities and the ones taken out, and you would come to a total of $20 million, all but nothing. You actually spent $14,118,000. So I take it that you reduced the expenditures by almost $6 million?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Just so we're going off of the same piece of information, can you tell me which page in the annual report that I tabled this afternoon you are operating from?

F. Gingell: Page 14.

Hon. M. Harcourt: Okay. As I stated earlier, we cut substantially in the 1992-93 budget compared to the 1991-92 budget. We basically chopped $1.6 million out of that budget. Probably the more accurate comparison would be to add the functions that we received from Economic Development into last year's budget and compare them in this year's budget. That would give you a fairer comparison of how B.C. Trade is operating.

If you look at page 19 in the annual report, you will see that it gives the half-year costs for the nine foreign offices and includes the provincial contributions and other revenues. It shows some of the revenues that the B.C. Trade Development Corporation gains through fee-for-service or the loan guarantee program. If you add those functions that I've talked about -- the three that we received from Economic Development -- to last year and compare it to this year, that gives you a more accurate description of the change in budget, which I said was a 1 percent increase this year over last year.

[ Page 7926 ]

L. Stephens: I'd like to talk a little about the overseas trade offices that were taken from Economic Development, Small Business and Trade and moved over to the B.C. Trade Development Corporation. I'd like to know whether or not there have been any substantial changes in their mandates and programs. Have there been any significant changes at all since the transfer?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Yes, there have been some substantial changes in the operation of those offices, based on an internal review by the executive and the board of B.C. Trade. The decision was to get out of the diplomatic business and into export promotion, to work very closely with the Canadian government and our embassies and legations abroad, and essentially go to a leaner, more result-oriented series of offices. To that end, we and the board have adopted the policy -- and it's being implemented over the next few months -- of having three continental headquarters: one in London for Europe; two here in Vancouver for the Americas; and three in Asia, with a Tokyo office. The other offices are being changed to economic and trade and investment promotion offices, with local contractors who will be able, in their contracts, to deal with their own housing and office expenditures.

One of the problems with these offices if they're set up as junior embassies is that in a number of centres they're very costly. We think we can get better performance for less cost to the taxpayers out of people who have very specific contracts and targets for what they're expected to do there. For example, in Tokyo we discovered when we took over that the cost of accommodation for the British Columbia agent general was about $400,000 a year; it was very expensive. We think that the cost of the office, although it's located in the embassy -- and it's a magnificent embassy in Tokyo; you can't find a better combination.... In certain other areas we'd be better off to have local business people, local trade-related people who know those markets, pick up the costs of their accommodation, the schooling for their children, their annual leave and the cost of office accommodation. We can get far better performance for a lower cost.

That's the direction we're going in, and the changeover of the offices in Munich, Korea, Taipei, Hong Kong and Southeast Asia will be to that concept. As we see new market opportunities -- as we do in Mexico, Chile, Argentina and other centres -- and they justify having a presence in those areas, then we will look at similar types of arrangements.

L. Stephens: I certainly support a privatized form of the operation of the trade offices. We're all aware of the costs associated with running organizations, and we have to cut costs as much as possible. I think we would support that move.

[4:30]

I'd like to talk a little about the office in Osaka that was opened on your last trip. One of the stated objectives was that the Kansai area will be experiencing some significant growth -- something like $300 billion in investment expenditures is coming up in that area, including the international airport, Transport Osaka, Osaka Bay development area, Kansai Science City and the Osaka domed stadium. I wonder if the office has been there for sufficient time to bring some benefits to business in British Columbia, whether or not any British Columbia businesses have been able to access contracts in some of those areas from the Osaka office in particular, and whether or not there have been some substantial benefits to the province.

[M. Farnworth in the chair.]

Hon. M. Harcourt: The office activities will start after July 1. Wilf Wakely, who will be our trade officer in the Kansai area, is going to be on the ground in July locating his family and looking at some of the very creative office arrangements you can arrive at with the greater independence he will have: sharing office space; having people who would like to have the B.C. trade official in their space and giving them good market lease arrangements. Even though it doesn't physically exist right now, the office got off to a very successful start at our recent visit in April. Over 30 companies from British Columbia were in attendance at a trade and investment forum that the Trade Development Corporation put on in Osaka. The Osaka trade officials and the consul general for Canada thought we would maybe have 200 to 250 Japanese business leaders attend the afternoon function and reception following it. Over 500 attended. They had never had such a successful economic forum. No other government had had that kind of success. For a series of reasons, there was huge interest in British Columbia.

The other reason for the success is that the audio-visual presentation was done, by and large, in Japanese. We can now use this elsewhere as a very attractive centerpiece, along with Robert Davidson's mask of the eagle, in opening up British Columbia's opportunities. Six of the speakers focused on food and agricultural products, housing components, manufactured homes, knowledge-based industries, tourism and other areas of opportunity. The airport for the Kansai area which will be opening shortly is quite technically breathtaking. It cost $12 billion. The Japanese government picked up 87 percent of that. It was built four kilometres out into the sea. That airport is going to open up some tremendous new opportunities for Canadian Airlines, Air Canada and others when it opens next summer.

Three of the six British Columbia speakers spoke fluent Japanese. Our trade representative, Wilf Wakely, is not only fluent in Japanese but is also fluent in the Kansai dialect, which is quite different from that of Tokyo. He is married to a woman from a very old and respected family from Kyoto. We think that we have developed some tremendous opportunities in the Kansai area, which has about 23 million people directly but opens out into 60 million citizens in the western and southern parts of Japan.

L. Stephens: So July is sort of the kickoff date for this new office to be open for business, so to speak, to facilitate British Columbia business and the Japanese market getting together, and it is going to be part of the 

[ Page 7927 ]

programs that will be initiated in much the same way as the other trade offices.

You spoke a little bit about the Latin American countries. I know B.C. Trade has now focused somewhat on Latin America. I wonder what the extent of that focus is, what countries are being particularly targeted and in what areas we feel that we could do business with these countries. Is it in telecommunications, transportation, infrastructure, or high technology? In what areas would we be looking to form some kind of trade relationship with the Latin American countries?

Hon. M. Harcourt: You are right. We are starting to work very actively in Mexico and Central and South America. This is a result of our discussions with the Mexican Ambassador, the trade minister and others, both here and in meetings in Davos, Switzerland, at the World Economic Forum. At that forum this year I was also able to meet with President Menem of Argentina and his ministers, who invited British Columbians to participate in Argentina.

As well, I met with the Ambassador of Chile and the consul general here. They are very enthusiastic about working with British Columbia in a variety of areas, whether it be in forestry equipment, mining expertise and equipment, hydroelectric and energy projects, knowledge-based technology. And there's a growing tourism market from Mexico into B.C. As a matter of fact, on the slopes of Whistler and in other areas of B.C. there is now a significant number of middle-class and wealthy Mexicans who are looking for safe, beautiful, enjoyable places to come to vacation, and they're coming to B.C. To that end, Wilson Parasiuk and Oksana Exell have been working with a number of business people here in B.C. to put together a trade association with Mexico headed by Wendy McDonald of B.C. Bearing, who has company offices in Mexico.

There are other opportunities for us in these countries. Mr. Parasiuk has just returned from a visit to those three countries and Brazil to work with members of the private sector and some of the Crown corporations on the growing trade opportunities that are presenting themselves. Now, they're not immediate or around the corner, but there are certainly tremendous opportunities for British Columbians in Mexico and Central and South America.

L. Stephens: You talked briefly about the strategic alliances that have been formed with a number of other countries and businesses in B.C. and internationally. In speaking with Latin American counties -- and Mexico in particular -- is this the same kind of format that you will be using in reaching out to industry in other countries to form strategic alliances?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Yes, we think this is an innovative way to proceed -- by combining the B.C. Trade Development Corporation, the Premier and other ministries, going as "Team B.C.," if you want to put it that way, with the best we've got in B.C. in the areas where we are a world leader, such as environmental technology, engineering services, telecommunications, transportation, subsea vehicles and computer software. Going into a market like Vietnam or Bolivia with a number of companies, or into Iran with the Geomatics team, gives tremendous clout. We don't have companies going in individually, competing against each other and, quite frankly, confusing the business and government leaders you're dealing with. You take your best talent and mesh them, and have them drop in and out depending on the particular project. We find that going in with this consortia approach, in partnership with B.C. Trade, a Crown corporation or a government ministry, is a tremendous new way to lay down long-term relationships that don't come and go month to month, year to year. So we are expanding that.

We have something like 12 different marketing alliances which include over 400 of B.C. Trade's clients. I'll just give you an example of those alliances: the B.C. Food Marketing Council, which is a very large group; and the B.C. Environmental Technology Supplier Group, which, for example, is now dealing with the cleanup at the Hanford site in Washington State -- somewhere between $50 billion and $60 billion worth of contract work. There is also the B.C. Wood Specialties Group of companies like Primex, Merit Kitchens, Panabode and others, a significant and growing group moving more and more into value-added wood products. One of B.C. Trade's excellent staff put together a display that we took throughout Japan to show B.C. value-added products. In Tokyo, half a million people went by this display in six days. So we're working with them.

We're working, as I said, with the Digital Mapping Group, in two countries, and Geodetic Pacific Surveys. Another consortium is the Western Canadian Wood Machinery and Service Export Association. Other groups are Canadian Wood Technologies Group; the Western Canada Marine Group, which is looking at providing ferry construction services because of the success we're having here in British Columbia in building the superferries and other innovations that have come out of that; the Medical Devices Group; the Canada Health Initiative; the British Columbia Accelerator Technology Supplier Group, for the accelerator in Texas; and the Asia Marketing Group. So yes, we are proceeding with a leaner, more effective trade office approach and moving into consortia and joint ventures in the private sector, with the public sector playing an appropriate role where we can be helpful.

L. Stephens: The trade initiatives fund was set up from the $30 million that was available from the B.C. Endowment Fund to go into a merchant banking proposal. What investments have been made through that trade initiative fund in this past year?

Hon. M. Harcourt: We're moving slowly and carefully with this proposal, because we don't want to duplicate what is happening in the private sector. We have reduced that $30 million to $10 million and renamed the fund the export initiative fund, because the trade initiatives fund conflicted with the name used by a very successful company here in British Columbia, the Ventures West B.C. technology investment fund -- 

[ Page 7928 ]

TIF. The $20 million was transferred to the ministry's merchant banking initiative. It is the Finance ministry's initiative to be involved in assisting merchant banking activities in British Columbia to expand. We are putting the final proposal together as to how the export initiative fund will operate, and we hope to have it operational this fall.

L. Stephens: Are there any policies or initiatives you would be able to tell the committee about that will be coming forward under the export initiative fund?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The focus of the Trade Development Corporation is small and medium-sized companies. We find that most major private companies have the ability and have been marketing their products and services on the world market for a long time -- except for a push here and there, as we are doing in Europe to deal with the attack on our $2 billion-a-year forest products industry, for example. It's important for us to work with industry there to beat back some of the misconceptions and misinformation about British Columbia. By and large, except for those instances, our focus at B.C. Trade is on the small and medium-sized businesses that can benefit from consortia and the market intelligence that B.C. Trade has -- its ability to give advice on sculpting marketing plans for a particular country or a region of a country, and to potential customers; and to help put together the trade presentation and facilitate the deal.

[4:45]

The $10 million.... How it will operate is hard to predict, because that will depend to a large extent on the ingenuity of the small and medium-sized business people we will be asking to put proposals in so we can help them out. The three areas we are putting most of the emphasis on are the value-added forestry sector, the small high-tech companies and the food processing companies, whether it's agriculture or fisheries.

L. Stephens: Would that be part of the flexible networks that have been set up to assist small and medium-sized companies with marketing strategies, allowing those companies to have greater economies of scale when they are trying to penetrate export markets or markets within British Columbia, or is it particularly a provincially focused program?

Hon. M. Harcourt: They may connect. What we would be doing with companies that are moving into the export market for the first time and may need some leverage to get into a joint venture with somebody else; that have a good proposal but need the ability to secure investment from some other source; that don't have a track record at a commercial bank but have a good product.... Those are the kinds of people we're looking for. They could then join a consortium, or they may already be a member of one. But to get in and be a player, they need this kind of equity partner.

L. Stephens: I have a couple more questions. One is about the export training and counselling the corporation is involved in through the British Columbia Institute for Studies in International Trade. I understand that this is a new service the corporation is offering. I wonder what some of the programs might be and what the objectives of the institute are.

Hon. M. Harcourt: This is on page 6 of the report I tabled for B.C. Trade for 1992-93, which was just ready today to be tabled. I tabled it at the earliest possible convenience. I would have liked to have got it to you a couple of days earlier so you would have had a chance to view it.

The B.C. Institute for Studies in International Trade is described on page 6 of that report. It was launched in the fall of 1992 to give export-minded individuals and firms the job-related skills and the smarts needed to be involved internationally. It's a very pragmatic institute. It was co-founded by B.C. Trade and the Asian Development Business Seminar Society. It is a private organization guided by a private sector board of directors. The courses there are taught by experienced mentors, if you want to use that word -- people in the private sector who have succeeded in export and trade matters. It does fill a gap of knowledge that people require.

It is supplemented by another program, in which B.C. Trade works very closely with the Asia Pacific Foundation to give people who want to go into Japan, Korea or China skills in understanding the culture, the business practices, the language, the traditions and the market situation. B.C. Trade has links to these other organizations that are expanding B.C.'s capability to be a major international player, particularly in the Asia-Pacific.

L. Stephens: One final question on the merchant banking aspect: how is the merchant banking program through B.C. Trade Corporation set up? Is it in partnership with the Asian Development Bank?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The merchant banking proposal that you're talking about is not within B.C. Trade's mandate; it is within the responsibilities of the Finance minister. I understand that the Finance minister is talking to the merchant banking community about the appropriate role the province can play.

J. Weisgerber: I'd like to ask a few questions of the Premier about his trade junkets. Shortly after the 1991 election -- almost immediately after the election, as I recall -- the Premier went to Asia. While he was in Asia, the Premier promised a few things to potential investors, one of them being, as I recall, no new taxes. The other was that when questioned about his government's approach to labour policy, the Premier advised groups that his government didn't contemplate any labour legislation changes. When the Premier came back to B.C. after that first trip abroad, he went almost immediately from the airport to the B.C. Federation of Labour convention to reassure them that his government intended to bring in changes to the Labour Code. The world is certainly small enough now that this was relayed back very quickly, and people were aware 

[ Page 7929 ]

that the Premier was saying one thing in Asia and another in B.C.

It wasn't long before the Premier's Minister of Finance introduced his first budget, which had a host of new taxes and clearly revealed an anti-business bias on the part of the government. Subsequently the Legislature was called back last fall to introduce the changes to the Labour Code that the Premier had promised to the B.C. Federation of Labour, even though only shortly before he had promised potential investors in Asia that no such legislation would be introduced. Recognizing that the Premier had seriously damaged his own reputation abroad and seriously undermined the confidence that potential investors had in his government, many British Columbians felt that after that rather disastrous first trip abroad the Premier might well save the taxpayers some money and simply stay home.

Could the Premier give us some details of his international trips? I know that he's been to Europe; I know that he's been to the United States and back to Asia. I'm curious to know how he was received. More importantly -- because I'm sure that the Premier will tell me he was very well received and that these were very productive trips -- perhaps the Premier could also give us some specific examples of the results he was able to achieve on those trips.

Hon. M. Harcourt: As the Leader of the Third Party is probably aware, I have done that. I made a ministerial statement on May 3, when I returned from my investment and trade mission to Japan, Korea, China and Hong Kong. At that time I described for the Legislature a number of very specific initiatives that had successfully been concluded or were advanced during that visit.

Just to recap, I said that we were able to sit down with the principals of Nippon Cable and to conclude an agreement for a 50-year lease on Tod Mountain. As a start, that will result in $50 million worth of investment in a magnificent new four-seasons resort that will be of tremendous benefit to the people of British Columbia and particularly to those in the Kamloops area. People will not have to freeze going up that cold, two-person chair that used to exist, because it's going to be replaced this year by Nippon Cable with a high-speed quad chair with a cover. They are opening up that wonderful resource, Tod Mountain, to the people of British Columbia, and their reputation will bring more visitors from Japan and other areas in Asia.

In China I was able to meet a number of the leaders in Beijing, including the Vice-Premier of China, Zhu Rongji, who was the first major Chinese leader to come back to Canada, visiting here a few weeks ago. I met a number of other Chinese leaders, including ministers, vice-ministers and top officials in the China International Trade and Investment Corporation (CITIC) and Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation (MOFTEC).

While in Guangzhou in Guangdong province, I was able to take advantage of the personal relationships that I had built up over a number of years with the Chinese leaders. The Governor of Guangdong, which is a province of 63 million people and the administrative centre for 200 million Chinese in the southern part of China, was the mayor of Guangzhou when I was mayor of Vancouver. We were able to sign a memorandum of understanding between British Columbia and Guangdong province enabling British Columbia public and private sector companies to participate in a number of major infrastructure projects. B.C. Hydro is pursuing the energy projects. With the Vancouver International Airport and others, we are pursuing the two major airport projects that the people in Guangdong province are going to launch. One of them is an airport in Guangzhou that will service 60 million people a year, the size of LA-X. There are a number of other projects that we included in that memorandum of understanding.

In Hong Kong I was able to conclude an agreement with Valles Steamships that will bring that flagship shipping company, if I can use that expression, into the International Maritime Centre here in British Columbia. This was possible because we worked out a new agreement with the federal government on what core staff a shipping company could bring here and removed some of the impediments that those shipping companies used to face. So Valles is going to be coming here, and we think a number of other shipping companies will soon follow.

While I was in Korea, I was able to put a proposal before SDS, which is a very rapidly growing, major high-tech company in Korea. They have had a very interesting relationship with MPR and another high-tech company here in British Columbia at Simon Fraser University, and have agreed to look at establishing their North American base here in B.C.

So those are just some of the examples, aside from what I described earlier of what occurred in Osaka and some of the activities that took place in Tokyo, which I described in my report to the Legislature a few weeks ago. The hon. member calls them junkets. I call them essential activities for a Premier and, on top of that, the minister responsible for B.C. Trade. I didn't hear the member use those terms when he was in government and his Premier and ministers went to visit their major customers. As a matter of fact, he probably didn't use it for Japan, because until my visit, no Premier had visited Japan for four years. It is our best customer in Asia. I don't think you'd sell many cars or much lumber or coal if you didn't visit your best customers and show more enthusiasm for their purchase of our products. There hadn't been a Premier's visit to Korea -- our second major customer in Asia -- for nine years.

I can go into some other missions I've taken that were clearly targeted and had very specific purposes, which were to increase B.C.'s economy and increase investment and trade. But I think I've given a flavour of the success we were able to realize on my last visit to Asia and some of the follow-up that will occur on a wide variety of initiatives -- all told, 35 to 40. There have been similar aggressive, targeted approaches by the Premier -- and the private sector went along with me -- to the $1 trillion market in Washington, Oregon and California, and on my visit to Europe.

[5:00]

[ Page 7930 ]

J. Weisgerber: At the time the Premier made his ministerial statement, I thought that he was stretching it a bit on the Tod Mountain issue. It had been announced so many times that it was starting to wear a bit thin. As I listened to the recital of accomplishments, I am reminded of a salesman who has had a very poor month, trying to report a sale from last month and some very good prospects he might develop during the current month -- albeit not having made a sale.

It seems to me that it's very much what one would anticipate after the first trip by the Premier to Asia. Those people in British Columbia familiar with that market were convinced that the Premier would be cordially received on subsequent visits, as befits his office, but that there would be an enormous amount of suspicion because of broken commitments made by the Premier on his first trip. Although the Premier paints a picture of a number of contacts that he has made, there is no question that those initial commitments that weren't kept in Asia have caused the Premier and his government a pretty serious loss of credibility. I wonder if the Premier has any plans to send some other trade ambassadors over there -- perhaps some people who could take a fresh look and bring some fresh credibility with them to try and re-establish those markets.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think the success of a number of these cooperative missions speaks for itself. Quite frankly, it's not up to the Premier to sell the goods and services of the entrepreneurs in British Columbia; it's up to the entrepreneurs to do that. What I can do is help open doors. I can let people in Asia know that these are valued members of our business communities who have a track record. We can help put on receptions and trade seminars and introduce our business community to the top leaders, who are going to be their customers and will maybe go into joint ventures together in China on some of those megaprojects.

Their role, my role and the government's role is very clear. We're not manufacturing wood products or making coal or being tourism resort operators, but we can go in partnership with those entrepreneurs, and we have. In my first visit to Japan over 60 B.C. companies were in Tokyo for B.C. Week. In the latest visit, over 50 private sector companies went with me to Asia into new market opportunities in Osaka and the southern and western part of the Japan that either hadn't been prospected before or had been ignored by the previous government.

Korea, our number two customer, hadn't had a visit from the Premier for nine years. I don't think that's acceptable. For a Premier, where 60 percent of our trade is Asia-Pacific-based, to not meet the leadership in those countries is irresponsible. As the Leader of the Third Party knows, personal relationships are very important in Asia. I talked person-to-person with some of the Asian leaders the member has mentioned about the very difficult financial situation and mess we inherited from the previous government and how we intended to deal with it, and about the very straightforward ground rules I laid down while I was in opposition and as Premier: you are welcome to invest and come and do business in British Columbia if you pay your fair share of taxes, treat your employees fairly and don't mess up the environment. Those rules are still there. We made commitments to bring in fair labour laws and to have taxation based on ability to pay instead of punitive taxes that shifted the burden onto middle-income people and small business, and away from those who had the ability to pay. That shift under the previous government was addressed in our budgets, as well as helping to pay down the deficit.

I had a frank discussion with a number of leaders in Asia about the steps being taken by this government to pay down the deficit and our commitment to doing that. We have paid it down 35 percent in the last two years. Instead of letting it climb, as it was under the previous government, up to $4 billion and over -- way beyond the means of the people of British Columbia -- we brought it down. We brought the deficit down more than any other government in Canada, aside from Saskatchewan, and we are going to bring it down even further. We are going to do it in a balanced and measured way. When I explained that to some of the leaders in Hong Kong, China, Korea and Japan, they understood the challenges that we faced. They still didn't like the corporate capital tax and certain aspects of the balanced and fair labour law that we brought in, but they understood the circumstances that we faced.

J. Weisgerber: I think the Premier correctly says that personal relationships in Asia are important. I guess one could say that personal relationships are important everywhere, so I'm not quite sure what that particular focus is. Equally important in Asia and British Columbia is keeping your word. Those people in Asia will recall -- and they remember -- the fact that the Premier went there in the fall of 1991 and made commitments and promises to them, and didn't keep them. I would suggest that the province would have been better served by a Premier who stayed home and dealt with the issues that we are facing as government. The Premier would have served this province far better by being here, establishing and developing some confidence in his government and in his government's ability to manage the economy.

Previous Premiers didn't trek off to Asia and Europe at every opportunity. They were here in British Columbia building an economy that was growing, keeping tax rates low and indeed keeping the debt in control. Perhaps when the Premier was in Asia talking to them about reducing the annual deficit, he explained to them as well that when his government took office the province was about $5 billion in debt, and that by the end of this fiscal year it will be $10 billion in debt. Perhaps he will explain to them why his government has borrowed $3 billion in each of its two fiscal years, including the current one. If the Premier is proud of having incurred more debt in two budgets than every other government combined since Confederation, then I expect he would be a pretty good salesman if he could take that package of information out and at the same time convince people that he's managing an economy they should want to buy into. But I suspect that he didn't. I suspect that the amount of borrowing by government was glossed over, if it was even mentioned.

[ Page 7931 ]

I'm surprised that the Premier would try to suggest to this House or to his potential customers in Asia that he had in fact controlled government deficits and government spending. Nothing could be further from the truth. As much as the Premier would like to justify his labour legislation to his own constituents, the reality is that he told business people and potential investors in Asia that there would be no significant changes to the labour code in British Columbia. He simply did not keep his word on that issue. I'm surprised that the Premier would try to paint that issue as being something other than it is. The globe is too small for the Premier. I thought he would have learned by now that you can't move from one side of the world to the other telling different versions of the same story and expect people not to sit down and compare stories. I've no doubt that it has been discussed.

I suspect that there may be some benefit to going out from time to time to tell people about the tremendous opportunities that exist in British Columbia. This is an outstanding jurisdiction in which to invest and do business. I also suspect that the Premier would recognize that he has a responsibility to manage this economy and the government's involvement in it, and that what investors are looking for is stability in government, fair tax regimes and a commitment by the Premier to continue building an attractive investment climate here in B.C. I suggest that the Premier and his government have failed miserably in that regard. Increased debt, increased cost of government and the policies that have been brought down over the last year and during the current year are not aimed at building economic confidence, and I'm surprised that the Premier would have the temerity to suggest that this is the situation today.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I would like to request a short break so that I can come back and address in some comfort the points that have been made by the Leader of the Third Party.

J. Weisgerber: Sorry to trouble you.

Hon. M. Harcourt: No, it didn't trouble me at all. A lot of water has been consumed during the last three hours.

The Committee recessed at 5:13 p.m.

The Committee resumed at 5:15 p.m.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'll attempt to restrict my comments to the Premier's estimates and his responsibility as the minister responsible for B.C. Trade. I will say, though, that we have taken a far more hard-nosed look at the amounts that were being utilized by Premiers in previous governments when they were involved in trade activities. After I was sworn in as Premier on November 5, 1991, one of the responsibilities I had was for B.C. Week in Tokyo. I found that $1.2 million had been set aside for that. I asked my officials to take a look at that, because it was a very large sum of money in very difficult financial times. Two or three weeks prior to going, we were able to cut the expenditure from $1.2 million to $840,000. So we were able to reduce that budget quite substantially and still have a very effective B.C. Week in Japan at the Canadian Embassy.

As well, I understood that in 1989 the predecessor of my predecessor budgeted $800,000 for attending Davos, and the next year $300,000 was budgeted for Davos. That basically went into hospitality and hosting. When I was there I saw that it was not necessary to spend that amount of money for what is essentially the top information-gathering forum and the ability to meet the world's leaders in business, finance and government. So the amount for Davos was reduced to $30,000, basically to cover travel, accommodation and a few other modest activities, such as targeted breakfasts, lunches and meetings.

I think we have been quite frugal with the taxpayers' money, given the way money was being utilized before. When we came in we recognized that the financial situation was going to be difficult. We didn't realize until after I had returned from my visit to Asia just how difficult it was, because the previous government had misled the people of British Columbia quite a bit about the state of the deficit. They had not told people that we were $26 billion in debt, that $22.5 billion of that had been chalked up by the previous Social Credit government, that it was escalating at an alarming rate and that expenditures were climbing at 10 to 12 percent a year. There was just no way that was sustainable.

Peat Marwick and Deloitte Haskins gave us that information in mid-February, and it was indeed a shocking state of affairs that the $400 million deficit we were supposed to have was really $2.4 billion and climbing. The state of the books was there to be seen by mid-February. When we made that first visit to the Asia-Pacific, neither I nor the government had contemplated some of the tax measures we had to introduce to stem the red ink. But the extent of the financial difficulties that had been hidden by the previous government became apparent, and we dealt with them. When I spoke to visitors from Asia and when I went back to Asia, I said that we were not going to accept deficit financing or overexpenditure; we were not going to mislead the people about the state of the books, as the previous government had done. I think that it's important to lay that out to investors; I did. I also said that we would bring in fair labour laws, because Bill 19 was an unfair bill that needed to be replaced. That was a commitment we made during the election campaign.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order!

Hon. M. Harcourt: We said we would do it with full consultation.

I made those statements to investors then, and I make them now: "Yes, we are interested in investment." It's up 6 percent. "We are interested in trade." It's expanding very rapidly into the Asia-Pacific. "We welcome domestic or international investors if they 

[ Page 7932 ]

follow the three basic rules that I laid down: treat your employees fairly, pay your fair share of taxes and don't mess up the environment."

J. Weisgerber: I'm never quite sure whether the Premier is genuinely confused or just trying to weave a bit of a web. The reality is that when his government took office in British Columbia both the direct and guaranteed debt was under $20 billion. According to the budget today, it will be $26 billion; that's where the $26 billion comes from. It comes because your government has added $6 billion to the debt of this province -- $6 billion for which there are no identifiable assets, $6 billion that has been borrowed simply to cover the day-to-day operating costs of a government that sees its budget expanding much faster than its revenues. I never know for sure, and perhaps the people in Asia wonder: is he genuinely mixed up about these things, or does he come here and tell us what he thinks we want to hear?

It's pretty clear that the statements made by the Premier are not supported by the work done by the auditor general. It's clear that this debt is being increased at an alarming rate. To try to convince British Columbians and foreign or domestic investors that the government is somehow coming to grips with the deficit and debt in this province is simply irresponsible. It ignores the fact that the government has grown at an alarming rate. Expenditures are up from $17.2 billion in '91-92 to $19 billion this year, at a time when government revenues are falling. That is an increase of $2 billion a year, and there's an increase in social welfare costs of $900 million a year. To try to convince anyone on this globe that this is prudent management of the province just begs the Premier's understanding of the communication system in this world. People are aware of these issues. Asian investors have contacts here in B.C. They know what's going on here on a day-to-day basis, and they don't like it any more than British Columbians do.

I think the Premier would do far better and make a far greater contribution to relations with investors and to the well-being of this province if he were to stay home, get the costs of government under control, start to stimulate some activity and generate some revenues. People understand that public sector wage costs are going up at three times the rate they are in the private sector. People understand that this government has added 2,800 new bureaucrats since it took office. People in Asia, eastern Canada and around the world understand the management strategies and the lack of discipline here and in Ontario, and that has scared the wits out of voters in Alberta. There aren't many secrets. People understand what's happening in B.C. The Premier would serve the people of this province far better by recognizing the difficulties that his administration has incurred and making a commitment to deal with some of them.

I had decided deliberately not to try to identify specific costs, because I understand that with the Premier's insistence that the Trade Development Corporation come under his ministerial responsibilities, there is a great opportunity to move costs around and put some of them with the B.C. Trade Development Corporation, some with his own office, others with various other Crown corporations and still other expenses with various ministries. Can the Premier give an overall accounting, seeing as he wants to talk about expenditures, of government staff and Crown corporation staff on these trips both to Asia and to Europe?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I can account, and I'm quite prepared to do that, for the Premier's estimates and those of cabinet operations and the B.C. Trade Development Corporation. I'm sure the member and his caucus have canvassed a number of these other items with the ministers who are responsible for the other Crown corporations and ministries. I can describe the costs of the missions that I have undertaken over the last 20 months.

The one dated November 15 to 24, 1991, to Japan, China and Hong Kong cost the Premier's estimates and budget $30,000. The visit to New York, London and Davos January 22 to February 4, 1992, cost $81,000. The one to California from October 4, to October 6, 1992, with 30 private sector companies, was $17,000. The one to Davos and Brussels, to the European Parliament, from January 26 to February 5, 1993, was $30,000. The recent visit to Japan, China, Hong Kong and Korea from April 16 to May 1, 1993, was $213,000, and over 50 private sector companies came along. The major investment there was in Osaka when we put on the business forum, where over 500 Japanese business leaders came to meet a number of our entrepreneurs and business people who were along. Those costs are directly under the Premier, being the minister responsible for B.C. Trade. They included the costs of the chair of B.C. Trade as well as of one of my staff people, Mr. Andy Orr, who came along to assist in the visits.

J. Weisgerber: While the Premier seemed to have a great deal of detail about the expenses of the former government -- I'm sure they were spread across a number of ministries as well -- and to have those expenses very well catalogued, unfortunately he didn't come to the estimates with a similar comparison for his own activities. I think the selective figures he has provided simply underline just how accurate the argument that I make is.

[5:30]

I'd like to talk with the Premier about some specifics of the management of B.C. Trade Corporation. It's a relatively small corporation -- or it certainly was under the previous administration -- so that the Trade Corporation board was chaired by various cabinet ministers who received no compensation at all. Could the Premier tell us whether there have been significant changes in staffing at the corporation since he took over responsibility for it?

Hon. M. Harcourt: We dealt with the staffing of B.C. Trade Development Corporation last year, and the only significant change is the transfer of the three operations from the Economic Development ministry 

[ Page 7933 ]

dealing with the international office, the cooperative overseas market development program and the Airshow.

J. Weisgerber: Would the Premier also confirm that the current chairman's salary is roughly $150,000 a year, plus bonuses?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The salary, to be exact, is $155,000.

J. Weisgerber: The Premier didn't indicate whether or not there was a bonus clause in the contract. In some of the research I did, I was led to believe that there was in fact a bonus clause, but I wasn't able to get any details on the specifics of the clause. Could the Premier perhaps tell me whether there was a bonus earned last year, and if there was, what it was. Could he provide us with some details on how the bonus is structured and calculated?

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Hon. M. Harcourt: We canvassed this last year. I released all the contracts of the CEOs of the Crown corporations last year. That information is public and has been for a significant length of time. Just to recap, I can say that Mr. Parasiuk is paid $155,000, which is in the middle range of Crown corporation chief executive officers.

The member is aware that in 1989 the Wyatt Co. was commissioned by the previous government to report on remuneration and benefits of Crown CEOs, particularly in light of similar salaries in the private sector, and to report back with recommendations. The Wyatt report's recommendations were that Crown corporations CEOs are paid well below private sector equivalents, both in terms of the base salary and total compensation. The Wyatt report also suggested that 1989 CEO salaries for 12 Crown corporations and other government agencies were, on average, 38 percent lower than salaries for equivalent positions in the private sector. As well, I can tell the member that they went on to say that there is no provision for incentive compensation. I can tell you that there is no bonus provision.

The key thing to remember about that provision is that we have specifically not paid out that bonus. The previous government had Wyatt do this study and look at the compensation levels for the CEOs and the other top executives. That provision has not been exercised by this government.

J. Weisgerber: I'm not sure of the answer. What I heard was that there is no bonus, but that we didn't pay anything out under the bonus system that exists. So I assume the real answer is that, yes, there is a bonus system.

Hon. M. Harcourt: A bonus clause.

J. Weisgerber: A bonus clause, if you like. I accept the Premier's word that there hasn't been a payment made in the past year on it.

Perhaps he could give us a sense of how someone in a corporation like the B.C. Trade Corporation would go about earning a bonus. Usually there are some pretty specific and measurable goals and achievements that have to be met. I'm not going to take anything away from the current chairman, but I just don't think it's a business that lends itself very well to that kind of pay scale.

Again, I'm never sure whether the Premier is genuinely confused or not. Surely he understands that Mr. Parasiuk is the chairman and that you have another full-time chief executive officer paid a surprisingly different range of pay, as a matter of fact. The reality is that Crown corporations -- even the ones as large as B.C. Hydro and B.C. Rail, which are many tens of times larger than the B.C. Trade Corporation -- with the last government at least, had part-time chairs tha were paid a small honorarium and a per diem for the days that they attended and chaired the corporation's meetings. That is particularly true with B.C. Rail. On reflection, I think the most recent chairman of B.C. Hydro had both positions of chair and chief executive officer and dealt with two sets of responsibilities. Perhaps the Premier can confirm that the report he refers to deals with chief executive officers and not with chairmen of Crown corporations.

Hon. M. Harcourt: Mr. Parasiuk is not only the chair, he is also the CEO. He is working full time at this position after coming from the private sector. He has 24 years of experience in international trade and international trade-related issues, and frankly could be -- and was -- making significantly more in the private sector. Mr. Parasiuk is performing a double role as chair and CEO and travels extensively with our business leaders and on occasion with me when I go on a trade mission. He is very active in developing new markets and new market opportunities that we then prospect further with the business community, as he recently did in Mexico, Chile, Argentina and Brazil. The chief operating officer is Oksana Exell, who has an excellent reputation and background in the public and private sectors and takes care of the day-to-day operations of the Trade Development Corporation. I think we are well served by the two top staff at B.C. Trade, Wilson Parasiuk and Oksana Exell.

J. Weisgerber: We seem to have a great deal of difficulty getting around to the bonus clause. I'm curious to know how the bonus is measured. The Premier has now told us that a bonus wasn't paid last year. I'm curious to know under what circumstances a bonus would be paid and the potential of that bonus. Is there a cap? Is there a limit to the amount that Mr. Parasiuk can earn as a bonus in addition to his $155,000 annual salary?

Hon. M. Harcourt: As in most of the Crown corporation CEO provisions, there is a bonus clause, but it has never been exercised. It has not been fleshed out in the way the member is talking about with detailed criteria as to why the bonus should be paid. It has stayed dormant, because it hasn't been exercised.

[ Page 7934 ]

F. Gingell: While we're on this issue, I'd like to deal with it, so we don't have to come back to it later. Are you saying that nothing has been accrued in the accounts for the year ended March 31, 1993 -- i.e., it's been set up, but it hasn't been paid yet?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm saying that there is no detailed performance bonus provision in the contract. There was a general clause put in there in case such a detailed provision was put into operation. So there is no accrual owing for last year, and there is no specific provision for an incentive or performance bonus for this year.

F. Gingell: The financial statements for B.C. Trade Development Corporation having been completed for the year ended March 31, 1993, are you also giving us the commitment that at some time in the future there won't be a discussion setting up criteria by which a bonus would become payable going back to years that are now complete?

Hon. M. Harcourt: It's an enabling clause; there is no retroactivity to it. There has been no pay-out under it in the fiscal year 1992-93, nor is it anticipated that there will be.

J. Weisgerber: Just to finish this off, then, is there an identified cap to this bonus? I am at a loss to know how you would go about setting the objectives or criteria for a bonus in a service type of corporation. I think it's important for us to know how large it would be, and I think one has to question, once the bonus has been included, why it hasn't been pursued. One would have to assume that perhaps the criteria in fact hadn't been met and that perhaps there was something which had been anticipated but wasn't accomplished.

Hon. M. Harcourt: No, none of the above. It was strictly as I said -- an enabling clause in the contract that has not been pursued.

F. Gingell: Can you advise us what language skills there are in B.C. Trade Development Corporation?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Some of the language skills in the Trade Development Corporation are French, German, Portuguese, Spanish, Japanese, Mandarin, Cantonese, Taiwanese and Korean. Those are just some of the examples of language skills.

F. Gingell: I am most impressed. Are any of those language skills resident in the chief executive officer and the chief operating officer?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Of course, I add English. Both have an understanding of Ukrainian, and I understand that the COO also is fluent in two or three other languages: German, French, Russian.

G. Farrell-Collins: That's it?

Hon. M. Harcourt: "That's it?" asks the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove. He and I have to struggle with English. I would think that this is a fairly impressive skill in language.

F. Gingell: Has the B.C. Trade Development Corporation set up any criteria or models for personnel filling the very important roles in our main overseas offices particularly?

[5:45]

Hon. M. Harcourt: There are two offices -- the core offices. The core office or continental office, if you want to call it that, in London is occupied by an agent general, Mark Rose, who is there specifically to deal with the very serious political and communications challenges we face in Europe, particularly the attacks on British Columbia's forestry practices and our important softwood lumber and pulp and paper markets there. He is there to work very actively with the Canadian government, with the pulp and paper institute and others to make sure that an accurate message gets across on what's happening in British Columbia, so that we don't face a boycott on our $2 billion European market for our forest products. He is supported by a very able trade officer, Paul King, who has extensive experience and knowledge of trade in the northern part of Europe and of working with our agent general to meet with the decision-makers in the European parliament. We face a unique situation right now in Europe; and from talking to people in the industry who have been working with us on this important project, I would think we're meeting it quite effectively.

In terms of the skills in Japan, yes, we have said that a facility with and knowledge of not just Japanese language but Japanese culture is very important. That's why the new person heading up the Tokyo office, John Tak, is somebody who has worked in Japan and is fluent in Japanese. The same is true of our new trade officer in Osaka, who has worked for 20 years in and around Japan and is fluent in the language. Facility with Japanese was very important in these new assignments. As well, the officers that we have in Munich speak not just German but some of the Nordic languages. Our officer in Taipei can speak Taiwanese and is knowledgable about the people in Taiwan. Our trade officer in Korea is a native of Korea who had corporate experience before coming to work with B.C. Trade. Our trade officer in Hong Kong has the same knowledge of China and is fluent in Chinese. Similar skills for our trade officers will be developed in the offices we will open up in Southeast Asia. To answer the question of the Leader of the Third Party, we are trying to make sure that....

F. Gingell: Official opposition.

Hon. M. Harcourt: Sorry -- the Leader of the Opposition. We are trying to make sure that....

Interjection.

[ Page 7935 ]

Hon. M. Harcourt: The Leader of the Third Party over there didn't flinch at all.

We are trying to make sure that we have people in these countries who have a great knowledge of the people, language, culture, traditions and business practices. That is why we are making the changes to those offices that we have made.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

F. Gingell: Were all of the other positions that were...?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm just wondering if there is need of the B.C. Trade officials for tomorrow. I wonder whether you want them to stay overnight. Or can we deal with the estimates of B.C. Trade today?

D. Mitchell: Today, if we go beyond 6 o'clock.

F. Gingell: Yes, we'll be going beyond 6 o'clock, but not a great deal more, as far as I'm concerned.

Hon. M. Harcourt: If we could complete them tonight, then our officials could go back to Vancouver tonight, where their offices are.

The Chair: We are carrying on, are we?

F. Gingell: I take it that any position that was filled, other than Mark Rose's position in London, was done by advertisement and competition. Is that true?

Hon. M. Harcourt: There is always an opportunity internally for people to bid on these, and other than that we do a combination of executive searches and the network that B.C. Trade and friends of B.C. Trade have built up of people who could perform this role. It is done through a combination of different ways to find the appropriate person for these postings.

F. Gingell: I take it that the answer was yes; that in fact every job has gone through a public process, even though the final appointment may well have come from inside.

Recognizing the high profile of the appointee to be agent general in London and the fallout that would come from such an appointment -- particularly by a government that had said so loudly and clearly at election time that this was the end of the friends-and-insiders time, that it would be different from the Social Credit Party.... I really feel it was inexcusable to make that appointment without going through the process. It's an important job, and the actions that you took were completely contrary to every promise you had made. I would appreciate the defence of the Premier on that issue.

Perhaps he could also explain -- because I got confused at the time -- the issue of the pay of the person who was appointed to be agent general in London, in relation to pensions that he had due from both the provincial government and the federal government. There was a statement made in relation to that, and the statement wasn't absolutely clear for me to be able to understand exactly what happened. I wonder if you would like to deal with that issue.

Hon. M. Harcourt: We have canvassed the issue of Mr. Rose's appointment. I can say that in retrospect I think it was a good appointment, because we need somebody in Europe right now who has political and communication skills. He is very ably assisted by Paul King and other staff there who can handle the regular trade, investment and tourism inquiries and opportunities. But because of the seriousness of the attacks on B.C., as being the Brazil of the north, his skill in dealing with the key areas of concern in Great Britain and Germany and in the European Parliament and in dealing with the parliamentarians who could contemplate putting trade sanctions or boycotts in place.... After originally looking at taking a similar approach in London as we have in some of the other offices, it was my considered opinion that we needed somebody on the ground who could immediately address those political attacks and media attacks on British Columbia. We needed somebody who really did have those political skills and communication abilities. I think you would agree not only that he can sing in key and that he has a very great wit but also that he has intelligence, an ability with the language, an ability to communicate and the political skills to handle that role -- working in concert with Mr. King and his other staff.

His salary is at the ADM level -- $89,000. The employer-funded portion of his provincial pension will be deferred in an interest-bearing annuity until after Mr. Rose leaves government service. He will not have access to any provincially funded pension income while he is serving as agent general. As well, the income he earns while at B.C. House is not pensionable. I hope that clears up that issue.

F. Gingell: Even though Mr. Rose may well have all these attributes, the fact is the job wasn't advertised and you didn't go through a process, so we will never know whether or not there was a better candidate.

Going back to the issue of the pension, I understand from what you're saying that instead of the pension he has now earned from the provincial government being paid to him in cash, it is going into an annuity in his name, which will earn interest and be paid out after he finishes this assignment. The fact is that there isn't any saving; it's just a little savings plan. While he's in England, he is still receiving some of his income, but instead of getting it in cash, it's going into an interest-bearing savings plan for his benefit, and he will receive it afterwards. There really isn't any saving to the provincial government; there's absolutely no change whatsoever. This is just whitewashing the issue. The same amount of money is being paid out.

It seems to me that the issue of double-dipping -- or triple-dipping, which may be the case -- wasn't addressed. The triple-dipping is still happening; it's just being delayed. Is that a fair summation?

Hon. M. Harcourt: An accurate summation is that this is a pension entitlement into which he paid for 

[ Page 7936 ]

a number of years, and the employer is obligated to pay out this pension, which is not being paid out at the present time. It is an entitlement he has paid into on a cost-shared basis with the employer. That benefit is there by law, and it is not being accessed.

F. Gingell: I really differ. Surely the issue is that here was someone who had been employed by the provincial government as an MLA. He had earned a pension benefit, and he continued on as an employee of the province -- not as an MLA, I agree, but in a position. The pension value that he's receiving from the provincial government during this period that he's still employed by the provincial government is being put to one side for his benefit. When he retires in three years' time -- if that's what the length of the contract is -- there will be an additional pension amount that was not available to him in November 1992, when the appointment was made. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I said earlier that this is a pension to which he has contributed and the employer has contributed. It ceased when his term as an MLA did, and he's deferring collecting that employer portion.

[6:00]

F. Gingell: Just going back to the financial statements of the B.C. Trade Development Corporation, note 3 on page 17 deals with the outstanding guarantees that the corporation has. At March 31, 1993, they amounted to $18.4 million. At the same time the previous year, they amounted to $18.6 million. Can you quickly give me the ins and outs of going from the $18.6 million...? How many new loans were guaranteed? How many of those guaranteed loans from previous years were paid off to reduce the income to this balance?

Hon. M. Harcourt: It would be very long and cumbersome for me to explain the financial statements as they're laid out here and some of the other information I have on the export loan guarantee program. I can undertake to send that information to the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

F. Gingell: Good. The information that I need is just the opening balance and the ins and outs.

I notice that the financial statements indicate that the Trade Development Corporation was required to pay $165,000 on its guarantees during the year ended March 31, 1993. Your note goes on to say that approximately $1.170 million of loan guarantees are in default. Has any provision been made in these financial statements for the losses that will subsequently be incurred to cover those guarantees?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Yes. As a matter of fact, the corporation operates on a very conservative provision for loan guarantees. Potential loss is about 6 percent. The actual experience has been less than 3 percent. The staff in B.C. Trade are confident that the fund is not only liquid but quite conservative in its estimations.

F. Gingell: Is the 6 percent you refer to the $2.9 million loan guarantee reserve fund?

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Setting that reserve fund up with the cash balance on one side hasn't actually deducted from the equity of the corporation or included in your expenditures for the year the amount of losses that may subsequently arise from these particular loans that are in default.

Hon. M. Harcourt: The export loan guarantee program, from its inception in September 1989 to May 31, 1993, issued $46 million in loan guarantees. To date, only two losses have been incurred since the program was launched. Although the cost to the loan reserve fund was $459,281, there's a possibility that some of these will be recovered by the sale of assets and other means. All the other outstanding guarantees are in good standing, with the exception of three which together total only $949,000. But again, through processes of negotiation, settlement, liquidation of assets and so on, those could be substantially less than that.

F. Gingell: Could the Premier please advise us what those three accounts are?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The two defaults to date are Norvik Timber....

F. Gingell: I was there this morning.

Hon. M. Harcourt: Well, in a way it sounds like a bad-news story, but it's a good-news story in the sense that they were able to restructure and maintain 80 employees. They have sales in the millions now. They're restructured and up and operating. B.C. Trade has received preferred shares of about $163,000 after paying out $294,000 to the Bank of Montreal. So that's a slight bad-news story, but there is a lot of good news too, since they learned a great deal from the experience.

The other one is Stubby Poles -- it was 374563 British Columbia Ltd., more commonly known as Stubby Poles -- which was liquidated. B.C. Trade paid out $165,281.

The other three are unnamed companies which are in receivership or seeking protection under the Bankruptcy Act, for which negotiations are underway.

F. Gingell: Those are the ones, I take it, that make up the $1.17 million outstanding at the end of March.

B.C. Trade Development Corporation obtains positions in private sector companies, some of which we discussed earlier with International Geomatics. Is it the intention to retain those investments in the B.C. Trade Development Corporation? Or when the company is going, will it be moved off to, say, the B.C. Endowment Fund?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The intent is to liquidate the investment and then reinvest in another promising B.C. 

[ Page 7937 ]

company. It is not to be a medium- or long-term holder of the company -- just until it's up and running and viable, get the pay-out and repeat the process.

F. Gingell: Going back to the discussion we had earlier, in the circumstance that one of these corporations is selling expertise and skills developed by a Crown corporation or a ministry, which was the purpose of the exercise, will there be some ongoing revenue stream back to the government in the future?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Our role is to facilitate those strategic alliances between public and private enterprises. In most cases, the revenues would go directly into the Crowns -- like B.C. Hydro -- internationally.

F. Gingell: That leads me to the question of the Crown corporations secretariat. I was wondering if you could quickly cover the relationship between the Crown corporations secretariat and B.C. Trade Development Corporation. How much did they pay to the Crown corporations secretariat last year? How much have they included in their budget for this year? Is there any ongoing work by the Crown corporations secretariat at the B.C. Trade Development Corporation?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think B.C. Trade contributed about $12,000 to the Crown corporations secretariat. That was a one-off payment in the last year. Other than that, the amount of interaction with the Crown corporations secretariat is very minimal. The role of the Crown corporations secretariat is to try to set right the Crown corporations that were struggling or were operating in the red; to try to get some common practices in terms of labour management, purchasing, human resources and other practices -- to be similar, rather than the hodgepodge that they are; and to bring the Crowns into operation as an economic development tool, as they were originally set up to be by W.A.C. Bennett. Those two tasks are rapidly coming to their conclusion.

D. Mitchell: I'll just remain with this for a second, following up on the Leader of the Opposition's question on the Crown corporations secretariat. The Premier has indicated that in the last year some $12,000 was paid to the Crown corporations secretariat from B.C. Trade. Can he indicate what services were received by the corporation for that $12,000?

Hon. M. Harcourt: This is a levy that the individual Crowns pay towards the administrative costs of the Crown corporations secretariat to carry out those two functions that I just talked about.

D. Mitchell: The Premier has indicated the role of the Crown corporations secretariat in terms of reviewing the activities of Crown corporations as agents of economic development. Certainly in his earlier description of the role of B.C. Trade, that would fit very well with the role of B.C. Trade.

Going beyond asking a question about personal relationships -- this is not a question about the relationship between Bob Williams and the chairman of B.C. Trade -- the Crown corporations secretariat certainly is overseeing the role of all Crown corporations in the province, according to the Premier. So what role and interaction would take place? If there was none or very, very little, as the Premier has indicated, then clearly one has to question why you need a quasi-parent corporation for all Crown corporations in British Columbia. Does B.C. Trade derive any value or any benefit whatsoever from the existence of this umbrella corporation called the Crown corporations secretariat?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Originally the Crown corporations secretariat was asked to look at the mission statements of all the Crown corporations and the other areas that I've talked about to make sure that they were operating effectively, that they were operating in the public interest and that they were being well run. Very early on, the Crown corporations secretariat saw that B.C. Trade was going through some major changes. They were adopting a new business plan, they had a very clear mission statement and they were bringing in some quite exciting new, innovative approaches in terms of the consortia I talked about -- the targeting of the markets that had the most opportunities. It checked off that B.C. Trade was operating in a diligent way on behalf of the shareholders, the people of British Columbia. So the relationship became very irregular and episodic after they saw that B.C. Trade was operating well.

D. Mitchell: Is it anticipated that the B.C. Trade Development Corporation will be paying for any services from the Crown corporations secretariat in the year that we're being asked to approve funding for here in this committee today?

[6:15]

Hon. M. Harcourt: Just to correct what I said, it was a $12,000 annual levy toward the administrative costs of the Crown corporations secretariat. The $12,000 is B.C. Trade's part of the administrative cost of the Crown corporations secretariat. It's in this year's budget too.

D. Mitchell: I would take it, then, that this administrative levy is charged, on the basis of assets or revenue, to all Crown corporations. Would this be the same levy that would be charged against B.C. Hydro, B.C. Rail and others? Would they pay a similar administrative fee? Can the Premier indicate to the committee how that is calculated, and on what basis?

Hon. M. Harcourt: That is generally the principle. It is a levy against the various Crown corporations, to be self-financing, on the administrative cost of the Crown corporations secretariat. I could get the details of how that is determined. The Crown corporations secretariat was, I would take it -- or could be -- pursued under the Finance minister's estimates. But the portion I'm responsible for, B.C. Trade, is $12,000.

[ Page 7938 ]

D. Mitchell: It's awkward trying to figure out who's in charge sometimes. The Premier is in charge of the B.C. Trade Development Corporation. That corporation pays an annual administrative levy to Bob Williams and the Crown corporations secretariat, but we're not sure why, or how it is calculated. It's somewhat curious, we must admit, that we wouldn't even know why or how it's calculated. I suppose, from what the Premier is saying, we should pursue this with the Minister of Finance when his estimates come up and we can review the Crown corporations secretariat directly, with the assistance of his officials and Mr. Williams, here in the committee. But it seems strange that the Premier would approve the payment of such an administrative levy without knowing how it is calculated or what service is being obtained for it. It seems somewhat strange that neither the Premier nor the officials present seem to be aware of why they're paying it. But it is paid. It goes towards the Crown corporations secretariat and the salaries of those who are employed in that secretariat. What they're engaged in or what value is derived, who knows?

Interjection.

D. Mitchell: The Minister of Labour wants me to get on to the next question, and I think I will.

Earlier, in response to a question from the Leader of the Third Party with respect to compensation of officials in B.C. Trade, the Premier referred to a study done for the previous administration by Wyatt Co., which looked at compensation levels for all senior officials in Crown corporations. In response to a question about bonuses, he indicated that while there is provision made for bonuses to be paid to chief executive officers of Crown corporations, none have been paid in the last year. Can the Premier tell us whether or not the Wyatt Co. study made specific recommendations with respect to bonuses for senior officials in Crown corporations?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I outlined some of the Wyatt report findings. Another one was that there was no provision for incentive compensation at that time in the CEO contracts. The report concluded that such compensation should be included in provisions for Crown corporation executives, and recommended 20 percent of control point levels, which would be payable on a lump sum, re-earnable basis for good performance. We need an accountant to help us out with that, but that was the recommendation. As I said, there is an enabling provision in the contract that has not been activated or fleshed out in terms of actual performance bonus. It was not pursued last year or this year.

D. Mitchell: I take it from the Premier's comments now and from those that he made earlier in response to the Leader of the Third Party -- and after the interpretation of the Leader of the Opposition, who thank goodness is here to keep the government on the straight and narrow -- that the bonuses will not be paid to CEOs of Crown corporations unless the minister responsible approves them. Is the Premier saying that these are at the discretion of the ministers responsible for Crown corporations and that while there is an enabling mechanism to provide a bonus to a chief executive officer of a Crown corporation, such a bonus will not be paid unless specifically approved by the minister responsible? Is that how I should interpret the Premier's statement?

Hon. M. Harcourt: No. You can interpret it that the B.C. Trade estimates are before you, that I am the minister responsible for those estimates and that in the contract with Mr. Parasiuk there is an enabling clause for a bonus, but it has not been activated.

D. Mitchell: Just one further question on this. Could the Premier indicate to the committee what would activate that enabling clause in the chairman and chief executive officer's contract with B.C. Trade? Would it be his approval only, or would it come from direction of the Crown corporations secretariat?

Hon. M. Harcourt: That's a theoretical question because it hasn't been activated. If it were, it would be a matter between the board of directors and the chair and CEO.

C. Serwa: What is the relationship of Bob Williams to B.C. Trade? What reporting relationships exist between him and any staff from B.C. Trade, including Mr. Parasiuk?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The relationship is in the fee that B.C. Trade pays to the Crown corporations secretariat -- administrative costs of about $12,000 -- and in the review that the Crown corporations secretariat carried out of all Crown corporations, one of them being B.C. Trade, which was given a good bill of health early on. It then looked at how we could use Crown corporations in a far more coordinated and effective way than we have in the past and at opportunities to market Crown corporation skills, as I described earlier, to other areas of the world. So the reporting relationship would be through Mr. Parasiuk, and through Mr. Parasiuk to myself.

C. Serwa: What sort of direction does Bob Williams and the Crown corporations secretariat give to this Crown corporation? Is it an adjudication or an evaluation process?

Hon. M. Harcourt: There is no direction. The corporation reports to me. The only area of activity is one that I described earlier when I outlined the marketing of Crown corporations skills. One of those areas is in Russia, where it is developing a memorandum of understanding between some of the Russian cities to develop a land registry system and all that goes with it, and some other opportunities to market the Crown corporations. That's the only involvement Mr. Williams has with B.C. Trade. The reporting is through Mr. Parasiuk to myself.

[ Page 7939 ]

F. Gingell: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I move that the House stand recessed for five minutes.

Motion approved.

The House recessed at 6:25 p.m.

The House resumed at 6:39 p.m.

Hon. M. Sihota: Committee of Supply A will convene in the Douglas Fir Room to deal with the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. I'd like to call committee on Bill 21.

CONSUMER PROTECTION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

The House in committee on Bill 21; D. Lovick in the chair.

On section 1.

G. Farrell-Collins: I do have some questions. I guess we are dealing with the definition section, and there are some changes. Particularly, we see yet again another example of where the government is removing dollar figures that in the past have been set by legislation. Now they are all going to be set by regulation. This is not so much a question; I think we've received the same answer about 50 or 60 times from the government. I just want to make a comment that I think it's perhaps the wrong way to go.

Particularly in this last session, the government has, time after time, changed pieces of legislation where the dollar figures of fees and licences were set by legislation. Now the various ministers are moving these off to regulations so that those prices can be elevated and jacked up a little more quietly than having to stand before the House to defend them. It wouldn't be such a bad thing, I suppose, if we didn't have a government that had such a penchant for increasing these fees and licences by the dramatic rates that we've seen, again without debate or discussion on the floor of the Legislature for the public to see. Here again we are taking a $20 fee and turning it into a fee to be set by the minister and his colleagues, one which we know will probably increase relatively dramatically in the next little while.

We did have a briefing -- and I would thank the minister's staff for providing that briefing this morning -- where we managed to cover a good deal that is in the bill so we won't perhaps have to go through it too extensively tonight. I do have a question, though, that I asked this morning, and I'll ask it again of the minister. The definition of direct sales talks about direct sales and door-to-door, face-to-face types of sales. But it does not include those types of sales that are done over the telephone, by fax machine, or some other type of modern technology. I raised this issue in second reading, and I intend to raise it again. The reason for these not being included, and being specifically excluded in section 1, was that they would be hard to regulate or enforce because many of the companies that operate by telephone or fax operate from outside the province. My question, which I don't feel was answered terribly satisfactorily, was: why not put these in here to at least deal with those firms that do operate in B.C. and also to set an example and perhaps send a warning to those other firms outside the province that are operating in B.C.?

Hon. M. Sihota: We can deal with both the issues that were raised. The hon. member knows that I would never bring in a legislative provision that tries to raise fees indirectly.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: I can't remember ever introducing legislation that does that. My colleague the Minister of Finance has been known to do that 50 or 60 times -- to quote you. In any event, in this case we are not talking about a fee. The $20 figure does not refer to a fee; it refers to the definition in the section that covers the jurisdiction of the act in the case of certain contracts. It defines a contract where services are being contracted in excess of $20. If we raise that to $50, $100 or whatever, or reduce it to zero, it's not a fee; it's a threshold issue. Far be it for me to do that, at least in this section.

[6:45]

With regard to the other issue, you are right, it does. Our ability to reach those types of operations is limited, because our constitutional jurisdiction is limited to British Columbia. Particularly with regard to the question you raised as to whether there was be a questionable activity taking place by those operations, it can be captured in the provisions of the Trade Practice Act.

G. Farrell-Collins: Certainly with the Trade Practice Act, and how that applies.... But if no province ever takes the decision to include that in their legislation, because there are nine other provinces where they can't enforce it, then we are never going to get anywhere. We will all just sit here and blame the other nine provinces for the fact that we can't enforce it in their jurisdiction. It would be nice and perhaps forward-thinking of the government if they were to enact it here, then take up the challenge and try and get other jurisdictions to enact the same provision. It seems 

[ Page 7940 ]

to me that the only way we are ever going to get there is to take that step and show that initiative.

Hon. M. Sihota: I acknowledge that point, and that's why we as a ministry are actively working with the other provinces to do just that. That's one of the reasons the ministers of consumer services across the country meet from time to time to deal with just this kind of issue. I believe the staff have been meeting the deputies and assistant deputies to try to make sure that all jurisdictions come forward with this kind of thing. We do meet from time to time, and hopefully the hon. member will keep that in mind when he questions why I am travelling to meet with some of these other ministers. In fact, it might be an idea to take him along.

Even if we were to do that provincially, you have to understand that some of these transactions happen on an international basis -- phone calls from Atlanta, Georgia, Florida or California, or something like that. So there is a need for the federal government -- and I guess for provincial governments -- to make sure that international actions are taken. There may be a need for ministers to meet perhaps in Florida or California and work out these problems. If that happens, I don't think I will be able to take the hon. member along with me.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'd probably decline the invitation, because I don't know that we'd get along that well.

The same reasoning applies, I suppose: the only way that we're going to get there is by taking a first step. Certainly in other pieces of legislation that the minister has brought forward.... I well remember hours and hours, days and days and week upon week on Bill 84 in this House when the minister stood up and said that seven out of ten provinces do it this way, or six out of ten provinces do it this way, or we're the only province that doesn't have this. I guess that's a start. If somebody should take that step, then perhaps as we roll through this re-examination of similar legislation in the other jurisdictions, they will look at British Columbia and say: "Well, gee, British Columbia does it this way. Maybe we should make our changes to respond to that." We had proposed a small amendment to this section. We understand the minister is not willing to look at it, but that amendment would have done just that very thing. By allowing British Columbia to take the lead, showing other provinces that we are willing to take that step and encouraging the other provinces to follow, hopefully a few states would follow suit, and eventually we could build it up. That seems to be the way these types of things get around. Rarely do you get ten ministers meeting with 50 Governors in the state of Georgia -- to come up with an agreement that direct sales include telephone and fax.... I think perhaps the minister's plan to get there is a little dreamy and is why these things don't get done; perhaps the way to do it is to actually take the action and implement it.

Hon. M. Sihota: In all seriousness, we are taking the leadership on that issue with the other jurisdictions in the country. In fact, if the hon. member wishes, I'd be happy to forward to him the material that staff has prepared and the work that they've been doing. They've been leading the working groups at the national level on this issue to get us there. We have been working fairly actively. I don't dismiss the point lightly that we could intrude in the field on our own at this point. I guess it's always a tough question; I've seriously contemplated doing that. The problem is that I don't want to give people false expectations of what the legislation can achieve. So for the time being we'll continue to work on that. It's inevitable that someday soon there will be ten New Democratic governments in Canada and, in that case, it will be very easy for us to....

L. Fox: We saw the evidence in Alberta.

Hon. M. Sihota: Sorry, I just woke the member for Prince George-Omineca up.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: He's excited anyway.

In any event, I'm quite confident that this can be worked out. I believe a meeting was scheduled with the ministers in April to deal with the situation. With some of the changes at the federal level, it was adjourned. But I suspect this is the kind of item that will be on the agenda, and I don't think we're that far away from having uniform legislation. It's being worked on, but for the time being, we're happy to go this way.

L. Hanson: I missed the briefing this morning, and I may be asking a question that was covered. Section 1 seems to have such a broad definition; I suggest it would be stretching the imagination to classify some of the people who could be captured within this definition as direct sellers. Can the minister give us some indication of how he might relieve the concerns of people -- for example, those selling an automobile in a coffee shop or soliciting memberships in recreational facilities -- or political parties, as my colleague suggested? But seriously, life insurance policies, real estate sales, people in that sort of thing.... How would the minister propose to narrow that definition of direct seller? I don't think the intention of the legislation is to capture those kinds of people.

Hon. M. Sihota: To use your example, let's say a life insurance person just travelled up the road from Vernon to Nakusp and went door to door in Nakusp to sell an insurance product -- as I'm sure happens. You're right, they would be captured by the legislation. But I would argue that they should be, for the protection of the purchasers of those services is provided in the legislation. I think people need to know who is selling to them -- what the company is and all the appropriate details. So at least on that example, we may just have a philosophical difference. I don't think anybody could reasonably read the legislation so as to capture someone who is selling life insurance and happen to go next door to a coffee shop and engage in a conversation with a customer. If we have that problem, I'd be 

[ Page 7941 ]

surprised. Indeed, there are provisions for exemption in this legislation. For example, Amway would be one you could think of. There would be a potential for them to secure an exemption. Those exemption provisions are found elsewhere in the legislation, and we'll get to them when we get to that section.

The Chair: Before recognizing the member for Okanagan-Vernon, I have noticed that both the minister's reply and members' questions are being addressed to one another as "you." May I just remind members to please direct their comments through the Chair.

The member for Okanagan-Vernon continues.

L. Hanson: I have no difficulty with the minister's interpretation of a life insurance salesman. I suspect that there will be a fair amount of concern raised in the retail community, because it quite simply says that any sale made away from the seller's permanent place of business, whether personally or through a salesperson, would be considered a direct sale. I think it would capture a number of people whom I don't think the minister is intending to capture. I don't know what the minister's intent is, but I assume that it is to deal with some less than credible people who go from door to door, sometimes taking advantage of elderly people and that sort of thing.

The definition in this legislation, though -- and I don't see a place where it is clearly exempted further in the bill -- seems to capture an awful lot of people under the description of direct seller, and I'm not sure that was the intent of the legislation. That is a real concern. I suppose a remedy to that would be an amendment. But by the same token, if the minister would suggest that it is not intended to capture those sorts of direct seller interpretations, which might be applied to this, it would at least be on the record if it later got distorted in its application.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm reluctant to correct that for the record. Let me also say that this legislative provision mirrors what is occurring elsewhere in the country. There has been no suggestion in any of the materials we have looked at that this definition has reached beyond those parameters in other jurisdictions. I think it's reasonably safe to say that this will suffice.

The other point I should make is that in our review of other jurisdictions, like I say, there just wasn't a problem that would warrant that kind of attention. If you wanted to narrow it, you would really get into problems, because more problems would be caused by narrowing it to try to capture certain elements and exclude others. That would both raise defences and prevent us from being able to reach into the harm. As the hon. member was speaking, I was trying to figure out how you could actually redraft the thing to be a bit more precise. I guess what I'm trying to say, in a long-winded way, is I just can't see how you could do that in a way that would be more precisely on target. Given what has happened elsewhere and given the clarification on the record, we'll.... But I accept the point. It's actually a pretty good point from the hon. member.

[7:00]

L. Fox: Just to follow up on the member for Okanagan-Vernon, I'll carry on in one other area and tell the minister of a situation in my community. It's in real estate, where the office is located in Prince George, but in small communities around Prince George residents of those communities work out of the registered office. So to take this section literally would suggest they also would be included as direct sellers, because the contracts are quite often signed within the home of the individual who is intending to sell his or her property, residential or commercial. I totally concur with the member for Okanagan-Vernon that there has to be some definition here -- perhaps that licensed sales people such as real estate people and insurance people are not included in this definition.

Hon. M. Sihota: As you're aware, under this legislation we're licensing direct sellers. So it is an ability to locate, trace, identify and so on. Therefore, to use your example of the real estate agent, real estate agents are licensed in any event, so they have to go through the process of identification first of all. Secondly, we are dealing here with the sale of goods and not real property. While that may attack the specific example, it may not fully address the issue you raise. But if you think about it, a lot of these professions or activities are already licensed. So all we're doing here in the legislation, as you'll see later on, is simply asking for licensing. I don't see the harm in a consumer protection statute to ask these people to be licensed. That's what the direct-seller provision is all about. I think the mistake you're making -- if I may put it this way -- is that you're looking at direct seller and not relating it to the overall objective of the legislation. I think if you relate to the purpose of the legislation with this section, you'll see that all we're looking for is licensing, which is something that's required in any event in a real estate situation.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm following up the theme we've embarked upon. Is the minister stating that as far as a real estate salesperson or perhaps an insurance person is concerned -- but a real estate person has a licence -- they would not have to seek a duplicate licensing process under this act? Or would they have to have two sets -- one from the real estate board and the other one from the Minister of Consumer Services -- so that they have to walk around with two licences in their pocket? Is this the intent, or is the minister trying to say that because they're licensed they wouldn't have to go through this process again?

Hon. M. Sihota: We're not really trying to double-license people. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that yes, in theory someone could end up with two licences. In practice, because we have the exemption provision, we could limit it to one. Given the fact that licensing already exists in other areas, we could look at the regulatory provisions to allow for exemptions, 

[ Page 7942 ]

which exist in the section we'll be dealing with in a few minutes.

G. Farrell-Collins: So the gist of what the minister is saying is that we haven't thought of that one, and now that we have, let's try and find some way of excluding them. Are we going to end up in a situation where we're going to have list all the people who don't have to be required under this...? Are they going to come and apply for the exemption? Is the minister going to do that of his own initiative? Are we going to have that in place before the act comes into force so we don't have all these people up in arms and rushing out to try to find some way of licensing themselves when they don't really need to? Is there some list of the various bodies that would be exempted that the minister can give us tonight, so that we can reassure those people that they will not be falling under this, and they will have the exemption?

Hon. M. Sihota: The regulatory provision is a safety provision; we are trying to prevent duplication in the work. That's why it is there. We aren't on that section, so we're moving a bit ahead of ourselves.

In any event, let me say this. The legislation has been exposed for some time. It was introduced in May. We have received some comment from those who would seek to have themselves exempted. We have received no indication from the real estate or life insurance industries that having this legislation causes them any concern. We are very much into the hypothetical realm. The people who have approached us are the kind of people who you would think would be captured by the legislation. Large institutions like Amway, for example, have approached the government about those kinds of provisions. The fear that the opposition is articulating is not coming from the community at large. Those who may be captured by the legislation are the ones who are approaching us at this point.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would put forth to the minister that the reason he hasn't been hearing outrage from various people, particularly in the real estate business, is that they wouldn't assume for a minute that this would apply to them. They would assume that they are already regulated and licensed -- they have their own regulatory board -- and wouldn't fall within this category. They wouldn't think that they would be the types of door-to-door salespeople who would be regulated. Perhaps they are not aware that with the wording of the act as it exists, they would be and they would have to turn around and apply for an exemption, which they may or may not get.

In addition, there are the insurance salespeople. The minister has made it clear that if they sell outside their own offices, they would be expected to have identification and to be licensed. They probably would be the second-last, if not the last, people who would expect that they would fall under this type of legislation. Again, they have their own body, standards, process -- and very few complaints, for that matter. They would think that they are the last people who would fall under this legislation, and therefore they wouldn't have to have that type of regulation or licensing.

I would say that perhaps the reason the minister hasn't heard from these people is that they don't expect themselves to be included in this legislation. They wouldn't have imagined it and therefore haven't bothered to call the minister or bring the issue up; they haven't made the public outcry the absence of which the minister is using as justification for not being worried about this. I would suggest that those are options that perhaps those people aren't aware of. They're not aware that this particular legislation may apply to them. I would have hoped that the minister would have gone to them in consultation, in preparing the legislation, to get their feedback if he felt it had a chance of applying to those bodies.

Hon. M. Sihota: Let's start on the premise that you're right for a moment and just think it through. On that premise, really all we're asking people to do is double-register for the sake of consumer protection. I don't think most professions would take issue with that, given the consequences laid out in this statute.

Secondly, to rebut your point, the other side of the coin is that this is not new legislation to the commercial world. The commercial world has had experience with this kind of legislation in other jurisdictions, and we have not seen those kinds of situations arise elsewhere. That's a fairly good indicator that it won't happen here.

Third, I'll go further and make the point that I think the commercial world recognizes that there is an interest in them being able to identify themselves to the public with clarity so as to put an end to some of the scams we have seen in terms of misuse of the direct-seller provisions. B.C. Tel, for example, will go door to door to do work, but they always carry ID with them and make it clear so that the customer knows who is on their doorstep.

I think most of the commercial world would welcome a legislated regime that mirrors what happens elsewhere in the country and that says very clearly that they must identify themselves and perhaps give people some indication of data that allows them to trace the company should they acquire a good. It's just good consumer protection legislation not only in the interests of the consumer but also in the interests of the corporate world, which would generally, I think, want to make sure that customers can track them.

L. Fox: I could appreciate that what the minister said a few minutes ago with respect to the Liberal Party critic's comments might in fact be so if we didn't have the experience of the last 20 months, where British Columbians have seen very small fees turn into huge fees. In areas where there was a licensing process or a permitting process but no fees, we now see fees of some substance and size. I think there has to be some assurance. I understand what the minister has just said with respect to B.C. Tel carrying ID, and I think most reputable salesmen do that. I don't have a problem with that. My concern is that this legislation tends to deal with people who are less than honest and may wish to capitalize on a certain segment of people, but because of 

[ Page 7943 ]

those few individuals we are penalizing all salespeople, even salespeople who carry bonding and identification and so on through the insurance companies and the real estate association. Those people won't have a problem with the actual identification part of it; it's the permitting and the fee for that permit or licence that will be subject to comment from those respective salespeople.

[F. Garden in the chair.]

Could the minister suggest some assurance that he will look at a regulation that would recognize a legitimate licensing or permitting process within the sales community, such as the real estate agencies or the insurance agencies or, for that matter, the firms that are selling mutual funds or securities? Certainly they go door to door and solicit by phone and do business in the home. All of those people are very tightly regulated now within their respective sections of the law, so I would think this legislation -- certainly the regulation part of it -- should understand and reflect the kinds of controls that are in existence for those types of delivery of sales.

Hon. M. Sihota: As I understand the hon. member's point, he is asking for relief in terms of fees. As I understand his argument, he recognizes that reputable people will have no difficulty in identifying themselves, and therefore I don't think they will have any difficulty with this legislation. Those who aren't reputable will now face this legislation, as they should. I think all would welcome that. So that deals with the definitions section.

[7:15]

In terms of the fees, which happen later on, we are away out of range in terms of the issue here. I can assure the hon. member that when we get to that section we will be most modest in dealing with the fee issue.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm not going to fall for that one again. We went through that time after time in other pieces of legislation, where the minister said that we're not really dealing with that right here in the definitions; I'll catch up with you in section 8 or 27 or 82, and we'll deal with it in those sections. Then we get to those sections and the minister tells us that we can't deal with that here; we should have dealt with that in the definitions if we wanted to exclude these provisions. I think if we are going to canvass this issue, we will canvass it here where the changes can be made. The changes can only be made if we exclude those parties from the definition of what a direct seller is. If the intention isn't for these direct sellers to be real estate agents; if it isn't intended for insurance agents to be classified as direct sellers and be regulated under this act; if it is not intended for those people who sell securities and mutual funds at the RRSP time of year, and go around direct selling into people's homes and signing those contracts, as the member for Prince George-Omineca mentioned; if the intent isn't to capture those people who are already regulated, then let's say so. Let's put it right here in the definitions section, or let's get a guarantee from the minister that those people will be granted an exemption under the regulations -- which he certainly has the power to do -- and give us that commitment today.

For the very reasons that the member mentioned, it's not that these people are afraid to have a licence, it's not that these people are afraid to be regulated in some capacity, because they all are already -- in fact, more forcefully than what's in this legislation. The problem is: why should they carry a card? Why should they carry separate identification? Why should they have to have a separate licence and separate set of regulations that don't even match up with that which their own group has, and pay that extra money to the government in order to have this card shoved in their wallet somewhere? That type of oppressive legislation really upsets individual entrepreneurs out there who are just trying to do their job. When they are complying with the regulations within their own industry -- which are much more forceful -- to have this type of legislation put on top of them is something they are not happy with. I think the minister has a couple of options here: either we can change the definition of who is there, or the minister can use section 25.21 as far as who do not have to have a licence. Can the minister give us a guarantee that those are the types of things that will be looked at in the regulations and that those are the types of people who will be given the exemptions under the act?

Hon. M. Sihota: No, I'm not prepared to do that. Let me give you an example. Before I do that, let me say that I am not casually dismissing the point that the opposition is raising. The trick is how to draft legislation in a narrower way to capture some of the activity the legislation seeks to capture. I'm not persuaded that it can be redrafted in any other limited way, other than the way that we have done it here. I'll tell you why, and I'll give you an example.

I am very reluctant to stand in the House and give blanket exemptions at this time. I remember several years ago being involved in the Principal Trust issue. I was surprised at the number of seniors who were victimized. They acquired services and investments that weren't exactly what they thought they were acquiring.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'll deal with your issues in a second. I'm trying to deal first of all with the issue that the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove raised. Then I'll try to deal with the point that the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca raised without getting on his feet. I'll try to deal with all of them.

I think there was an argument to be made in this situation that perhaps licensing, where we could actually trace people, would have helped. Perhaps it wouldn't have; perhaps it would have. I'm just saying that there's the other side of the coin: the consumer who has been victimized. I would rather err on the side of caution in terms of protecting the interests of the consumer who may be victimized. If it means that 

[ Page 7944 ]

someone has to carry an extra piece of ID in their wallet, so be it. I just don't think that in its requirements for identification, the legislation is so onerous as to place a significant impediment on the people to sell.

I also accept the hon. member's argument that most people are reputable. And if they are, they're not going to have this problem. The opposition has to accept my argument that this is not the kind of problem that has emanated elsewhere. I appreciate the hon. member's opening comments with regard to the fee issue. Obviously you don't want to have an onerous fee in this kind of situation. I'm not even persuaded it's necessary to have this kind of onerous fee. It may be that someone may have to pay $5, $10, $15 or $25 extra to comply with this legislation. Well, if that's the price of consumer protection, again, so be it.

L. Hanson: I know what the minister is saying, but it seems to me that there are a number of regulatory bodies in British Columbia that have established a reputation, that have established the fact that they are controlling their licensees, if you will. If I were sitting over there, I know I wouldn't expect to give a blanket exemption, and I wouldn't expect the minister to. But I would at least hope that the minister would look at an exemption for respected organizations that do in fact police their own people.

In our society we are regulated almost to death. We continually get complaints about bureaucracy and the processes that you have, and all of those things. I don't see that this section, in its broad interpretation, is intended to deal with organizations. If you wanted to take the really technical description there, I suspect that doctors could be captured in that if they were making a house call.

I think that the minister accepts and recognizes that there are a lot of things that could be exempted. All we're looking for is some assurance that the minister will consider those who are regulated and protected in a licensing process by a respected agency, in policing themselves, and that he would seriously consider providing some exemption in the regulations. I don't think we're looking for a blanket one at all.

Hon. M. Sihota: You have that. As I said earlier, we've had groups like Amway and Avon approach us already, in light of this legislation. So we have to take a serious look at that. Yes, I agree with your point. If a group is doing a reasonably good job of policing itself, then that's fine.

You're right. I think if we were to pull out all those blue books and look at all the statutes and regulations there, we'd be shocked at how little we would, in theory, ever be able to do. Governments are expected to be reasonable in the application of legislation. So you have my assurance that in assessing this it will obviously be a very material consideration when looking at exemptions.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

L. Hanson: In section 3, can the minister give us some enlightenment as to why it is one year after the date the contract was made? I know that it only applies if the direct seller is not licensed. What is it, a penalty? Is that the sort of idea? I don't know why that one-year extension is there. Obviously, if there is some unhappiness with it or a direct seller hasn't been licensed, I would suspect the sale is invalid forever. Why the year? What is the thinking behind that?

Hon. M. Sihota: The short answer is this: it just gives people an incentive to license. If you're licensed and you enter into a contract, the contract can be rescinded by the purchaser within seven days. This extends it to a year and just simply gives people an incentive to license. From one perspective, yes, it is punitive. On the other side of it, the way you avoid that punishment is to go out and get yourself licensed.

L. Hanson: I understand that. I think it's a penalty that the minister is suggesting should be applied in the case of someone failing to license. I suspect that if somebody failed to license under this, you'd have an awful time trying to find them in that year. But I guess I'll accept that explanation.

L. Fox: I waited for this section. I wanted to make reference to it before in the definitions section. One of the real concerns about defining who is a direct seller is precisely this clause. In fact, if it's not defined clearly as to how this relates to a real estate agent, for instance, if it's a grey area, a person may walk out of a house contract for up to a year under this clause. For this reason you could have binding contracts for any of the particular professions that we identified in the definitions section that, because of the grey area, could be nullified in a court of law under this section. Would the minister like to comment?

Hon. M. Sihota: I said this was wrong, but I just wanted to check it again. I don't think real estate is captured by this provision because, if you go back again, it's goods or services. We're not talking about real property. I don't think the argument with regard to real estate holds. I can think of other situations where you might be able to make an argument, but I don't think real estate would hold as an argument. On that narrow point, I don't think that you capture the legislation.

After I get a legal opinion, which I'm confident would show that this does not cover real estate, I'm agreeable to consulting with the real estate industry just to double-check on that section. And, out of an abundance of caution, hon. Chair, what I'm going to do is stand that section down for the time being. Is that okay?

The Chair: Section 3 has been stood down as has been suggested. Shall section 4...?

Interjection.

The Chair: The member continues.

[ Page 7945 ]

L. Fox: One other observation under section 3. The minister may or may not be aware of this, but it should have some consideration. In order to comply with sales tax obligations and GST exemption obligations, car sales people must sign a contract for the purchase of a car on a reserve. That puts them under this definition of direct sales. I ask that the minister give some consideration to those kinds of concerns when he reflects on this clause.

[7:30]

The Chair: I allowed a certain amount of largesse considering that the clause has already been stood down. I'm sure the minister will take the comments that have been made by the member. Shall section 4 pass?

G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order perhaps, and I seek the guidance of the Chair. I wish to comment on the wisdom of standing down that section. I don't know in what order I should do that. If it's already stood down, I can't comment on it. I don't know if or how we can do that. I ask the Chair for some guidance.

The Chair: My advice is that if it's stood down, it's stood down. We're going on to another section. We'll come back to it at the discretion of the minister who has asked that the clause be stood down.

On section 4.

G. Farrell-Collins: I don't have too much to comment on section 4. I guess my comment with.... It's funny that we end up in these silly little things. My concern is that section 3 isn't really the section that needs to be stood down. It's section 1 that needs to be stood down for the definitions, or else we have to make some clarification changes in section 25.2. That's where we're going to address this problem; section 3 isn't going to address this problem for us.

Section 4 approved.

The Chair: Within section 5 there are several sections, on which we'll be calling questions individually. The first one is section 25.1.

On section 5, section 25.1.

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is a very quick one with regard to section 25.1(a). It excludes the cost of borrowing but does include taxes in the purchase price. Why is the cost of borrowing excluded? I'm questioning out of curiosity more than anything.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm advised that we're simply trying to cover the purchase price. We're not covering the cost of borrowing; that's seen as a separate transaction.

Section 5, sections 25.1 and 25.11 approved.

On section 5, section 25.2.

G. Farrell-Collins: Section 25.2(1): "A person shall not carry on business as a direct seller unless licensed by the registrar or exempted under section 25.21 or by regulation." The reason I'm bringing it up here -- and I'm asking for a little leeway with the minister -- is that I see a contradiction between section 25.2(1) and 25.21(2), and in order to discuss the contradiction, one has to look at both at them. One says that in order to carry on, you have to be licensed by the registrar or exempted. Then under section 25.21(2), it says: "A salesperson or class of salespersons may be required by regulation to be licensed, but in the absence of such a regulation a salesperson is not required to be licensed." In one case it says that you're not licensed unless they put your list down on a regulation, and the other says that you have to be licensed unless you're exempted. There seems to be a conflict in trying to determine who is and who isn't actually licensed. Can the minister comment on that?

Hon. M. Sihota: That is required basically to make sure that section 25.2(1) and section 25.21(2) are consistent and in sync. They are essentially saying the same thing. I will try to think of a cleaner way to put that, obviously, to persuade the hon. member of this. But section 25.2(1) says: "A person shall not carry on business as a direct seller unless licensed by the registrar or exempted under section 25.21 or by regulation." It says exactly what the title says: who can be licensed. Section 25.21(1) says who can't be licensed, and section 25.21(2) simply reiterates what section 25.2(1) says.

G. Farrell-Collins: If it's that complicated, there's something wrong with it, in my mind. If it's that complicated and we're having that much trouble with it, how the heck do we expect the public out there to understand what's in here? I'm going to walk through this once more, a little more slowly, because I don't have the legal book that the minister has. I'm trying to understand it as a lay person with a bit of understanding in this area, given that I've been working at it for a couple of years.

My understanding of section 25.2(1) is that it says who must be licensed, okay? It says: "A person shall not carry on business as a direct seller unless licensed by the registrar or exempted under section 25.21 or by regulation." Then section 25.21(2) says: "A salesperson or class of salespersons may be required by regulation to be licensed, but in the absence of such a regulation a salesperson is not required to be licensed." That says that if there is no regulation that requires a salesperson or a class of salesperson to be licensed, you don't need to be licensed. So the only exemption that's required is that you're not on the list of regulations to be licensed. That is what I understand here.

Section 25.2(1) says that you have to be licensed, I would assume by regulation, or exempted under section 25.21, by not being required by regulation. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes.

[ Page 7946 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: I would be very enthusiastic about standing down both these sections and seeing if we can't figure out a better way to say that. It is so complex that people are not going to be able to understand what the minister is trying to achieve here. There has to be a simpler way to say that. If we come back and the legislative counsel says that there is no other way to do it, then that's fine. I can accept that. We've already stood down section 3. I would request that we stand down both these sections, have another look at them, see if we can word that in a little plainer language and come back to it later. If it turns out that there's no way they can do that, then I'll accept it. But we should certainly take the time to take a shot at redrafting that, given that we've already stood down section 3.

Hon. M. Sihota: Let's make a deal here. Let's put it this way....

An Hon. Member: Door three.

Hon. M. Sihota: Door three. I don't know if that would be covered by this legislation, either.

The easiest way to deal with this is to allow section 25.2(1) to proceed. Section 25.21(2) is duplicitous, and that was a point that I was making earlier on. So I have no problem with sections 25.2(1) and 25.2(2) proceeding and section 25.21(2) standing down until we get that clarification. The drafters tell us that it's necessary, but the way I read it -- and it seems to me the way you read it -- is that they are duplicitous, unless there's a good legal reason for it. I think you pretty well have to do sections 25.2(1) and 25.2(2); you may not have to do section 25.21(2). That would be the better way to do it, and I haven't got a problem with that. Just putting on my legal hat while we're discussing this, I can't see why you would need section 25.21(2) -- if I can word it that way. Then again, you usually need two lawyers to have a disagreement, so I'll have to hear what the AG's ministry has to say about section 25.21(2). We can take a look at 25.21(2). Okay?

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister has just proven that you don't need two lawyers to have a disagreement; you just need one. I'd be glad to pass sections 25.2(1) and 25.2(2), and forgo section 25.21(2) and stand it down to a later time.

C. Tanner: Why do we go through all this long description in section 25.21(1), when in fact you say it all in subsections (d) and (e) with the words "by regulation" ? I'm one of the first people on my feet when you want to do things by regulation, but this is a case in point where you might as well, because I think you're confusing the whole thing by putting some in and then saying we're going to do the rest by regulation. Why don't you just do the whole lot by regulation and take those exemptions out?

Hon. M. Sihota: If it would make you happy, we could. But that's not the purpose. Seriously, a lot of legal interpretation would go along this line: it would say that by putting in section 25.21(1)(a), (b) and (c), cabinet's discretion is fettered by the colouring of the language that precedes 25.21(1)(d). That's an important argument to make. In all seriousness, I don't think that you would want -- in a quote, which I'm sure you guys will play back to me at some point -- to have a situation where the tone of cabinet's discretion was not in some way coloured by previous provisions within that legislation.

[7:45]

G. Farrell-Collins: In all honesty, I can say that removing section 25.21 in its entirety and relying on 25.2 would give me far less worry than some of the things that I've seen the government do by regulation. Quite frankly, I don't have a problem having a regulation state that the direct sales of fuel, food for human consumption and newspapers published at intervals of seven days or less fall within the jurisdiction of cabinet. That's not one of the things I lie awake at night worrying about.

I think that we should scrap the whole section 25.21, make it simpler and more concise and do it by regulation. I don't think the minister is accomplishing anything by putting in 25.21(1)(a), (b) and (c) that can't be done by regulation. If you're going to leave it that broadly based for all those other direct sales that take place, I suggest we withdraw section 25.21 and leave 25.2 there.

L. Hanson: Isn't that the section that gives the minister the authority to exempt certain classes of salesmen and so on that we were asking for in the first section? I don't think it should be deleted. I can see where there's some....

G. Farrell-Collins: The exemption's there in 25.21.

L. Hanson: Sections 25.21(1)(d) and (e) seem to say to me that the direct sale of goods can be exempted by regulation, or the direct sale by a class of direct sellers is exempted by regulation. Section 25.21(2) seems to say that if there is no regulation, then there is no requirement to be licensed. Those seem to be a little bit in conflict with one another in double-covering the same issue. I think the minister needs the authority there to develop regulations to exempt a certain classification of salesman or class of salesperson.

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, that's true. That's why I was a little at a loss to understand why your colleague from Fort Langley would want section 25.21 eliminated in its entirety. I concur with your arguments.

C. Tanner: In that case, can we go back to what the minister said in the first place and go to 25.21(1) without (2)? I think that was his suggestion.

The Chair: No. If we're going to delete sections, it has to be the section in its entirety; we can't stand down just parts of a section.

[ Page 7947 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: I think the hon. member is getting mixed up between 25.2(2) and what I was saying about 25.21(2).

G. Farrell-Collins: I'll wait just a moment.

I know we are sort of debating 25.2 and 25.21 at the same time. I know that's out of order, but we're doing it anyway. It seems to be working relatively well, so I think it's best we continue with it. To deal with the concerns of the member for Okanagan-Vernon, the minister could amend section 25.2(1) to include the salesperson or class of salesperson exempted by regulation. It's just a small amendment to that clause, which would then deal with his concern: amend section 25.2(1) and get rid of 25.21. I think you can accomplish a lot of what we are trying to do in much simpler terms just by amending 25.2, getting rid of the other section and clarifying this. We have spent half an hour on this, and I think we are as confused as we were before. I think it's our duty to have a closer look at this and come back. Again, I suggest we stand down those two sections and have a look at them. If we can't change it, then I have no problem passing it, if that's what legislative counsel says, but I think it warrants another look.

Hon. M. Sihota: That's fine with me. I am not confused about what you are trying to do. I can see very clearly what you're trying to do; you're trying to streamline the legislation so it reads better. No one is arguing about the intent of the legislation; you're just trying to get it to read better. The hon. member for Okanagan-Vernon made some good points which might be covered off by dealing with the situation the way you just described. That's fine. I'll be happy to take a look at it with legislative counsel. If it can be crafted in a way that's cleaner, I think we would all prefer that. I'll be happy to do that.

Just for the record, at this point sections 25.2 and 25.21 will stand down, and we will take another look to see whether or not we can draft it in a cleaner fashion.

The Chair: Sections 25.2 and 25.21 will be stood down as has been discussed.

On section 5, section 25.3.

L. Hanson: I do not have too much difficulty with the contents of section 25.3. Section 25.3(2)(b) states: "security, or proof of security, that is satisfactory to the registrar including, if the registrar requires it, an irrevocable letter of credit." I would formally move the amendment that stands in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 5, is hereby amended by adding to subsection (2) of new section 25.3 in new part 1.1 of the Consumer Protection Act, the following paragraph:

(d) A person applying for a licence, or for renewal of a licence, may appeal the amount required as security, by irrevocable letter of credit or otherwise, to the commission.]

On the amendment.

L. Hanson: The amendment simply states that if the applicant finds the requirement of a letter of credit to be unreasonable, there is an appeal process, which would go through the commission that was created in an earlier section, to ensure that there is a consistent application for the necessity of letters of credit. The motion that stands in my name on the order paper is to add a subsection (d): "A person applying for a licence, or for renewal of a licence, may appeal the amount required as security, by irrevocable letter of credit or otherwise, to the commission," which would be the appeal body.

Hon. M. Sihota: I should let hon. members know that I think we've figured out the problem on sections 25.2 and 25.21. We can actually go back to that at some later stage and get that cleaned up.

The short answer to your question is that it's our view it is appealable under section 25.31(2).

L. Hanson: Section 25.31(2) states: "A licensee may appeal the decision to the commission." Under section 25.31(1) it says: "The registrar may decide (a) to issue or renew a licence with conditions including a condition that restricts the goods or services that may be sold under the licence, or (b) to alter, add to or impose conditions on a licence at any time." If the minister gives us assurance on the record that his interpretation is that decisions, as they relate to sections 25.3 and 25.31, are appealable to the commission in both cases -- I didn't read it that way -- I can accept that, and I would withdraw the amendment.

Hon. M. Sihota: We read it that way, so there's no need for your amendment. I will clarify it on the record that section 25.31(2) applies to section 25.3.

L. Hanson: Fair enough.

The Chair: The amendment is withdrawn.

Section 5, section 25.3 approved.

On section 5, section 25.31.

L. Hanson: Again, sitting in my name on the order paper is a motion:

[SECTION 5, is hereby amended by adding to new section 25.31 of new part 1.1 of the Consumer Protection Act, the following subsection:

(3) On successful appeal of a major alteration to the terms or conditions of a licence, the commission shall award costs, unless the registrar has given the licensee 90 days prior notice of the alteration.]

On the amendment.

L. Hanson: I think the purpose of that is self-evident. We believe that there is a requirement for notice if there is a change in the conditions of the licence, and that there would be a type of penalty on the registrar if the notice was not given within a specified period of time. I might just add that this would only be in the case of an appeal to the commission of 

[ Page 7948 ]

the registrar's decision, which the commission would reverse. The costs of that appeal would then be awarded to the appellant if they were successful, unless the registrar gave a 90-day notice to the licensee of that alteration, even though the appeal might still go forward.

Hon. M. Sihota: I just want to make sure that I understand the hon. member's point here. Under the new section 25.4, the applicant has the right to be heard, and at that time rules of natural justice would of course apply to the hearing. As I understand the hon. member, he agrees with 25.4. He recognizes that 25.4 is there. He recognizes that they have the right to be heard, but if they succeed, you want to make sure they have the right to have costs. On reflection, we're not prepared to entertain the motion. It's not so much that I don't understand your argument -- now that I've phrased it in a way that I understand -- it's rather the precedent that would be set by allowing the costs to be awarded against the Crown. I don't know if you meant all costs -- costs of the hearing, legal costs or whatever -- but it would cross a line that we haven't crossed elsewhere, and it's a policy decision that I don't think should be made in this statute.

[8:00]

L. Hanson: I suppose the award of costs wasn't as important as a requirement to give notice prior to actually making the change, and of course there can't be an appeal until there is at least notice of the change being made. If there is a major change to a licensee, we thought there should be some notice that the change is coming about and that it isn't effective when the message is delivered, before there is a chance to appeal it.

Maybe the costs got mixed up with the intent of the amendment. Perhaps the minister would consider that there be some requirement, either by regulation or by amendment, for a notice period if a major change to a licence was being instigated by the registrar, who has the authority to do it prior to the change taking effect.

Hon. M. Sihota: Section 25.4(5) reflects the policy decision that's been taken. It says: "...a decision of the registrar under this section is not stayed pending an appeal to the commission." I think that deals with the issue of timing. What we're trying to get at here is: if someone doesn't have clean hands -- if I can put it that way -- you want to be able to deal with them expeditiously; you don't want time delays allowing them to either continue the activity they're involved in or somehow try to avoid their responsibilities. For us to agree to a change here would fly in the face of section 25.4(5) and the policy decision that's been taken there.

L. Hanson: I can understand the concern there. But section 25.4(5) -- and I know we haven't gotten there yet -- seems to say that the licensee can't get away with delaying the change to his or her licence simply by making an appeal. I think that's fair and reasonable. What we are suggesting, though, is that there should be a requirement on the registrar to give some notice of a major change to the licensee. That doesn't seem to me to be covered under the section the minister mentioned, because it says that you can't avoid a change in your licence by simply starting an appeal; the change in your licence is going to be effective anyway. That's fair enough; I don't see anything wrong with that. But we think the registrar should be required to advise the licensee of a major change to their licence prior to it happening overnight if that's the case. If the minister would consider that, I think there is plenty of remedy for bad actors under the act, so that the simple change to a licence wouldn't preclude action on the part of a registrar if it were someone, as the minister put it, with dirty hands.

Hon. M. Sihota: But take a look at section 25.4(3): "The registrar shall not refuse an application for a licence or renewal, or suspend or cancel a licence, without first giving the applicant or licensee an opportunity to be heard." They have to be given an opportunity to be heard; and as I said earlier on, under section 25.4 the applicant has the right to be heard, and other rules of natural justice would apply. One of the rules of natural justice that obviously applies when you have the right to be heard is the right to have notice of your hearing. That's one of the parameters or attributes of natural justice. Surely if people have the right to be heard, they can expect reasonable notice. If they don't get reasonable notice, they certainly have an argument before the courts as to the unreasonableness of the action taken by the registrar or any other body that hears it.

If we're connecting here on the point that I think you're trying to make in terms of the need to have notice as opposed to costs, it seems to me that notice is built in by applying natural justice in affording people the right to be heard. The right to be heard requires that they be given notice to have that hearing. You can't fudge that and say: "Well, I gave you 24 hours' notice." The courts will look behind the time period to the opportunity it gives the appellant to prepare to deal with a particular situation. I don't know if that gives the hon. member any comfort.

L. Hanson: Section 3, as I read it, would give the licensee an opportunity to be heard. I assume that's before the registrar, not the appeal commission. As for natural justice, I know that the minister's background gives him some advantage over some of us who haven't had a legal background. If I have his assurance that that is what this would give -- ample notice in the case of substantial change to the licence -- then I have no difficulty with it.

Hon. M. Sihota: Not only that, I'll go further on the record. On these kinds of hearings, the rules of natural justice should apply. I'm not going to get into a long speech on natural justice. I'll just reference the one I gave on the labour code. If you recall, I spent some time talking about the rules of natural justice at that point. There are a number of attributes with regard to the right to be heard, as it's known in law -- the right to know the case against you. So you must have some time 

[ Page 7949 ]

to know the case that you're to meet. The right to have notice is another one. The right to be able to examine documents and/or cross-examine parties on the other side are all attributes of natural justice. Otherwise the system wouldn't work. So I would expect not just notice but all of those other rights that flow under the context of natural justice to apply.

I'm not trying to impose my background. I guess I'm trying to take the opportunity here to make it abundantly clear on the record that one would expect those minimal requirements -- a hearing, the right to know the case against you, notice, the ability to examine documents and cross-examine -- to all be a part of the procedures, whether they be under section 25.3 or to the commission on appeal.

[M. Lord in the chair.]

L. Hanson: I can accept that. I guess I have the minister's assurance that there is a requirement to advise the licensee of changes to the licence or of major changes to the conditions of the licence before those major changes come into effect, because some period of notice, natural justice.... I can accept that. But someone may inadvertently do something contrary to a licence that has been changed without knowing that the change was in place. The minister says -- with the right to be heard -- that that notification would be part of it. So I have no trouble with that.

The Chair: The amendment is withdrawn.

Section 5, sections 25.31 to 25.5 inclusive approved.

On section 5, section 25.51.

G. Farrell-collins: I'm just proposing an amendment to section 25.51, which is the section that deals with the inspection of records. This will be a new subsection (4). All it does is require the registrar to set up a procedure to maintain the security of those documents when they are in their possession. It's a common provision that's included in a number of pieces of legislation. I would add a subsection (4) that states: "In relation to a record that is in the possession of a registrar, or a person authorized in writing by the registrar, and that is about to be inspected, the record shall be held in a secure manner as defined by procedures established by the registrar.

I would so move this amendment.

Hon. M. Sihota: We have no difficulty with the amendment.

Amendment approved.

Section 5, section 25.51 as amended approved.

Section 5, sections 25.6 and 25.61 approved.

On section 5, section 25.62.

G. Farrell-Collins: I have an amendment to that section, which I know the minister is aware of. There is a small problem with this section, and we tried to rectify it. I won't read out the whole amendment. All it does is ensure that the licensee produces the licence to the person they are making the sale to. It takes away the onus on the person or the potential customer to ask to see the licence, and in fact requires the direct salesperson to actually present the licence as part of the sales process. If they were not really comfortable with a person or sure who they were, many people would often be reticent to ask to see someone's ID. At least this way it's presented upfront as a regular procedure, and if it's not shown, that sends a signal to someone.

That's the intent of the amendment, and I would so move it.

[SECTION 5, by deleting the proposed section 25.62 (1) and substituting the following:

(1) A licensee shall produce the licence

(a) to a person to whom the licensee is making or attempting to make a direct sale, and

(b) on request, to a police officer, the registrar or any person authorized in writing by the registrar.]

On the amendment.

Hon. M. Sihota: I thank the member for the amendment. It actually does strengthen the legislation, so I have no difficulty with that amendment.

Amendment approved.

Section 5, section 25.62 as amended approved.

On section 5, section 25.7.

G. Farrell-Collins: My last amendment -- and it's a small one -- is to section 25.7(2), which requires that the identification card must contain the sales-person's name, and in addition to the name, the business address of the licensee, etc. It also includes a picture, just to make it a photo ID, which not only protects the consumer by having a visual representation on the card but also protects the direct salesperson from somebody getting the card and using it without permission. I move that amendment.

[SECTION 5, to amend Section 25.7 to read:

25.7 (1) A licensee shall give an identification card to a salesperson who makes or attempts to make direct sales on behalf of the licensee.

(2) The identification card must contain the salesperson's name, picture, the name and business address of the licensee and the signature of the licensee or, if the licensee is a corporation, of an officer of the licensee and any other information required by regulation.]

Hon. M. Sihota: The amendment is acceptable to the government.

Amendment approved.

Section 5, section 25.7 as amended approved.

[ Page 7950 ]

On section 5, section 25.71.

G. Farrell-Collins: Apparently that wasn't my last amendment. The other part of it was on the same piece of paper, so I would move:

[SECTION 5, by deleting the proposed section 25.71 (1) and substituting the following:

(1) a salesperson who has received an identification card under section 25.7 shall produce it

(a) to a person to whom the salesperson is making or attempting to make a direct sale, and

(b) on request, to a police officer, the registrar or any person authorized in writing by the registrar.]

It's very similar to the one previous in section 25.62.

On the amendment.

Hon. M. Sihota: The amendment is necessary to make it consistent with the one that was just passed, so we certainly support it.

[8:15]

Amendment approved.

Section 5, section 25.71 as amended approved.

On section 5, section 25.8.

L. Hanson: We're suggesting that we add a subsection (2) to 25.8. Since there isn't any subsection (1), it follows, of course, that the first section would be relisted as section 25.8(1). We then add a section 25.8(2), which stands in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 5, is hereby amended by numbering the content of new section 25.8 in new part 1.1 of the Consumer Protection Act, as subsection (1) of that section, and by adding the following subsection:

(2) except where a person seeking to become a partner, director, or officer of a licensee has not continuously been a resident of the province for the previous 12 months, an approval or refusal under this section shall be made by the registrar within 14 days of the request, and in any case, a refusal may be appealed to the commission.]

There are times in a small business when the changing of a shareholder may be a requirement for financing or for the continuation of the company. A legitimate business venture could fail to get some of those accommodations in the case of financing if approval for a change of a directorship were not done in an expeditious manner. The intent of the amendment is to give the registrar ample time if the individual who wants to become a director or a partner of a licensee is not known within the province. If there is a requirement for investigation and so on, there would be 12 months to get the approval, but in the case where it could be done with a local citizen, we're suggesting that there be a time limit of 14 days for the registrar to reply either in the positive or the negative to the application for the change. The licensee would then be notified of a change within a specified period of time.

Hon. M. Sihota: In the spirit of the work that we're doing here tonight, I've got no problem with that. I think it's not a bad suggestion. I will accept that amendment, hon. Speaker. Again, I think it both clarifies and strengthens the legislation. I have no difficulty there.

Amendment approved.

Section 5, section 25.8 as amended approved.

Section 5, section 25.81 approved.

On section 5, section 25.9.

C. Tanner: Just a brief point of explanation from the minister. I take it that the registrar who looks after this legislation is in Victoria. Does he delegate that authority to another registrar or a subregistrar or somebody in Prince George or Kelowna or somewhere else, or do all applicants have to do all their business through Victoria?

Hon. M. Sihota: We have offices throughout B.C. but not in every community, so in some cases yes, in Victoria. In other cases, as in a community like Prince George, they could deal with it through our office in Prince George.

C. Tanner: So when we're talking in the singular here, we actually mean the plural. All those people in all those offices are designated as registrars, are they?

Hon. M. Sihota: No, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to mislead you there. The registrar will be situate in Victoria, or in head office should that move from Victoria to another locale, but the service is provided in communities other than Victoria, of course. We have registrars of other functions: the registrar of companies and the registrar of employment standards, for example. The individual may be resident in Victoria, but it doesn't mean that one has to do the work exclusively through Victoria.

L. Fox: Just along those same questions, given that this is a fairly simple process in terms of licensing -- hopefully it will be simpler once this legislation has the regulations drafted for it -- would we then be looking at this being available at the access centres around the province, or would it be only in the regional offices?

Hon. M. Sihota: It would go through the government agents' offices.

Section 5, section 25.9 approved.

The Chair: There has been a request for the committee to revisit sections 25.2 and section 25.2(1).

On section 5, sections 25.2 and 25.2(1).

Hon. M. Sihota: I might just see if I can clarify it this time. If not, we'll see. Section 25.2(1) states: "A 

[ Page 7951 ]

person shall not carry on business as a direct seller unless licensed by the registrar or exempted under section 25.21 or by regulation." That applies to the person who carries on business as a direct seller. Section 25.21(2) states: "A salesperson or class of salespersons may be required by regulations to be licensed, but in the absence of such a regulation a salesperson is not required to be licensed." That applies to a person who works for a direct seller. That's why we've got section 25.2 and section 25.21(2). Although they seem to mirror one another, it's a bit of an optical illusion, but not necessarily a legal one. With that explanation, I hope the hon. members now have an understanding of why we have section 25.2 and section 25.21(2).

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm sure we all -- including the minister -- now understand exactly why those two sections are there. I think the difference between the direct seller and the salesperson was what threw people. After having gone through the act and checking the definitions, the section becomes clearer. I suppose that once the whole act is put together into one bound document, it will also make more sense to members of the public who come in contact with it.

Section 5, sections 25.2 and 25.21 approved.

Section 5 as amended approved.

Sections 6 to 14 inclusive approved.

On section 15.

L. Hanson: One of the difficulties I have with section 15 and this part of the act, the motor dealer reference, is that it doesn't seem to detail anywhere what sort of claims can be made against the fund that is created later. Are claims for such things as inferior work on the repair of an automobile or the lease of an automobile covered under the act? I couldn't find anywhere in the act where the protection we're trying to provide for the public was specific enough. Therefore I have an amendment to section 15 that would define "claim." I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 15, is hereby amended by adding to section 1 of the Motor Dealer Act, RSBC 1979, c. 287, the following definition:

"claim" means a claim with respect to the lease, exchange, or other disposition or supply of a motor vehicle by a motor dealer to a customer, or any dealings involving a motor dealer and a customer in relation thereto.]

That is a pretty broad description of what the act covers, but I think there needs to be some description of what can be appealed under the Motor Vehicle Act to this fund and the board that will adjudicate it. Maybe the minister could comment on that.

Hon. M. Sihota: My notes tell me that it's not needed in the legislation, since we have the ability to define what losses are eligible for compensation in the regulations in section 20 of the bill. At this point, I'm not prepared to accept that. I'm not necessarily prepared to reject or accept your amendment until I've had a chance to talk to legislative counsel about it. I'm not personally satisfied with the explanation that I've got at this point.

I don't know what the procedure is, hon. Chair, but could we stand down the amendment and then come back to it later on? The reason is that I'm not satisfied with the explanation I have here.

L. Hanson: That's fine. I think that's a good idea. For clarification, I'm sure that the minister is aware that a motor dealer's business is varied in the numbers of service items it offers. The name "motor dealer" in the act might give the inference that everything that happens in a motor dealership is subject to appeal to this fund, which is being set up for compensation if they're not happy. So much is involved in the autobody business and in automobile service, parts and sales that we would just like to see some clarification of what could be appealed to the board. I think if the minister agrees to set it down, that's great.

G. Farrell-Collins: Just for clarification, the minister said he was going to stand down the amendment. I assume you also have to stand down the section.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Okay. I was just going to make sure that that was the intent.

The Chair: Just for the committee's clarification, section 15 will stand down.

Sections 16 and 17 approved.

On section 18, section 13.1.

L. Hanson: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 18, is hereby amended by adding to subsection (2) of new section 13.1 in new part 1.1 of the Motor Dealer Act, the following:

The amounts required to be paid shall provide for lower relative payments by Motor Dealers with better records of customer service, as reflected by lower numbers of valid claims against them.]

[8:30]

I think the intent of this is obvious. We want to weed out the bad ones and charge them more, relative to what they are costing the fund, and the good performers should have the benefit of their better record. That is the intent of the amendment. I would formally move it so that the minister might comment on it.

Hon. M. Sihota: In the other ones I had no difficulty in terms of what was being proposed, because I thought it strengthened the legislation. I'm not prepared to do that on this one, and I'll tell you why. There was industry consultation with regard to these provisions. The industry itself accepted this approach to the legislation and approves of these provisions. For 

[ Page 7952 ]

that fundamental reason, I'm not prepared to do it. Remember, of course, that in most cases where there are claims, the dealership is insolvent or guilty of fraud and won't continue in business. When the business continues, the licence can be revoked until the dealership reimburses the fund. Consequently, the system already demands more from those, in that sense, where there have been problems than where there have not. But be that as it may, given the process of consultation that went into this and the agreement that it proceed in this fashion, I would prefer to leave it in the context that already exists.

L. Hanson: I find that interesting, because in my discussions with the motor dealers they thought it was a good suggestion. Maybe the minister has different information than what I got. I recognize that there is recourse by the fund against a dealer who contravenes the act and there is a decision against them for a pay-out of the fund for some infraction, and that in itself is a penalty.

I guess if the minister has another remedy within the act, either by regulation or order-in-council, against those who are bad actors as far as their payment into the account is concerned.... The way it is right now, everybody is lumped into the same category. Because of that issue, I would feel more comfortable with the better performers getting the benefit of some credit and the poor performers, even though they may pay the fund back, paying some penalty to continue to belong to it. Maybe the minister could comment if he could do that by regulation.

Hon. M. Sihota: Under the regulation the registrar has the power to give licences and set conditions for the licence, so I guess in that way there might be some ability to take remedial action against some and not against the others. There are some opportunities in that fashion, should they wish to exercise it, but not directly in the sense that the hon. member is suggesting.

L. Fox: One of the difficulties I have speaking to it at this point is the fact that we've stood down section 15, which identifies the purposes of the fund. Knowing that would certainly help in talking to this particular section. I know that when he introduced this, the minister spoke about the fact that many dealerships only have to carry a bond of $15,000, which is not adequate in terms of the sale of new and used vehicles. I concur, and most of the industry concurs, that this is probably the case. But if this particular fund is expanding somewhat, beyond the terms of that bonding, then I have a different concern: that we are setting up another form of insurance, and the dealers are going to have to meet those demands. Many dealers already have a great cost with respect to liability insurance, ICBC, fire and theft and all the rest of it.

I guess the appropriate point to discuss many of my concerns with respect to the fund would have been in section 15. But without having that information and that definition solid, it's very difficult to discuss section 18 with respect to the fund. I wonder if it might be appropriate somehow to discuss this section after dealing with the section that's been stood down.

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't think the rules were ever designed to unduly stifle debate -- I don't know if there is such a thing as duly stifling debate, but at least not unduly.

The purpose of me standing down section 15 was to deal with the proposed definition of "claim" -- not to revisit the definition of "fund" or "board." I didn't see any amendments on the order paper that the member was going to bring forward with regard to "fund" or "board." But knowing the reason for it, I have no difficulty....

Hon. Chair, with your indulgence, I would encourage you to accept the following: given the fact that my intention in standing down section 15 was to allow us to consider the word "claim," if we could debate proposed section 13.1 under section 18 on the assumption that "fund" and "board" exist, that would allow the hon. member to make the point that he wants to make and allow us to have the debate that we need to have. Is that fair enough, hon. Chair?

The Chair: That sounds fair to me, minister. Member?

L. Fox: We'll give it a shot.

One of the points I want to make in this particular section -- and more importantly, I think, in section 15.... In the interests of bringing forth good legislation to deal with the segment of the business community that it's designed to deal with, I want to discuss.... What this legislation does, and particularly this particular aspect as well as section 15, is identify the sellers of new and used vehicles who don't live up to the business practices that we expect. It allows the minister and the registrar some ability to deal with those few instances, which I hope will only be a few instances, and it allows them to compensate the customer for any poor business practices.

My difficulty, and why I wanted to discuss it, is that there's no area here that allows the dealer who may have unknowingly accepted a trade-in -- because we know that not all people who trade vehicles in are honest and state all the faults.... He may have lived up to the requirements under motor vehicle licensing and safety only to find out through an inspection process that the vehicle had $3,000 worth of damage that had not been reported by the previous owner. But now he's liable under this fund, because that wasn't made known to him or her at the time that he accepted that trade. There's no save harmless clause here or any liability on the individual who trades that vehicle in. That was the point that I wanted to get to in section 15. Perhaps the minister might want to comment on it.

Hon. M. Sihota: This is, after all, consumer protection legislation. If the dealer is somehow taken advantage of and then sells on to another party and subsequently goes insolvent -- the dealer, that is -- then I guess someone could make a claim against the fund. In law, certainly, the dealer would have a claim 

[ Page 7953 ]

against the person who sold him the vehicle without the proper disclosure. We're expecting some level of due diligence on the part of the dealer. In cases where there's fraud against the dealer, which is I think what you're trying to get at, it may be that the dealer would have a claim against the individual that defrauded him.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm glad the minister gave me that opportunity to redo my second reading debate, because this is exactly the reason why there's a private member's bill on the order paper with the vehicle transfer package. This is exactly why we have looked at other means to deal with these types of situations that the member for Prince George-Omineca brings up. This bill isn't keeping up with the times. This is a piece of legislation that was drafted some time ago and has been sitting on a dusty shelf for a while and has been blown off.

I see the assistant deputy minister....

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: No I don't....

It has been dusted off and brought back. What this fails to do is address private sales and people who curb cars. That's the word that's used. They sell cars on the curb without a motor dealer licence, etc. There's no recourse in the event of those sales. There's no ability to tell what's there. This is exactly why we tried to bring in some different legislation that was a little more progressive. It would deal with the types of questions the member is asking, and we wouldn't end up with the sort of flimsy answers that we're getting from the minister in addressing this issue.

Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you for that wholly out-of-order debate. I won't try to get away with the same, except to say that if you had asked me that question in estimates, I might have given you a longer answer than I'm going to give now.

We're clearly looking at other policy options along the lines that you're suggesting -- and I've indicated that publicly. At this point we're going to proceed with this type of initiative, but there are things that have to be worked out in a broader way. I give the hon. member credit for this. I know he has proposed on the order paper, as a Liberal member, legislation which mirrors the legislation that has been introduced by the NDP in Ontario. So he is right; he is progressing.

Amendment negatived.

The Chair: Shall section 13.1 pass? The hon. member for Okanagan-Vernon.

L. Hanson: I guess I admit defeat too easily. I thought I had lost 13.1 already, but maybe not formally. Section 13.11 creates a board....

[8:45]

Interjection.

L. Hanson: I'm sorry; we're still on section 13.1.

The Chair: Just to clarify for the committee, we have defeated the amendment to section 13.1, and we are now on section 13.1.

Section 18, section 13.1 approved.

On section 18, section 13.11.

L. Hanson: In my enthusiasm, I was too quick there.

Section 13.11 establishes the Motor Dealer Customer Compensation Fund Board to hear and decide claims against the fund. I think somebody mentioned that it was old legislation that had been taken off the shelf and dusted. I'm not sure that's the case, but this idea of self-regulation and self-policing of the automobile industry was started some time ago. The concern is that there is no requirement anywhere in the act that the dealers themselves -- who are funding the compensation fund as well as paying some of the administration costs of it -- be represented on the board being established to adjudicate the issues. In fairness, it seems to me that there be a requirement that those people who pay into the fund and establish it for the protection of the public have representation sitting on that board.

Therefore, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 18, is hereby amended by adding to subsection (2) of new section 13.11 in new part 1.1 of the Motor Dealer Act, the following:

A majority of the members of the Board shall at all times be registered Motor Dealers.]

Possibly the minister would consider that.

On the amendment.

Hon. M. Sihota: I will not agree to the amendment, but I will say that the Travel Assurance Board, which deals with the travel fund and with those who travel to jurisdictions and then find that an airline goes under, has a majority representation from the industry. There is no provision in the legislation that requires that; that practice has just developed. In the context of the amendment, I want to make it clear that the government will place members from the industry and will generally endeavour to do it in the same way that the Travel Assurance Board works. I think all members would agree that has worked very well, so I don't think a legislative amendment is necessary. I can make it clear in this House that we will make sure there is strong representation on the boards from the Motor Dealers' Association and the Automotive Retailers' Association. If we're not complying with that, the regulations appointing people will evidence it, and I expect hon. members, as they should appropriately, to both raise it in question period and be in a position to quote what I've just said.

L. Hanson: I heard the minister mention that there would be representation from the automobile dealers' association, which is paying into the fund and would be policing the fund. Did I understand from the minister's 

[ Page 7954 ]

comments that he expected the Automotive Retailers' Association to come under this legislation also and that therefore they should be represented on the board?

Hon. M. Sihota: No, I was just citing that as an example of another group. The recreational vehicle association, for example, is another one that's active in the field. We'll look at all of them. I'm not saying at this point in the House that the majority of representation will come from any one group or from the industry as a whole, and I want to make that clear in terms of my comment; but I'm undertaking to make sure that there is strong representation from the industry, in particular the Motor Dealers' Association.

L. Hanson: Then we have the minister's assurance, I believe, that there will be strong representation, if not a majority, from the motor dealers industry; but for clarity's sake, this does not affect the automobile retailers' association.

Hon. M. Sihota: No, I recognize that. I was trying to give you another example. Maybe I should have used just the example of recreation vehicles, as I believe that they have an association. We would have to give due consideration to representation from that aspect of the industry as well. It's just a point that I was trying to make.

L. Hanson: With the assurance of the minister that there will be strong representation on the board of adjudication from the automobile dealers, I would withdraw that amendment.

R. Chisholm: I notice that in section 13.11 there is no stipulation as to the amount of time a claimant must wait for a hearing. Is that going to come under regulation, or is there a set amount of time that they'll have to wait?

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't think we have to put that in legislation. That may cause all sorts of problems. One would expect the board to sit on a regular basis as necessary, and they'll deal with issues. I think it's probably going too far to stipulate that requirement in the legislation.

G. Farrell-Collins: Section 13.11 doesn't state it, but does the minister have some idea of how many people he's looking at? How big is this board going to be? Is it going to be three people or ten? Is there some indication of the numbers that we're looking at? I know it doesn't say it in the bill, but certainly he has some idea.

Hon. M. Sihota: Seven to nine, all of whom will be members of the Liberal Party.

G. Farrell-Collins: I notice that the member for Prince George-Omineca said he would be hard-pressed to find a car dealer in the Liberal Party. I can tell him that the Social Credit Party doesn't have a corner on that market. Even if it did, it doesn't anymore.

But seven to nine members.... My concern with the act and this whole concept of a board and the fund is that we're going to end up with another slew of people. Contrary to what the minister says, I know they won't be members of the Liberal Party; they'll be members of the New Democratic Party or relatively closely associated. Once again we have another board and another layer of administration in order to put this type of thing in place. It's just a consideration that we have. I would encourage the minister to keep the board as small as possible, yet still able to perform the duties required of it. I would suggest that he start with a smaller board and if necessary, if the time demands are such that a larger board is required, do so at that time; but start with a smaller board of, say, three people and work his way up, if necessary.

Section 18, sections 13.11 and 13.2 approved.

On section 18, section 13.21.

L. Hanson: Section 13.21(2) reads: "An application for compensation from the fund shall be filed with the registrar within 2 years from the refusal or failure of the motor dealer to pay." Would the minister give me some indication of why there is a two-year period from that refusal or failure to pay? It seems to be an awfully long time for that application for compensation to be held in abeyance. I have an amendment standing on the order paper in my name, but I would like to hear the minister's reason for that two-year time period, not necessarily from the infraction but from the refusal or failure of the dealer claimed against to pay. Why that length of time? Why the need for two years?

Hon. M. Sihota: The travel fund has a year, so that's the time frame is established in that case, and it's a recreational sort of coverage, if I can put it in that context. A vehicle is a fairly serious consumer purchase, so we chose to give it a little longer time period. We looked at what other jurisdictions have done, and two years seemed to be the practice elsewhere. I think six months is too short a time, quite frankly. I note the hon. member has an amendment with regard to the section. We looked at the nature of the acquisition -- a very serious acquisition -- and we gave people some scope there in terms of a time to reply, and based it on what seems to be the practice elsewhere. We ran it by the industry in the consultations that we had and did not receive much in the way of adverse comments. That's why we chose to stay with it.

L. Hanson: Again the minister has different information from the association than I received in my discussions with them. In any case, as I understand this, the minister is suggesting that -- if I can paint a picture, hon. Chair -- an individual has bought an automobile and has found that there is some defect or major concern with their purchase and has now made a demand on the dealer for reimbursement or remedy of some sort. I don't understand the need for the two years, after that demand has been made on the dealer, to apply to the fund. It would seem to me that six months 

[ Page 7955 ]

-- or if the minister is really concerned, a year -- would be adequate time, because the individual has already discovered that there is some problem and has already demanded from the dealer that there be compensation or a remedy provided in some form. The minister is suggesting that even after all that has happened, there is a requirement for another two-year period -- to have that hanging out there before claiming from the fund. I think I could agree if the minister was suggesting that if something was found to be wrong within two years of the date of purchase, it would still be within the claimable period. But we've already established, according to the rest of the legislation, that the customer, the individual, has already found that there is a problem with the purchase and they have sought a remedy or compensation from the dealer they dealt with; then after that there's another two years. When that dealer refuses to pay, there's another two-year period when they can make a claim against the compensation fund. It seems to me, for a reasonable approach to business and to the management of the fund, that there should be a time limit. After the discovery, after the dealer has refused to pay, there should be a time limit on that claim against the fund itself.

[9:00]

The amendment that I have standing in my name on the order paper suggests six months. I think that's a reasonable time after those discoveries have been made by the individual and after a demand has been made on the dealer. I have difficulty in understanding why there is still that two-year period. It would seem to me that the fund would have an outstanding liability for a longer period than is really necessary. At the end of 23 months you could recognize a claim coming forward to the fund that, for reasons of clarity and information, should have been made known to the fund much before that.

I don't understand the minister's suggestion that two years are adequate. I move the amendment that stands in my name on the order paper, with that explanation, hon. Chair.

[SECTION 18, is hereby amended by the deletion of the phrase "within 2 years from the refusal or failure of the motor dealer to pay" from subsection (2) of new section 13.21 in new part 1.1 of the Motor Dealer Act, and by substitution of the phrase "within 6 months of the discovery by the claimant of the refusal or failure of the motor dealer to pay." ]

On the amendment.

Hon. M. Sihota: I can certainly see from the dealer's point of view why they would want a shorter time, in order to limit their potential for exposure. Let me take the time to make the case from the consumer's perspective. The consumer would want ample time to make sure that they had a lot of time to pursue the claim. It really depends which side of the equation one is coming from. I'm not inclined to reduce it, nor is it my view that the experience elsewhere -- and we've fortunately had that with this legislation -- is such that the two-year provision gives undue exposure or has an undue effect on the fund.

L. Fox: I just want to speak briefly in favour of the amendment. Obviously, what we're talking about here -- although there's one word, and once we get done with the amendment, I'll ask questions about that word -- is a situation where an individual, primarily, has purchased a vehicle from a company that has, for the most part, probably gone broke or gone out of business. So the ongoing time frame is probably not going to be in the best interests of either the individual making the claim or the fund itself. In fact, it could delay the paying out of a potential liability. That has to be a concern, because as these things mount up, obviously there's more and more liability placed on the individuals who are contributing to the fund. So I think it would be in their best interests to get it cleared up as soon as possible, so that all individuals.... I think it's quite easy to define what the liability should be from the fund within a six-month period of time.

Hon. M. Sihota: I have just one comment. Take a look at the Ontario fund. I think that's probably not a bad example -- in a well-run province, of course.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Since the last election, when the Liberals got decimated.

Hon. Chair, I invite the hon. member to take a look at the Ontario situation, where the fund is very healthy in with this kind of provision and with very little, if any, legal exposure in a province that is on the edge of remarkable economic recovery.

L. Hanson: I think the member for Prince George-Omineca made a good point. If there are chances of recovery to the fund from an infraction under the act, those chances of recovery are probably reduced or jeopardized a little bit by the time delay of two years before an application need necessarily be made. The fund is going to have to accept an application up to two years, but the individual who has caused the difficulty may be long gone. It's a major impairment on the fund, I think, if that's the case.

Amendment negatived.

On section 18, section 13.21.

L. Fox: In section 13.21(2), we're talking about the length of time -- the "...2 years from the refusal or failure of the motor dealer to pay." I'm a bit concerned about the word "refusal." It would seem to me that this is envisioning something different than what I had thought the intent of it was.

I would hope the encouragement would be to the claimant, where there is an opportunity to claim damages from a respected dealer, that this go to the nth degree before there is a demand on the fund. I would certainly hope that a dealer wouldn't just merely have to refuse to pay for, let's say, a warrantee obligation, and then immediately there's a flood of applications to the fund because Joe Blow dealer didn't pay for a motor repair that I, as a consumer, felt should have been his 

[ Page 7956 ]

liability. I'm hoping that I'm not reading that into this particular clause.

Hon. M. Sihota: You would claim against the normal assets of the dealer through the normal court process before you were able to attach this fund. You have to go through the normal court process and attach to the normal assets of the dealer first, before you're able to claim against the fund. That should address your concern.

L. Fox: Just for clarification, is this particular clause only for when a dealer does not have the ability to pay or has no assets that are attachable by the claimant?

Hon. M. Sihota: It applies only if there are no assets, i.e., fraud or bankruptcy.

L. Fox: I know it's late at night. But why is there a need for the words "from the refusal" ? Why did those even have to be in there? Why couldn't it be "from the failure of the motor dealer to pay" ?

Hon. M. Sihota: They would take action only if they refuse to pay, let's say in the case of fraud; or if they fail to pay, let's say in the case of bankruptcy.

Section 18, sections 13.21 to 13.9 inclusive approved.

Sections 19 to 26 inclusive approved.

On section 27, section 73.

G. Farrell-Collins: Section 27, and I assume we're on part 9, section 73. I don't exactly know where the minister wants me to bring this up. I have a question which essentially deals with where on the list of priorities, in the order of precedence, a buyer's lien fits in under this act and the changes that are here. When a trustee or receiver comes into a corporation and has to divide the assets and put them in a ranking order, I know there's a scenario of who's first, second and third, as it goes down. Can the minister advise us where this buyer's lien would fit in in relation to some of the secured creditors, such as bankers?

Hon. M. Sihota: If you look at it from two points of view, I think I can get to the point the hon. member is trying to make. In the case of an operation that is not bankrupt, section 76(2) answers the question: "A buyer's lien has priority over other security interests." That would put it at the top or virtually at the top. It would be under the provisions of the Personal Property Security Act. It may mean, for example, that outstanding provincial sales tax will have higher priority. Some provincial interest may be higher. Those are, however, negotiated down in many situations. Often in a business you have a secured debenture that is a filed and registered instrument. In this case, the buyer's lien would take precedence over that secured debenture, which would be the usual thing that a bank would secure against a company. So it provides a lot of protection in the case where there is no bankruptcy.

In the case of bankruptcy, the provisions of the federal bankruptcy legislation kick in and the priority drops. There is far less protection, and we acknowledge that in the case of bankruptcy. So this legislation goes a long way to assist people in cases where there has not been that insolvent action. Where there has been a bankruptcy, there are clearly deficiencies in terms of the security of the buyer. Certainly in this legislation we try to provide protection, but we can't provide totality of protection. We can significantly improve the situation but, I think, will not be able to provide ample protection at the end of the day in the case of bankruptcy.

[9:15]

Sections 27 and 28 approved.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 63.

WORKERS COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. M. Sihota: I want to make a number of opening comments with regard to Bill 63. I want to indicate to the House how proud the government is to introduce this legislation and present it to this assembly for consideration. Historically, we've had an approach to workers' compensation where workers were covered by specific provisions in the legislation but there was not universal coverage. We as a government believe that every worker in B.C., as a matter of right, should be entitled to workers' compensation coverage. As a government, we believe that all workers in B.C. should be comfortable in the knowledge that they have the protection of the workers' compensation system should they be injured at work and require compensation. We believe, therefore, that employers should be obliged to provide that coverage to workers. To date about 85 percent of all working people in B.C. are covered by the provisions of the Workers Compensation Act. Fifteen percent, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 200,000 British Columbian men and women, are not covered by the provisions of the legislation. The introduction and second reading of this legislation represent a first step in bringing that situation to an end and taking us to a realm of universal coverage. Universal coverage is not unusual. It exists in, I believe, six other jurisdictions in this country.

In particular, inasmuch as historically in this country we have provided workers' compensation coverage for industries such as forestry, mining and the construction industry, which are heavily dominated by males, it is 

[ Page 7957 ]

inadequate and clearly wrong that there is no coverage for people who work in settings such as legal offices, medical and dental offices and banks, who are predominantly female. We think there ought to be coverage for those people. The provision of coverage to working men and women in those occupations is long overdue. This legislation takes an important step toward providing that coverage on a universal basis to all workers and says that it is a basic right of employment in British Columbia that working men and women have workers' compensation coverage.

Over the past month this government has made sweeping and broad changes to the workers' compensation system in this province. A few months ago we provided coverage for farmworkers through health and safety regulations. We're proud of that. We brought forward a process of regulations to deal with occupational violence, which we expect to be in place by the middle of July -- in other words, a few weeks from now. We have taken steps to eliminate the backlog at the appeals level of Workers' Compensation. At the board of review we have taken material steps to reduce the time delays and make it possible for workers, particularly in the lower mainland, to get hearings within 30 days. We have taken concrete steps to establish worker adviser offices throughout B.C. We opened one recently in Victoria; we opened one a few months ago in Prince George to complement the services we provide in Vancouver; and we've indicated a commitment to open another office on Vancouver Island in Nanaimo and a subsequent office in the interior in Kamloops in this fiscal year. Those changes begin to deal with some of the wrongs with the workers' compensation system, and they try to deal with the anger that many of us as MLAs who involve ourselves with constituency work find on the part of workers who are frustrated with the system.

We've also moved not only to deal with the system as it exists right now but to expand the reaches of the current system by providing for coverage on a universal basis as a basic right for all British Columbia workers, particularly, as I said in medical, dental and legal offices and banks. In the days and weeks ahead government will announce other changes to the workers' compensation system to make sure that we fulfil our election promise to overhaul a system that in my view has not adequately served the interests of British Columbians. Through legislation to expand the scope in this case, through the provisions that we've already announced to deal with those who are bogged down in the appeals system and by dealing more aggressively on preventive measures and more acutely with regard to rehabilitation services, I think we can reform the workers' compensation system in a way that is not only worker-friendly but also fiscally responsible. We have some fiscal problems, admittedly, at Workers' Compensation. As I indicated during estimates, I expect those matters to be attended to by July 17, which is the next meeting of the board of governors.

This government is proud of what we're able to do on workers' compensation. We're proud of the changes that we're making. We're proud of the fact that should this Legislature give consent to this legislation, as I'm sure it will, working British Columbians will have universal coverage. I look forward to endorsement from all parties with regard to this progressive and long overdue provision.

The Speaker: Perhaps the minister could formally move second reading.

Hon. M. Sihota: Sorry, hon. Speaker.

With that said, I move second reading of Bill 63.

G. Farrell-Collins: That introduction of second reading went about as smoothly as the introduction of first reading on Friday.

Hon. Chair, the opposition has spent some time examining this bill -- as much time as was available, given that this bill was tabled on Friday and it's now Monday evening. It's not a long bill by any stretch of the imagination, but its implications are profound, both financially and by precedent.

This piece of legislation raises a great number of questions in my mind. It's not that the intent of what the minister is trying to do isn't good, but it raises a great deal of questions on the way it is being presented and going to be done. We have not seen many pieces of legislation come forward by the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. We had Bill 84, the Labour Relations Code. We had Bill 21, which we just went through and to which we made substantial changes in committee stage. We had Bill 31, which was the Educational Programs Continuation Act. Now we have Bill 63, and another bill has been tabled today.

Being the critic for these bills, I found that in each and every one, including this piece of legislation before us, fingerprints of hastily drafted legislation are all over. They contain many faults that will come and haunt us later. Bill 84 certainly has had a profound impact on the certification of very small and medium-sized businesses that I don't believe was intended -- if you take the minister's word for it. I would venture to say that the implication of the legislation, as it relates to essential services, brought in some unintended results. Bill 31, which the minister brought forward to get students back into classrooms in this province, had a number of unintended results and loopholes. Had the minister accepted amendments put forth by the opposition, the Surrey teachers wouldn't have been left in limbo as their contract was arbitrated without a collective agreement. Had Bill 21 been examined in more detail, and had it been prepared and thought through more in advance, we certainly wouldn't have had to spend some two and a half hours going through it. To the minister's credit, he accepted a number of amendments from both the Liberal opposition and the third party opposition. But the bill had some fundamental flaws which needed to be corrected; many of them were, but others still exist.

When I look at Bill 63, I find the same pattern in place. I find the same type of hasty legislation being put together. Indeed, I wonder what's happening. This is a minister who, in the first 18 months of his mandate, tabled one piece of legislation; all of a sudden, we've had four or five coming through in the last week. In his 

[ Page 7958 ]

comments introducing this bill, the minister even mentioned that other ones were on the way -- more changes to workers' compensation. I don't know whether that is going to be legislated or regulated change. But it seems to me that the government has made a decision -- indeed, the minister has made a decision -- that there will not be a fall sitting of the Legislature.

Hon. Speaker, I am trying to deal with why we're dealing with this legislation now and the fact that there are some severe problems with it because of the haste in which it was drafted. Before the fall shuffle that we know is coming, it seems that the minister has put together as much legislation as he can and has done all the things in his portfolio that he can before he moves on. This bill is an example of that. In fact, it's rife with areas that, while perhaps good in intent, are full of question marks. I have to compliment the deputy minister and some of the people in the policy department for the thorough briefing they gave us today. But I went to that briefing with a great many questions and left with a great many more. I don't believe that the answers I received calmed my concerns.

This bill essentially does two things. It deals with an extension of workers' compensation coverage, as the minister says, to virtually all employees in British Columbia. The minister has stated that until this legislation, 15 percent to 20 percent of employees were not included in workers' compensation. But what he doesn't say is that many of those employees, certainly in the banks and insurance companies, were covered by company policies with processes whereby if there was an injury, there was some recourse there for them -- indeed, not all of them, but many of them.

[9:30]

Over the weekend, while spending some time on this piece of legislation, I developed some concerns. One of the reasons is that as I look back at the deficit that the Workers' Compensation Board is running right now, I see a deficit of $100 million, which is projected to be as high as $280 million by the end of 1993. I say to myself: how is the government grappling with that? What are they going to do to deal with that deficit? I asked the people who were giving us the briefing today if there is going to be an additional administrative cost in assigning workers' compensation to those 15 percent or 20 percent of the employees in the province who haven't been addressed before. The answer wasn't that there are going to be administrative costs, but that it's worth bearing because it's something the government feels strongly that it needs to do. The answer was that there probably would be slight increases in administrative costs, but the payments that were coming in from those employers would probably help to offset some of the corporation's deficit.

I'm curious to find out from the minister -- and he didn't mention it in his comments, so I hope he does in his closing remarks -- what the impact of that is going to be. Is this going to be a moneymaker for Workers' Compensation? Is that what this is? Is this going out and doing what people talk about ICBC doing? Are you creaming off the top of the most lucrative areas? Are we going into areas where the injury rate is extremely low and there is very little chance of claims? Despite the low rate that's assigned to those, is there going to be a potential for the government to apply WCB fees to those employers who employ that 15 percent and skim off enough money to help them offset their deficit? That's certainly a question worth asking; it's a concern that I have. I would like to know, certainly before this bill passes through committee stage, exactly what that impact is going to be.

I don't believe the government has done that calculation; perhaps WCB has. I would like to see those numbers. I would like to know what the impact is going to be. Is it going to be neutral revenue over expenditure, an increase or a further liability? Those are the things that need to be addressed before we look at this system and see if it is going to do what the government wants it to do.

The other main area that this bill deals with is the reinstatement of spousal benefits for the surviving spouse of a deceased worker in cases where that surviving spouse has remarried or entered into a common-law relationship. The current practice is that once the surviving spouse enters into a common-law relationship or marries, they are paid out two years' worth of survivor's benefits, and that's the end of it; they cease to receive a pension from WCB. That has been the practice. The government is stating that this won't be the case. The justification the government is using is that in 90-some percent of the cases, it's the woman who is the surviving spouse. As a result, this could be seen as a discriminatory provision in the legislation. It tends to discriminate against women, because more often than not it's women who get cut off when the new marriage or common-law relationship is entered into. I know the minister will state -- and it has been discussed -- that there are a couple of Charter challenges under this act to deal with that. I guess that's a policy decision that the government has made -- to say that we are going to continue or reinstate those surviving spousal benefits -- because it is discriminatory. That's a decision the government can make.

The government also has to be mindful that there is a substantial cost implication to that. The estimates from the Workers' Compensation Board indicate that the retroactive cost to reinstate those people who have been disenfranchised from April 17, 1985, on approximately $10 million plus almost $7 million for interest, for a total of $17 million. That lump sum payment is going to come out of WCB when this piece of legislation is passed. For a Crown corporation that ran a deficit of $100 million last year and may run as high as $280 million this year to be incurring another $17 million is not a small amount; it's a substantial amount.

That's not to say that the intent of the government is wrong; that's not to say that reinstating these spousal benefits is wrong. It's to state that there are a number of things government would like to do. There are lots of things that we would like to do. We would like to get rid of every single portable in the province. We would like to build all the bridges, highways, ferries and ferry terminals we need to build, but there is a limit to what 

[ Page 7959 ]

government can do, and there is a limit to what people can afford to pay.

We have $17 million added to the deficit of Workers' Compensation Board for this year alone. It is estimated that the additional cost each year will be about $10 million on an ongoing basis. Reinstating those 155 people -- I believe the minister stated it was -- who are currently disenfranchised will in fact cost the Workers' Compensation Board $60 million. These aren't small sums we're talking about; these are substantial amounts of money that will have a huge impact on the ability of the Workers' Compensation Board to do what it is doing.

Just to put it into a little bit of perspective, I just sat on a standing committee of the Legislature which reported today. That committee dealt with the remuneration of judges in the province, and one of the things we had to consider was life insurance for those members of the judiciary between the ages of 65 and the compulsory level of retirement at age 70. All members were very cognizant of the fact that that was something we would like to do. In his testimony, the Attorney General stated that it was something he felt required a serious look from the government. At the same time, we all recognized that there is an impact on the taxpayers' ability to pay. I believe the cost was going to be $90,000 a year. That in itself was a substantial amount of money. I do remember all members of the committee from all parties looking at that and saying it was a substantial amount of money. Despite the fact that we felt a duty and an obligation to provide those 11 or 12 judges who fall within that category with a continuation of that life insurance for five years, we were cognizant of the fact that that's a substantial cost. And that was $90,000.

So here the minister has 155 people, and we're looking at a cost of some $60 million; that's a substantially higher amount of money.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would suggest that the Minister of Labour and his henchman from North Vancouver-Lonsdale look at the cost and at what the ability to pay is. In fact, if they have those concerns, and if they go to the members of that committee, who spoke eloquently and who had concerns about the ability to pay....

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, it's very difficult to continue speaking. If the minister would like to ask me questions, he can do so in committee stage and we can switch sides. I have stated my position quite clearly to the minister.

The government, while it has many things that it would like to do, and while the opposition has many things that it would like to do.... The cost of those things must be looked at. The minister asked me if I support the provisions in this legislation. I can tell the minister that of the thousands of calls and thousands of letters that I have received as the critic for the Workers' Compensation Board, I have yet to receive one from someone in the province of British Columbia asking to be covered by WCB who wasn't already covered -- not one.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. With all due respect, the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove does have the floor. Please continue, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister can check his mail, and if he doesn't want to do that he can check my mail -- because I return my mail, unlike some people.

An Hon. Member: In a timely fashion.

G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, in a timely fashion. He will know that there is no crying, screaming demand that I've been aware of for people to be covered. I do know, however, that there have been some calls to my office with regard to compensation for volunteer firefighters, and I would assume that the minister is looking at addressing that. I have corresponded with him. I don't see that specifically laid out in this legislation, but I assume that the minister intends to address that and to make provisions in this legislation to deal with volunteer firefighters when they are injured and lose future income. Those are people that I have definitely heard from. In addition, I have heard from performing artists who work in British Columbia; they have looked for some sort of workers' compensation coverage.

Again, if we look at who is going to be covered and how, it's not so much that the intent of what the minister is doing is abhorrent to anyone; it's whether he has thought it through. Has he looked at it? Has he discussed it? Has he talked to those people to find out how this process is going to work? The minister has stated that every single British Columbian will be covered by the Workers' Compensation Board, except those that are excluded by the board of governors. Well, we have to look at professional athletes. Are professional athletes going to be covered? Is somebody playing hockey for the Vancouver Canucks now going to be covered by the WCB? Heaven forbid the sort of premiums they are going to have to pay! What about some of the other professional athletes? What about street performers? There are lots and lots of questions to be answered here.

I imagine we'll deal with them in committee stage, but I hope that the minister will deal with them in his summation, so that we have some sort of indication as to where we are going. Once again, I believe that the minister has become overenthusiastic, realizing that his time in his position is short and that the time of his government is short, and is bringing in legislation at the last minute -- in fact, as I said, about four or five pieces of legislation in seven days, with two, three, four or five weeks to go in the legislative session. He's bringing this in at the end, trying to get his little Brownie points, his little gold stars that he's going to put on his sleeve, but 

[ Page 7960 ]

he hasn't really thought through what the implications are.

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: Despite the comments from the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, who hesitates to engage in debate but loves to sit in his chair with his feet on his desk and comment.... If he would actually participate, perhaps we would have some constructive comments from his side.

What we have is a minister who in the past has also brought forth legislation that wasn't very well thought out, who has ignored amendments put forward by the opposition -- with the exception of this evening -- and who has got himself into trouble. My concern is that the minister is doing the same thing yet again. In his exuberance to grab hold of the issue of the day or of the week, he has decided to make these changes to the WCB so that when he leaves his portfolio, he can slap a badge on his shoulder and say, "Look what I did," and leave the mess for the next Minister of Labour and Consumer Services to deal with. It may be a member of his government or it may be a member of the opposition who has to deal with it. But somebody is going to have to go back and clean up these concerns.

As I said earlier, while the intent of what the minister is doing is laudable and while he can speak about it in glowing terms, he has to explain the nitty-gritty, the implications of what he's doing -- the how, the when and the why -- so that we all know what the costs are going to be and how it's going to be implemented, not just that the minister has grabbed some wonderful, glowing idea from NDP ideology and put it into legislation to make all the workers of the province happy. Nobody is saying that his intent, the benefit he's trying to give to British Columbians, is wrong, but we are asking how it's going to work. As I said earlier, there are a thousand things the minister and the opposition would like to do. But the question is: how do we afford it? When can we afford it? When is the right time to bring it in? And if we do bring it in, do we know how it's going to be implemented and how it's going to work out? Those are the types of questions that I think need to be addressed.

I hope the minister will give this legislation a chance to breathe. It was tabled on Friday. It was brought in for second reading today, at the next sitting of the House, relatively inauspiciously. I hope he will give it some time -- a week or so at least, given the haste with which he's trying to put things through -- for the public and the workers to have a look at it so that we can get some legitimate comments back.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Indeed, instead of heckling, maybe the member from the Cariboo, along with the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, can participate in the debate and impart his wisdom to us in a constructive form, and help the minister make the changes to this legislation that need to be made so that we don't end up with a mess two weeks or two months down the road which someone else is going to have to clean up.

[9:45]

J. Weisgerber: It's a pleasure to stand and speak to this amendment to the Workers Compensation Act. As was stated by the minister, the purpose of the amendment is, among other things, to extend coverage to a broad spectrum of workers. Certainly on the surface one would think that was a very admirable goal for the government to undertake.

It occurred to me, though, as I examined the legislation that in this move there just might also be a desire -- perhaps motivated by the Minister of Finance -- to shift some of the medical costs now being borne by the MSP to the Workers' Compensation Board and, through the WCB, to employers. If there are people now who are getting medical coverage that is not covered by the WCB, and if the government can legislate those people to be covered and their medical expenses would then be paid by the WCB, undoubtedly the effect of that -- the minister shakes his head -- would be to shift the cost from the Medical Services Plan of B.C. to the Workers' Compensation Board and, through the board, to the employers.

Indeed, another curious aspect of this legislation is that the board is now obligated, as I understand it, to cover anyone who applies. It wasn't long ago that I was trying to obtain WCB coverage for a constituent of mine who was being denied work by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways because he was unable to gain WCB coverage. So clearly the government may have had a change of heart or may now have to look for some other reason not to hire the contractor. I suspect that this legislation hasn't taken away that excuse.

I'm puzzled by the notion that the government would make adjustments retroactive to April 17, 1985. I've heard that it was because of changes to the federal legislation that it was required.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: The minister says the Charter.

The minister is also aware of situations where there have been activities by this government that were contrary to the Income Tax Act. But I don't see any move coming from the government to correct that particular shortcoming. So I suspect that we have here a kind of selective interpretation and decision to apply the regulations wherever it happens to suit the government in its agenda.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: The minister is obviously getting somewhat agitated by the criticisms of his legislation. That's certainly understandable, because we have here a member who for five years demonstrated the very positive approach he took to government. The minister, who stood on this side of the House and never said anything positive in five years, now sits over there and lets his feathers get ruffled the moment somebody criticizes a piece of legislation that he didn't even have 

[ Page 7961 ]

a hand in drafting, that somebody handed to him and said: "Go in the House and see if you can get this through tonight." He gets agitated because at ten minutes to ten somebody wants to get a few questions in about the legislation. Settle down, Mr. Minister. Have some cookies and milk, and just lie back and take it easy....

The Speaker: Direct your comments to the Chair, please, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: The minister might remember that quote, because I think it was he who at one time urged the minister opposite -- Mr. Brummet, as a matter of fact -- to go and have some cookies and milk.

We hear from this government time and time again that the taxpayers' dollars are in short supply, that there are reasons for the prudent expenditure of money. We know that the Workers' Compensation Board, since the election of this government particularly, has been running some serious deficits. Why would the government want to impose on the WCB the obligation to make retroactive payments that are seven or eight years old? If the Crown in its wisdom decides that it wants to extend those benefits to surviving widows when they remarry, there may well be some obligation in that. But I don't think that you're going to deal with any social problems by making seven or eight years of retroactive payments to a selected group of people.

I'll be curious to know, when the minister sums up, if he has any rationale for that, other than that this is one area where he has decided that he will follow some Charter interpretation. It has never been tested that I'm aware of. There has been no court order; there have been no instructions. It's simply that the government, or someone in a government agency. has made an interpretation and very quickly -- because it doesn't come out of the treasury -- decided that they would instruct the WCB to make these retroactive payments.

I would suggest that there will be similar examples that apply directly to the Crown. We will see whether the Crown is as willing to reach into its own pocket as it is to reach into the employer's pocket to make retroactive payments for seven or eight years.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: Hon. Speaker, as members rise to seek recognition, I hope they are all in fact getting it. There seem to be a number of frustrated members on the government back benches who, I assume, are being overlooked when they rise to catch your eye. We'll be a little slower rising to our feet to ensure that those members have an opportunity to catch your eye and be recognized.

On the decision to extend coverage to all British Columbians, the previous speaker raised the question of hockey players. I'm wondering about rodeo performers. They are certainly going to be employed, albeit for as short as seven or eight seconds at a time. We will certainly get to that in committee stage, but I think it's a legitimate question. Stunt performers, race car drivers -- all of those people, it would appear, are working gainfully in British Columbia while they're performing whatever functions they perform. If the minister is suggesting that everybody's going to be covered, it's going to be a challenge to create a fee structure that will recognize the risks and to find a meaningful way for the performers to contribute to the coverage. Again, it goes back to the argument that I made. If in fact they are going to be covered, I believe it's a deliberate attempt to shift coverage from MSP to the Workers' Compensation Board, and to use that as a way of taxing employers in an indirect fashion.

The other questions that arise are about babysitters, for example, who are working and being paid. Are they going to be covered? Are the parents going to be obliged to report the employment of babysitters and make contributions to the WCB? As I read the legislation, if they fail to do so and their employee, the babysitter, is injured, the employer could well be liable for all of the costs associated with those injuries.

It seems to me that this is typical of the kind of legislation that comes into this House too often these days: legislation for which no one has done the "what ifs." If the minister and the members are getting frustrated with sitting in the House listening to these kinds of critiques, it's because too often legislation comes in apparently without this kind of criticism having been done by the caucus or some other group that would normally look at legislation and do a critique on it.

Several times tonight we've heard the question: "Are you for the legislation, or aren't you? Are you going to vote for the bill, or aren't you?" I don't think that should always be the question. I think it's reasonable for someone to support a piece of legislation's general thrust and still have legitimate questions about it. The more we see of legislation presented by this government, the more likely we are, regardless of the intent, to want to look pretty closely at the way the legislation was drafted and at the implications it might have for our constituents and for others around the province.

I think there are some real questions to be asked about this legislation. I suspect that the intent of the legislation generally is to broaden coverage. I don't see any problem with that. But when you ignore the obvious questions in your enthusiasm for those kinds of undertakings, it falls to us to raise them and to hope either that there are some answers or that the government will decide to stand down the legislation and reconsider it.

I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to stand and express some of my reservations about this legislation. I'm sure that those who support it so enthusiastically on the other side will feel driven to jump to their feet and defend it. It appears to be rather poorly thought out and drafted, but perhaps some of the government back bench have greater insight, having had an opportunity to consider it a great deal longer than we have.

One has to ask why in the world the government would feel the rush, having tabled the legislation on Friday, to be here at 10 o'clock on Monday evening, impatient to pass the legislation, particularly given the amount of time that we're going to be here, the amount 

[ Page 7962 ]

of legislation that has been on the books for some time and the amount of time that it will take the WCB to implement the legislation even if it were passed in the next day or so. Perhaps there would be a greater opportunity for comment on legislation like this if the government were prepared to allow the people who are going to be directly affected by it to examine it and comment on it. It would allow us to focus on the issues identified by the groups that will be directly affected. In the meantime, we'll continue to ask questions and hope at least that we get some answers from the minister.

F. Garden: I take great delight in rising to support this farseeing legislation. I hear some of the opposition members saying: "Why the rush?" I think we're about 20 years too late with this legislation. Every day this bill is delayed we put at risk somebody who is working without coverage. For years people have been crying for this legislation to be enacted, and I applaud the minister for presenting it at this time. He's been listening to the people who have been demanding it, and it has finally been brought before this Legislature.

[10:00]

I have no difficulty at all standing up here and supporting this legislation. I don't know about the other members of this Legislature, but every day people who are presently covered troop into my office, asking questions on workers' compensation. The pathetic ones are those who are not covered at all and are probably crippled for life. I know of one individual who was working for an outfit that wasn't covered by the legislation. He was in a really bad accident and had nobody to turn to. Right now that person is a burden on the province because he is going through Social Services to get a living instead of being properly looked after by that agency. Because of the lack of proper safety equipment and other things that they should have had to run a business, this person is now a burden on society. These are the kinds of people we're speaking for in this legislation.

I would hope that the opposition is not standing up on this legislation just for the sake of opposing. This is a major change, and it's long overdue. Instead of spending time belittling it, they should be standing to support it. We should get it done with and enacted as soon as possible. Once again, for the record, I have no hesitation in saying that this is good legislation -- long overdue. I don't think it goes far enough. I think there area a lot of things we can do with the WCB -- it needs improving -- but this is a tremendous step in the right direction.

I listened to the opposition just a few weeks ago, applauding the government on the moves we're making with the WCB and on the extra people we're putting in the field. But they seem to be speaking out of both sides of their mouth tonight. Now they're opposing farseeing legislation. I would suggest that they make up their minds which side of the fence they're sitting on with this one and get off it. Either vote for the legislation or stand up and be counted and vote against it.

Interjection.

L. Fox: That's right, the hard-hitters are coming.

I'm pleased to stand up and speak on Bill 63. One thing that has become overly evident to me, as a member who has sat in the Legislature now for some 20 months, is that....

Interjection.

L. Fox: Exactly. It feels a lot longer than that.

We saw it last year at the same time of year. We saw the almost arrogance of this government, dumping a pile of legislation on the House in the dying weeks, bringing it forward in the late hours to try to get the opposition to cave in and not contribute and not pick it apart. I think it's deplorable that we find ourselves here on June 28, talking about a bill that was introduced just three days ago.

In earlier discussions of a previous bill, the minister suggested that this piece of legislation had received considerable input from the interested parties out there and that he hadn't heard anything negative. This is the kind of situation we're faced with. Here we have a bill introduced on Friday, we're speaking in second reading on Monday, and I'm sure the minister wants to keep us here this evening until he can get second reading. He's not interested in public input; he's only interested in putting his agenda forward. He's not interested in what's in the best interests of British Columbia.

This bill suggests that the minister is going to extend WCB coverage to virtually all workers, including casual workers, artists, performers and outworkers who had previously been excluded. I can see it in my mind. The minister, on his way to lunch every day, is going to go by the area in front of the Legislature where the artists all stand to do their painting and sell their wares. He's going to ask them if, as self-employed individuals, they have paid their WCB premiums. I can see that this is going to be easy to control, looking after all these sidewalk artists so that they're going to look after their own interests through WCB. That, to me, makes a whole lot of sense, and I welcome the day that I see the minister going looking for WCB cards.

I see also that we're now going to have the opportunity as ordinary residents of British Columbia to hire students in the summer to do a few hours work in order to take advantage of the student employment programs. Now we, as employers, are going to have the privilege of paying WCB premiums. We're going to have the privilege of registering every hour that that student works. Hon. Speaker, I suggest to you that there are many residents of British Columbia who go out of their way to hire students because they know that those students need some revenue in order to get back into the school system. If they have to comply with this legislation -- and as it's presently written, it certainly indicates that they do -- they are not going to hire those students, because there would be more bureaucratic red tape than the average citizen wants to take on. That is the type of thing that this legislation will promote. It will promote fewer of those casual jobs; it will promote less opportunity for the entry skills that those students gain.

[ Page 7963 ]

The previous speaker for our party, our leader, talked about babysitters. Well, let's go one step further: what about nannies? Even nannies will fall under this legislation. This legislation now requires anybody that hires a nanny to go forward.... When we look at this legislation, we see that the WCB will retain the power to specify exempt workers and exempt employers. Well, that raises a little concern in my mind. Given the financial state of the WCB since this government came into power, are they going to be selective? Is the WCB going to say: "Look, here's a low-risk opportunity. But we can increase revenues; we can spread the risk around more individuals" ?

Interjection.

L. Fox: Sure, the minister says claim rates will set the premiums. Obviously; that's the way it happens right now. But without question, if there's little change in claims, there will still be a base premium which will help to defer the existing costs of the WCB.

When we look at some of the aspects of this.... One has to look at the fact that when we talk about artists and performers, we look at all kinds of performers. We look at a new industry that's presently coming to British Columbia: the moviemaking business, which is growing substantially. I can envision it now. In fact, apparently there was a case in the past where Sylvester Stallone made an application to the WCB. Perhaps the minister has recognized that and wants to give that individual and individuals who play roles like that the opportunity to be insured under our WCB premiums. There are so many cases like that.

I think if the minister is going to exclude all of the high-risk performers -- like rodeo performers, who were mentioned earlier; perhaps motor-cycle racers; perhaps Indy car drivers in the Vancouver Indy race -- over the course of the next year.... If the minister and the WCB want to exclude them, we're going to have a list of exclusions longer than my arm. Because so many high-risk performers perform in British Columbia on an ongoing basis in....

Interjection.

L. Fox: The other side of this argument, without getting into it.... I'm really looking forward to the minister's closing remarks, even though they may be at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, because I hear more debate across the floor than he gave in his opening remarks.

I realize that I'm new to the Legislature, but I have not had one individual come to me -- whether it's a bank teller, a baby-sitter, or whoever -- asking for this. I have to wonder: who asked the minister for this legislation? I think the evidence is quite clear: I think it was the WCB. I think it was an opportunity for them to widen their mandate, perhaps to help pay for the high-priced individuals this minister has put forward in the last while. Probably one of the major areas of concern is how we can meet our growing employee costs and the high-priced costs of our executive officers. We can broaden our mandate. We can spread it out through more people throughout the province to give us more revenues. That, I believe, is the number one objective of this legislation.

While the minister says differently -- and certainly heckles to the point that he doesn't believe it -- I believe very strongly that there is an ulterior motive to this legislation. The minister hasn't spoken to it, and what he has spoken to is smoke and mirrors in terms of the real intent of this legislation.

H. De Jong: It gives me pleasure to rise on this Workers Compensation Amendment Act. The minister said that this was such an important bill. If there had been so much request for this action from the government, it makes me wonder why the minister waited so long to bring this bill forward.

The bill says that it will virtually cover all workers, including casual workers, artists, performers and who knows who else. But the bill also states that the WCB will retain the power to specifically exempt employers and workers. So the total power, again, is with the WCB. The government makes a regulation -- or a bill, in this case -- that every worker shall be insured through workers' compensation and shall participate in this. But WCB still has the right to say: "No, sir, we won't take you."

Why on earth isn't the minister or the government -- if they are so interested -- and I believe most people are interested in receiving some coverage of some kind, and I believe that most employers want to see their employees covered for accidents which may happen at the workplace.... But why through WCB? Why isn't the opportunity given by simply stating in a piece of legislation that yes, the employer shall cover the employee for a percentage of his weekly or monthly salary -- by whoever? Why WCB?

It appears to me that this is simply a bill -- as has been said already -- to enhance the Workers' Compensation Board. It should be noted that in 1990 the Workers' Compensation Board had an unappropriated surplus of $131 million. Now it has an unfunded liability of $97 million. Is that perhaps the reason why they need these additional customers? Is that perhaps the reason why the people are not given a choice where to get their insurance? If you live in a democratic society, people should be given a choice. Employers as well as employees should be given a choice as to where and how they want their insurance, but not necessarily through WCB.

[10:15]

On previous occasions the minister has made several notes about the improvements in WCB over the last little while. I must say that the minister has indeed, on certain occasions, given some assistance to speed up some of the situations that have been before the WCB. He really thinks that the WCB is a great thing for workers in B.C. but, as the member who spoke before me noted, the minister has never had an application or request from anyone for coverage by the WCB. We've all had many complaints about the operations of the WCB. When it takes 17 evaluations by 13 doctors over a ten-year period in order to get some funding due to an industrial accident, it begs the question whether the WCB is really such a fantastic assistance to workers.

[ Page 7964 ]

I'm not so sure that this bill is going to do what the minister and the government think it's going to do. It would seem to me that it is another bill that leads to government empire-building in a Crown corporation. It'll add many thousands of workers to the list of contributors to the WCB. It would almost seem that this is a follow-up to Bill 84: everyone shall be unionized; everybody shall participate in the WCB. There is no choice. I believe that the people of B.C. should be given a choice as to where and how workers will be insured.

L. Hanson: My concern with the bill is the apparent emergency nature of dealing with the bill. There has been very little opportunity for the public to look at the bill -- practically nil because it was introduced on the weekend. Having introduced it Friday, I'm surprised the minister didn't call us back on Sunday to deal with the issue. The member for Cariboo North suggested that we should have done it 20 years ago. I recognize the concerns that he has expressed. But if it should have been done in the last 20 years, I don't know why it's necessary to introduce it on Friday and then deal with it on Monday at 10:30 in the evening, before there's been an opportunity to comment on the bill.

The minister obviously has some motive in mind. When you look at the agenda we're faced with, there seems to be adequate feed for the legislative mill to debate, if you will. The necessity of bringing this bill forward on such an emergency basis, with such short-term notice, seems to me to have some reason behind it. Quite frankly I don't understand it. I have enjoyed being a member of this Legislature for six or seven years now, and it has yet been pointed out to me, other than in the case of farmworkers, that there was a dire need or a huge critical situation out there, where all sorts of people who should have been entitled to WCB coverage under the act were not covered; that there was this emergency situation, and all sorts of employees who were in hazardous occupations and were facing the serious possibility of injury in the workplace required this coverage on a relatively emergency basis. I don't understand this. It seems to me that if this government were truly interested in the consultative process and in public input, they would give some opportunity to the employer and employee communities to comment on the bill, without going through second reading in such an obvious emergency.

If we don't pass this by Tuesday evening, I suppose there is going to be all sorts of exposure out there -- which has been there for the last 20 years, as the member for Cariboo North suggested -- that has to be dealt with by Tuesday noon. I just don't understand this. Are we facing an emergency situation that if we don't have this done by such-and-such a date, the world is going to come to an end? That appears to be the impression the minister is giving us.

I think everybody in this House supports the need for WCB coverage where there is an exposure to hazards in the workplace. The majority of industries are covered. I will acknowledge that there may be some gaps in that coverage that need to be looked after. But the way this legislation reads, it's going to cover everyone, including babysitters, nannies, American actors and stunt men, such as Evel Knievel and his son.

Interjection.

L. Hanson: I have nothing against nannies, but I have not seen that as being a particular hazardous occupation, although maybe the NDP see it that way. I wouldn't reject coverage for nannies. I'm simply asking the minister to take some time and give the public of B.C. an opportunity to comment on what is happening here, prior to rushing it through the House. The government takes great pride in its consultative process. We don't do anything except by consensus. But when it comes to this bill, we have to put it through because there is some emergency out there or some catastrophe that's waiting to happen if it isn't done by 6 o'clock on Tuesday. I don't understand the minister's motivation for that.

If it's because the minister has a shortage of items on the agenda, he is also the minister responsible for the House from the government side. It seems to me that there's an ample inventory of issues that could be discussed in lieu of this in order to give the public an opportunity to respond to it and to give us some observations and some idea of what they see as possible effects of these changes. But obviously the minister is dedicated to passing this on an emergency basis, as I suggested. I really feel uncomfortable with that. I think that if legislation were done in a good democratic manner, there would be an opportunity for the public to respond and comment on it. I think the minister is wrong in rushing it through this fast.

The Speaker: The minister upon rising closes debate.

Hon. M. Sihota: It's interesting that the strongest argument put forward by the opposition in dealing with this legislation, and certainly the one that has been most consistently repeated, is the question: "Why are we debating this at 10:30 at night, when the government introduced this legislation at 11 o'clock Friday morning?

An Hon. Member: I want the answer.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, I'll give the member the answer. I would think that the opposition would be quick to support this legislation. I guess we'll find out in a few minutes, when we have a vote on the legislation, just how they intend to vote on the bill. But I suspect that the opposition knows full well this is good legislation and that they will support the legislation. That's why it's before the House today.

If you listen to the opposition, you'd get a feeling that they have no idea of the inadequacies in coverage that exist out there in society. Let me take a few minutes to talk about the problems that we're addressing through this legislation. Take the case of someone who works in a medical or dental office. Right now those people, most of whom are working women in British Columbia.... I guess I'm not surprised at the opposition speaking against the bill, although, with the 

[ Page 7965 ]

hypocrisy you see these days from the opposition, I think they'll vote in favour of it. We don't expect the opposition to stand up for working women in this Legislature, but on this side of the House I'll tell you one thing: we stand up for working women.

Working women who are watching this debate here tonight or reading about it in the months ahead have to ask themselves who represents them? Who stands up for them in this Legislature? I'll tell you one thing: it sure as heck isn't the opposition. There are a number of working women in British Columbia who work in medical offices and who sustain injuries while at work -- back injuries, injuries to muscles caused by the rigours of working in those offices. I have not heard one member of the opposition stand up in this House and say that those women who work in medical offices in British Columbia ought to be entitled to coverage. That doesn't surprise me. But I'll tell you that we have made it abundantly clear in this legislation that they should, because those workers in British Columbia deserve justice in terms of coverage.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Oh, now I hear the great protests from the opposition, saying: "Oh, no, no, we support this legislation. Get real, we support this legislation." Well, it's funny, I just listened to the opposition Liberal critic talk for half an hour on this legislation, and not once could he come to the point of supporting the government for the legislation we have brought before the House.

Women and other workers work in law offices, and they don't have workers' compensation coverage today. Think of someone who's working in front of a display terminal and who sustains injuries maybe because of the effects of a displaced terminal or difficulties to wrists and wrist injuries. Those people may be covered if they work for the provincial government, but they aren't covered if they work for a law office. But if they sustain injuries, if they aggravate their bodies through the work that they do there -- and I don't think there's a lot of complaints, knowing a little bit about that field of work -- but there are enough to warrant coverage for those people. If they're injured at work, they should be covered through a system that compensates them for legitimate injuries.

Look at bank tellers. You know, it's amazing, bank tellers stand on their feet for long hours.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Not one member of the opposition, including the member who's over there heckling, who didn't even have the fortitude to stand up and engage in debate....

The Speaker: Order, please. Point of order, hon. member for Richmond-Steveston.

[10:30]

A. Warnke: On a point of order, hon. Speaker. While it is entertaining to hear the minister, the fact is that he should be aware that there are two Houses operating at this particular time, and I think it would be best for the minister to show some courtesy to members in the other chamber.

The Speaker: Thank you for your point of order, hon. member. I would just ask hon. members to respect the fact that the minister does have the floor, and I would ask the minister to address the debate of second reading under consideration and to address his comments to the Chair.

Hon. M. Sihota: I was talking about bank workers. The cashiers at Safeway stand on their feet all day long, just like bank tellers do, and they sustain all sorts of damage to their veins. Standing all day long has a long-term effect on circulation, and they're covered by workers' compensation. Bank tellers are on their feet for four, six, eight hours a day. They sustain the same type of damage to their bodies. Why should someone at Safeway be covered and not someone at the Bank of Montreal? Then the opposition comes in this House and says that somehow we ought to feel sorry for the Bank of Montreal, which may not be able to afford the assessments that they're going to have to pay under this legislation to provide coverage and premiums. It says that there's some kind of plot on the part of this government to bring in those premiums to pay off the deficit that has accumulated at the Workers' Compensation Board, overlooking, of course, that the system is based on an experience-rated system. If they understood the system and how it worked, they would realize how flawed that argument was.

I did a scrub on this legislation on Friday morning, and I listened to the critic from the opposition say that he thought he would support it. Today I listened to his speech, and I don't know if they're going to support it or not, because they spoke against the legislation. We'll test it in a minute when we ask them to vote. I wonder who got to the Liberals over the weekend, whether it was the banks or Murray Pezim. On Friday they were indicating that they were going to support it, and today it appears as if.... At least they speak against it. We'll see whether or not they vote in favour of it. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Liberals, being undecided in terms of where they stand on most issues -- sitting on the fence -- will do the traditional of speaking against legislation and then voting in favour of what they know is long overdue and provides necessary coverage to working men and women.

During the course of their comments, several members commented with regard to the fiscal situation at Workers' Compensation. It is true that there are fiscal problems at the Workers' Compensation Board. This legislation does not attend to those fiscal problems. It is not designed to deal with those fiscal problems. As I said earlier in estimates, on July 17 we will make a plan of action available to deal with those fiscal issues. This legislation and the intention behind it is very simple and very clear: to provide workers' compensation to the 15 percent of working British Columbians who aren't covered.

You would think, after listening to the debate, that the opposition somehow begins to believe that this is radical and revolutionary stuff. They overlook the fact 

[ Page 7966 ]

that six other provinces in Canada have similar legislation to provide universality in terms of coverage for workers' compensation services, and they deal with the problems of rodeo riders. If you listen to the opposition, they would lead you to believe that rodeo riders won't ride in B.C., movies won't be made in B.C., students won't work in B.C. and the Canucks won't play hockey because of this legislation.

An Hon. Member: They don't now.

Hon. M. Sihota: They do most days. I agree that there are days when they don't, but it has nothing to do with the fact that this legislation is being introduced.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Or professional skiers won't ski in British Columbia. That's not the case. Other jurisdictions in the country have dealt with those problems in a sensitive, fair and balanced way through the provisions that we've established in this legislation. It will do that in this legislation.

A few members of the opposition take issue with our intention -- should this legislation meet with the approval of this House -- to deal with the fact that women are being discriminated against. We want to put an end to the discrimination that women face upon remarriage; that practice is now being put to an end through this legislation.

The practice of the bill will go like this: 90 percent of the claims for workers' compensation go to men. Some men die as a consequence of injuries that they sustain in the workplace. In that situation, women are entitled to spousal benefits -- unless they remarry. If they remarry, they're not entitled to those benefits. For a long time people in this society have said: (a) that's contrary to the Charter; and, (b), even if it's not, it's unfair, unjust and discriminatory to deny someone a benefit that they're entitled to under statute simply because they remarried. Sometimes people make a decision not to remarry because of those legislative provisions. I ask hon. members: is that fair? If they do remarry, is it fair to deny them those benefits? Is it fair to discriminate against women, whose spouses die, on the basis of remarriage? Of course not. Yet the opposition takes umbrage with provisions to correct those wrongs.

I admit that it will cost, and I don't quarrel with some of the figures that have been tossed into the debate today. But no one said that justice is free. One has to make decisions with regard to priorities and what coverage we think ought to be provided in order to put an end to discrimination against those people who are denied coverage simply because they remarried. It happens in other statutory benefit schemes, and it ought to happen with regard to this provision in the elimination of that discrimination.

If you listen to the opposition, there are all sorts of nefarious and notorious sorts of matters that are behind the introduction of this legislation. I was amazed at some that were brought forward, particularly by the critics from the Social Credit Party. I want to make the record perfectly clear: there are no notorious, backroom reasons as to why we're doing this. It's just very simple. Working men and women in British Columbia, as a basic right of employment, ought to have workers' compensation coverage so that they don't have to reach into their own savings in order to deal with the effect of their experiences in the workplace.

Just as we have statutorily made sure that all workers have minimum protections -- for wages, for overtime, for vacation pay, for severance, for pensions -- as a matter of right, we believe that they ought to have it for workers' compensation. That's the reason -- just basic fairness and justice to those working men and women.

I'm going to take my place now, and I'm going to move the appropriate motions. I'm going to do that knowing that the Liberals spoke against the legislation, knowing that the Socreds spoke against the legislation, but wondering whether or not they're prepared to get off the fence when we call for a division and vote in favour of this legislation. There is still an opportunity for redemption of the opposition, who are persuaded now, I am sure, that this legislation is here to protect the interests of working men and women in British Columbia.

Hon. Speaker, with that said, I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 38

Petter

Priddy

Edwards

Cashore

Schreck

Lortie

Giesbrecht

Miller

Smallwood

Hagen

Gabelmann

Sihota

Barnes

MacPhail

Copping

Lovick

Pullinger

Evans

Lord

O'Neill

Krog

Randall

Simpson

Garden

Kasper

Wilson

Brewin

Janssen

Reid

Farrell-Collins

Dalton

K. Jones

Chisholm

Tyabji

Warnke

Jarvis

Anderson

Symons

NAYS -- 4

Hanson

Weisgerber

De Jong

Neufeld

Bill 63, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Sihota moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:48 p.m.


[ Page 7967 ]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.

The Committee met at 2:48 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF WOMEN'S EQUALITY

On vote 60: minister's office, $356,400.

Hon. P. Priddy: It's a pleasure to rise and speak to the estimates of the Ministry of Women's Equality. There are a number of people here today, all of whom are interested, because it an issue and an interest for many people in this government and in this province.

Just before we begin, I'm going to take a brief few minutes to introduce some of my co-workers in the Ministry of Women's Equality who are with us today: Sheila Wynn, who is the Deputy Minister of Women's Equality; Deb Meyers, who is the executive director of financial management; Dyan Dunsmoor-Farley, the assistant deputy minister for programs; and a variety of other wonderful people in the gallery who may be assisting with responses that people may need as well. As we begin, if I could ask the members who will be asking questions to indicate the area in which they are questioning, we'll ensure that there are people here, in case we need additional information, to provide an answer.

We've now finished a full first year of this new and freestanding Ministry of Women's Equality, and I want to briefly make some opening comments about how we perceive the ministry and how we approach our work. As we canvass the estimates we'll have a chance to talk about some of the specifics of that, hon. Chair. It is important to this ministry that the work we do and the goals for which it is designed are accomplished, and that we find ways and develop mechanisms within the ministry to ensure that the purposes and goals of initiatives and work in the ministry are accomplished, evaluated and make a positive difference in the lives of women in British Columbia -- and in the lives of others as well.

That has to do with the initiatives coming from the ministry. A critical part is that we believe in a very powerful way that women in communities know best what work needs to be done, what the problems are and what the solutions are. In local communities they know best how to meet local needs. They have spent many years in communities throughout this province identifying the issues. Our role is to provide them with the resources to further that work and to develop the solutions to meet women's needs.

When we put together the two values of what we believe about how we do our work and the issues identified by women in communities, we need to ensure that those objectives can be met in an accountable way that ensures that they, the framework and the way we approach our work is flexible enough that the goals can be accomplished in different ways in different communities.

In this ministry funding comes in two ways. We have money for onetime projects and money that funds ongoing services. There are two different ways in which dollars reach communities in this province. Onetime project funding includes such things as child care facilities, emergency grants, repair programs, needs assessment and planning program, and Stopping the Violence grants. Those are the onetime projects.

As well, we have a responsibility to bring forward initiatives that are funded on an ongoing basis. Those include the Stopping the Violence counselling services -- we had 80 counselling services in over 100 communities this past year -- support for child care providers in the child care support program; the infant-toddler incentive child care program; and women's centres operational funding. That is the ongoing funding in our ministry.

When I talk about the work of this ministry, I try to talk about it in three components. Closest to the everyday work of the ministry are the programs I have spoken of that we actually deliver: the child care resources, the work on Stopping the Violence, the counselling dollars and the grants to communities. Some people in government use a word called "deliverable;" what it really means is getting resources to communities. That's one component.

Another component of this ministry's work has really evolved quite significantly since we were in estimates last year. Because we are the lead ministry, we coordinate the development of child care policy across the government. Other ministries join with us at a table to coordinate that work, to plan policy and to look at the very best way to deliver child care services in British Columbia. In the same way, we take the lead in coordinating policy and initiatives around Stopping the Violence. We don't do it all, but we coordinate our work and the work of other ministries.

I think the work we do to analyze and influence policy across ministries is a very critical component of our work, because it is making a difference in policy and legislation across this government. For instance, when a policy or a new piece of legislation is coming forward from the Attorney General or from a different ministry, we have a role to analyze that initiative and to influence or inform it in ways that our policy analysis would suggest makes a difference in women's lives. A good example is probably the one that came forward last week around the Workers' Compensation initiatives that are making a difference for women workers in British Columbia. So there are three components to that work, and they are all important in different ways. They are important in getting individual services to individual women and children in communities, but they are also important because many changes will come. We have made a substantive difference across government, in each ministry and in each piece of policy and legislation.

That is how our role has evolved this year. I look forward to questions about specific initiatives in the ministry.

[ Page 7968 ]

L. Reid: I am delighted to enter into debate this afternoon with the Minister of Women's Equality. There are a number of issues I wish to touch on prior to questioning this minister. One that I know she and I agree on is the initiatives to stop violence. I understand that a great deal is required in terms of interministerial cooperation, if you will, and I believe that the initiatives have been started, but I have two particular points that I want to address in debate this afternoon.

One of the issues comes from my background as a teacher. Over the years I have taught very young children, and I know that when they are involved in violence, they are often the ones who are removed from a home. It seems to me that if this ministry is really concerned with supporting families, it doesn't make a great deal of sense to remove the child who has been victimized. We put them in a situation where they have nothing familiar around them; they are removed from their home, and the message that this sends in a lot of areas is simply that they are the one who caused the problem. That is not a direction we need to proceed in. We certainly are sending very strong messages to children, but we are sending them the wrong message.

I am hoping that through some consultation with the Ministry of Attorney General.... The minister and I have had many conversations on that topic. Uppermost in our minds is how we can put some frameworks in place that are going to allow for the offending adult to be removed from the home, not the child. That is one of the issues I will be touching on in some detail during questioning. It's a significant issue if we look at truly attempting to revamp and expand what this ministry can do, because the issue is truly a question of attitude. For security reasons, we tend to remove the child. My point in the debate today is that we should encourage ongoing security for the child so they can stay in the home and make some reasonable choices for themselves. That is an issue I will return to later on in debate.

In terms of issues of violence against women, it tends to be an issue of violence towards families. We tend to have the children staying with the mother, and it's typically the mother in those situations who has been abused. Again, the Ministry of Attorney General and I have chatted at great length about this. If it takes the Ministry of Women's Equality to be the liaison to see if we can cement some of those issues and come back with some reasonable status reports, that is the direction I would like to see this government proceed in.

The member for Cowicham-Ladysmith and I were in debate on Friday on child care issues. We talked about whether or not there would ever be enough money for any of these issues, unless we shift some of our attitudes. That's my position today; we can certainly debate the dollars, but unless we're prepared to take a really firm stand on some of the preventive issues, I don't believe we're ever going to get a handle on where we wish to go. I don't think there's anyone here who would disagree about the significance of violence against women issues: the significance of not ensuring that children, women and all members of society can be safe. That issue is going to pervade today's debate, because I think it is the issue of the day.

[3:00]

If we look carefully at the public trust issue, we have significant trust relationships in society. There is the teacher-student relationship and the physician-patient relationship; both of those relationships have come under tremendous scrutiny in the last number of months. I know the minister is aware of the most recent case -- the young woman from Surrey who was up for a hearing before the College of Physicians and Surgeons as a result of a practice that was found to be criminal but never reached a hearing process. That process was so elongated that justice was never served. I think that's an issue, because it's an attitude question.

I think honestly that if you or I were assaulted -- whether it be in our doctor's office or on the street -- it would still be a crime. We would still present at the sexual assault centre; we would still have legal counsel. We have allowed some of the issues that surround women's issues to be diverted into other avenues for some kind of reconciliation, and now we are finding from women in society that their needs are not being met and that they are being shunted off into different areas. But we haven't come back to addressing the true nature of the issue, which is whether or not violence is a crime. Philosophically, we can all support that it is, and I think we need to put in place some legitimate framework so that women can believe in the process.

We have not allowed the needs of those individuals who have hearings coming forth from issues of trust -- whether it be the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the College of Dental Surgeons -- to be met under that existing process. Whether or not the Ministry of Women's Equality can act as a liaison to ensure that those services are in place, I trust that that will be the role for this minister and this ministry. I think we can both agree that it's certainly not happening today. I strongly support interministerial committees and interministerial work, but at the end of it we have to have something to show for it. Women in this province who are now starting to take issue with trust relationships with professionals have to have some appeal process and some fallback position.

I have been in discussion with the Minister of Health in terms of health professions counsel and whether or not the Health Professions Act, which is due for debate, will strengthen any of those relationships. My thinking is that that is the intention, but at the end of the day there has to be some ability to look at the outcomes for how well we're responding to some of those issues, and whether or not women believe they are being served. So many women who come to my constituency office and to my colleagues' constituency offices -- and I'm sure the same is true for the government benches -- do not believe they can access the system. If there are ways to continue with an interministerial direction but stream-line some of those processes, I trust we will do that.

One of the other issues -- and, again, I have been in discussion with the Ministry of Attorney General on this -- is treatment programs for offenders on issues surrounding violence against women and children. We have many cases, as I'm sure the minister is aware, of 

[ Page 7969 ]

individuals who have been convicted of an offence and still have child visitation rights, and they are able to come back into the home. Much work needs to be done on that in terms of monitoring those kinds of visitations and ensuring that the women still believe themselves to be safe in those situations. I'm hoping that can be a role for the Ministry of Women's Equality, because those are the safety issues surrounding who should liaise directly with the ministries of the Attorney General and Health. I think that's a role this minister has been very comfortable in, and I'm hoping we can have some discussions in terms of strengthening that role.

Again speaking as a teacher, one of the issues that I've taken a tremendous interest in over the years is the need for counselling services. In my opinion, we've tended to not look carefully enough at that issue in terms of how young a child might be before we institute some kind of counselling service. We don't tend to fund counselling service for elementary-age children to a great degree, and I would speak very strongly for the need for that kind of counselling intervention to be put in place. It's certainly something, with decreasing budgets and the like, that tends to be removed from discussion first. If there's any way we can speak very strongly to ensure that some kind of support for very young children around those issues is in place.... Again as a teacher, I know we had one counselling person who was shared between 15 schools, which was roughly 3,000 or 5,000 children. It just was not workable in terms of providing some kind of reasonable program. So if we could look at some of those issues today, I would certainly be interested in that.

A number of other issues that I want to touch on surround the area of mandatory prosecution. There are certainly programs in place in three states in the United States and a pilot project underway in London, Ontario which do not put the woman in the position of having to decide whether or not she wishes to press charges at a time when she is most vulnerable -- when she has just been abused or is in a battering situation. In fact, the peace officers who attend at the scene can make that kind of determination. They actually can have some discretion at their disposal, so they may indeed remove the offending adult from the home if they suspect or have probable cause to suspect that violence will be an issue.

Those benchmarks, if you will, are really important for women who are abused and also for women who have not been abused -- just to know that those kinds of frameworks are in place. I don't think we've done the best job in terms of communicating what kind of services are out there. The average woman on the street does not know what to do once she has been abused or battered or what kinds of services they can put at their disposal. I think that's an issue.

One of the most significant programs surrounding services to abused women has been the sexual assault centre, which is currently housed at Shaughnessy Hospital and is due to be moved to Vancouver General. One of the issues surrounding that was proximity to other programs. I'm pleased to say it's going to stay in downtown Vancouver. There was originally some discussion of moving it out to the university. That would not have assisted the majority of women who would use that service, because they are not the women who have their own transportation, and they would not necessarily be taken there by a police officer. They are the women who would be trying to find cab fare or bus service in the middle of the night. That would not have been an appropriate location for that program.

One of the other issues I will touch on this afternoon is services for aboriginal women. I discussed the midwifery program with the Minister of Health in terms of whether it would be possible to at least have aboriginal midwives in that original report. Failing that, I believe we need to look at whether it would be possible to have the Ministry of Women's Equality fund a training program for aboriginal women.

An area of interest I know I share with the minister is that of exceptional learners. One of the issues with very young aboriginal populations is that we have often exposed them to certain health conditions that are not in their best interest. To put in place a training program for aboriginal midwives would only be to the good in terms of decent prenatal care, decent nutrition counselling and all of those pregnancy issues prior to birth that would make some difference in terms of how healthy these children are once they enter the school system. I have had that conversation with the Minister of Health. I hope the Ministry of Women's Equality can take control of and responsibility for that issue by looking at programs that need to be in place for all women, knowing that there are often no decent programs in place for aboriginal women. If we can look at aboriginal programming, aboriginal midwives, some kind of training incentive.... Right now you need to travel to eastern Canada to train as a midwife. Why not BCIT? Why not the University of British Columbia? Why not a program in British Columbia? It would warm my heart if the minister could address that at some point.

One of the other issues, which tends to be a family service issue, revolves around treatment for alcohol and drug abuse. We have had women with very young children who are not able to receive any kind of service, and end up either separated from their children or simply not allowed to stay for the length of the program because their children are not welcome for the length of the program. I speak particularly of a case before me at the moment that looks at allowing individuals who receive treatment from the Maywood Home to have children under five years of age stay with them. Children over five years typically still need guidance from and to be involved with their primary caregiver, who tends to be their mother.

Later this afternoon I hope we can look in more detail at the funding issues surrounding drug and alcohol treatment for women with young children, because it is a family issue; it is an issue of whether or not we are going to put in place supports for families.

One of the other issues that I want to touch on in terms of funding is services and treatment programs for young women with eating disorders. We have seen the Minister of Health take a very strong position in favour of providing some programs. Again, what we're seeing is a lot of individuals falling through the cracks. It's 

[ Page 7970 ]

possible for the Ministry of Women's Equality to coordinate that service and to be more aware of some of the services that are necessary.

One of the initiatives that the Minister of Health brought forward some time ago was the idea of an innovative new nursing centre. My correspondence to the minister at that point asked: why not an innovative new nursing centre for eating-disordered young women? Today we tend to move away from the in-house, in-hospital medicinal model. I think that a community model administered by women -- whether or not they've had an eating disorder -- would be a very interesting project for the Ministry of Women's Equality to look at. It would fall very nicely in line with the interministerial initiatives. If the initial funding comes from the Ministry of Health, is it possible for the Ministry of Women's Equality to flesh that out a little and see that it comes on-line -- hopefully, fairly soon?

Another issue surrounding services to families has been around individuals with AIDS as a result of receiving contaminated blood. We have an initiative on the table at the moment. But we also have people dying because we're simply not proceeding quickly enough. There were 75 individuals in the province of British Columbia who contracted AIDS as a result of contaminated blood; there are now 65. Unless we resolve this issue fairly soon, we are going to have families left in dire straits. If you look at the cost of home care for these individuals and their young children -- to provide care to the spouse who has contracted AIDS -- we're looking at upwards of $30,000. In the majority of cases those women have taken time off work to care for their spouses and have no income. So if there are some ways for this ministry to support families who find themselves in those situations.... There are currently 65 families in this province who are absolutely desperate for some support. The announcement that this government will be making a decision has not done more than raise expectations. They need to have some dollars and some true support so that they won't have to battle this alone. Again, hon. minister, we're down to 65 families.

One of the other issues you touched on in your opening remarks was child care. I am going to speak specifically to child care because day care is just not a reality for the l990s. We have women who do shift work, who want to go to school and who need intermittent services, and they are not going to be well served by the provision of nine-to-five day care in this province. A lot of what I've seen is superb; it's fabulous in terms of how we're going to put in place some initiatives for a woman who wants to be involved in other avenues and wants to be able to secure more advanced training, take a course or have a job that curtails her activity and has some shift work involved. We want to make sure we have all those things in place.

One of the other issues -- I know it's happening in other provinces -- is emergency day care when children are sick and their parents need to work. We can do something about enhancing existing programs around day care for children who are not well. That's a significant issue. If this is about pulling together the different ministries that impact on each other, I think that that would definitely save us dollars in terms of time lost due to absenteeism and family dysfunction. If there's a way to put in place support for families that happen to have sick children, I think we'd go a long way beyond just providing traditional child care and day care. I know the minister has been in support of a national child care program. The Liberal opposition stands in support of that as well. We are looking at ensuring that child care is accessible, and that individuals should not have to spend their entire lives seeking out a reasonable child care program.

I know the minister has done some work in terms of bias and prejudice and gender-inclusive language, and I applaud that because at the end of the day this entire ministry must revolve around ensuring that attitudes change. Sometimes the way to do that is to confront people with their attitudes and their personally held biases and to have discussions and debate, and hopefully some broadening of perspective can emerge.

The minister and I have had discussions on sensitizing the judiciary around women in the court system. I can only trust that having more women on the bench and more women involved in the delivery of services to women will make some headway for women in this province. But I would also take a very strong stand in support of mediation and different dispute resolution mechanisms for women who require some legal intervention or legal counsel. I believe we tend to put women in very adversarial positions, and family law is a very adversarial exercise. If there are ways to move away from that while still supporting families, that's absolutely the direction I believe we should be heading in. We are spending a tremendous amount of dollars on battling a system that's not typically in the best interests of the child and/or of the women who must receive some of those services.

[3:15]

In terms of communications, I know the ministry is looking at translation services. One of the issues that I have in my riding is interpretation. Are there going to be greater commitments given to women who require some kind of interpretation service? When English is not the first language of women who present themselves at a constituency office or an MLA's office, unless the office has an entire range of staff with a number of different languages at their disposal, they are sometimes unable to provide services to those women. I am speaking not just about constituency offices but also about doctors' offices and legal counsel -- all of those places -- where women who have taken the first step of taking the risk to seek out some kind of service find that they cannot communicate effectively. That is something I think the ministry needs to take a look at in terms of rounding out some of those services.

On women in business, we talk about women being the largest group of individuals who are involved in creating new businesses. In fact, I believe that last year there were 77,000 new businesses created by women in this province -- significant numbers. I applaud every single one of them, each of whom has taken the risk to begin their own business and to move forward in that regard. I'll be asking the minister questions later on this afternoon about supports to women in this area, and 

[ Page 7971 ]

whether or not we've made any headway in providing funding for women who wish to start their own business.

I know it's still not a reasonable exercise. There are still women in this province who are refused a credit card once their marriages of 30 or 40 years dissolve, because they did not have an independent credit rating. It's absurd to me that we would still put women in that position. Women who have decent jobs and a regular income are still in a position where they are battling whether or not they have an identity in terms of getting a credit card. Some of those issues have not been resolved effectively.

I will also be pursuing this afternoon questions of employment equity and pay equity and asking for a status report from the minister about what levels of support are currently in place, and where we intend to head. I look forward to the debate this afternoon. I know there are a number of issues that we will be examining in some detail. If I might take a moment, I'd like to introduce my deputy, the hon. member for North Vancouver-Seymour, who will be here this afternoon to provide me with tremendous support -- it warms my heart.

I'd like to ask the minister this afternoon: are you anticipating a growth in ministry staff? How many are contract staff? What would be the anticipated growth in contract staff?

Hon. P. Priddy: Certainly there has been an increase in ministry staff. One of the most common comments I hear when I'm out around the province talking with women is: "We have so many things that we'd like you to be involved in with us, and we're just really clear that you need more resources in order to provide resources to us." Or: "We really like the work you're doing, but we want to ensure that you have the resources in order to be able to do the job." So it's a pretty continuing theme we are hearing.

I'm just getting one of the answers on contracts for you, but in terms of growth, there is an increase of 20 staff in our ministry. If you like, I can give you a breakdown of those: there are five extra staff under programs in violence prevention, women's equality grants and child care. There are six additional staff because of our significantly increased role in policy, planning and legislation.

In terms of the support services of the ministry, one of the things that has been really clear over this past year -- and certainly at the start of the year -- is that the support services, which we need to operate as a ministry, were inherited from another ministry when we were much smaller than we currently are and had a much-reduced mandate. One of the recommendations of financial audits has been that we be able to provide for ourselves the administrative support that the ministry needs to be accountable for the dollars and resources that we spend -- which is a pretty important responsibility that we have to the people of British Columbia. There are 12 new staff in ministry support services. Because other ministries have now begun to pick up responsibilities in the area of employment equity, there is actually a decrease of three staff.

L. Reid: Would the minister be so kind as to indicate whether any of those individuals are contract employees with the Ministry of Women's Equality?

Hon. P. Priddy: No, they are not.

L. Reid: There are a number of issues in terms of the status of employment equity programs through the ministry, and I understand that there is a decrease in staff under the employment equity issues. Can you provide the committee with some clarification on the status of employment equity initiatives -- where we are and where we are headed -- and on what the women of this province can expect in terms of some regular communication on this topic?

Hon. P. Priddy: I would be delighted to do that. Just to remind people, let me talk first about the government's current commitment to employment equity initiatives in the public service. We have talked frequently about the benefit it brings to the government of British Columbia and the comfort it brings to citizens in this province when they see the inclusiveness of the government.

Let me talk a little about accomplishments this year -- some things I think that we can address. We have developed, if you will, a core module of employment equity training. When we look at employment equity across North America, or anyplace else in the world, we know that a critical first step is preparing the workforce or the work area for the kinds of employment equity initiative that ensure that people are welcome, barriers are removed, good information is out there, good recruiting happens, etc. So we have developed a core module that is delivered in two-hour sessions. Two hundred and fifty ministry presenters have been trained to deliver these sessions, and the presenters will complete training of all staff by September 1993. Almost 400 government managers have attended what is called the Kingswood management training program or its shorter adaptation, called Managing Diversity, and the employment equity division has delivered about 200 presentations to both internal and external groups.

We have an outreach recruitment manual for public service managers that has been drafted and field-tested. A database of about 1,000 organizations that provide employment-related services to the target groups is being updated. Most ministries have preliminary action plans and employment equity in place. Eleven ministries have full-time employment equity representatives. An employment equity policy for the public service has been drafted by an interministerial committee and circulated to ministries, designated organizations and the British Columbia Council of Human Rights.

This is certainly what women need and wish to know about these initiatives, but it is important to remember two things about employment equity. It is about eliminating discrimination for any group that is discriminated against -- and in that case the list can be very long -- so it is about ending discrimination in the workplace. It is also about welcoming people in government service and supporting people currently in 

[ Page 7972 ]

government service who come from designated employment equity groups. While one of those is women, there are also aboriginal people, people with disabilities and people from visible minorities. So it is broader than simply making a difference for women; it is about making a difference for many women and men in the province.

In terms of a status report, those are some of the initiatives that have taken place.

L. Reid: Concerning the cost of such a program, has any decision been reached in terms of what sectors of the public service will be the first to be considered? Or is it an umbrella program that will look at reforming the entire public service?

Hon. P. Priddy: If I'm not answering the question, I'm sure the member will let me know. I want to be clear on this. It is a policy for the public service, so it would not be for only one ministry or group within a ministry. It is for everybody in the public service. It is an overall policy. Based on their needs, each ministry will develop employment equity plans for that ministry -- which many have done very fine jobs of. They know what their needs are across the province, what their workforce is like and what their future work needs are. It is for all of the public service.

L. Reid: I appreciate that the overall policy is for the entire public service. Concerning implementation, is a plan in place in terms of how you will proceed -- the first ministry that may come up, or a certain segment? Or is it just that once the policy is in place, the individual ministries or segments of the public service will have some dialogue about how quickly they proceed?

Hon. P. Priddy: No, It is intended for all ministries, and will begin with all ministries and all groups within ministries. I'm not sure if we're still struggling a bit here, or talking a bit at cross-purposes, or not. Many ministries have employment equity action plans in place and are working on those already, and have done a great deal of work in that area. Many of those are already beginning, if you will. The policy, however, will be for all ministries at once. All ministries will be expected to have a plan, and they will be held accountable for that plan. So it won't be one ministry at a time. It's as important in the Ministry of Environment as in the Ministry of Health or any other ministry.

L. Reid: If indeed we're still at the planning stage and each ministry is responsible for having a plan in place, could you give some background as to what costs have been called for to date, and what the next level might cost? I understood from your comments that the training program is in place, the modules have been created and the 200 trainers are out there. What is the cost today of that stage of the program? What is the next cost, in translating that policy into actually changing the hiring practice?

Hon. P. Priddy: I was just trying to ensure that I understood both the question and the answer that the member needed. As far as the cost across government is concerned, it's important for me to be clear that the employment equity budgets rest in individual ministries. They have that responsibility, are accountable for it, and therefore are expected to implement their plans. So their budgets are within those ministries. The cost across government this coming year, in terms of the initiatives coming forward, is $3 million.

[3:30]

It's interesting when we talk about costs for employment equity. There certainly are costs; I don't think there is any question about that. But part of it is cost and part is the way we go about doing our work. A particular ministry may have a cost because they've decided they have a building that is not accessible to people who might have a particular kind of physical disability, and will choose to use part of their budget to make a difference in a particular building. Some may use their budgets for particular kinds of ongoing training -- or to advertise in a broader medium than they may have been doing currently, because an important part of employment equity is how widely we reach out to people to let people know that jobs and postings are available in our government.

L. Reid: I know you and I share some background in terms of outcome, evaluation and measuring success. In terms of an employment equity program, are there some initiatives on behalf of the ministry to know when success has been achieved? Are there initiatives to report back to the taxpaying public, in terms of: "This is the $3 million that has been spent this year, this is what your dollars have purchased for the community and for British Columbia at large, and this is where we're going next"? Will there be that kind of employment evaluation put in place?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, there most certainly will be. I would have some difficulty talking to anybody I care about in this province who is concerned about this without being able to talk about whether we are indeed monitoring our progress in this area. We will be doing a number of things to monitor progress. The progress toward creating a fair workplace will be monitored and supported by a union-management steering committee, by the Deputy Ministers' Human Resources Committee, by the government personnel services division and by my ministry. To date, we have had some data available to give us some indicators, even though there is not a workplace profile in place as yet. We do know about progress that we have made as far as women being part of this government. As of May 31, 1993, 27 percent of assistant deputy ministers are women, which is doubled from two years ago. The percentage for female deputy ministers is up 2 percent, so we have more work to do.

L. Reid: I understood your comment on 27 percent of assistant deputy ministers. What is the goal for, let's say, assistant deputy ministers, and what is the time line?

[ Page 7973 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: We have not "set numerical goals" for those kinds of appointments. I would have to suggest that when we look at that -- and as I say, there have not been numerical goals set, but we have had this conversation with the member before -- the representation in the general population is just under 51 percent, and that would seem to me to be certainly a desirable thought. There has not been any setting of numerical goals in that area. There have been, however, with boards and commissions. This government has made a commitment to ensure that women are well represented on agencies, boards and commissions, and 50 percent of all appointments made under this government to agencies, boards and commissions have been women.

L. Reid: The minister is correct. She and I have had the discussion about 52 percent of the population not being an interest group, and I'm pleased to know that we are still heading in that direction.

Let's take women as one group who would wish to be involved under employment equity. What are the strategies that they could expect, other than the communication and advertising that issues from a particular ministry, if they were to apply? Are there appeal processes in place that have been strengthened at all?

Hon. P. Priddy: I wanted to be sure that I was accurately representing some initiatives that are partly taking place and will be expanded upon. If we are speaking in response to the member's question about women and what women can expect, there are a number of things. Although the member has mentioned recruitment, I do want to highlight that, because one of the things that we are doing is circulating job postings and secondment and bridging opportunities to a wider range of, if you will, of readers. With no offence to any of the media in our province, there are places other than the Vancouver Sun, the Globe and Mail and the Province where women and others might look. We have to reach out to women's publications, newsletters, journals, etc., or anything that is appropriate in terms of reaching a broader range of women, including newspapers and organizations that work with visible minority, aboriginal and disabled women. That's specific recruitment.

There are bridging positions in government where there are opportunities for women to learn additional skills. It is very difficult when you are in one position, know that you'd like an opportunity to do something else, but don't have any experience. I expect that all of us have faced that and all of us with teenage children have seen them face that. Bridging positions offer opportunities for women to gain additional skills in an area that they would be interested in.

Secondment positions are also a way to experience expertise in particular areas. When secondment positions are available, there is that opportunity. We make fairly vigorous outreaches to women about opportunities to participate in secondment.

There are opportunities in government for flexible work hours, harmonizing work and family. As it should be, there are many places in government that are open to and supportive of people wanting that kind of harmonization.

We provide additional training opportunities for women and people currently working in government. One of the new initiatives in the contract signed this year was child care support for people going for training. While that can benefit men, it more often benefits women because they usually have the primary responsibility for child care. There are child care dollars for people taking training.

There are also mentorship programs in government. This is another option for women -- a woman can mentor with another woman to gain skills, experience and some comfort level with positions in government.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments on mentorship programs. Is there any ongoing formal discussion of apprenticeship programs? I know there are opportunities in the private sector for apprenticeship programs. Is there any way to formalize that kind of approach for the public service at large?

Hon. P. Priddy: One of the critical roles of this ministry is helping other ministries identify issues. Women or women's organizations come to us when they have an issue with which they want some assistance or a challenge that they'd like this government to take on. We have raised the issue of women in apprenticeship with individual women, women's organizations, people from places like BCIT, and other organizations, such as Women in Trades and Technology.

We are working quite closely with the Ministry of Advanced Education on access to apprenticeship programs. If you take out hairstyling and chef's or baker's programs, only 5 percent of those in apprenticeship are women. Women do very well in trades, however, when they have had access to and have been able to finish the apprenticeship programs. So we are working closely with the Ministry of Advanced Education to develop opportunities in apprenticeship.

Five of the six new appointments to the Provincial Apprenticeship Board have been women; they have had extensive experience with the apprenticeship system. Part of the focus of the Apprenticeship Board is to increase the participation of groups which have traditionally been underrepresented in training programs. The board is reviewing programs from other jurisdictions to identify which initiatives should be successful in B.C. You never pick up another program, bring it here and say it will work, but you certainly take the best from other programs and bring it here. Those are some of the initiatives to date.

L. Reid: Your comments on recruitment are well taken. With regard to advertising and communications, how do you get the message out as to what kinds of programs are available? Have the contracts that are let for advertising and communications been tendered? And what is the status of future contracts from the Ministry of Women's Equality? Indeed -- allow me to continue for a moment -- are each of these contracts let under individual ministries? Or is there a larger 

[ Page 7974 ]

umbrella -- i.e., the Ministry of Women's Equality -- that would allow contracts to be tendered on issues of employment equity or on women's equality issues generally?

Hon. P. Priddy: I just want to finish off an item from before, as it leads into this one. We have provided resources to the government personnel services division -- $18,000, actually -- to ensure that postings are more widely distributed. That's one of the initiatives we have taken to ensure that those postings go out on a wider basis.

In terms of how the contracts are let, the ministry is committed -- as all ministries are and must be -- to following not only the letter but the spirit, if you will, of the government's general management operating policy, which I know the member is familiar with. It provides that all contracts with a total potential cost of more than $50,000 should be advertised in a manner that will ensure "a reasonable number of qualified contractors have the opportunity to prepare and present bids." And when I say both in the letter and the spirit of it, that means not only in what it says -- a reasonable number of qualified contractors -- but also in the spirit of knowing that this government is indeed committed to offering those opportunities to the widest range of British Columbians possible, and it expects that that will happen in contract tendering as well.

L. Reid: I want to touch on the disbursement of grants under the Ministry of Women's Equality. Last year we talked about core funding being available through a number of different programs and about project-oriented funding being available. Has there been any shift in either of those two initiatives? In terms of core funding, I'm aware of the existing programming that's in place. In terms of specific, project-oriented grant dollars, what direction is this ministry heading in?

Hon. P. Priddy: Maybe I can ask for some clarification from the member. I'm not sure if the question is whether we have changed priorities. I'm just trying to get a sense of the way to most helpfully answer the question because, of course, it is my job to helpfully answer the question. Let me speak first to the core funding, and then maybe I'll seek a little information about the grant question.

We continue to provide operational funding to 28 women's centres and are currently looking at how much we will be able to expand that in the coming year. It has been quite an overwhelming need, which I think has been very well received in the province. There is ongoing funding provided -- I don't think you can call it core funding -- through our infant-toddler incentive grant, which is a way of providing incentives for people providing child care to children under three. That will continue. There will undoubtedly be expansion of the operational funding in those areas, but I don't currently see a whole new area of ongoing operational funding.

I would ask for clarification around the grant question, hon. Chair.

L. Reid: My second comment looks at funding available for unique projects. Are there projects separate and distinct from the core funding for which individuals could apply to the ministry for funding? Let me give you one example. I'll speak specifically of a situation for learning-disabled students in the province. This particular group, Deka Services Association, is looking for dollars, and their mandate basically is to provide respite care for parents. It's very difficult to have an exceptional student in a family setting, and they need some support in that. Is the Ministry of Women's Equality an appropriate place to look for that kind of support to families? If we're realistic, the person providing that kind of care is typically the mother for the most part. Are we supporting women in their role as caregiver to an exceptional child as opposed to individuals who are able to participate in traditional child care programming?

Certainly I understand that there is going to be a need for some interministerial connection there. But in this particular case, is the Ministry of Women's Equality a reasonable access route for support of families who happen to have a special needs student?

[3:45]

Hon. P. Priddy: In terms of whether this ministry has dollars for unique and innovative projects, we do. We hope and believe that all of our project dollars go to projects that are unique and innovative. I would comment on a couple, though, that have a particular focus in that area.

One of them is part of the child care programs. It is a quality enhancement grant, which is a way for child care providers in the community to look at different ways of providing child care services. There are some very interesting proposals being developed. I take the hon. member's earlier point that, for a lot of years in this province, throughout this country and probably throughout North America, child care has been typically eight to four, eight to five or 7:30 to six, whatever those hours might be. Families have many different needs in many different kinds of locations. If you are on a fishing boat in a fishing community, moving from port to port, and you have young children, you have a very different kind of child care need than somebody who lives in the middle of Port Coquitlam or Kelowna. The quality enhancement dollars are an opportunity for communities to look at very innovative child care projects in their own communities that meet a community need, and meet it in a somewhat different way than we have seen to date.

Also, one of the things that I know the community is looking for, and I'm certainly hoping we will see requests about, is emergency care. The member raised that earlier, and it is a very important issue. As soon as you think your child care arrangements are made, you have sick children, and not everybody is in the position of simply calling work and saying: "I won't be in today." I hope we will see applications from people on emergency child care under that quality enhancement program. That's one area that certainly does respond to unique, individual and innovative projects.

[ Page 7975 ]

The one-time grant dollars, the women's equality grants, are also available as long as they are initiatives that speak in support -- as I know the member does -- of advancing the status of women. There is an opportunity under those grant dollars. They are not large dollars, but on the other hand, many communities in the province have benefited in fairly unique ways from those dollars as well.

Yes, there are unique opportunities under the grant money. The instance that the member has just raised I don't understand well enough and would need to know more about, so I would not make a commitment to that particular project. The member is right, and it may fall more appropriately within the purview of other ministries. However, it is our job as a ministry to work with other ministries, and if there is an appropriate way to do it, she can talk to me about it and we'll do it.

L. Reid: If I may be so bold, I have sent on all the appropriate materials to your office. I look forward to a favourable outcome. I'll defer to my colleague.

L. Hanson: I noticed the minister said that she provides funding to 26 or 28 women's centres. Do those centres all supply the same sorts of services and consulting? Do you insist on a standard kind of service, or do they more or less use their own initiative to decide what sort of accommodation or help they may be providing?

Hon. P. Priddy: There are 28 women's centres, by the way. The similarity of women's centres is that they provide their services from a particular perspective, which is of supporting women in the areas that women in their community have identified as being in need. Let me just give a listing of some of the services provided -- and not every women's centre provides exactly the same services. To go back to the comments I made when the estimates began a while ago, women in communities know best what their needs are and what the solutions are. So we don't use a template and say that every women's centre must do this in this way, and they must provide (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). There is a great deal of similarity in women's needs in the province and therefore a great deal of similarity in some of the services.

Let me list some of those. The services women's centres provide to women in their community include information and referral to other community services, because many women don't know where to go in a community. They do know to go to a women's centre and say: "This is what I'm looking for, and I don't know where to go beyond here." So often it's information and referral. They provide support groups for women and advocacy for women needing one-to-one support to deal with a particular issue that may be in the justice system, the education system or the health care system. They do public education. Some of them do job entry programs. Some provide child care services and crisis counselling. Some actually have housing registries, depending on the need for housing in the community, clothing exchanges and subsidized meal programs.

That's a bit of a compendium of the kinds of services provided by women's centres across the province. While we work very closely with women's centres to ensure accountability for the dollars and for the work, we don't say that every women's centre must do the same job in the same way in every community, or we would be abrogating what we believe about individual communities and needs and about women knowing best.

L. Hanson: I'm trying to get an understanding of how you determine what a grant should be for a particular women's centre. You must have some criteria to measure that.

Hon. P. Priddy: Actually, there are a number of criteria to measure that. One of them is that the focus of the centre, its primary purpose, is to provide services to women, that it is community-based, that it is a non-profit organization registered under the Society Act and that it is a member of the B.C. and Yukon Association of Women's Centres.

L. Hanson: Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. Are the grants absolutely identical to every centre in the province?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, they are identical. It is operational funding of $37,500 a year.

L. Reid: I spoke in my opening remarks on a particular situation that may indeed flesh out some of the issues from my colleague. This particular case refers to the Maywood Home for women, which treats individuals who have been involved in abuse of some sort. I think drug and alcohol abuse is primarily their focus.

My issue in bringing it to the table today surrounds child care for the children of the women who are seeking treatment, and there are a number of issues. If I may just take a moment, with the Chair's indulgence, to discuss this.... The site is 57th and Oak in Vancouver, and there are two homes on the site. One is for women who have just had babies and are not in a secure situation, and the other is for the drug and alcohol treatment program. It shares the same site with another Salvation Army home, and the women at the centre -- the clients -- require some kind of residential treatment in order to help them move off their drug dependency. These women come from a variety of backgrounds and a variety of abuses, and typically they have one to two very young children with them.

The issue I referred to in my opening remarks is that this home looks after children who are under five. Unfortunately, children over five are put into foster care while the primary caregiver receives treatment on-site. What this group is looking for is some support, so that they can provide some programming on-site for children of all ages. They are hoping to have some type of programming in place. At present the home has a two-month waiting list for admittance. If they had the resources, they could be servicing a much larger pool of clients. There seems to be a good success rate. The home 

[ Page 7976 ]

has accommodation for 32 women as well as their young children, and there are usually one or two small children involved with each client. Again, if there are older children, they are usually put into foster care.

In terms of support for women who wish to make a difference and have taken a lead in seeking some plan of intervention, if there's an area the Women's Equality ministry could look at I would suggest it would be care to the children. This home situation is currently funded by the Health and Social Services ministries, and also has some Salvation Army involvement tied in. At the moment they're looking for an agreement between the interministerial committees, and I understand that the meetings are still going on. They are looking for short- and probably long-term funding for the children who are there as a result of their primary caregiver receiving or needing some kind of care.

If there's any way this ministry could perhaps take a lead role, at least in the discussion about whether or not this particular situation would qualify as a transition home -- even though it's not violence, it certainly is drug and alcohol abuse -- and whether or not they could be given some dollars, perhaps earmarked to the provision of child care.... Certainly we would both agree that the children who come in with parents in such dire straits are going to need some ongoing and very appropriate care, in terms of the staff who should be trained to deal with children from families with, shall we say, a very hectic lifestyle.

The goal of this program is to return both the parent and the children to the community with some kind of positive outlook, after some positive discussions have been underway. Their overall goal is to look at breaking the cycle of dependency. I think that's a laudable goal that is certainly shared by both the Health and Social Services ministries. In terms of my colleague's comments on how you would decide on a particular program to fund, would this particular program with the needs of these children be a mandate the Ministry of Women's Equality could proceed with?

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm not sure if it relates to whether it could be qualified as a women's centre or not. But the question that I think the member is asking is about the needs of the children who are there. There are two or three things I might comment on. Whether it would qualify as a transition house is a question the member may canvass with the Minister of Social Services, who has responsibility for funding both expansion in transition houses and new transition houses.

Let me talk a little about what at least is currently in place that may be helpful. Then at a future date we could have a discussion about the ways in which they might be supported. I do know, and it is important to make the point, that in alcohol and drug programs across this province there is an ongoing interest -- and a legitimate concern, by the way, from the alcohol and drug rehabilitation community -- about women who have children and are seeking counselling. The community certainly would make the statement, and I think not an illegitimate comment, that the resources need to be expanded.

In terms of the children currently there, we actually have some very good child care support programs in the province. We have 31 of them. One of the roles of those child care support programs is to match children to available child care spaces. For the children there who are over five and maybe requiring before- or after-school child care or whatever -- and I don't know, but I would expect from the member's question that there may be some reason the parents do not wish the children continuing in school, which would be a question I might ask -- the child care support program in that area, which is a very good one, can talk with the moms and the centre about what child care spaces would be available for them within an immediate range of that community.

[4:00]

The member talked about training as well. That may be an area in which we could be helpful too, if we're talking about doing some additional training for people who are providing care for children.

L. Reid: I'm sorry, I was not clear about your comment on schooling. I think it would be the primary caregiver's role to request that all children stay. It's probably the limitations of the physical plant that do not allow them to house all the young children. To me, it only makes sense to keep the family together if the primary caregiver is indeed interested in improving their outlook, employability and all of those issues. Are some programs in place that could complement children who are over five years of age without separating them from their family units?

Hon. P. Priddy: Can the member verify for me...? Is it not so much that there is no child care, but that there is no physical space? Are children over five not there because there is no space for children of that age?

L. Reid: The Maywood Home's policy only allows children up to five years of age to stay on site. The Salvation Army's concern is care for the children who happen to be five and a half or six, or all other ages. How best can the issue be resolved, and is there a role for the Ministry of Women's Equality to play?

Hon. P. Priddy: I am sorry -- it took us a while to be clear on the question.

As the member describes it, this is a policy issue where someone has said that children under five are fine, but children over five can't stay there. Given that this is a policy decision either by the organization or by the funders of Maywood Home, it is an issue that I would be more than prepared to talk about with the sponsoring organization -- which in part is the Salvation Army, and I think in part is Health, and there is probably some Social Services funding -- to look at whether that policy makes sense. Perhaps there is a reason that we don't understand why policy would say under five is okay and over five is not okay. We can look at perhaps providing our support for the organization if they are concerned about before- and after-school care, or for training for people who are working with 

[ Page 7977 ]

children over five. We might be able to assist in that way. I would be more than happy to take that forward.

L. Hanson: I found the minister's answers very interesting. As far as women's centres are concerned, providing they measure up to certain criteria, they all get a uniform grant. I suppose, then, that you must have some process for evaluating the delivery of those services, because I imagine that they are re-applied for each year. I don't suppose it is a given each year.

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, we do, and there is a way to do that. I think it is important that when we talk about evaluation, we look at a couple of components. One of them is to be able to do that with organizations that are being evaluated, as opposed to something that simply comes down and is imposed on people.

We do have a responsibility in two ways. We have a responsibility for the accountability of dollars, and we are equally concerned about a qualitative accountability. We are concerned not only about whether the money is being spent in a fiscally responsible way, but whether the program is or the services are making a difference in women's lives. Because we have just finished the first year of operational funding, we are working with the provincial organization and some people who have experience in evaluation to work with individual women's centres around the evaluation tool that best meets their needs, and does not put the confidentiality of women at risk.

L. Reid: In terms of cuts in programs, we discussed earlier the need for outcome evaluation. Have there been any programs in the past year that have not met your criteria for success, and have been downsized or eliminated? Should we be aware of any of those programs or additional programs currently under review?

Hon. P. Priddy: There are not -- reminding the hon. member about the ongoing funding for the 28 women's centres, the fact that we have just completed the first year, and the infant-toddler incentive grant program, which has begun at various stages, depending on when people have applied over the course of the last year. The evaluation of women's centres is ongoing, and those dollars are being continued this year. The infant and toddler incentive grants are part of a review being done by, I guess, child care support services.

L. Reid: With reference to a question posed by my colleague, you mentioned that the Ministry of Social Services is responsible for funding transition houses. Are they also responsible for identifying the need for new transition houses? Or is that something that's done in collaboration with the Ministry of Women's Equality?

Hon. P. Priddy: That happens in two ways. Because the Ministry of Social Services has that primary responsibility, they certainly do much of the identification, but they work with the B.C. and Yukon Society of Transition Houses as well. It is also done through the interministry committee, which looks at the needs across the province. We are involved in the interministry committee, where we have a significant role. So the Ministry of Social Services has a prime responsibility, not a single responsibility.

L. Reid: With reference to my colleague's comment, he was asking if the funding for the Ministry of Women's Equality was identical for all the programs, and your answer was yes. The Ministry of Social Services would be funding to different levels based on the need and the occupancy, etc., etc., for all of those programs. Would that be a reasonable assumption?

Hon. P. Priddy: I may need help here if I have not understood the question correctly, and then I want to go back to something from a minute ago.

For one thing, it's the Ministry of Social Services, so I expect that the question about how transition houses are funded will have been canvassed under the estimates of that ministry. They are funded on a very different kind of basis -- it depends on the size, the number of beds, etc. So it's a different kind of funding formula for transition houses.

Maybe the member can remind me of the second half of the question.

L. Reid: My earlier comment looked at whether or not there had been any cuts to programs, and how that all tied in. In terms of identical grants to the transition houses under the Ministry of Women's Equality, are there any anticipated cuts in how those operations are funded?

Hon. P. Priddy: We don't provide any dollars to transition houses, so your question is unclear. The only ongoing dollars that we provide are to the 28 women's centres, which are daytime or evening centres with the kinds of programs I talked about earlier, or ongoing infant and toddler programs. We do provide ongoing dollars through the Attorney General ministry, which has actually almost tripled the number of sexual assault centres in the province, but we don't provide money to transition houses.

C. Tanner: Could the minister tell us whether or not some initial funding was given to the transition houses when you brought people in to set them up around the province?

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm trying to think how I might phrase this differently to be clear. This ministry has no funding responsibilities or mandate for transition houses in the province. That is solely under the Ministry of Social Services.

C. Tanner: I'm sorry, then, I'm labouring under a misapprehension. My understanding was that to initiate the expansion of those houses, it was your ministry that brought in experts in the field to set them up. Is that incorrect?

Hon. P. Priddy: I wouldn't suggest to any member that they are incorrect, but we don't have and haven't 

[ Page 7978 ]

had any responsibility for transition houses. I have no idea whether, previous to this government, there was ever something from Women's Programs. But Social Services has set up and established transition houses in partnership with the provincial organization.

C. Tanner: I have one last question to make sure I've got the picture straight in my mind. Are transition houses and sexual assault centres both the same thing?

Hon. P. Priddy: No, they are not. I can't remember the number of transition houses in the province, because it's under Social Services. I don't actually see the number in front of me, although we could probably provide that for you in a minute or two. But yes, there is a difference between transition houses and sexual assault centres.

Somehow I'm explaining an area that belongs to another minister, so I'm going to do it briefly and carefully, and I would ask the member to talk to that minister, if he wishes further information. Transition houses are places of refuge, or places that women and their children who are victims of abuse can go. I've just been given a total. There are 58 transition houses around the province, all funded by the Ministry of Social Services, where women go with their children -- if they have children -- for a particular period of time -- it varies somewhat. For many years, there were seven sexual assault centres, or women's assault centres, in the province. There are now triple the number because of the tremendous need out there for places where women who are victims of sexual assault can go. They can go in an emergency and get support to go through the court system or the health care system and get the counselling women need around sexual assault. So yes, they are different.

C. Tanner: I'm sorry. It was my fault; I stated my question badly. I knew about what the minister told me. These are the questions I was asking: was the expansion initiated the same way for both the sexual assault centres and the transition houses, and were they both done outside of your ministry? Was there any funding from your ministry in either of the expansions?

Hon. P. Priddy: Let me make an initial comment around that, so I can be clear -- if I have not been. There have been no cuts to ongoing programs within the Ministry of Women's Equality, whether it's women's centres, infant and toddler incentive grants or counselling for victims. I don't know what the expansion has been. There have been some bed expansions in transition houses this year under the Ministry of Social Services, and therefore I would direct the member to ask the Minister of Social Services how that expansion came about. We do provide some counselling dollars for transition centres. That's not to expand the centre or the size; it is simply to provide some dollars for counselling women and children in transition centres.

For many years there has been an identified need in this province for additional sexual assault centres. We have identified this need by region, by looking at statistics of sexual assault around the province and by working with the Attorney General and people in communities, and we have provided the resources to the Attorney General to expand those.

C. Tanner: Could the minister tell us if the money provided from her ministry to those agencies for counselling is on a contract basis?

Hon. P. Priddy: I just want to be sure that I'm providing accurate information. In terms of the counselling through transition houses, it's all done through contract dollars. We work with the Ministry of Social Services to set the standards for those contracts and for counselling, and the contracts are let by the Ministry of Social Services.

L. Reid: Last year was the first opportunity to evaluate the work of the Ministry of Women's Equality, and we touched on a number of issues. Perhaps we could look at laying some of those puzzle pieces on the table for a status report.

[4:15]

We touched on one of the issues briefly last year in a discussion of public buildings containing site-specific designation for child care within them. Certainly there was some discussion around that issue over the past 12 months in terms of publicly funded buildings -- i.e., schools and community centres -- being required to contain within their plans and within the finished product some necessity for site-specific child care. Could the minister perhaps provide us with a status report on that discussion?

Hon. P. Priddy: One of the things we have heard a lot -- I have and others have, as we work with people in the child care community -- is whether we can find a way to better use our resources as public buildings are constructed. A policy has been approved that any time a new building is constructed, child care will be an integral part of the considerations in building that building. There are some things that go with that, which I think are extremely important for us to recognize. We have a critical shortage of child care in the province because it has been ignored for so long. We also know that the creation of new child care spaces supports the economic equality of women and, indeed, often of families, meets the child care needs of working and student parents and provides jobs. It is a particularly important initiative that will be a consideration in any new building.

It is not intended to be a competitive initiative. In the consideration of a building, there will be analysis and assessment of what already exists in the community, what the needs in the community are and what role this new building can play in meeting those community needs. All our dollars must include community children. It's not about putting child care in a public building so that only employees who work there can have child care; that's not what using public buildings for child care is about. It's about access for community children, and it would look at the entire community, what is already available, what the need is, the age ranges the need is in and the times in which the most 

[ Page 7979 ]

need exists. Therefore what can the role of this new building be in filling those child care needs? Yes, there is a policy, and it is being acted on.

L. Reid: When the minister talks about considerations and policy, are we to understand that in fact there will be -- if the needs of the community are going to be served -- actual child care space in that building? Or is it simply a discussion around whether or not to create a new building and what the constraints will be? I'm looking for something just a titch clearer than considerations. Will those considerations translate into actual child care spaces?

[J. Pullinger in the chair.]

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes.

C. Tanner: Does that include the soon-to-be-finished Jack Davis Building in Victoria?

Hon. P. Priddy: I guess I could talk at some length about the criteria for child care centres. This does not apply to that particular building. One of the reasons -- and the other piece you have to look at is whether this site works -- is that this site has been around for a little bit of time now. That building was looked at and assessed in that respect, and there's no outdoor space where children can be outside and get some sunshine. For that reason, it was considered not to be the best place for child care.

L. Hanson: Hon. minister, you suggested that during the construction of public buildings or government buildings, there might be a requirement for day care facilities, provided, after an assessment, that there was a need in the community and the facility was reasonable to provide that. Do you then provide any grants or funding for the provision of that? Or is day care in that space provided at normal rates and you then subsidize the users of the child care facility?

Hon. P. Priddy: This is a fairly new policy, recently passed, and has not had any opportunity for distribution. I must admit I'm trying to think through the answers a bit here. The cost would be included in building occupancy charges, so it would not simply say that you can have the space and you're on your own.

L. Hanson: Okay. I'm not quite clear on that, though. Would the agency pay occupancy charges for the whole building, or for the operation of the day care facility?

Hon. P. Priddy: The building occupancy charge is only for the cost of the child care centre. In terms of other kinds of support for children under three, for instance, it would also have support from the infant and toddler incentive grants and would be able to access support in a variety of areas.

L. Hanson: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. That grant was what? Could you repeat that?

Hon. P. Priddy: If you mean the last one I referred to, it is the infant and toddler incentive grant, which we provide to those who are providing services for children under three.

L. Hanson: The grant, then, would be provided to the provider of child care services for children under three. What sort of formula is that grant based on? The number of spaces? The number of children?

Hon. P. Priddy: It is based on the number of children present in that site who are under the age of three.

L. Hanson: I'm still a bit confused. Mind you, I confuse easily. I have difficulty in understanding how you could provide a grant based on the number of children under three in a particular day care centre at a specific time, because I suspect that it might change the next week or month.

Hon. P. Priddy: It may very well change, but there is such a -- "famine" is the word that occurs to me -- dearth of spaces for children under three that I would find it less than likely that a spot for a child under three would close, because there are so many people who need those spaces. If all of the spaces for some reason disappeared, then the staffing needs in that centre would be less as well, because part of that is to offset the fact that you need a much higher staffing ratio for children under three than you do over three, so the child care centre's costs would be less. But it's hard to imagine, with the kinds of waiting lists we see for children under three, that that would not be available.

There are certainly supports for parents through the Ministry of Social Services in terms of child care subsidy, which may have been canvassed under the Ministry of Social Services. In a more general statement, child care in a public building, which is what we are talking about, is eligible for any of the same benefits as any other child care centre in the province, so it's not particularly unique in that way.

L. Hanson: Then the subsidy would be available to anyone establishing a day care centre; it doesn't have to be in a government building. I understand that. I suspect, though, that for children under three, would there not be.... Are these day care centres set up to the point where they have so many children under three, so many children over three and that sort of thing? What is the demand at the time a new client comes with children who are one, two, four and.... Well, at five I guess they would be starting kindergarten. Is it that regimented or that organized -- would that be a factor? Is the grant based on a capital cost? Is it a capital grant for the start-up of the process, or is it a monthly subsidy?

Hon. P. Priddy: Could the Chair give us a minute? There is a list of questions that we will check.

The Chair: By all means.

[ Page 7980 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: I am not sure how much experience all of us have had at this particular juncture with the new policy, but we have done a lot of work with the community, with BCBC and with the government in terms of getting this policy up and running. I will go back to the list of questions, if I can. If I miss some, the member can assist me.

The first point is that if it is in a public building, the capital costs and the ongoing maintenance costs are indeed covered. Parents will be eligible for subsidy whether it is child care in a public building or child care in a child care centre in the community. It is non-profit organizations that are involved in the child care programs. There is still a parent fee, regardless of whether the child is in a child care centre in the community or a child care centre that happens to be in a public building. Therefore parents in either place have access to the subsidy from the Ministry of Social Services.

The questions of how many children and their ages are well regulated under the Ministry of Health, which licenses and regulates all child care centres.

L. Hanson: I think I know of the program provided through Social Services that subsidizes people -- depending on their income, their ability to pay and a number of other things -- who have children in day care. What I am trying to determine is whether there is, in the simplest terms, an advantage to operating a day care facility in a public building as opposed to in an Imperial Oil office tower? I think the minister said that there was a capital grant for public buildings.

[4:30]

Hon. P. Priddy: I am not sure how we will define advantage, given that these are non-profit organizations. You have to think about advantage within that context. That is one of the reasons, by the way, that we are really clear that this is not to set up a competition among child care providers. If a community non-profit organization comes to us to apply for capital funding under our current policy, it must raise 50 percent. This is what has happened for, I think, 23 organizations last year -- I checked the numbers. They used to have to raise two-thirds under the GO B.C. standards, and the government would provide a third. They now have to raise 50 percent, and we provide the other 50 percent, if we are talking about a child care centre in a community. For a child care centre in a public building, those capital costs do not have to be raised. But bear in mind we are talking about non-profit organizations, so there is not a financial advantage to anybody in this one for that reason.

L. Hanson: If a public building is being built, there may be a requirement to provide space for child care purposes, provided there's an assessment of need and the location is correct or advantageous. I think I have that fairly straight.

If there were an application by a non-profit organization for a capital cost subsidy, that organization would be renting space -- I would imagine that is the process for the provision of child care services. What would the capital grant be? Maybe you can give me some idea of what things it might cover -- even for a non-profit organization.

Hon. P. Priddy: I am trying to be as clear as I can with the answer, and I realize that we may have a way to go on this.

There is no additional capital cost to a non-profit organization. If that building includes child care, then the capital costs are a part of the building costs. Therefore there would be no reason for a non-profit organization to apply for a different capital subsidy.

L. Hanson: Well, then, maybe the hon. minister could give me some idea of what a non-profit organization might apply for as capital costs -- what might they cover?

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm sure I'll go back to check and make sure that there are lots of places in Vernon, because now we'll have lots of expertise on child care. I appreciate the interest.

The capital costs covered in a public building would be that internal physical space including the dividers, all of the major sinks, bathrooms, fridges and stoves; all of the major appliances one would need would all be covered under capital costs.

L. Reid: Some moments back, we talked regarding considerations of how the best sites are selected for child care. In that schools probably have done that same homework -- they understand the sunshine component and all those issues in terms of space and access and all of that -- is it the intent of this ministry to put forward a platform in support of site-specific child care in public schools in this province?

Hon. P. Priddy: I think the question was about local schools and whether schools would be designated as site-specific. I have the same comment. It is a public building, and therefore child care is a consideration in the construction of that school -- the same way it would be at any other public building.

The point I would raise is, to ensure that we are not in competition.... I don't know, but you might imagine a circumstance where there may already be enough child care spaces in the community, or there may be three child care providers within three blocks of the school. I don't know if it would then be reasonable to set up another child care centre that would be in competition with other child care providers. This is to enhance existing child care. It certainly isn't to put other child care providers at risk. Absolutely, in schools as in any other building, it is a consideration -- particularly before- and after-school care.

L. Reid: The question does not relate at all to competition; it relates to support for families. I know we've had the discussion about how many stops a woman en route to work in the morning should have to make in terms of having children of two or three different ages who cannot be accommodated on the same site. One of the ongoing discussions in the field is 

[ Page 7981 ]

about the need to have one child care centre located, hopefully, within a school, so that children of school age can attend and come back to a familiar setting. The question again is: is it the intention of your ministry to make a commitment to on-site child care in public schools? I appreciate the considerations, and I appreciate the comments on competition. But at the end of the day, if this is about supporting families, it makes sense to create spaces in places where there are already children on-site and there is a demonstrated need. Speaking as a teacher, all the competition in the world would not have met the needs of any of the communities that I taught in. There were always children who had to leave the community for child care. We are not in any way meeting the needs in those communities.

Hon. P. Priddy: Hon. Chair, clearly I was too eager to respond to the question -- I didn't wait for the member to finish.

I believe that the member and I are saying the same things. If there is a demonstrated need, then that is what will happen. There will be child care if it can be demonstrated that there is a need in that area. If, as the member describes in all the schools in which she has been involved, there has not been adequate child care spaces in the community, then that data would be taken into consideration in planning for that particular construction site. I appreciate the fact that it's not competition, but schools that I've been involved with have said: "We have enough child care in our community." So I'm simply making the point that it is not to oversaturate. But the member is quite correct: there are many areas where there is not enough child care.

We also have the school-based child care working group, which is made up of teachers, people representing the BCTF, people representing administrators and principals, the ministry, Municipal Affairs and people involved in the provision of child care. That working committee is providing advice to the ministry about more specific steps in the very best way to proceed with this in order to ensure that we meet the communities' needs and the children's needs.

L. Reid: I would like to make particular reference to a child care strategy for the nineties in a report entitled Showing We Care. They are the summary report and minority report of the Task Force on Child Care, released in January 1991 under the administration of my hon. colleague. My question looks at the direction of this particular report and asks for some clarification in terms of the direction of this administration. Is it your intention to follow the suggestions and the direction of this report in terms of providing an additional 5,000 child care spaces? Or are we moving away from this particular task force, under your direction?

Hon. P. Priddy: There is great eagerness to provide even more information, but let me begin.

The effort that went into that task force and Showing We Care was an extraordinary piece of work by some very skilled, committed and dedicated child care people in this province. When we look at the direction of this government -- as the member has asked in relation to the task force -- 70 percent of the 53 recommendations the task force made have already been acted upon by our government. Because those recommendations affect many jurisdictions within government, as I've spoken of earlier, the work has been coordinated through the interministry child care coordinating committee: ourselves, Social Services, Health, Advanced Education, Aboriginal Affairs, Education, Municipal Affairs, Finance, Economic Development and BCBC -- which just goes to show that child care really is everybody's business. Work is progressing, by the way, on the remaining recommendations, which predominantly require consultation with other levels of government and the aboriginal community. But in the last 18 months, 70 percent of the 53 recommendations have already been acted on.

L. Reid: I appreciate the comments, in terms of the 70 percent. Is it the intention of this ministry to proceed with the additional 30 percent of those recommendations? Or indeed, is it at that point that this administration would differ from the previous administration, in terms of how some of these child care issues are going to be resolved?

Hon. P. Priddy: As government, we are, for the most part, in support of those remaining recommendations as well, which is why the work is going forward. For some, there are some differences in terms of how we might approach them; the remaining ones certainly have some sort of joint work with other ministries that we really need to go forward in concert with. We'll also be working with the Provincial Child Care Council, by the way, which is representative of all the regions and communities of interest in the child care community in British Columbia. Many, or certainly some, of those people were part of the original Showing We Care child care task force. We will also take guidance on the remaining 30 percent of the recommendations from that Provincial Child Care Council -- all very committed, skilled people.

L. Reid: So it would be safe to say that the original initiative is being followed by the current administration. In fact, the previous administration was not directly involved in the implementation -- this government has come on board, picked up the report and implemented the recommendations of the report. Would that be correct?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes. I think the report was tabled -- and the member said that -- in January 1991. In December or November 1991 we picked up and began the implementation of that task force. It's really important to be clear that the recommendations of this task force are very solid, and that we are indeed -- perhaps with some difference in shift -- acting on the rest of them, because it came from what I hope we all believe is the place we go for direction and advice: the child care community. It was a very extensive report from parents and child care providers across this 

[ Page 7982 ]

province, with research in the rest of the country. Because community needs form the basis, they are solid recommendations and we are going forward with those.

The point I would make is that they have happened under the Ministry of Women's Equality and with our bringing other ministries together. It came down in January 1991, I think. We picked it up in November 1991 because there had not been action to that date. And it's happened faster, in a more coordinated and focused way.

L. Reid: Because last year was the first year I had the opportunity to discuss these issues with the minister, there was one particular issue.... We talk about the purchasing power of women and what they can buy with their dollars. One of the issues we touched on last year was whether or not the family maintenance payment should be a taxable item. I understand, from your comments last year, that that issue was going to be placed on the order paper for discussion just over a year ago now. I believe the discussion was taking place in Whitehorse under the guidance of Mary Collins. Is there an update on that issue? Can the women in this province expect some guidance in terms of declaring child maintenance payments as taxable income?

[4:45]

Hon. P. Priddy: The member raises a question that continues to be important for women, and certainly is raised by women and groups of lawyers that I have met around the province as well.

As the member knows, there has recently been a review of the family justice system in British Columbia. We have been a partner in that, along with the Attorney General and the Ministry of Social Services. Women in the province would tell you that the family justice system historically has not worked for them, and I don't think any of us would argue with that at all. That's why we are working with both the AG and the Ministry of Social Services on the family justice system review.

We also have a letter that the member may be interested in from the federal Minister of Finance regarding this issue, and we would be pleased to share that with her. We have continued to raise this with the federal government -- as recently as a month ago in New Brunswick.

The family maintenance enforcement program, while it is the responsibility of the Attorney General, is an important way for us to be the advocate, liaison or bridge for women to that ministry, and to look with the Attorney General at the report's recommendations that are directed toward the improvement of this service.

C. Tanner: Could I direct the minister's attention to a different area, and that is any expenditures within her budget which concern aboriginal women? Could she give us an indication of how much money was spent, and what programs it was spent on?

Hon. P. Priddy: There are a number, and I want to be sure about the list I looked at earlier. We expected and hoped that people would ask, because it is an important area, and questioning from members indicates that it is important to them as well.

I would offer this as one of the larger examples. Within our Stopping the Violence initiative, which was a $10 million initiative under this ministry this year, $2 million -- or 114 initiatives -- was directed at stopping violence in aboriginal communities. That $2 million included women's support services, community education, crisis counselling, staff training for staff working with aboriginal women who are victims of violence and public awareness in the aboriginal community. Those dollars were directed through the aboriginal advisory committee, because it seems to be the only respectful way to do that. You go to the people who know the community best. We worked with the aboriginal advisory committee in working with communities to ensure that those dollars were best used for aboriginal women and families. As the member may know, in the aboriginal community the focus on stopping the violence has been about healing the family. While this ministry's concern is certainly the safety of women, we respect that within the aboriginal culture, that is the approach they have chosen to take.

One hundred and fourteen initiatives have been directed toward stopping the violence in aboriginal communities. We have provided $20,000 in funding the writing, publishing and distribution of two parts of what's called the first nations family violence prevention program for use by aboriginal communities. We have provided $23,000 in funding to the Native Courtworker and Counselling Association to provide education to court personnel. We also have another 19 grants -- and we could certainly provide that information at another time to the member -- totalling $208,000, which have also gone to communities to work with aboriginal women. Maybe I could highlight just a couple for you. On June 15 there was a community meeting in Fort Ware, which is a fairly small community of about 200 people -- primarily aboriginal people -- in the very far north of B.C. The Ministry of Women's Equality, under our violence against women initiative, provided $8,000 to the Fort Ware Indian band to conduct six workshops whose goals were as follows: to ensure that the community understood that violence against women is a crime, and to promote a healthy positive view of women and by women. There was an evaluation of how those workshops had gone, and an officer in the local RCMP detachment has written to us indicating their impact: "This program has done more to bring change in the lives of the people than anything done in the community for many years." So that's an example of where some of the dollars and resources have gone.

C. Tanner: A quick estimate. It looks to me like you've got about $2.5 million allocated to those programs. If I want to access some of that money for the four reserves that are in my constituency, or advise them how they could do so, what might my approach be?

Hon. P. Priddy: I was trying to ascertain how much of that had already been allocated, and I would 

[ Page 7983 ]

offer two comments to the member. First, because those dollars are allocated through the aboriginal advisory committee, the appropriate approach in terms of allocating the dollars we've spoken of, particularly the $2 million, would be through the aboriginal advisory committee. If the member does not have the names of people in his area, we would be glad to provide that information to him. Second, in terms of one-time dollars, our women's equality grants program is also accessible to them.

C. Tanner: Could the minister tell me who sits on the aboriginal advisory committee?

Hon. P. Priddy: It would be difficult; I don't think I have the whole list. Those are regional committees, and they represent different organizations in the aboriginal community. We could certainly provide him with those lists. They are people who are nominated and put forward by aboriginal communities in regional advisory committees in different parts of the province. Aboriginal Affairs and the Ministry of Health could make that information available as well.

C. Tanner: Could the minister advise the committee whether the majority of people sitting on those committee are women or men?

Hon. P. Priddy: I could not tell you that from a regional perspective, but I've certainly met with the overall provincial group. I would have to go and count, so I would not wish to be quoted, although obviously we are in Hansard. As I recall from looking around that table, the distribution was fairly equal, with probably a few more women than men. I could not say for sure; we'd have to look at all of the names in order to do that. It's a significant number of people.

C. Tanner: Not necessarily now, but sometime later, could the minister supply me with the committee that meets on southern Vancouver Island? I would like to get them involved if they are not already; I know there is a very definite need. How has the ministry approached the problem in my community and others where native women are not getting the help they need and have to get off the reserve to get that help? Have you got any programs related to that problem?

Hon. P. Priddy: I would like to make two points. We would be delighted to provide the member with the list of the committee; we'll either do that ourselves or get it for him through the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, as we both have it. We would be delighted not only because it's our job to provide information, but also because it's an indication of interest. I think it is very positive that that kind of support would be there for aboriginal people in the member's area.

We have had some experience in terms of women who feel or state that they are not able to get the support that may be necessary for them on reserve and who are going off reserve to seek some services. One of the organizations that we have worked with is the Naukana Native Women's Association. We have been involved with supporting that organization by providing dollars and other kinds of support. It is a group of aboriginal women who have come together, particularly around the South Island justice education project. They have provided significant support to a number of aboriginal women who have stated that they were not able to get the kind of support they felt safe and comfortable with where they lived. These women have gone to this organization for additional support, particularly as it relates to Vancouver Island.

C. Tanner: The minister anticipated my next question -- that was the very group I had in mind. Could the minister be more specific as to what financial support and assistance they have given to that group?

Hon. P. Priddy: There have been three financial resources provided to Naukana: a $30,000 grant from the Stopping the Violence initiative -- $10,000 from the aboriginal advisory committee and $20,000 from the women's equality grants program.

C. Tanner: I am sorry, Madam Chairman: did I lose $20,000 or $30,000? Were there three grants -- $30,000, $20,000 and $10,000?

Hon. P. Priddy: It was two grants totalling $30,000.

C. Tanner: Does the aboriginal advisory committee actually administer the funds, or do they just give advice to the minister and the minister makes the grants?

Hon. P. Priddy: Was the question: who receives the applications and awards the money? Or was it: who actually administers the money for individual projects?

C. Tanner: The question I'm asking the minister is: does the aboriginal advisory committee advise the ministry as to who should get the grants, or do you give the money to the advisory committee and they distribute it?

Hon. P. Priddy: Those contracts were delivered through the aboriginal advisory committee, to whom we, with some program standards and conditions.... What we did is talk about what the dollars were for and the kinds of standards around how those dollars were to be used. Then the aboriginal advisory committee called for applications from aboriginal people around the province, who then submitted them to the advisory council. The advisory council made those decisions themselves, based on the standards agreed upon with our ministry.

[5:00]

C. Tanner: Could the minister at some future date -- not immediately -- give me some details of how that works, so that I can get with it? The minister mentioned $208,000 to aboriginal women. Does that include the two grants she has already mentioned, and what are the others? I think she said there were about 28 grants. 

[ Page 7984 ]

Could the minister give us an idea of what some of the other grants included in the $208,000 were?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, we can, if you could just give us a minute -- not having all 19 in my memory. Let me begin to give some examples, and then we would be delighted to provide a complete list to the member. The first one I would reference is -- it's my pronunciation that I'm working on; that's the reason for my hesitation -- to the Gwa'Sala council for counselling services for women to develop procedures and protocols to operate a family intervention program for families in that community. Others are to the Naukana Native Women's Association for research and planning strategies for the eventual establishment of a native women's victim assistance centre; the Kamloops Indian band for a justice services handbook on reporting abuse and assaults to ensure the needs of aboriginal women and families are being met in their community; the Lower Kootenay Indian band for women's awareness and resource education; the Alkali Lake band for family violence awareness; the Prince George Native Friendship Centre for a sexual abuse training program; and the Songhees band council for a family needs assessment project around the healing that all families go through. Those are some examples for the member.

C. Tanner: Are any members of your staff, or any members working within the department, native?

Hon. P. Priddy: As the hon. member might be aware, we have not "done a workplace profile for the ministry," and therefore we have not had people actually say that to us, so I put the answer in that context. But yes, we do have aboriginal women -- and men -- working within the ministry.

C. Tanner: Are they full-time, part-time or on contract?

Hon. P. Priddy: They are full-time, regular staff members.

C. Tanner: I know the minister doesn't want to identify people by ethnic background, but how many are there?

Hon. P. Priddy: There are approximately five staff in the ministry that we know are aboriginal. But I would also say that because we have not done a workplace profile, there may be other aboriginal people who have not self-declared, and therefore we are not aware of them. So I wouldn't consider that a conclusive answer.

C. Tanner: I appreciate the minister's candour, because I know it's a tricky subject.

Your budget for Stopping the Violence has gone up from $8.3 million last year to $9 million this year, an increase of 8 percent or some $673,000. Could the minister tell us specifically what the increase is for? Is it just for expansion of existing programs, or are you moving into new fields?

Hon. P. Priddy: The additional dollars are for some additional strategic planning, especially for groups that are particularly discriminated against. We know that there are groups of women who are particularly at risk of being victims of violence; and historically across the country and previously in this province, there have not been particular strategies to reach out to those groups. These are dollars under the Stopping the Violence initiative that will develop ways to reach out to women with disabilities, women who are victims of violence, and visible minority women -- women who are immigrants and may not speak English and so on.

C. Tanner: Just two more questions. Occasionally in my office, I get notification of grants that you have made to women's groups within my constituency. I want to thank the minister for not asking me to present the cheques, because I don't think that MLAs from any party should do that in any case -- I never have approved of it. Two other ministries have asked me to deliver them, and I appreciate that the minister didn't, because I would have said no. I am pleased that you kept us informed; however, I'm not clear sometimes why you're sending the cheques out specifically. Maybe the minister could give us a little more explanation.

The final thing I'd like to say is that I appreciate the information the minister has given me today, but I need some backup material. I'd like to assure the minister that I'm very interested in that particular subject, and anything I can do to help I'd like to.

Hon. P. Priddy: Two things, I guess. We appreciate the member's interest and will follow up with the more detailed information you have requested. We have made notes and will ensure that we do that.

We're pleased that the member has received the information about the grants. The purpose of sending the letters out to MLAs around the province is to talk about particular happenings in the communities, and more importantly, to say, "These are the organizations in your community and this is what's happening with them," and to provide that opening for any MLA to make contact with those organizations. We know that MLAs want more contact with women's organizations than simply to present a cheque -- to be an ongoing part of the organization. I appreciate the member's sensitivity to that.

L. Reid: My colleague from Saanich North and the Islands touched on grants being available to aboriginal communities. I understand that there are a number of applications before you from the Chehalis aboriginal band in terms of how they can better offer services through the Chehalis community school. One of their initiatives is a child care initiative. At the present time, they are in need of more information in terms of whether or not that's a likely outcome from your ministry. I understand that there is some frustration about the question of them being shifted off to other sources of funding -- i.e., to Indian Affairs and other departments. What is the position of the ministry in terms of funding child care on reserve?

[ Page 7985 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: The grant the member refers to is under review. I would be somewhat reluctant to comment on a particular grant that has been received and is under review by the ministry.

The other question that you have asked is about funding for child care on reserve. Let us be honest and say that we know that for all of us, it is an area in which we are interested, committed and concerned. We are working very closely with the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and the Ministry of Social Services, and with the federal government as well, to ensure that all of our roles in the provision of child care on reserve are clear. There has not been a clear statement from the federal government at this stage about what responsibility they are prepared to take. Quite honestly, we have seen the federal government back away from their commitments to child care in a variety of ways, including child care on reserve, where there was a significant commitment. We are working with the federal government to have a clear statement from them about what their support of this will be.

L. Reid: I appreciate that the federal government has backed off from a national child care strategy, and certainly I believe there is tremendous support for some kind of national standard for the delivery of child care. For the purposes of discussion, perhaps this ministry could be involved in further pressuring the federal government for some response to the aboriginal child care question. I think we've pretty well mapped out, as Canadians and as British Columbians, what we're looking for in terms of a general child care strategy. I don't think there's a lot of continuing misapprehension, but the aboriginal question is pressing. Certainly we can look at that in some detail. I trust you'll keep me informed of new developments.

In terms of where I wish to proceed next, we are looking at the issue of pension plans in terms of whether or not we're providing a framework for women who work in the home, do not have access to a registered retirement savings plan and have not built up that plan over time. You and I touched on that a year ago, and I'm hoping that there has been some change, some shift, some development or some progress as it relates not so much to reimbursing women but to putting in place a framework that will allow them, if they choose to stay at home -- if this is about honouring choices -- some incentives for a reasonable retirement package.

Hon. P. Priddy: There are two parts to my answer on this one, and I'll try to be as brief as I can. I don't think there's any question that women face poverty -- both young women and elderly women -- and are more likely to live in poverty, in part because women have not had access to pension programs. Any consultation that we have had to date has certainly indicated that there is a lot more work to be done on this. I don't think anybody is denying the need for this. I think we all know that there is a significant cost to this. That does not mean that it ought not to go forward, but it is an issue that I think requires more dialogue than it has had to date.

However, rather than let it sit and not take any action around pensions at all, we have taken some general action around pensions for women this year. There have been some changes to the Pension Benefits Standards Act, which were effective in January, that will be more responsive to the needs of women. It has reduced the vesting period for women, since women are often in the workforce for shorter periods of time because their careers are more interrupted. It allows pension participation by part-time workers, which will benefit women in larger numbers. Because women at this stage are more likely to be moving -- although perhaps less likely, but I think it is still the case -- particularly in two-partner families, there is increased portability of pensions, allowing women to move pensions between different employers, which is also often a problem for women. So there will be a benefit from that perspective as well -- and, as I say, the prorated participation by part-time workers.

[5:15]

So there has been action that affects women. The issue of homemaker pensions, for women who do not work for wages outside the home at all, still needs to be brought forward, and there is ongoing dialogue about it.

L. Reid: I very much appreciate the comments on part-time workers, and the fact that there has been some movement in that regard.

My particular reference involves nurses in the province. There is still an issue in terms of a nurses' pension plan, because nurses now have to work for 30 years. I can tell you that the same pension criterion is not in place for teachers. Teachers can work for 25 years or retire at age 55, depending on which comes first. I trust that the ministry will take a look at putting a similar framework in place for nurses in this province. I believe that nurses are one of the groups that we have disadvantaged over time. We have not made tremendous headway in terms of what a strenuous job nursing can be, and how difficult it is in terms of some of the medical issues or work-related hazards, if you will. We push women to the extent that they are not able perform the service and must retire, because 30 years is a significant time frame for such strenuous activity. Has there been any progress made in terms of a nurses' pension plan?

Hon. P. Priddy: From this member, who is a nurse, to the other member, who is a teacher: we both have some understanding of the pension issues.

The ministry has received a significant number of letters from nurses. I have had a number of meetings on this one with nurses' unions and with groups of nurses, both in smaller communities and provincially. I am supportive of changes that could make early retirement an option for more people, taking into consideration some of the tremendous financial pressures that government faces. The extended pension benefits that nurses request are very similar to the ones to which public safety occupations such as firefighters, police, prison guards, etc. have access. The Ministry of Government Services and our ministry are reviewing 

[ Page 7986 ]

the options available in order to address the concerns of nurses, with whom we are in pretty close contact.

L. Reid: It pleases me that those discussions are ongoing because we've tended to disenfranchise nurses over time. We've certainly not allowed the part-time nurse who wishes to stay in practice and offer a very valuable service to this province to be in a position to accrue reasonable pension benefits. It's absolutely outstanding if that's being addressed.

With regard to pay equity issues, one of the groups that I want to discuss in some detail this afternoon is child care workers. I think we agree that they're one of the lowest-paid sectors in all of Canada. What is the ministry's initiative on pay equity issues and will it reflect positively on child care workers during this calendar year?

Hon. P. Priddy: The member is absolutely correct both about poor wages and working conditions. Quite frankly, there is a problem both recruiting and retaining people in the child care field, where we need to have significant stability, given that we are talking about the lives of very young children. The fact that wages are a factor in people leaving the field has an effect both on stability and expansion of child care.

We are concerned and are taking action. As opposed to every other province in this country, this province historically has not taken any action on the wages of child care workers. To stabilize the delivery of child care services and move towards some economic equality for what is predominantly a female sector, this year we will enhance the wages of early childhood educators. This will be done through the inclusion of the sector in the cross-government wage initiative which was established last year; this is a new addition.

If I may anticipate the next question, the distribution of that wage lift for early childhood educators will be determined through consultation with the Provincial Child Care Council, with representatives of the early childhood organizations and with labour. We will continue to explore additional ways to enhance wages for people working in this sector.

L. Reid: I certainly agree that this is a mostly or predominantly female sector, and we talk about non-profit and all of those issues. My purpose in bringing it back-to-back with the pension question is that if indeed we do not allow some growth in terms of salary, we're not going to see any of these individuals able to stay in the delivery of child care -- to work in that field -- if they are never going to be in a position to accrue any kind of reasonable pension benefit. Under the pay equity plan, if indeed it goes forward and is enhanced this year, will some consideration be given to a pension benefit for child care workers?

Hon. P. Priddy: We know -- from the national study called Caring for a Living, which I'm sure the member has seen as well -- that in British Columbia we would be optimistic to suggest that just over 20 percent of child care workers have any access to a pension plan other than CPP. It is an issue we've raised with the Child Care Council, whom we are working with on the best distribution of the wage equality dollars, and one of the issues they're considering in terms of how this will be done. A final decision has not been made about that, but it certainly is one of the pieces they are considering as we look at how this would work.

L. Reid: I thank the minister. I look forward to updates in terms of where we're going to proceed during this calendar year.

The issue I will touch on reflects heavily on the judiciary, but it looks at the Stopping the Violence initiatives that have been undertaken and certainly the federal task force that has looked at violence issues. In my opening remarks I touched on whether or not it is still going to be considered appropriate to remove the victim of abuse from a home -- i.e., the child who has been abused. My position at that point was, and continues to be, that it seems abundantly unfair to remove from all things familiar the child who is the victim of abuse, and to allow the offending adult to stay in the home. Is the minister involved in any discussions with the Ministry of Attorney General? Is it the intent of the Ministry of Women's Equality to look more closely at this issue in the coming year?

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm tempted to say yes and sit down, but the member probably wants more information than that. But it's a resounding yes. However, let me talk a little about how that might be happening. I think it is absolutely critical, and the member is correct: the protection and safety of women and children is the key issue. When we look at removing or not removing women and children from their home, it's very important for me to reference the Attorney General ministry's new Violence Against Women in Relationships policy. When you look at the crux or the pivotal foundation of the Violence Against Women in Relationships policy, there are three or four parts of it that I think speak to the member's concern. One of them is that this new policy, which used to be called the wife assault policy, has had much input from the women's community and the justice community. It promotes a rigorous approach to arrest, to laying a charge and to prosecution. It attempts to ensure that the safety of women and children is the key point.

We used to hear a phrase that said: you would only lay a charge if it was in the public interest. I, the Attorney General and others in this room would say that it is always in the public interest to lay a charge when we are talking about violence against women. So that policy forms a key component of the behaviour, policy and protocols of the police and the judiciary; and it has to do with both arrest and charge, and prosecution. It's absolutely in the public interest. It ensures that the police always consider it in the public interest to lay a charge; that cases are well prepared before they get to court; and that the prosecution is a vigorous one.

The point I would add to that -- and I do not for one minute disagree with the member -- is that there ought to be an option for women, even if a charge is laid. There may be women who wish, for some reason, to 

[ Page 7987 ]

seek another place of housing for a short period of time. That option should always be available for women and their children.

L. Reid: In terms of the public safety issues as they relate to children and to the victim in those situations, is it the intention of your ministry to take a firm position on ensuring that the children can remain in the home? I'd appreciate your comments on those issues. My concern rests with the public safety issue. The public is somehow led to believe that the police -- the constabulary -- cannot ensure the safety of the child, so the child is taken into care. That's absolutely the case today; that's what happens. Certainly that's the situation that I have dealt with over the years as a school administrator. The child came to school, following an incident or an attack, from a foster situation.... In my opinion -- and a lot of the research out there suggests this is so -- that only compounds the guilt shared by the child and compounds the issue in terms of that child re-entering a home situation. I absolutely agree with the minister when she says that all incidents should be reported, and that all assaults are criminal activity. I don't take issue with that. My concern is how we care for the child in that situation and, basically, how we care for the adult who is the recipient of that kind of abuse.

Hon. P. Priddy: When I say that the safety and protection of women and children is key, I'm talking about both women and children, and policies that will ensure they are safe. We have provided $600,000 to the Attorney General -- in terms of the implementation of this policy as it affects women and families -- for implementation of the policy. The video, actually, has been completed to develop policies, protocols, training and resource materials for the judiciary and the police around the implementation of this policy. We will work very closely with the Attorney General because we consider ourselves to be an equal partner in this. We'll work closely with them to ensure -- and I appreciate the member's point -- that the focus is on safety and protection of women, but that we do not divide up families in doing that.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments. In terms of treatment programs for offenders that are female, are there initiatives under your ministry to look at women who enter the penal system, in terms of rehabilitation and counselling services? It seems to me that we expect a tremendous amount from our penal system -- i.e., we place people, they return to their communities and the community's sentiment at the moment is that not a great deal has transpired in terms of rehabilitation. Is your ministry looking at some of those issues in terms of integrating those individuals back into their home communities?

Hon. P. Priddy: We have had discussions with women who are working in the penal system with women who are offenders. I'm sure that the member must have canvassed this during her questions to the Attorney General. In our ministry, there have not been particular initiatives around female offenders. I would certainly agree with the member that it is an extremely important area. We have had some contact with individual offenders as well. When they come back to their communities, female offenders need what all women need: affordable housing and education. They may need child care and ways to earn a living. There are not specific initiatives, and it is an area that we will endeavour to work more with the Attorney General on, and I appreciate the member's point.

L. Reid: In my opening remarks, I looked at the confidence of the public and what they can look to reasonably expect from the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the College of Dental Surgeons.... It's an ongoing issue, particularly for women who, believing they were seeking out the most highly qualified professional when some incident occurred, do not believe they have had access to justice. Is the Ministry of Women's Equality looking at some of those issues of educating women as to what they can conceivably expect from a college? If women fail to have their appeals met with some kind of consideration, allowing them.... Is the ministry instructing them where else they might receive service? A lot of these women are going to end up in transition houses and sexual assault centres, which is definitely a responsibility -- certainly with the sexual assault centres -- shared equally between the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Social Services...all of those. But will the focus of education as to where they might receive service be flowing from the Ministry of Women's Equality?

[5:30]

Hon. P. Priddy: Let me be sure I'm clear on the question. Is this a question about women who are concerned about the behaviour of professionals they would go to for assistance, regardless of what professional body they belong to? I need to have it clarified a bit for me.

L. Reid: Yes.

Hon. P. Priddy: I think there are two parts to the answer. One is that where those women would go for personal assistance or counselling is no different from where other women would go for counselling in their communities. So the source of the actual counselling support is not different. In terms of how people might lay a charge, take a charge forward or press a complaint, etc. -- if that is the heart of the question -- we have not had a particular provincial ministry initiative around that. But I do know that that information is frequently asked for in individual women's centres throughout the province. They often stand beside women who know and who are going through that particular procedure and process, and who have come asking for advocacy in those areas.

I recently met with one of the authors of the report and recommendations to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. on their policies and protocols, about ways in which the ministry could be involved in getting the message out to women-serving organizations, once 

[ Page 7988 ]

the recommendations are released and the college states its actions. It makes sense that we may have a role to play, in part, but the largest part is our getting information out to women-serving organizations in the community who are supporting those individual women.

L. Reid: One of the other issues I touched on earlier today was mandatory prosecution or mandatory arrest. Can education to be made available on those issues, so that when a woman has been abused in a domestic situation, she is not put in the position of having to decide -- and having to decide at her most vulnerable -- whether or not she wishes to press charges? Is the Ministry of Women's Equality looking at those issues in terms of educating women about what resources are in place?

I have had these discussions with both the Minister of Health and the Attorney General in terms of coordinating some service or some understanding of what the issue really is: justice and fair treatment under the law. Is there some way for these three ministries to coordinate? The majority of individuals who need this service tend to be women.

Hon. P. Priddy: I will try to answer as clearly and as briefly as I can. I appreciate the member's comment about women laying charges. As I said with reference to the Violence Against Women in Relationships policy, the police have a responsibility to do that. Therefore a woman does not have to say: "It is up to me somehow to make that decision." The police have a responsibility to lay a charge. Through our implementation with the Attorney General, I think that we need to make that very clear.

We have provided training initiatives for community agencies and counsellors so that they know about that policy, and so those organizations that work with women will be able to give them that kind of information, not only the fact that they don't have to make that decision -- that the police will make that decision -- but what the process of protection is for them, once that decision has been made.

I have just one additional point. We are looking at a fairly comprehensive Stopping the Violence education and awareness strategy in partnership with other ministries and the community to get that information out to everybody in the province.

L. Reid: One of the issues I raised earlier in debate today was surrounding support to families who happen to have a family member who has HIV. I'm going to touch very briefly on the annual cost to a family of caring for an AIDS patient. Including the costs of nursing care -- either by a private nurse or a member of the family who quits work to provide that service -- and transportation and medications, it has been roughly estimated at $34,000. A number of individuals have come forward about needing ongoing support on that health issue, whether it be child care support or respite care. The majority of caregivers in these situations tend to be women. Does your ministry have a plan or even ongoing discussions with the Ministry of Health in terms of how best to support the women and families trying to deal with this very complex situation?

Hon. P. Priddy: There's no question that while HIV-positive women traditionally have been a fairly small part of the picture, that is very much a growing part in terms of women providing care and certainly also women who are HIV-positive. I expect the member knows through her canvassing of the Ministry of Health that the B.C. government has provided support to the Positive Women's Network in Vancouver, which exclusively addresses the needs of HIV-positive women and is one very particular initiative. I'm not wishing to speak for another minister and therefore will not do it for very long. When you look at the whole Closer to Home, where we have increased home support services -- and increased training, by the way, for homemakers who are home support workers working with people who are HIV-positive or who have demonstrated the full-blown AIDS virus -- as expanded in communities to anybody with health care needs, there is a particular training component for people working with and supporting families with AIDS members.

L. Stephens: I understand we have not too much time left. There are some things I wanted to talk about, but I will be a little briefer.

I hope the minister is working to implement the recommendations to the violence task force from the B.C Coalition of Disabled Persons, or certainly to advocate that they be done through the appropriate ministries. That is the one comment I'd like to make.

I'd also like to comment on the report of the family justice review committee, which recommended the government set up demonstration community family relations centres. That's another initiative I would like to encourage the minister to be as aggressive as necessary on with the relevant ministries -- particularly the Attorney General, who I know is very sympathetic and supportive with respect to the issues of violence against women and children, and gender equality in the justice system as well. We talked a little about that during the Attorney General's estimates, and particularly the recommendations to justices of the peace and trial coordinators -- that is the policy on the criminal justice system, through the Ministry of Attorney General, in response to Violence Against Women in Relationships. Those are some of the things that are of particular interest to me, and I would encourage the minister to bring them forward.

I would like to ask the minister's thoughts on a couple of issues. One is television violence. There was a U.S. study done by the American Psychologists Association, and a report published in February 1992, that said that TV programs were found to devalue and stereotype social groups, one of those groups being women. There has been some talk through our local media lately on the connection between television violence and increased violence, particularly among our young people. I would like to know if the minister has any comments on that, and whether or not her ministry is looking at those issues in any way or if she has plans to do so in the future.

[ Page 7989 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: I will make these comments quickly. The member raises a critical issue that we are all probably late in addressing. I say "we" -- the large "we" -- are all late in addressing those kinds of influences -- not only television, but some of the video games we have seen come across the border. We could provide a variety of examples. I would suggest that there is a lot more work to be done in this area, but there are a few things that we have already looked at. We have supported a media watch organization that looks at what is happening in newspapers and magazines and on television on issues of, in this case, violence against women. They also look at other areas, to bring it to people's attention. It's one thing to say it; it's another to get it to people's attention, or to get it to the attention of people who are sponsoring. That organization is looking very seriously at that, and we are supporting them with some financial resources to do that. We certainly raised this, and it was discussed, at the federal-provincial ministers' meeting in New Brunswick last month. We are trying to work with the federal government around some CRTC strategies on a a federal basis to look at that. There is certainly more work to be done in that area, and I would really welcome comments from the member about how best to approach that.

L. Stephens: I thank the minister for those comments. I think all women and mothers have a particular concern about these kinds of issues.

Another one that I'd like to raise is date rape. It isn't talked about a lot, but it is a concern on many campuses. It has been estimated that only about 1 percent of these crimes are reported. In l991 a study was done by the Richmond Women's Resource Centre Association that revealed the extent of the problem on the lower mainland. They stressed that the lack of resources to deal with date rape was quite substantial. There doesn't seem to be enough sensitivity to the issue of date rape to result in a closely coordinated and effective response to either the victims or those perpetrating these violent incidents. I wonder if the minister is thinking of some kind of initiative in that regard. Is something coming forward in coordination with the Attorney General's department? Is there is a policy in place to deal with this issue?

Hon. P. Priddy: The hon. member raises, I think, something that people have not discussed very much before this. It is a very frightening and overwhelming issue in the lives of both families and young people.

We have in the last 18 months or so provided at least ten community organizations in the province with dollar resources to develop materials and provide public education on the issue of dating violence. This includes a $3,000 grant to the Victoria Women's Transition House for the distribution of a video -- which the hon. member may have seen -- and teaching guide on dating violence called "Right from the Start," which has been sent to transition houses, safe homes and women's centres. If MLAs have not already received it, we are in the process of distributing to all MLAs' offices with a covering letter. It is an excellent videotape; I was very moved when I saw it. It's called "Right from the Start."

[5:45]

The Ministry of Education has evaluated the video and added it to their resources for school. The Ministry of Attorney General's Violence Against Women in Relationships also covers the issue of dating violence and is very specific about that. We have also provided dollars to the Ministry of Education to enhance their "Learning for Living" curriculum, which also includes preventive education on dating violence.

L. Stephens: I thank the minister for her remarks. I'm happy to see that there are some initiatives in place to deal with this.

There are two other areas. One is pornography. It's something that has come up from time to time and particularly impacts on women, and children to some extent. The usual question on this issue is: does pornography, defined as any visual representation of sexual behaviour that includes a degrading portrayal of a human being, result in increased violence to women and children? I think there have been a number of cases through the justice system that demonstrate that it does so. Ted Bundy was one. In Canada, pornography was a very strong factor in our own infamous lower mainland case of Clifford Olson.

It's a $10 billion industry in North America. It's something that we have to come to grips with and come up with a resolution on in terms of what is and is not acceptable. We have to pay particularly strong attention to its elimination, kiddie porn in particular, which is something quite revolting to all of us. I wonder if the minister would like to comment on that particular issue.

Hon. P. Priddy: Unquestionably, the member has made important comments about pornography. I realize that the member knows that this is, at least legally, primarily a federal responsibility through the Criminal Code. With regard to pornography in our Canadian experience, certainly in the Butler case in the Supreme Court last year there was talk about three categories of pornography, which supported the link between pornography and violence against women. I think it did that well. If the member has not had access to that, then I'd be pleased to provide it to her.

Although the federal government has the main responsibility, I don't think that allows us to stand back and say that it's a federal government responsibility and we're a part of the provincial government, so that's it. I think we have a very strong responsibility to monitor the work of the provincial government and to support women's organizations, many of which are concerned about pornography. They are lobbying the federal government and doing their own research into that area. I guess we also have responsibilities as individual people -- not only as governments and communities -- to take individual action that we are all able to take when we are offended by the sorts of things we see on television or we see available in our 

[ Page 7990 ]

community. There is not, at this stage, a coordinated response to pornography by the provincial government, but I have lobbied fairly strongly with my federal counterpart and with other provincial ministers to have them be part of lobbying the federal government to take a stronger and more upfront role in this.

L. Stephens: My final question really has to do with gender equity, and I think we've talked about that from time to time -- I know the minister has. She has put forward some initiatives to deal with that, too. My thoughts and position have always been that women's equality is monetary. If we have the money, we have equal resources and access to those resources, as everyone else does. For me the bottom line is money. The 66 cents we make for every dollar that men make is simply not acceptable. I believe that, in many cases, women's inability to make the same kind of money is in direct proportion to their impoverishment in many cases. Again, going back to judgments that aren't worth the paper they're written on in many cases, and so on, there are an awful lot of factors that have to come into the feminization of poverty that we're seeing in such large numbers. I would like to know if the minister is working with the appropriate ministries and organizations to try to further pay equity, which is something I know she's particularly interested in. If there are any initiatives coming forward through the Ministry of Women's Equality in those areas, I would like the minister to share them with us.

Hon. P. Priddy: Being conscious of the time, I will list them, if that's okay. The member is correct: the poverty of women is linked to a number of factors -- many of which this ministry has taken initiatives on. The member has already mentioned one of them, pay equity initiatives. There have been a number of pay equity settlements, and we are bringing forward pay equity legislation. Second is the wage equity initiative we've already talked about. Third is child care. For many women, the difference in wages will be linked to education, training, apprenticeship and the opportunity to gain more skills; the barrier to this is child care. So the provision of child care, while not a women's issue, is the bridge for women into apprenticeship, post-secondary and additional education and job training, which is on the road to the kind of economic equality of which the member speaks.

We're working with the education system to ensure that in elementary school, secondary school and even in preschool, the option of courses in science and technology is as welcome to women as it is to men, because those are many of the areas which have higher-paying jobs but are closed off earlier to young women. We're working with the women's business advocate in terms of providing those resources and supports to small business women who are starting up businesses and continuing them in their communities. We're working with the post-secondary system to ensure there are more women in non-traditional jobs. We provide scholarships and bursaries to each institution for one woman in a non-traditional training opportunity.

As the member for Richmond East raised earlier, we are looking at ways we can ensure fairer settlements in the court system that do not leave women impoverished.

L. Stephens: I'm sorry, one more question. As the minister was speaking, another one popped into my head. I've seen a number of high school girls who still think that there's a white knight who will come riding along and everything will be solved. It's amazing and astounding that that's still the belief, but it's there, unfortunately -- perhaps not, but it's something that isn't realistic, anyway. I would like to know if the minister has some program, or if she's contemplating some kind of initiative through the high schools to address this very serious dose of reality that a lot of these girls seem to need as they look forward to their lives.

Hon. P. Priddy: It's really hard not to think of calling it a "white knight" program, and people would have some sort of T-shirt.

Yes, we are. We're working with the Ministry of Education and looking at their curriculum, not only high school, by the way, but also elementary and even preschool, where many children start to get directed fairly early on into: this is what little girls learn, and this is what little boys learn. We're starting with elementary schools, but we are supporting some preschools, who are doing research in that area as well. We are providing curriculum resources in partnership with the Ministry of Education to do that work in high school, to open up non-traditional careers and also to talk about what is possible for young women. We're also working on a federally funded project -- we'll be doing it in British Columbia, and we'll find another title for it, because it's called gender socialization. It is a videotape that can be used by families, parent groups and people working with young children around what is it that we do with little girls and little boys that, in terms of opportunities, cause there to be such differences, and how it is that we can ensure that there is a broad range of options open.

C. Tanner: I have to comment on the way your staff snap the pages out of the book. In all the estimates, it's the first time I've seen that done, and I really congratulate them. I wonder why others haven't done it before. Just pull them out and give them to you -- that's good stuff.

Since I asked a question about aboriginals within the department, for balance I'll just ask: how many males do you have in your department?

Hon. P. Priddy: Five.

L. Reid: I rise to conclude my remarks this afternoon on the Ministry of Women's Equality estimates process. I would like to thank my colleagues who joined me in debate this afternoon, the member for North Vancouver-Seymour, the member for Saanich North and the Islands and the member for Langley. I 

[ Page 7991 ]

would like to extend my sincere appreciation to the staff who assisted the Minister of Women's Equality this afternoon. I look forward to our continued association. Thank you.

Vote 60 approved.

Vote 61: ministry operations, $33,614,600 -- approved.

Hon. P. Priddy: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Committee rose at 5:56 p.m.

The Committee met at 6:45 p.m.

[J. Pullinger in the chair.]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ADVANCED EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNOLOGY

On vote 11: minister's office, $340,200.

Hon. T. Perry: I had proposed to make a long speech, but I think I will try to cut it short in the interest of brevity. Those who are particularly keen may read the speech, if they wish. I'll distribute copies to anyone who applies.

Before I begin, I want to introduce the staff who are here, starting with Gary Mullins, the deputy minister for Advanced Education, Training and Technology; Shell Harvey, the assistant deputy minister for universities, colleges and institutes; Fern Jeffries, the assistant deputy minister for the skills development division; Dr. Deborah George, the assistant deputy minister for the science and technology division; Jim Crone, the executive director for the administration and support services division -- that's the first time that I've got the title correct; Dr. Har Singh, the executive director of policy, planning and program evaluation; and I think everyone knows Dr. Karen Philp, my ministerial assistant, who is not formally part of the ministry team here but is sitting as an observer.

[H. Geisbrecht in the chair.]

I also want to take the chance, which I don't get very often, to thank some people without whom I wouldn't have been able to do my job in the last year. The most important ones of all -- my wife Beth, and my children, Dustin and Alison -- have gone through a fair amount of a wringer in the last year since I last stood in this room, and they are probably relieved that they don't have to watch this on television and that we're in the committee room tonight.

I'd like to express my thanks to my staff, starting with Barbara Clague, who is possibly one of the only people who would actually watch this on television were we in the other House, because she has been in hospital recently and then at home devotedly watching the main estimates and bills in the main chamber; Lynn Siddaway, my executive assistant in Vancouver, who has also specialized in disability issues for me; Mary-Lynn Baum, my constituency assistant, who has periodically filled in as temporary EA or MA when people were sick; Karen Philp, who joined us midway through the year after finishing her PhD at Oxford University in England; and Randall Garrison, who was with us for the first part of the fiscal year and then got wise and went back to teach in the college system at Camosun College.

I'd like to express my appreciation to all of the other ministry staff who aren't here today but with whom I've had a very good year. I've travelled around the province with some of them inspecting colleges and institutes, apprenticeship offices, and science and technology projects, and I've come to see them work very devotedly for the public and spend very long hours.

I also want to thank the board members -- particularly of the colleges and universities, and the Apprenticeship Board -- and the people who serve on our ministry advisory committees. We've tapped a lot of very valuable wisdom in the year since I last stood here, and we've gotten very good value, usually for free. In the case of the college boards, we pay them a very small honorarium that has not been adjusted since the 1970s -- it's still about $2,000 a year -- and in the case of the university boards, we pay them nothing. In the case of most of our advisory committees, we pay nothing. So I want to acknowledge all of those people. There are several hundred of them around the province who put in a lot of very good work. Many were appointed by the former government, some were appointed by this government, and all of them work very hard.

In the interest of brevity, I'm going to skip most of what's written here. I'll just say that we've had a very active year in all divisions of the ministry. I see at the moment only the critic for the official opposition. I think he was briefed six weeks or almost two months ago by the ministry. We've had some conversations about the issues, and I think he's largely familiar with most of what would be in my written speech. I'll say that we've been busy in skills development, in universities, colleges and institutes, and in science and technology. We've had a lot of individual successes working with all the institutions we work with: the private sector in apprenticeship in science and technology; the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission; the boards I referred to earlier in developing increasingly sophisticated relationships with the various unions in the public sector institutions -- BCGEU, CIEA, the Confederation of University Faculty Associations or CUFA -- and various other support unions; and the Science Council and PACST, which is another group of volunteers I didn't mention in the earlier round, who have worked extremely hard over the last year. PACST is the Premier's Advisory Council on Science and Technology.

I just want to highlight a few things in the system that are not widely known, starting with the aboriginal 

[ Page 7992 ]

post-secondary institutions. In the last year I've had the chance to visit quite a large number of small institutions that have grown out of aboriginal peoples' frustration with the rigidity of the public post-secondary institutions and their difficulty in serving people from a different culture in a way that is culturally relevant and successful. Specifically, I've been to Toti:lthet in Mission -- I'll try to provide Hansard with the spelling later -- the Nicola Valley Institute of Technology in Merritt, Secwepemc in Kamloops and the Chemainus Native College in Chemainus.

I recently visited the community of Kelly Lake in the Peace River on the Alberta border. I met with the Wilpwilxo'oskwhl Nisga'a nation in Terrace, the representatives of the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en from Hazelton and a number of others. All those places have impressed me with the efficiency with which they use modest amounts of capital, with the dedication they have in addressing aboriginal people's educational and training needs in a flexible, practical way and with the results they are getting. It has been very eye-opening for me to see what those groups are doing. I'm pleased to say that we've been able to assist them fairly flexibly and show some particular consideration to institutions that are serving people who have not benefited from fair access to the system over the last century.

The one other item I want to highlight is that we have had a very lively and productive relationship with the University of Northern B.C. I am pleased to say that it is coming along very well in meeting not only its capital building project goal, but also in planning an integrated curriculum in collaboration with the three northern colleges. I think that it will be one of the most exciting developments in the post-secondary sector when it opens in earnest in September 1994, with between 1,200 and 1,500 full-time students. It is going to serve the people of northern B.C. extremely well. I will spare my critic the details of its accomplishments now, but I would be glad to come back to them in questions.

In the area of student services we have had a few notable successes. We have been able, within a very tight fiscal situation, to improve the turnaround time on processing student loan and remission applications. This summer and fall we will be implementing our centralized processing system for student loans, and a greatly simplified four-page application form. Within very difficult constraints, we have been able to make some significant improvement in the lives of students who depend on financial aid in an increasingly difficult environment -- where typically they no longer have access to the well-paying summer jobs we had when most of us in the room were students. We have made special efforts to deal with disabled students, students who are supporting children -- particularly single parents -- and aboriginal students.

The one other item I want to draw particular attention to is some of the reform in apprenticeship. We have strengthened the Provincial Apprenticeship Board with a number of very strong, solid female representatives, in an attempt to break through some of the institutionalized barriers to access for women in the apprenticeable trades. I think we will begin to see the results of those changes in the near future. As co-chair of the Federal-Provincial Labour Market Ministers' Forum this year, I have committed on behalf of the province -- or the provinces have committed -- to expand the Red Seal trades from 26 to 43 over the next few years, and we will continue pushing in that direction.

Rather than read figures now, I would like to refer briefly to the remarkable Premier's Summit on Skills Development and Training, which was held Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of last week at BCIT in Burnaby. The Leader of the Official Opposition was in attendance, and the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, as well as three government MLAs, eight or nine cabinet members, and a wide cross-section of prominent people from the business community, the trade union movement, academic institutions -- both universities and colleges -- the science and technology sector, the Provincial Apprenticeship Board and private post-secondary institutions. It was a remarkable range of people, with perhaps a slight underrepresentation from the K to 12 system, but some strong people from that area as well.

The summit, although it received relatively little media attention, perhaps having the misfortune to be coincident with the new Prime Minister's ascension to power and the Court of Appeal decision in the Delgam Uukw case.... The competition was strong for media attention. Although the media seemed to ignore it largely, the message was profound. What really struck me was the extraordinarily wide consensus of people from all of those sectors -- business, organized labour, small business and the formal education system, both post-secondary or public school -- that we need substantial reform in our education and training system for several reasons. One is that we no longer have the luxury of simply expanding numerically based on continually expanding resources. As we've seen in the last year, although this is the only province to increase absolute spending for advanced education, and we have expanded positions in the post-secondary sector by 2,800 places, we will not likely have the resources in the near future to solve the access problems with dollars alone. Clearly, we will have to be able to do more with the resources we have -- or, with inflation-adjusted dollars, do even more with less. I think that was widely recognized by the participants in the summit and, interestingly, even by those from the institutions -- something that represents a change from this time last year. There was wide recognition that we are going to have to do things in new ways: use more educational technology more effectively, bridge the gap between vocational programs and their status in society, and academic programs; increase the transferability and portability of credentials; and implement all of the philosophy included in the recent report of the human resources development project.

[7:00]

I was going to inject a little bit of poetry into the session, but maybe I'll find it for tomorrow's session. It no longer seems to be with me.

I think I'm going to stop with one last thing. We've had a lively year in science and technology. Given the very difficult provincial budget situation, we had to 

[ Page 7993 ]

make do in this year's budget with a reduction in total funding, but we have many exciting things going on. I communicated to members earlier today -- and I will table formally in a moment, with permission of the committee -- the report of a high-powered external review led by Dr. Bob Richardson, the former CEO of Bell Canada Enterprises and Du Pont, in which participated a nationally prominent scientist, Janet Halliwell, formerly chair of the Science Council of Canada; Bill Fife, the dean of science at the University of Western Ontario; Bev Brennan of a biotechnology company in Saskatoon; and Tom Simons, the president of H.A. Simons in Vancouver.

The purpose of the review was to give us an objective external view on how well we were spending our money in science and technology and what we might do differently. I am pleased to say that, in general, the review was highly positive about the efforts of the ministry and the provincial government. It made some constructive criticisms, many of which have already been implemented; others are currently under study. But the message which emerges from this review in general is that we've been doing a good job, and that B.C. is poised to take over the role of national leader in science and technology in Canada -- something I greatly look forward to.

So I'm going to stop there for questions, and with your permission, Mr. Chair, I'll simply table this formally for the committee. It's entitled "The British Columbia Science and Technology Program Review," otherwise known colloquially as the Richardson report.

G. Wilson: In response to the opening statement by the minister, there is good news and bad news from our perspective in post-secondary education in British Columbia. The good news is that we have some of the finest minds in the country located in the province and working within our institutions. These institutions, for the most part, have weathered a difficult storm with respect to financing and to some of the stresses that the lack or reduction of financing has played, given the increased costs of provision of services to students and the increased number of students who are trying to get into our universities. So from our point of view, there is some good news there with respect to that.

The bad news is that post-secondary education has seemingly not received the attention and profile that it deserves and in fact requires. I was interested to hear the minister's remarks with respect to the lack of media attention last week to the happenings that were going on at BCIT and the work that was undertaken there. I'm not so sure that the minister is correct when he says this was overshadowed by the ascension of a new prime minister, or even the Macfarlane ruling on the aboriginal case involving the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en.

My suspicion is that it's simply not in vogue now for people to be looking at the issues of post-secondary education. One of the reasons is that it means -- and I don't mean this in an unkind way -- that the media have to put an awful lot of thought into it if they are going to go there, and try to synthesize and understand and to take issue with what's being said. That's something we don't often see. Secondly, a lot of research has to be done to understand what the issues and the problems are, and that seems to be lacking in much of what we're getting in the local paper. Thirdly, and probably most importantly, it has to be connected in some way to a vision of where we're headed. With respect to that, I think I could turn my focus a little bit more on what this government is doing.

What I'd like to do is look at this set of estimates in three general categories. The first is student-related issues. I would like to talk specifically about matters relating to enrolment -- projections on enrolments. I'd like to know if the ministry is doing an assessment of socioeconomic factors with respect to post-secondary attendees. I'd like to get some information with respect to who's attending what institutions and find out what kind of information we might have to tell us whether or not there is movement toward our career-oriented institutions. How many are headed into the community colleges and vocational technical institutions, and how many are transferring from the community colleges to the universities? I'd like to look at aspects of those problems in relation to the three major universities as they exist now. What are their relationships with community colleges, particularly in light of transferability and the accessibility of second-year community college students who are entering university?

Also, I would like to talk about the plight of the student in the so-called smaller, outlying community colleges -- North Island College, Malaspina College, Powell River Campus, Northern Lights -- and what's happening there with respect to education and the connection to the Open Learning Institute, if there is any. What kind of advancement is happening with respect to that?

I'd like to get the minister's response on standards of admission, what is needed to get into the colleges. What is happening as we start to see much more stringent standards being placed? I'd like to then get into student loans, funding for students and the overall cost of going to university. There's an interesting quote here from the Canadian Federation of Students that I'm sure will come up on some occasion:

"The reality of today's student is quite different. The cost of education and housing have increased, at the same time that the amount of assistance available to the student in the form of financial aid and employment opportunities has diminished in real terms. The burden placed on students to cover the cost of the colleges has increased significantly."

That's the Canadian Federation of Students response to the Premier's comment of March 19, 1993. "I've been a student, I worked summers on the railway and I paid my way through university and college, and I'm proud of the education I got that I paid for." I want to get into that. I want to talk about the real costs for students and where we're going with it. Under the first general heading, those are the things I'd like to address. If staff can be of assistance, we'll try to stick to those parameters.

Secondly, I'd like to talk about the institutions themselves. In doing so, I want to look at both capital funding and operational funding in the particular institutions. I have a case file with me that has been sent to me from various community colleges trying to get 

[ Page 7994 ]

questions answered with respect to some of the capital financing projects. I recognize that much of this has been done through internal communication.

I should compliment this ministry. I tried to find areas where I could wield a big and heavy stick with respect to lack of consultation; I must confess that there has been significant consultation among the institutions and the ministry. It seems that those channels and avenues are fairly effective. They don't always hear what they want, but they certainly have an opportunity to get the ear of this minister and his staff. That is good to see.

In my judgment, and certainly in any government I would lead, this ministry would receive one of the highest profiles and be the number one priority. That's where we have to go if we're going to advance into the next century with any degree of successful competition. I would judge also the quality of the society in which we all want to live.

I want to talk about the institutions. I have a bias toward the community colleges; I will try not to slide into that too much. I am going to talk about UNBC. I'd also like to talk about Nelson University Centre.

I have some information here -- by the time we get to it tomorrow -- and if staff want to know where we're going at any time, I don't mind sharing the material. I don't think these are particularly tricky questions; I'm not trying to catch the minister. However, I think we need to have a clear understanding of where we're going.

The third area concerns science, technology and training. I want to talk about diminished funding of programs of science and technology in the province. I'm going to talk about TRIUMF and some of the differences that appear to exist in its funding, as was brought out in the Minister of Finance's estimates. He quickly passed the buck to this minister. I'm not certain that it actually belongs with the Minister of Finance, but it was a very skilful and deft way of dealing the deck back here. Thirdly, I'd like to talk about apprenticeship, the new B.C. 21 program and where that's going vis-�-vis this ministry. That's the kind of direction I'd like to take.

Perhaps we could start with the question of students and simply ask the minister if he could provide us with a demographic profile as to what has happened since last year vis-�-vis student enrolment and where he sees that enrolment going vis-�-vis the per capita cost to the students going into colleges, institutions and universities.

Hon. T. Perry: I'll try to answer. Maybe the hon. member can specify more precisely what he's looking for.

In the '92-93 fiscal year there were 3,200 additional full-time equivalent students. We encouraged the institutions to educate or train as many students as possible. We came out slightly ahead of where we thought we would be at this time last year. For the current fiscal year '93-94, we have a mandate from the Treasury Board to produce 2,800 new full-time equivalents, which is roughly a 2.5 percent increase -- something in that range -- in the total post-secondary system in B.C. These are measured as FTEs and, of course, as the member knows, there would be considerably more students than full-time equivalents. Treasury Board asked us to produce that as a minimum. We think we will get 2,840, and we would be delighted if we got more than that. So we're marginally above what we were instructed to do.

[7:15]

We provided a zero percent economic lift or inflation factor, consciously knowing the financial system of the province, and simply said that any new money must be spent to serve new students. Of those 2,840 new FTEs, roughly 44 percent are funded at 85 percent of the previous year's rate, so we consciously asked the institutions to educate or train more students for less incremental money, knowing that in fact they are receiving additional dollars -- albeit not inflation-adjusted. Neither are the schools and hospitals, which are receiving an increase for increased service load, but not for inflation. So in that sense we are asking them to do more with less, but we do not feel we are being particularly harsh, in that the marginal cost of accepting an additional student may often be less than 100 percent of the average formula-funded FTE rate.

Of those 2,840 in growth this year, roughly 500 went to the universities, including UNBC, and 2,340 went to the colleges and institutes. That reflects a very conscious shift in the funding priority, which began last year in the first year of this government and was accelerated this year -- a swing of the pendulum from the universities toward the colleges and institutes and toward vocational education, career technical and adult basic education, and ESL. The limits on the swing were partly set by the need to continue funding programs in universities and colleges -- University of Victoria -- where there were prior commitments to students moving through from second into third into fourth year, which had to be met. Had there been more discretion, perhaps the swing would have been even further toward the college and institute side.

The basic philosophy behind that is that many students and/or their parents, their counsellors in school and society have traditionally seen the university as the only suitable forum for edcuation. In fact, a university, college or institute, such as BCIT, Emily Carr or PMTI, may be in fact a much more suitable avenue of education and training for a student. It's closer to home, it may be less expensive -- in fact, it is less expensive -- and it was very much in the provincial interest and in the interest of students to restore the balance in that direction.

G. Wilson: I wonder if we could just take one step backward before we proceed in this. The question is really motivated by an attempt to understand. When the minister talks about a swing between the institutions, primarily we're looking at five major classifications of institutions, and if the minister sees it differently he might want to say so. Clearly you have vocational technical training schools and career-oriented programs, many of which are run out of community colleges, but they are career vocational kinds of programs. You have community college academic transfer programs. You have universities, and 

[ Page 7995 ]

then you have specialized institutions like Emily Carr et al. If I've missed any, then please add them.

Of those five main groups there seems to be -- and I wonder if the minister has any date on it -- an increased concentration of students heading into community colleges and career vocational institutions. There seems to be a bottleneck or a waiting period to get into the trade and technical schools, as a result of a lack of space, a lack of seats, and an enormous competition to get placement, especially for those who are working toward a technical trades program that is a requirement for job entry into specialized trades. When we are setting out the financial base for this ministry, I am really talking about a much more fundamental question. How does one avoid the inevitable problem of the amount of money being put into any one of those five institutions driving or unnecessarily restricting the actual attendance rate, given that we have a finite pool of money? I understand that and I don't take issue with it, but is there some ongoing research that will tell us where those trends are going and how they are being driven? In looking at the projections for each year, given a scarcity of money, can we start to recognize and start to put dollars into areas where those trends are likely to be headed? Where is the research coming from? Who does that work? What kinds of projections are we looking at so that we have an understanding of what the appropriate expenditures might be in this year and subsequent years?

Hon. T. Perry: As I said a moment ago, the major growth in this year -- of course the academic year begins August 1; in reality in September -- which was paralleled somewhat last year.... It would have been more dramatic had there been more flexibility and less prior commitment. The major growth this year was on the trades-technical side, reflecting what the college and institute boards were telling us, and what the students were telling us with their feet. The hon. member referred in his preamble to what evidence we have of what students actually want. A fairly comprehensive survey was done as part of the human resource development project, and it showed us two key things. One I think could have been easily predicted, but the other was much more of a surprise to me.

The one which was fairly predictable -- to anyone with their eyes and ears open these days to what students are about -- was that the typical student in a final year of high school or first or second year in a college or university is looking for access to a secure job or the ability to earn a living throughout the rest of their life. That is their first priority. Their second priority, which almost as many of them state as a high priority -- 98 or 100 percent state the first; 75 percent state the second -- is to broaden their mind and expand their culture, which is the more traditional definition of education.

The more striking finding of that survey was the probability was 13.6 percent that a student whose family background is in the lowest quartile by socioeconomic status will continue to some form of post-secondary education. Of that, 6.6 percent would go to university. The probability was 38 percent for the student coming from the highest quartile of parents' socioeconomic status. I have actually seen a slightly different presentation of the same figures. I had remembered it as about four times higher; in this case, the top quartile appears to be about three times higher than the bottom. I found that rather shocking and very disturbing. One would have thought that we had made more progress in overcoming those socioeconomic barriers to education.

It tells us, among other things, that there are more barriers to participation in post-secondary education than simply a tuition fee. It tells us that the cultural attitude towards education and training, the family environment of the student, the location where they live, the cultural climate in that community, whether or not the person is aboriginal, etc., are extremely powerful factors.

So in that sense we do have some information. It's rather crude and provincewide. But it's enough to tell us that, as in health -- if we want to improve the health status of a population we need to deal with poverty, discrimination against aboriginal people, etc. -- so in education. If we want to improve success rates for people from the bottom of the socioeconomic status heap, we have to deal with why people are poor and how they can break out of it early in their life.

I'm not sure if that's answered the member's question, so I'd better sit down.

G. Wilson: It actually starts to answer the line of questioning I'd like to get into. What I'm driving at -- and as I mentioned in the preamble to my remarks, dealing with student issues as the first of the major headings we'd like to deal with -- is that, clearly, the ability for an individual to enrol in a college or institution of their choosing is going to be driven by a number of different factors, one of which obviously is affordability. And we're going to ta k about student loans and funding and all of that.

But, given that they can afford to get there or have the ability to get a student loan or somehow are able to overcome that obstacle, the second one is the question of space. As somebody who's been involved in the system for a long time, I know it seems almost a perennial problem, come registration -- despite the much more sophisticated registration techniques we have now, being able to do advanced computerized registration and all those kinds of things -- that you can have.... The media like to do this because it makes great footage for television. They take a camera down there, sit outside the registration buildings and do long lineups of students who can't get in. And they interview students who are upset and outraged about the fact that they can't get into the institution of their choice.

We recognize that we have a limited amount of money. There is a limited pool of dollars. We understand, in terms of the FTE to colleges, that the reflection in this year's budget was that the colleges had to do more for less money, even though additional dollars were filtered in for program-specific kinds of expenditures -- as I understand the briefing material I 

[ Page 7996 ]

was provided. So given that, and given that we have some understanding that there are some trends with respect to the way students are going, we know what's happening with respect to the economy.

Obviously there is a direct correlation between attendance at university and attempted employment at the end of it all. At least, my experience has been -- in all of the years I spent teaching, and I notice I'm joined by the member for Richmond-Steveston, who also has been involved in the system -- that very few students, when you ask them why they're there, say: "I'm here because I wish to be enlightened and broaden my mind and be a better educated person, and that's my primary motivation." Usually the number one thing is: "It fit my timetable." And then number two is: "Because I heard that you were an easy marker." And then number three is.... I'm being a little facetious, but you know what I'm saying. Students have a goal to get a degree or certificate because they're looking for a way to get employment at the end of it. They want to be directed that way.

Clearly, there has to be more detailed research than simply looking at trends so that we're reacting. Something must be driving the funding base. If not, maybe the minister could tell us why not and what he might be suggesting, so that we are advancing certain program development opportunities for colleges, universities, technical training programs and so on ahead of the student demand; so that we are able to recognize down the road, if we're headed to a more technologically oriented society or if we've made some decisions that we are looking at a new economy and at the shifting gears in our economy, that we're moving toward a new communications strategy.

I remember asking the minister if he had read Nuala Beck's book Shifting Gears. I'm sure that subsequently he must have read it. If you have read it, one of the interesting things Nuala Beck is pointing out in that book is that there really is a movement into a new economy, and that we are not gearing up our institutions. They are slow to move and slow to make that kind of progressive change. They are not moving into it fast enough.

My question to the minister is: given that you know where the trends have been, are we doing anything to drive that system? Are we actually now starting to recognize student demand, for those who are currently in grade 9 and 10 or those already in the workplace who are looking at a dead end because new technologies have diminished their form of employment and who therefore need to come back for retraining? What are we doing to be ahead of the game? That is really the thrust of the questions I'm asking now.

Hon. T. Perry: Until the last question, I thought I could get away with saying yes. Then the hon. member had the gall to ask about what in particular, as opposed to whether we are doing this. I will have to answer more elaborately.

There are a number of approaches. First, how do we respond to the perceived needs of the students? Each of the institutions has a three-year planning cycle, and in the case of the colleges and institutes, they have advisory committees that reflect the needs of local employers, industry and the community. Our decisions on programs have traditionally been generated largely by the requests we get from that process from the colleges, as the member probably knows. Whether that is a sufficiently good way to plan for the whole province is another question. It tends to lead to some redundancy in competition to deliver the same programs. In the case of a highly popular program which leads to employment, there may be no problem with that. In other cases, we have recently faced frustration from several institutions which all want to offer the same program but where we don't think there is provincial demand sufficient to employ all those students. We therefore had to say no to some programs, at least tentatively, and suggest that they do something else instead.

[7:30]

In terms of the new economy, we have recognized two factors. One, that it's no longer acceptable to agree tacitly that students can be completely ignorant of science and technology if they are in other fields, which is something we don't like to admit but have really accepted throughout the history of academic training in Canada. The review that I just tabled, the Richardson review, points out specifically that in the case of the universities, no commerce or business graduate ought to graduate without some basic rudimentary -- or ideally, more sophisticated -- understanding of science and technology, and vice versa. I would extend the example to all students. The science and technology student can have some exposure to business and management skills in university training, and the arts or non-science student really does need to have some functional literacy with technology or science -- not necessarily the traditional one-year science requirement, but perhaps new exposure designed specifically to understand living in the twenty-first century and a new economy. I agree with the Richardson review that the universities need to revamp their curriculum substantially, and I have been speaking widely on that, encouraging them to consider it.

In the colleges and institutes recently, we have deliberately tended to steer programs, to the extent that we can, toward technical skills, career technical programs, vocational skills and science and technology. It tends to be hard because, as the member knows, they are more expensive programs. The price might be accepting fewer -- but possibly more valuable -- so-called FTEs for society. From the point of view of the student who wants to study and has to postpone or shop around for an opportunity, it's discouraging to be told that you're a "less valuable FTE" and there's no place for you this year. So all of the pressure, of course, is to produce the cheapest FTEs. But we have tried to resist that, and one of the interesting conclusions that emerged from the Premier's Summit on Skills Development and Training last week was that the traditional vocational skills updated, such as an apprenticeship as an electrician or electronics technologist, a machinist, a millwright, a skilled tool and die maker, a pipefitter or a plumber are actually very important to an economy based on high technology. But the skills are not going to 

[ Page 7997 ]

be the same: the machinery may be smaller sometimes, or they may not be repairing a standard machine but inventing a new machine. The economy requires a lot of those skills, so we're trying to respond to that.

An example of where we have supported an innovation is in the new applied technology program at Northwest Community College in which the Kitimat School District -- I believe it's 80 -- has devised a new grade 11 and 12 technology course that will lead into a two-year broad technology certificate at Northwest College delivered in Kitimat in conjunction with the three local major employers: Alcan, Methanex and Eurocan. The goal is that ultimately the local companies may require that certificate for employment. One could argue well, then, that they're offloading their training programs onto the public sector, but probably we are making a sound investment. In fact, I think we are certainly making a sound investment in upgrading the skills of those workers and sustaining the long-term viability of those companies.

The long-term goal is that the two-year college program may then be parlayed in a direct laddered arrangement into a UNBC degree in applied technology offered in Kitimat, in which much of the teaching may be done on a co-op basis in the three major plants there, and prepped by people who might be adjunct faculty in the university but who hold a job in the plant, such as an engineer. I think it's a brilliant idea. It is just starting out now, so it will probably be five to ten years before we know how well it has succeeded, but I've been very encouraged by that kind of innovation. It's not the first, but it's one of the boldest such initiatives around the province, and I suspect we'll see many more of them in the next few years.

It certainly came out at the Premier's Summit last week that there's a strong appetite for that kind of innovation out there in the world of the economy, be it large businesses or small businesses, and the trade unions are also very supportive. The other really innovative facet is the potential that a journeyperson may jump into the program at various levels based on an assessment of their true competency. So a journeyperson might in the future be able to complete a University of Northern B.C. degree in much less than four years by virtue of being given appropriate credit for the skills that they have. So it's not inconceivable that we will see in the future a highly experienced tradesperson adding a year or two of university study in, say, Kitimat and receiving a degree.

G. Wilson: That takes me pretty much into -- although fairly tangentially -- where I was headed on this whole business of trying to prioritize dollars into enrolment. I'm not familiar with the Kitimat experiment that the minister's talking about, but I would caution that somebody who is a superb engineer may not be a good teacher and may have limited skills in being able to pass on the knowledge they have as an engineer to anybody else. I would also caution that if one is looking at degree programs -- and I think that's what the minister said -- as opposed to a certificate, which is a technical or trades training certificate, and if you're talking about advanced education, we're talking about at least a component part of a larger philosophical question. As to what you and your trade is doing and how that is becoming a functional part of the broader society and the social question surrounding it.... I'd be a little concerned that if we are weighting FTEs by value, we're making decisions that are often driven by the provincial economy, or by those who participate in the provincial economy, who may in fact be looking for specific kinds of workers and specifically trained individuals to advance their particular businesses. In doing so, we start to have that sector drive the post-secondary educational priorities within the province, and I have some fear of that.

I draw the minister's attention the article in the Times-Colonist on June 2: "Camosun College may cut a 15-Year-Old music program, threatening senior faculty...." The college gets $80,000 from the government for the program which is taught at the conservatory. Except for an English course, the program costs $115,000 to $120,000. There are 15 students in five specialties: piano, strings, voice, flute and classical guitar. I'm prepared to wager that in the last three days of the Premier's Summit, there wasn't a whole lot of discussion about the value of those music programs, those 15 students, the conservatory and what's going on. I suspect that if you're going to have education driven by a corporate model and a corporate mind, that the value isn't that high. But where are we in a society that doesn't have that?

So I have a little bit of concern when we start to say that if the conservatory loses $115,000 -- something the people at Camosun were quite concerned about -- we end up then saying there is a certain value to people who are going into particular technologies. Those FTEs are more valuable than the FTEs in something that may be seen to be artsy. We don't have to look too far to see what happens to a society that has no culture, in the broadest sense of the term.

So what is the minister's feeling about that with respect to how we prioritize our expenditures, given that what the minister is just saying, albeit very valuable to the overall economy, attacks the more general liberal arts value of the university and college system itself?

Hon. T. Perry: I don't think we're in danger of losing our liberal arts or liberal education base. A case like the decision of the Camosun board is exactly that: a decision by a board faced with a set budget on what they, as representatives of the community, think is the optimum way to spend the money they've got. They're a very broadly based board. They've got the chairman of the Victoria Labour Council, prominent people from business, the arts and community groups in Victoria. I'm not familiar with all the details of how they made that decision, but ultimately it came down to deciding to serve about three times as many students in other programs as they could through the Victoria Conservatory of Music.

Like the hon. member, I'm fond of music, so anything that hurts music students tends to hurt me, but ultimately when you're dealing with limited resources, one has to make those kinds of very tough 

[ Page 7998 ]

choices, and I don't think I'm in a position to second-guess that board. I think they wrestled with that one very hard and made what they felt was the best choice under the circumstances.

On this general philosophical question, I guess I come down on the side that the post-secondary institutions.... In the case of the colleges they have been traditionally quite responsive to the needs of the B.C. economy. In the case of the universities, they have been less so. They have been much less resilient and flexible than they might have been. In that sense, they probably need more reform and need to be able to change their curricula faster, but like the hon. member, I'm a strong supporter, as well, of the value of the basic liberal arts education.

I recently had the privilege of attending the Malaspina College convocation, and witnessing the graduation of the first liberal arts studies students as well as the second elementary school teachers class. They are very good students; they are well-educated and they are going to be major contributors to the province. I am satisfied of that, and I think most of them will probably also find jobs because they are well-educated and have good critical thinking skills. Many of them had been employed in the past, and came back to study. They are a mixed-age group of students and older than the average -- I'd better not speculate on that -- older than the mythical average post-secondary student.

But I think we need both, and where perhaps when I was still in ivory-towered UBC, I felt that it would contaminate us to serve the needs of the economy, I have learned as a minister that there is a longing out there among the public of B.C. that the institutions be somewhat more responsive to the apparent needs of the economy.

[7:45]

I'm not one of those who thinks we can successfully predict the long-term economic future of the province in enough detail to know exactly what we should train for. I still support a broad general education and good training, but we can often make reasonable guesses, and that's what the community colleges are about, after all. In the case of the universities, we can probably at least attempt to tailor programs somewhat more accurately than we have. We have tended to respond in cycles, rebounding to perceived need in one area -- and by the time we've produced the outcome, the need is no longer so obvious. Witness, at the moment, nursing education, legal education, teacher education and possibly engineering. Engineering schools are telling us we ought to educate more engineers, and it's a little bit equivocal in my view whether we need more. Perhaps we need even more highly trained engineers, given that many of graduates now, after they graduate from university, are going back to BCIT for further vocational training.

G. Wilson: That leads me into the next general line of questioning, which has to do with admissions standards and how we are gearing students up for entry into university. One of the things that we have to look at in terms of the institutions and funding of institutions is the trends. We have talked a bit about that. The minister is saying that he doesn't feel confident that he can make a prediction, and I would agree that you have to be somewhat careful in making predictions. It's very important that we don't have an education system that is driven strictly by the bottom line of the ledger. It is important that we keep a much broader perspective on what it is that we are attempting to do with respect to post-secondary education, and recognize that there are two generally broad sides of a dichotomous situation. Yes, we need skills and training, and that's one side of it, but there is much more to be said for the liberal arts education and what we're doing to society by having a better-educated individual.

With respect to that, we could talk about admissions. One of the difficulties that I'm hearing -- and I would like the minister to comment on it with respect to this whole problem -- is that the colleges are often faced with a diminished amount of dollars or, if not fewer actual dollars, they are faced with a situation where the dollars they have, given the inflation factor, do not provide them the opportunity to put out the same kind of delivery as they otherwise would. They are pushed into a situation where they are forced to have to make some decisions as to what programs they are going to offer and how they are going to meet the FTE requirement that the ministry puts on their plates.

One of the things that we are starting to see is a fairly significant change in admission standards to ways of bringing in the "best students." A phrase that is being bandied about more and more is that we are going to now have excellence in education.

When the community colleges were first put in place, they had an open admissions program. It was expensive, no doubt about it, but there were students coming in -- often re-entry students -- who had been out of the system for some time. There were students who, for whatever reasons, had done poorly in high school and wanted to come into the system. There was a lot of debate at that time as to whether or not an open admissions program was sensible. As somebody with firsthand experience with students coming in from that, I can tell you that there was no yardstick by which you could measure the potential success of the students in your class. The fact that they had a grade 12 education didn't mean that they would excel. If another one had dropped out of grade 10 and was coming back five years later with work and educational experience.... I am by no means an expert on assessing the motives and drives of students, but from firsthand teaching experience for some 17-odd years in the system, I do know that a whole host of factors determine the success of the student you are instructing. People tend to develop those motivations at different times in their lives, and they are being pushed for different reasons, and so on.

Having said that, it seems that we are now getting into a much more rigid admissions program. We are no longer looking at the flexibility of the community college system, in particular. It seems that we have taken community out of it, and we are now talking about university transfer. We are now talking about these being the beginnings of a university entrance 

[ Page 7999 ]

program. It seems to me that we have taken the wrong path here philosophically. Over the last 17 years that I was involved, an awful lot of students went to the college system because they were attempting to get an expanded education that would possibly lead them to some kind of career opportunity, or that might enhance their work opportunity. Today it seems that unless they are on a career path, they are entering the door at step one to go to step five, which is some kind of degree program, and their opportunity to get in to take advantage of that system is substantially diminished. As a result of that, it seems that we are falling back into the old pattern that existed in the early seventies, prior to the development of the community college system, that formalized the educational experience in British Columbia. You went through K to 12 and grade 13 where it was applicable, then you would do the hoops through the next number of years and come out with a degree. The admission standards -- in the way that we are setting up and structuring admissions into our colleges -- seems to be leaning toward that, and it is being driven by the formula funding system. I don't think it is any secret to anybody in this room or to anybody who has heard me over the last number of years, that I am not a fan of the formula funding system. I don't think it works well, because it drives a priority.... You end up prioritizing your expenditures in a way that makes the institution have to respond to the fiscal issue, rather than tailoring the fiscal situation to best meet the response of the student body at any one time.

I wonder what the minister has to say about that with respect to standards and admissions, because not only is it happening at the community colleges, we are now starting to see universities putting much greater constraints on university students who are trying to enter from the colleges. There would seem to be a resistance to third- and fourth-year programs because they are trying to protect their own nests. They are involved in a formula funding system that says they have to take X number of first- and second-year students into the senior grades. Can the minister comment on that? I realize that I have put a lot on his plate, but it goes back to the very philosophical basis of what we are attempting to do with post-secondary education in this province.

Hon. T. Perry: The hon. member asked me so many questions and made so many interesting comments per intervention that it is hard to know how to respond to all of them. I will do my best.

Since he ended on a philosophical note, I am going to allow myself the luxury of going back for one second to something in the previous exchange.

A propos the purpose of education, I went back Sunday night after the Premier's summit and found my annotated copy of Alfred North Whitehead's The Aims of Education on the shelf from 1972. I've been quoting it for the last year, but I hadn't found it. I flipped through it to see if I had remembered anything at all accurately. I found it an absolute gold mine, a wealth of wisdom, although it was written around 1915 or 1920. I found that Whitehead, at least to my mind, does not make a dichotomy between training and education, and that he would have agreed with those people at the Premier's summit on Friday morning who argued that you cannot separate the acquisition of useful skills from the acquisition of wisdom. It's a false dichotomy, and a dangerous one that inappropriately undervalues useful skills. Whitehead, after all, said: "Get your facts and use them." Learn to apply. Learn knowledge to apply it, and by applying it, you'll find it useful and you will want to learn more. He said a lot of other very interesting things; it's good reading, The Aims of Education and the other essays in that book.

It reminds me, for example, that the B.C. Round Table on the Economy and the Environment in early June released its report on education, which calls for a greatly expanded scope for education in the post-secondary as well as the public-school sector to inculcate understanding of sustainability at every level, in every course and in every interaction between an instructor and a student, or between a student and curriculum, rather than in set programs such as natural resources or environmental studies. That broad education in understanding how the planet can be made ecologically as well as economically sustainable ought to be a fundamental goal of education and/or training. I suspect the hon. member would agree with me in endorsing and welcoming that recommendation from the round table, but ensuring that it happens in the post-secondary system is a fairly tall order.

To go now to the question about admission standards, each institution sets its own admission standards, and that has been independent of the government. Whether it ought to remain so, perhaps the member will want to venture an opinion, but traditionally it has been independent. Some of them are using essentially academic standards, but I don't think I agree with the member that the reason they are doing so is a function of the funding formula. Rather it's that demand for admission exceeds the supply of available spaces. That is both good and bad. It's good that we have more students wanting to study than we have available spaces; it's bad that we frustrate them by not being able to serve them. It's potentially good that places in a university are utilized by people who are most likely to benefit from the experience, so long as there is a reasonable alternative for those who are not able to gain admission. One of the keys to a fair resolution of that dilemma is that we expand the alternatives.

The genius of the Premier's vision for the summit last week was to recognize that by chasing our tail and attempting to solve the access problem by providing new FTEs within the conceivable range that the province and the taxpayer can afford for the foreseeable future, we will not be able to serve enough of the population who need post-secondary training or education. We may now be up to 25 percent, but there is good reason to think that the new economy in the twenty-first century will require at least 50 percent of all people to have further education or training beyond high school. To affordably reach that affordably, in our current post-secondary system is virtually impossible. If one accepts that, we've all got to look for more 

[ Page 8000 ]

innovative ways to serve that 25 percent or more with education and training. Much of it may be workplace space. Some of it will be in the community. Some of it will be through expanded cooperative education, where a student spends a larger fraction of training time in a workplace environment and receives appropriate credit for that.

The old model, upon which the education of virtually everyone in the room was based, does not look as if it will suffice for the next ten to 50 years. The resolution of that conundrum could go either way. We could get hung up on the fact that admission standards are rising -- and it's very frustrating for students who are unable to be admitted, and their parents -- or we could see that we're to some extent utilizing the existing resources more efficiently for those who are more highly screened.

[8:00]

It would be grossly undemocratic if we made no serious effort to deal with the people who are not admitted. All university professors or college instructors -- I think the member even alluded to it himself earlier -- know students who were pressured into the formal post-secondary system because societal expectations or those of their friends or parents led them there. But it was not the right place for those individuals. They became frustrated and depressed; some even committed suicide. Many dropped out, yet they were talented and capable of productive work and learning in the right environment.

Some of the answers include expanded use of the Open Learning Agency, which we're pushing aggressively; expanded use of apprenticeship, which we are pushing but which tends to depend more on the willingness of an employer to hire an apprentice; newfangled apprenticeship or cooperative vocational education in the colleges; and new informal training initiatives of the kind Jim Green is running in the downtown east side of Vancouver with street kids who are being taught to build the building where they will live through a combination of federal and provincial government assistance and a lot of oomph by the individuals involved. I think we're going to have to look at all of those and many more creative ideas.

G. Wilson: In these estimates there is a real danger of stepping onto the side of the philosophical and waxing on about what post-secondary education ought to be all about and so on. I know there are certain buttons that the minister can push that would likely take me in that direction. I'm resisting where I can. I can't resist, however, when the minister says that we should be teaching sustainability. As a matter of fact, I don't endorse that program. I'd like to tell you why. We shouldn't be talking about sustainability in the concept of the Brundtland commission report, or even the revision of it, because I don't think that we have a society that can be sustained at current levels in our economy for any projected length of time without creating such enormous division between the have and have-nots in this world that we will have tremendous civil disobedience and unrest.

What we ought to be doing is finding a way to build a new economy that recognizes limits to growth. We have to be pushing limits to growth concepts so that we recognize that that's not a dirty word. We have to say that we can't continue to have ever increasing expansion and extraction of resources, and that we can't continue to expand the wealth, because it's not sustainable. That's what we ought to do.

The difficulty I had with the minister's comment -- I'll come right back to this; I don't mean to digress too far -- is that if you're pushing sustainability, you're pushing it from a certain set of life experiences that determine that that sustainability should be done in order to maintain society to provide the material comforts that we know. There is a real difference between the acquisition of knowledge and the acquisition of wisdom. That difference is as real as that between quality of life and standard of living. It's really important that we don't confuse those concepts, which I think the Round Table on the Environment has done with respect to the teaching of sustainability, because it tends to to argue that the status quo is something that can be maintained. I'm not certain it can, which is the reason why I think we have to start to talk seriously about limits to growth and how we're going to build this new economy recognizing those limits to growth. I know that's not necessarily popular with everybody, because some people tend to think that I'm attacking profits. There are many ways in which society can profit, and those within it can profit and create wealth. It doesn't have to be the way we're doing it right now, and I would suggest that we ought to be looking at that.

Hon. T. Perry: It sounds like the heavy hand of state socialism to me.

G. Wilson: Absolutely not, and in fact I would say that what we need to do is move away from the heavy hand of state socialism much more toward the freedoms that the individual are able to provide for themselves, their families and their communities.

Coming back to the whole admissions problem, what the minister I think neatly sidestepped was the fact that there are real decisions taken that are driven by the fact that Psych 100 enrols many more students than some other course that may in fact not be part of the education training faculty, or whatever it is that's driving people into Psych 100. I never could figure out why everybody rushed into Psych 100 and Psych 101, but....

Hon. T. Perry: We'd better not get into that, or we'll never get out of here.

G. Wilson: Well, this is true. We won't get into that. There were other programs they could have taken. I can think of a whole host of programs in resource management and geography, for example, that would have been endlessly more.... [Laughter.] Or, as the member for Richmond-Steveston would say, Canadian politics and government would have been far more useful.

[ Page 8001 ]

However, that notwithstanding, real decisions are taken based on curriculum demand and student enrolment, which is being driven by the demand that makes colleges funnel money into those programs they know they can meet FTE quotas on. I think the minister has to admit that that's true. Surely there comes a time, if we're dealing with the whole notion of admission and how students are coming in, that there has to be some kind of flexibility provided to encourage students to go into the fields that are in fact starting to get into the more flexible delivery systems that the minister just alluded to.

I, for one, was involved peripherally in the development of the Southeast Asia studies program at Capilano College. I think it's an excellent program, and there's a lot of flexibility in it. It's something that I think could be expanded in many ways. I know that there are other similar programs in various community colleges, and the University of Victoria has an active co-op ed program. Those are programs that are functioning well, and I don't try to detract from that. The Open Learning Agency has horizons that we haven't even begun to approach. There are all kinds of work that it can do, particularly in the outlying regions. The UNBC idea in Terrace is an interesting one, which I look forward to learning more about as it progresses.

But there still is a numbers game being played here, and we're still dealing with individual students who have expectations that somehow this is the avenue they have to follow in order to get to where they want to go, and they're frustrated by the fact that there is no opportunity to have those demands met as long as we're driven by a formula-funding system that drives dollars into those high enrolment areas. I think we have to move away from that. I wonder if the minister might tell us whether that's being examined. Is it being looked at? Is there even a hope that the FTE kind of formula-driven system might be a thing of the past? Or do we have to wait until we form government?

Hon. T. Perry: Winston Churchill said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. I'm not sure if I ought to elevate the formula-funding system to the same philosophical plane as democracy, but.... I'm tempted to ask, but I won't ask the hon. member in this forum to suggest his alternatives. Perhaps we can do that on another occasion.

The ship of post-secondary education and training is a fairly large cumbersome one, which does take a while to steer. We are trying to steer it away from that simple rote response to the formula funding pressures of "Let's do more Psych 100, or Geography 100" -- or whatever the easiest least-expensive vehicle is to produce FTEs." I think I made clear in my earlier comments that people can be well-educated in almost any field and can apply the thinking and communication skills they learn there in many other fields. I'm not personally convinced that it matters. I think life experience teaches that often people look back a few years down the road and see that they could have studied many different things than they did -- judging by what they end up doing with their lives.

We are trying to steer the institutions towards programs which we think will be most responsive to the present needs of the community. Of this year's new FTEs, for example, 5 percent of the total increase went to adult basic education and ESL in the colleges and institutes; 2 percent went to career technical; and 2 percent.... Maybe it's easier if I give you the numbers: 436 new positions went to ABE and ESL; 431 went to career technical programs in the colleges; 418 went to university transfer programs in the colleges; 526 went to university colleges. That reflects the fact that there were previous commitments made to expand them to some semblance of critical mass. In a case like Okanagan College, which built a beautiful new campus, one has some obligation to utilize it. I'll continue with the numbers: 357.2 went to vocational programs in the colleges; and 72 went to apprenticeship -- that totals 2,240 -- and another 100 went to the Open Learning Agency. That subtotals to 2,340. Then a total of 500 went to the four universities.

[J. Pullinger in the chair.]

So you can see that the direction we've moved in is fairly dramatic towards foundation education: ESL, ABE, vocational and applied programs. I see the member nodding; I think we're on similar wavelengths. It's a constructive change. There is so much inertia in the system and there are so many pent-up demands and programs which operate on multi-year horizons, where one has to keep servicing it as it moves through, that we didn't have quite as much freedom as I would have liked. Had we felt we could afford a larger expansion, perhaps the relative proportion to career technical vocational would have.... Certainly the proportion would have been even higher than the 44 percent this year.

It has been pointed out to me -- as I think the member has noted -- that the colleges tend to be more expensive programs. So we knowingly sacrificed a higher FTE number. I take this opportunity to appreciate that the member has recognized that there is more to determining how successfully we're performing than simply counting up the total FTEs. It's an illusory indication of how well we're doing because a high number may not necessarily be as good as a somewhat smaller number.

G. Wilson: The difficulty here is that when you have a shortfall -- and clearly the minister has a limited budget, and we're not arguing that that isn't so.... I know that if you look at the figures provided in the briefing notes with respect to the amount of money put into the system and the amount that the colleges got versus the universities versus the technical training programs, and we looked at the new FTEs and where the lifts were.... I concur, having looked at this and read it carefully, that the trend is clearly there, and I don't take issue with that. The problem is that when you have that level of shortfall, presumably you have to somehow make up the difference or not run the programs. It seems to me from what I'm hearing from the various presidents in the various universities and 

[ Page 8002 ]

the faculty that are involved in CIEA and the other people involved in the delivery of education in the institutions and also from the students.... I'd like to get to this document, which I'm sure the minister is familiar with, because it quotes him liberally; excuse me -- it quotes him in a New Democratic fashion, not liberally at all. It's the Canadian Federation of Students' "Then and Now." The costs, it seems, are being passed down to students on a per capita basis. I don't know if the minister has a copy of this. I think I might even have two here; if I do, I'll send one over.

Hon. T. Perry: I always remember exactly what I say, so I can tell you whether the quotations are accurate.

[8:15]

The Chair: Through the Chair, hon. members, please.

G. Wilson: We'll go through the Chair, hon. Chair.

Basically, what they're arguing here is that the tuition fees paid by a typical college student have jumped 30.1 percent in real dollars since '73. We're looking at a long period of time, obviously. Comparably, the average university tuition fees have risen by 13.8 percent over the same period. University tuition fees and room and board combined currently account for about 77 percent of a student's maximum financial aid; 20 years earlier, they took up 44 percent.

Clearly, the students are arguing -- and the statistics would suggest, unless the minister has some corrections he would like to make to this -- that the student is picking up the shortfall in the formula funding system that is providing the kind of dollars for FTE delivery that the colleges and universities simply can't meet. So they say: well, if there's a shortfall of X or Y, given that we've got an increase in the cost of delivery because there are contracts negotiated and so on, a proportional dollar figure of that cost is now going to be borne by the students. It would seem that that proportional amount is on the rise. I wonder if the minister might want to comment on that, because the question of costs to students and financial assistance -- which is an area I'd like to move into -- now seems to be fairly substantial. I think it's something that some attention needs to be paid to.

The Chair: The hon. minister.

Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Chair, I am very pleased to see that you and the Clerk of the committee are enjoying the debate so much.

The Chair: We are indeed.

Hon. T. Perry: The only issue I would take with those statistics is that they are like all such comparisons: one usually chooses the most favourable period to make the point that one wants to make. As I recall, were one to go slightly further back in time, into the mid-sixties, the same comparison would show that tuition fees have risen roughly in proportion to the cost of living, to general costs in society or to the CPI. They were relatively higher in the 1960s. They took a dip in the 1970s by virtue of having been frozen, or nearly so; then they rose again gradually in the late seventies and throughout the 1980s.

As the member knows, our response in the first year of this government was to freeze tuition fees and allow 2 percent inflationary compensation to public post-secondary institutions. In the second year, after the Orum review of barriers to post-secondary participation, we concluded that it would be more destructive to access by students to continue the freeze than to allow a modest increase in fees. We therefore allowed institutions to increase their fees by up to 9.75 percent. In the case of institutions where the minister does not have direct statutory power, I requested them to limit themselves and made it known that I would withhold commensurately from their grant if they raised tuition fees higher. I'm pleased to say that all of the institutions which have so far made a decision on fees have agreed to live within the 9.75 percent limit.

It's true that for many students it is becoming increasingly difficult to afford post-secondary education. There are a variety of factors -- of which tuition fees, I believe, has been only one -- which, depending on the student, are sometimes a modest and sometimes a very significant barrier. The general cost of living, like housing, transportation, insuring a car and paying for gasoline -- for students who require that -- as well as food, fees for books or ancillary user fees that an institution may charge are also significant.

The government has been attempting to take an integrated approach to the barriers to access. I referred earlier to some of the broader societal factors that I believe determine much more profoundly than the tuition fee who is likely to proceed to post-secondary education. But once the student is in high school -- or out of the high school system, heading out in the community or workforce and wanting at a later age to come back into post-secondary education -- we have tried to concentrate on the more immediate barriers. One is simply access itself, and we've done everything within our imagination and the fiscal resource we had to try to increase access.

One of the other avenues I alluded to earlier, but which we're going to be pushing particularly hard this year, and which I've instructed all the institutions to offer and highlight for students, is the Open Learning Agency. Distance learning courses, which are relatively inexpensive, can be slotted into available time in a student's timetable and done from home or at a learning centre at the institution. If we follow the vision of Glen Farrell, the president of the Open Learning Agency, and require each student in a full-time program to take one such course, they could allow us, by a stroke, to expand by 20 percent the capacity of the post-secondary system. Or is it 25 percent? I'm too far away from my high school mathematics to remember on my feet whether you expand by 20 percent or 25 percent. I guess it's 20 percent, if you substitute one course out of five as a distance learning course.

We've tried also, through the support for institutions' housing projects -- the residences that 

[ Page 8003 ]

many of the institutions are building; some of the universities are expanding their student housing very rapidly through initiatives of the Minister of Housing -- to encourage communities to develop secondary suites, to take that integrated approach to the real costs.

For example, at the University of Northern B.C., which by decision of the former government was located out of town up on the hill, by definition a student virtually requires an automobile to get there -- either that or bus transport. One of the possible solutions is to develop secondary suites in the housing subdivisions that are beginning to spread around the university site. I don't have the power to impose that upon the city of Prince George, but I've strongly encouraged that in conversations with the mayor and other councillors. Prince George has the opportunity now -- before they zone and build those subdivisions -- to encourage homeowners to build secondary suites that can house students affordably close to the campus where they may not require a vehicle or can at least reduce commuting costs.

I think we will need increasingly to look at all of those possible integrative solutions to the problem, because the tuition fee is only a modest part of the problem.

G. Wilson: That's true that the tuition fee is only a part of the problem. But it seems incongruous to those who observe from outside to see the amount of money being spend on edifices in this province when in fact we are, through the Opening Learning Agency and existing community college systems, perfectly well equipped to provide students with the kind of services that they require by simple expansion of those two facilities.

The question I come to ask the minister is: because you want to have university education available in the north, does it mean we have to build a campus in the north, or are we using educational dollars for make-work projects to increase property values? Are we using post-secondary education as a tool to advance the local economy? If that's what we're doing, then let's say that's what we're doing. In the long term, not only are you going to have to deal with the issue of increased cost in terms of serving a facility but you're also going to look at the fact that for every dollar you spend on those new edifices for construction, maintenance, upkeep and the building and necessary expansion that will take place after, that's a dollar you are not putting into an open learning institute or some other kind of communicative system that could go through existing community colleges and provide education to those that want it.

I must confess that I've never understood the wisdom of this decision. I maybe say that at my peril in Prince George. They have got it now, so it doesn't make any difference. I don't understand why the provision of educational services in those communities has to necessarily mean that you're going to spend an inordinate proportion of very scarce dollars in construction, when in fact you could have, by virtue of communications systems and services, the educational facility available to students in those regions, unless what we're really talking about is a provision to enhance community economies. If that's what we're doing, then what we're doing is using scarce educational dollars in economic development opportunity, and that's what we should tell people we're doing, so that there's no unrealistic expectation that once those edifices are there, there's going to be any money at all to staff, house, properly equip and get those things up and running in any short period. Maybe the minister might want to comment on that.

Hon. T. Perry: I'd love to comment. I share the hon. member's skepticism about the edifice complex in the public sector in general in B.C.

Interjection.

Hon. T. Perry: I wish I had coined that one, but I can't claim to have invented it. I think it was a classical scholar; it goes back beyond Homer.

The answer is both yes and no. Perhaps I should sit down then, but I'd love to explain it. Yes, Open Learning should be and will be doing much more than it is. Its potential is only barely tapped. Again, at the Premier's summit last week, we saw some beautiful demonstrations of four new applications of educational technology that transfixed the delegates who saw them. Yes, we need the University of Northern B.C., and yes, it is part of the economic and social development of northern B.C. Had one wanted to solve the access problem in the north by the cheapest possible means, there were a number of alternatives. One was to support and expand the existing three community colleges. Another would have been to develop a university college in Prince George from the College of New Caledonia. I think the vision of the northern university was -- as the member knows, or ought to know -- very popular throughout northern B.C. Thousands of people of all political persuasions from all across the north joined the Interior University Society and supported it. Not only was it popular, but I think it was fundamentally sound in the long term.

I have always viewed the University of Northern B.C. not as an investment for this term of government, a subsequent term and the 14 or 15 terms that I know the hon. Chair intends to serve in an NDP government, or however many governments we can foresee. I have always seen the investment as one that will start to reap its maximum benefits 50 to 100 years from now. We will see very tangible benefits in the fall of 1994, when 1,200 to 1,500 full-time students -- which means more than that number of students -- take their place on the campus and one sees the buildings if not fully utilized, close to fully utilized right away. But the real impact will be felt when the benefits of that education spread throughout the north, when the stabilizing effects of having that academic wealth are felt not only in Prince George but in communities in the northeast and the northwest as well and down into the Cariboo and when we start seeing the impact of research generated at the university -- principally applied research -- directed to some of the needs of that economy that have been relatively ignored by the southern universities. For example, there is the burgeoning bison production in 

[ Page 8004 ]

Peace River, where there are now 15,000 head of bison in the commercial industry selling for twice the price of beef -- profitable. Research is being carried on by the college with some interest from the University of Alberta, but our southern universities have fallen short.

[8:30]

I think UNBC will be moving into fields like that, and decades from now people will look back and say that the people of the northern interior had a very sound mission. Yes, in the short term we had to pay a little more for it than less expensive alternatives, but in the long term we'll all be very proud of it.

G. Wilson: I don't want to get into too much discussion on a past decision. It's been made; frankly, I was delighted for the people of Prince George. I've always viewed that as an economic development project to enhance the local and regional economy of Prince George; I think that's what it was. My feeling was that if we were going to do that, we shouldn't be taking it out of the Advanced Education budget. We should be taking it out of other systems of financing so that we could call it what it is, treat it like it is and not rob scarce dollars from other institutions in a very finite budget -- either that or expand the budget of this ministry through a reprioritization of dollars in order to accommodate the additional costs. I think we've locked ourselves into some long-term recurring costs in that region.

Hon. Chair, I must say, though, that something is a real problem for me, and it's an irritant. As a geographer, I have to have it on the record and let you know that Prince George is not northern British Columbia; it is almost dead centre geographically. I think we have to start thinking about north, central and southern British Columbia. I realize the people in Prince George think they're in the north, but that's because they don't live in Fort St. John.

Having said that, let's move into this business of student loans. We recognize that in the student loan situation here the cost of education in terms of the dollars moving forward has gone up, if we are to believe the figures of the Canadian Federation of Students. The minister is saying, as a result of those figures, that we didn't go back far enough to get the averaging we needed. In this report, which is the April 1993 changing conditions that students face "Then and Now" report, it says that financial aid for B.C. students has dropped by 41 percent in real terms since 1973. Again, they use statistical information that is a composite of data that has been generated from the figures dating back to 1973. I wonder if the minister might want to comment on their claim that there has been a 41 percent reduction in real terms.

Hon. T. Perry: I'm a little baffled by the figures to which the member referred. I don't have that document in front of me, but we've got one document from ministry sources, provincial government information, suggesting that an index of constant dollars per client served increased from $100 in 1981-82 to $129 in 1992-93. I can't go back as far as 1973 off the top of my head, but the.... Maybe I'll just sit down.

G. Wilson: Actually, I've just provided the minister with a copy of the document that I'm reading from so that there can be some commentary with respect to the figures that are quoted in here. In the whole aspect of the increased cost of students, student loans and the reduction of student loans, the figures that are being quoted, suggest there is a trend. The trend is simple: the amount of money that's going into student financial assistance is actually being reduced.

What they're talking about in this instance -- in fact, they've obviously followed the minister's advice and gone back to 1964 -- is the Canada student loan program. They talk about the partial provincial grant program and what happened there. They talk about the reduction of financial assistance and a significant portion of students who were unable to pursue their post-secondary education, and then they give some figures that say that in 1972-73, 19 percent of full-time students relied on loans. That doubled to roughly 40 percent in 1990. They talk about the maximum financial aid for students dropping by 41 percent in real terms since the 1973 figure, and then they talk about the amount of non-repayable assistance.

That was going to be my next question. What is happening with respect to the real dollars today in terms of loan remissions that are available versus the actual demand for those dollars from students.

Hon. T. Perry: Someone is pointing out to me that I'm only responsible technically in this committee for the years '92-93 and '93-94, and I shouldn't even try to answer this. But it raises a more interesting point: there is no question that for many students it is tough to finance their educations. There is also no question that many students, more than anyone would like, are burdened by a substantial encumbering debt at the end of their studies. That's why we have a debt remission program in British Columbia, which is, by most people's standards, reasonably generous. The problem is that so many students are acquiring substantial debt loads just to get there.

It's ultimately fruitless regardless of whether you use the statistics to argue one side of the point or the other to say: "Look, it was richer in 1972 than it was in 1992." The economy was an awful lot richer then. In those days, a student could still expect to get a high-paying job, be it unionized or non-unionized, and save enough during the summer to pay for a full year's education. Many students could do that. Fewer were pursuing post-secondary education, and for many more of them the parents could afford to put them through.

So everything has changed. As the hon. member said a few moments ago, the economy is facing major problems, and the growth based on liquidation of the old growth forests is getting close to its limit, so that some of the wealth available in the province in the past to subsidize our system is no longer there for the picking. The exports to the Third World, which was not competing in the manufacturing sectors, has not gone but it's much more competitive than it was. So everything has changed since 1972 or earlier.

The real question is: what can we do now to optimize the response? In 1992-93 we were able to offer a modest 

[ Page 8005 ]

increase in the weekly allowance to students -- 3 percent, if I recall. and 5 percent to students who were single parents or students with disabilities. We directed more of our resource to those we felt needed it most urgently.

In the present fiscal year, we had a choice, given the provincial deficit situation and the government's determination to keep the deficit under reasonable control -- even at $1.55 billion. We could choose to increase the weekly allowance and risk not being able to service all of the students who required a loan, or we could choose to at least serve all of the students. We chose the latter. That meant that ultimately we had to live with a zero percent increase in the weekly loan, although it had been raised in previous years, including last year.

On the other hand, let me remind members that the federal government has not raised its weekly maximum allowance since 1984-85 despite repeated urging by provincial governments, including the combined ministers of advanced education from all provinces except Quebec, which doesn't participate in that program. Many times over the last few years I have written letters myself to the minister, and usually not even had the courtesy of a response. If I am not mistaken, we have had no response from the recently departed minister responsible for the Secretary of State's program and for student loans at the federal level.

We are stuck carrying an increasing share of that burden. The percentage of student financial assistance which the provinces have been expected to provide has risen steadily over the last few years, and we are caught in an impossible position. We feel, on balance, that we are doing a reasonable job -- not perfect, but reasonable. We have tried through the Orum review last year to hone and target the provision of student aid as precisely as we could, but we are still not satisfied that we are optimal. We are still working on it. If the hon. member or others have any concrete suggestions on how we can improve that, they are welcome both now and at any time during the year.

A. Warnke: I have a couple of questions, since we are dealing with student loans. There are a few that I would like to ask as well. It is amazing. I went on leave from university and college teaching in January 1991, and it seems like a short time. Yet it's amazing how one falls out of touch in such a short period of time. I must confess that that has happened to me. I haven't been able to keep up with the affairs of colleges and universities as much as I'd like to, although for obvious reasons I've maintained an interest in them.

I'm particularly interested in how the college and university system affects students. As a matter of fact, as a professor I took a deep interest in student affairs and wherever appropriate served on the administration where it would affect students. I became more interested in and concerned about student loans and the total amount of money students acquired in loans to finance their education, and I compared that to some sort of repayment schedule. In a very short period of time I must confess that I have fallen out of touch, nonetheless I still maintain an interest in exactly where we're all going in this. I'm still quite concerned that students are piling up some horrific loans, certainly when you compare them to what students were piling up in loans during the 1960s and 1970s.

[8:45]

I'm wondering if the minister could give some concrete terms on exactly what the ratio of student loans is. Perhaps I'll put it in the context of a series of questions. Can the minister provide some sort of profile as to what the average student...? I'm not sure exactly how "average" should be defined. Maybe the minister could tell us the total loans per student that are being accumulated and give us some idea of the repayment schedule of those loans -- at the college and university and especially the technical school level.

Hon. T. Perry: I'll try to answer it. It's a fairly complex technical question and might be better taken on notice and answered in writing. I'll give you a general answer and see if that suffices or whether the member would like additional information.

In British Columbia the students have access first to the Canada student loan program and subsequently to the B.C. student loan program. The Canada student loan projected total for 1993-94 fiscal year will be $121 million; that's our estimate. It will affect 39,600 students. Not all of those will require B.C. student loans or be eligible. Of those 39,600, 20,400 will require roughly $69 million in loans in the coming fiscal year. That represents a projected increase of 5 percent in the number of students receiving CSL and.... I'm sorry, I don't have right on hand the percentage increase for students receiving B.C. student loans. We might be able to pull it up in a second.

I took it the member wanted a more detailed breakdown by field or by institution. Getting to the technical answer, the computer system is not currently programed to make it easy to retrieve a profile by institution. It may be more work than it's worth, unless the member feels that it's essential. We can take that under advisement. If it's reasonably feasible, we will try to get it for him. If it's not.... I see him nodding that he might be willing to defer that one until next year. I hope we find that some statistics of that type will be easier to obtain in the future with our new loan-processing system.

I can give you a profile of a typical student as an example of the dilemma. A married university student with dependents, graduating in the spring of 1993, on maximum assistance for five years at 34 weeks per year, would have received: an outright grant of $11,800 through equalization payments; $21,964 through B.C. student loans; and $17,510 through Canada student loans. That gives a total of $52,274 over five years. He or she would have benefited from the following in non-repayable funding: equalization program grant of $11,800; B.C. student loan interest subsidized during that period, averaging 8 percent -- I guess these figures were made up for a historical student; it would be a bit less now -- would come to $3,900, including the first six months after graduation interest free; Canada student loan interest subsidized during that period, $3,125; and 

[ Page 8006 ]

remission of loan above the threshold down to which remission occurs, $25,974. So the total benefit to that student from taxpayers over those five years would be $44,799, in addition to the money invested to pay for that student as an FTE, which in a university might be anywhere up to $10,000 a year. By most people's standards, it's a fairly generous program. The problem is that for many students it doesn't seem that way, and for quite a few, it barely meets their needs. The dilemma is that from a taxpayers point of view it's not easy to find the solution.

One of the most satisfactory solutions, I believe, is increasing co-op education so that the students actually work for more of their education and receive increasing amounts of credit for that. By virtue of being a student, he is more likely to land a real job out in the private sector in a cooperative setting. We're going to have to be looking for all such creative options because we just don't have the bucks to make these programs much more generous than they are now. Yet we know that they remain a serious problem for many students and their families.

A. Warnke: I recognize the difficulty in a somewhat complex breakdown. I appreciate the minister's response to the best of the best possible here. Just to follow up on that, I wonder whether there is a difference of student loans between arts, law, and science students as to any pattern that the ministry can detect. Another way to ask the question: are students acquiring a greater liability in terms of acquiring student loans and what they have to repay? Has the ministry detected some difficulty in students repayments in some fields as opposed to others?

Hon. T. Perry: Well, the whole program, of course, is designed to attempt to meet need. Therefore we don't try to discriminate against a student who is starting liberal arts versus one starting engineering or law or science. We do know that the highest default rates are in students who have the lowest inherent likelihood of success in the existing post-secondary system. That leads you to the dilemma: if you wanted to protect against defaults, would you just write off such people. I don't think any of us want to do that. All provinces have had to accept a default rate overall in the range of 20 percent. No province has any better record than any other. All find the same thing: that students who are trying to make it back from a failed primary or secondary education are a poor risk. If it were up to the banks alone, and they were not guaranteed by the provincial and federal governments, they probably wouldn't accept the risk and those students would be effectively locked out, or we would have to make grants instead.

We are always, of course, trying to reduce defaults in any way we can. We're trying fairly aggressively to collect on the defaulted loans where we think there's a realistic chance of doing that. But all provincial ministers have come to grips with the fact that you can't prevent default absolutely. It may be inherent that students in some fields are less likely to require loans because they are more likely to be able to secure employment between years of their education or during summers or during vacations. I'm not sure I would speculate on that. It wouldn't really serve any point to do so. It doesn't really help us functionally in dealing with the problem, because we can't cut off one area arbitrarily and say that we won't fund loans in that area. There are areas where we would be much tighter in pursuing collection. For example, for someone who graduates in a high income field such as medicine, dentistry or dental hygiene, we are more likely to be very vigorous in collecting a loan than we are in areas such as general arts or perhaps these days even law. Law students are now frequently writing to me requesting extension of the interest-free period during their articling year. One can sympathize with their position but also wish to defend the taxpayer. They will likely be in a relatively high-earning field, although there's no guarantee of that these days.

G. Wilson: On page 33, under STOB 82, there is $60 million under student financial assistance programs. Could the minister tell us a little about the origin of that $60 million and its distribution?

Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Chair, to save time I wonder if we can go on to another question while Mr. Crone is looking up an answer to explain that particular figure. I'll come back to that in a minute.

Okay, here it is: $6.575 million for quarterly interest payments on outstanding B.C. student loans held by the bank but guaranteed by the province. There is $15.20 million for loan remission, so we're simply paying off a loan, and the student is forgiven that obligation.

[9:00]

There is $29 million for British Columbia equalization grants; $0.15 million for supplemental payments for college preparatory students needing upgrading to qualify for the colleges; $3.55 million for work study, which is a program targeted at students in the institutions -- roughly 4,000 students will benefit from that; $250,000 for world scholarships -- support for the United World Colleges and scholarships for students to go to Pearson; $2.46 million for adult basic education; $100,000 for the student society fund, matching emergency funds that the student societies raise for emergency aid to students; $100,000 for the Premier's excellence awards -- scholarships for a student from each college district going from high school to a post-secondary institution; $400,000 for disabled student assistance -- that's targeted to fairly severely disabled students. That one has slightly more than doubled this year. There is $400,000 for assistance to part-time students who would not otherwise qualify for student loans but who were deserving. I'm told that $35,000 is a matching endowment that is given to Trinity Western University. If you want more details, I'll try to answer that. There is $2.31 million in cost attributed to the loan administration branch, Ministry of Finance, for collection of loans in default, and $30,000 for the FAS user group. That's not fetal alcohol syndrome; that's the financial aid system user group, electronic interface. It helps finance the electronic interface of the ministry to student aid offices on 

[ Page 8007 ]

campuses. There is $455,000 reserved for contingency in the student financial system. That is a small reserve we've got for contingencies.

So it happens to be close to the value of loans that will be granted. But in the one case it's a loan, and these are the costs of servicing those loans and other associated costs. It's not directly related to the $69 million I referred to earlier, in case anyone else is as confused by that as I was.

G. Wilson: Do I understand, then, that of the figures you gave -- and I'd like to go through at least the larger ones -- this year there is $15.2 million in loan remissions that have been forgiven? Is the minister saying that the government is forgiving $15.2 million?

Hon. T. Perry: Well, you can call it what you like. We have established published criteria -- brought in, I might add, in deference to the hon. member for Peace River South, by the former government -- to a relatively generous loan remission program. It was brought in by the then-minister because too many students were graduating with a crippling debt that they could not realistically hope to repay, and had one insisted on repayment, more students would have gone into default. The government of the day made the calculation that it would be impossible to recover those loans and that it was better just to make a humane and reasonable write-down of excessive debt, recognizing that the students had little control over the accumulation of that debt. They simply would not have been able to take post-secondary education had they not incurred those debts. A program of remission was brought in during the 1987 calendar year. We have continued that. We have increased the floor, or the ceiling, down to which -- I think of it as a floor -- we remit the loan. For example, if the accumulated loan is $50,000 and the student has fulfilled the published criteria of graduating within the reasonable period of time -- typically a maximum of five years for a four-year course, which allows some room for difficulty registering in courses, raising children, having a disability, having legitimate reasons for not being able to do a full course load or occasionally even failing a course -- if they meet those criteria, if they have been working during the summers trying to support themselves, or at least, if unable to work, doing volunteer work, or are able to present a medical reason why they could not have worked, we lighten the debt load. It has recently been adjusted up to $15,000; it was $13,500 last year. We had to raise it to $15,000 this year because that cost was high to us. So we will now remit down to $15,000 from whatever the total loan is for students who meet our criteria for a first degree. For a second degree, we will now remit down to $20,000. The cost to the province of paying off that loan will total $15.2 million this year -- that's our estimate. If that wasn't clear, I'll try again. It's a complex area.

G. Wilson: It's clear enough from what you're doing, and I understand it. Why would your grants and contributions appear in this STOB? Why would that not appear as a liability as opposed to what it would appear to be -- an expenditure? It's not going into the system; presumably this is money that you're having to take from the system to pay out. You're suggesting that there is $6.5 million in outstanding loans held by the bank, which you're servicing. That's debt-servicing of $6.5 million -- and are you saying that you're also writing off $15.2 million? The question, then, is why would you show it this way in the ledger? It appears that it's a grant or contribution when in fact it is not; it's money that's already been granted that's simply being written off. Is it not?

Hon. T. Perry: First of all, the way these figures are set out, I agree that it's often rather confusing. All estimates are set out according to policy laid down by the Ministry of Finance. It's a consistent policy. I think it has been slightly modified from the former government's, but it's actually considered to be one of the easiest to understand in the country. I personally don't find it very easy, hon. Chair, but the accountants say it's.... I think the hon. member for South Peace will acknowledge that the former government usually got fairly favourable reviews for presentation of the estimates. All the bottom-line figures weren't necessarily that easy to understand, but the way the structure of the estimates works is considered reasonable by Canadian standards.

The quarterly interest being paid on a portfolio of loans of roughly $121 million is $6.575 million, so we're getting a pretty good interest rate on that this year. You can see that the interest rate is somewhere between 5 percent and 6 percent. It's simply servicing the loan while the student is at their studies; they don't pay interest until after they graduate. The estimated cost to the province of those students who will graduate with a loan in excess of our floor, which we will remit down, is $15.2 million. We will forgive that part of the loan and we will pay the bank back; the student will not owe that money once they graduate. We don't do it until they graduate. The Orum commission has recommended that we consider doing that annually as an incentive to continuing good performance. We're examining that. We did not find it feasible to implement that in this fiscal year, but we're still looking at whether it would be desirable and helpful to students to do that in the future.

G. Wilson: It's a little more clear to me now. The 6.5 percent is quarterly interest on the $121 million total, so where does that $121 million outstanding appear?

Hon. T. Perry: It will appear in this debate; it doesn't appear in the estimates. There's no secret about the amount; it's simply the way the estimates are structured. The reason they are structured that way is that it's not the government making the loan; it's the banks' $121 million. All the banks of B.C. loan directly to the student at the individual bank. The student signs a loan document to the bank, but we pay the interest while the student is at school. Once they graduate, they must repay the bank the principal, and they must pay interest after the six-month holiday. The loan remission, 

[ Page 8008 ]

in effect, is a grant at the back end of your studies rather than at the front end. It's structured that way in order to reward successful completion. The only province -- I guess it's the only one -- that still had an upfront grant, Ontario, was obliged to abandon that this year because they could no longer afford it, and they are investigating modelling themselves after the B.C. program.

It's not ideal for the student, because they end up facing this large debt; on the other hand, it does remind them that the money doesn't simply materialize. The bank may be loaning it, but the province is guarantor, and the taxpayers of B.C. have to pay the interest carrying charges and ultimately would be liable for defaults. The only alternative to that would be simply turning it over to the banks, who will not loan to anything less than the optimum risk and would shut out many students who can benefit and the vast majority who will repay the loan in due course.

G. Wilson: All right, so the banks put up the $121 million. But presumably they put up the $121 million fully secured by the government. So while the government may not have put the money out, the government is on the hook for $121 million if there is default, as the minister just said. Presumably that has to be shown somewhere. You can't just have an outstanding potential liability of $121 million without showing it somewhere.

Hon. T. Perry: I am advised by the technical experts that the public accounts may present the issue slightly differently. I would be glad to take the technical issue under advisement and get back in writing to the hon. member about why it is structured that way.

[9:15]

I would just point out that such liabilities would be similar to capital borrowing, and in the current fiscal year we tend not to show the cost of servicing capital borrowing for hospitals, schools, universities and colleges. That is the way it has been done in B.C. for years. Because we regard the capital as an asset, we don't hide the amount that is being committed. There is no secret. If anyone asks about it, I will be glad to reveal those numbers in this debate. I didn't happen to put them in my speech, but in general we tend to be proud of those numbers. What we show in the estimates are the costs of servicing the capital in this year. In next year's estimates we will see the cost for the next year, and it will depend on the interest rate at the time.

G. Wilson: It would seem to me that this is the very kind of account Peat Marwick said you shouldn't be carrying around without disclosing, is it not? Presumably, if the taxpayers are potentially on the hook for $121 million, they ought to be able to see that somewhere in some account -- I am not an accountant, although I do sit in Public Accounts. It will make interesting discussion there at some point, but probably not for five years, or however that works. It seems to me that we don't get to look at things for a while. I am being just a little facetious here.

D. Lovick: It is nice to see that you have a sense of humour.

G. Wilson: Well, even at this time of night.

D. Lovick: It needs to be telegraphed, though.

G. Wilson: That is true. When you are dealing with the audience that I sometimes have to deal with, you have to telegraph these things.

I wonder if we could look, then, at the $29 million equalization payment. I think that is what he said: there was $29 million in equalization out of that $60 million. Could the minister tell us the origin and distribution of those equalization funds?

Hon. T. Perry: I see the member for Nanaimo laughing at me. It's true; I've studied this umpteen times, and I'm never going to get it right without having to consult the officials. I just hope there won't be an examination at the end of this debate.

The $29 million for B.C. grants, formerly known as equalization payments -- B.C. grants is simpler and has fewer letters -- will assist 8,450 students in the current fiscal year, 1993-94. In addition to CSL -- Canada student loans -- and B.C. student loan funds, eligible students can receive non-repayable grant moneys in their first two years of post-secondary study. This helps encourage enrolment and reduce the impact of excessive debt on students as they begin their educational careers. It's trying to encourage people who would otherwise be frightened to enter the post-secondary system that they can get in without contemplating a mountain of debt. Once we get them in there, we figure we've got them hooked. If they choose to go on to the third or fourth year, then we put a bit more onus on them.

The average value of those grants for the 8,450 students we project to serve this year is $3,432. That part has actually increased relatively generously. The value grant that we project has gone up from last year's $3,035, which is a 13 percent increase. The number of students we expect to serve is increasing by 7 percent. So we're both increasing the number of students and increasing by 13 percent the value of the grant. For those who are eligible it's an increase of $397 per student this year.

G. Wilson: I didn't hear whether you broke that out. Is the origin of that money the federal government, or is it is all provincial dollars? Secondly, what is the proportion, if it is federal money, that's put through the Canada student loans program as opposed to the B.C. student loan program?

Hon. T. Perry: Let's be very clear. This is you and me; this is the British Columbia taxpayer, not the federal government. Give credit where it's due. It's all of us British Columbians.

Here's a typical example. A student is eligible for 34 weeks' financial assistance at a maximum of $216 per week. That would come to $7,344 for the 34 weeks of the year that the student is expected to be studying. The 

[ Page 8009 ]

first $3,570 of that would come as a repayable Canada student loan. The next $3,774 up to that total of $7,344 comes as a B.C. grant to eligible students in the first two years. To be eligible you have to show that you're independent from your parents and that your own income based on your income tax statement is not sufficient to enable you to pay it yourself. This is carefully targeted to the most needy students. We are modestly generous to them in those first two years. After the first two years, they go on to repayable B.C. student loans.

G. Wilson: In other words, this is like a primer. Is it correct that the $29 million is put in as a primer for those students who ordinarily would not qualify or would not move forward? It's separate from the $2 million-plus that you put into the adult basic education? Is it quite a separate program?

Hon. T. Perry: One could look at it as a primer. I'd prefer to call it an investment in students who would otherwise not be able to participate in the post-secondary system, who will contribute to the economy and ultimately society, and who will hopefully pay their taxes in the future and stay in B.C. working productively. We will get that investment back many times over. It's equalization in the sense that it's designed to attempt to ensure that a student from a poorer family will have as fair a chance as students who come from wealthy backgrounds or who are able to secure employment which is sufficiently remunerative to pay their way as they go.

G. Wilson: One other question re the figures here, and then I'd like to come back and take a bit of issue with the $15.2 million we're paying out to the banks. The $2.031 million in the loan administration branch is presumably an internal shuffling between this ministry and the Ministry of Finance. With respect to the loan administration, if indeed the principal dollars are held by the bank and all we're doing is putting up a loan security, then what do we do that costs us $2 million to administer these student loans?

Hon. T. Perry: I guess it would be fair to characterize it as a shuffle. It's a chargeback from the Ministry of Finance to our ministry for a service they provide. It's neither here nor there; it's public money being expended in this case by the Ministry of Finance, and they happen to show it under my budget. The intent of the expenditure is to successfully recover, where possible, loans that are now in default. For example, the information I have suggests that last year the cost to the loan administration branch of the Ministry of Finance in collecting overdue loans from the B.C. student loan portfolio -- the feds have to go after the Canada student loans portion of it -- was $1.57 million. The revenue they collected from people who were in default of their loans was $2.77 million, so the net recovery was $1.2 million. The taxpayers of B.C. are $1.2 million better off by virtue of that loan administration branch having been in operation.

It's an inherently difficult, expensive process. Most people don't default unless they're having a hell of a time paying back their loan. There are a few dishonest people out there; it's impossible to eliminate all of them. But the vast majority are in default because they literally haven't got the money to pay back their loan. I believe, and I think most people recognize, that there are very few people out there deliberately cheating the system. How you define whether you can pay back or not is sometimes a matter of judgment, and the loan administration branch is attempting to collar these people and negotiate a sensitive repayment plan that they can afford. They are prepared to be flexible and to make it possible for somebody to honour their obligation. So I think they're not doing too badly. This year they intend to be even more aggressive than they were last year, and we'll have to wait until next year to see whether the strategy worked. Hopefully, it will. But I'm sure the member is not suggesting that we ought not to try to collect the loans that are in default.

G. Wilson: No, I wasn't suggesting that we shouldn't try to collect them. The $1.2 million that we did manage to recover -- what is that as a percentage of the total outstanding default? How much money do we have in defaulted loans that we're trying to recoup?

Hon. T. Perry: The loan administration branch holds roughly 13,000 accounts valued at roughly $48.5 million. That would not be from a single year; that would be the accumulation of all B.C. student loans since they began. I'm told that in the past, the policy has been to extinguish loans as uncollectible after seven years; they go after them for that period -- I'm not sure if that's current policy or not. But $48.5 million would be the total outstanding portfolio they hold. It's nowhere near that much in any given year.

G. Wilson: Just two other questions on that, and then I'm going to try to move off these figures. Thirteen thousand former students owe $48.5 million in unpaid loans, and of that, we have retired $15.2 million this year. Is that correct? Or am I comparing apples and oranges here?

Hon. T. Perry: No, you're comparing roses and skunks, or something. It's two completely different sets of figures.

G. Wilson: There is somewhat of a similarity: both have a scent.

D. Lovick: You're not on it. [Laughter.]

[9:30]

G. Wilson: With respect, hon. Chair, it's a little hard to stick on a scent here.

The $48.5 million, then, is currently on the books in unpaid loans and is currently held by financial institutions -- for which there is a liability to the government of the province. Is that correct?

[ Page 8010 ]

Hon. T. Perry: That would be the accumulated value of loans made good by the province, which the banks were originally liable for but which the province backed. The vast majority of those loans would have been accumulated under the former government. I'm not going to criticize them for that. I think their policy was an attempt to encourage access for more students. It was actually a social democratic policy under the guise of a Social Credit government. It was not perfect, but it was well-intentioned. I suppose we could attempt to calculate that for you. If you want to understand the figure in context, you would have to know the entire length of time over which those defaulted loans are accumulated.

The central point is that one doesn't want anybody to default on their loan. The penalty for a student who does that is that they don't get loans again in the future from us. As long as their loan is in default, they are not eligible for future loans. The federal government has certainly moved toward.... I'm not clear whether they have or have not implemented their policy of supplying that information to other lending institutions. Yes, I'm told it has been applied now. It was discussed at a federal-provincial meeting last year, where in general there was consensus that you should not be able to get away with default without having it affect your credit rating. I want to emphasize that, as far as we know, in the vast majority of such cases, the default is not a deliberate or dishonest approach by the former student. It usually reflects the inability to get a job -- a well-trained teacher, for example, who may not have been fortunate enough to secure employment, had counted on being employable but hasn't been able to find a job yet.

G. Wilson: Could the minister tell us a bit about the relationship between the B.C. student loan and the Canada student loan, and the development of specified educational institutions? What, if any, relationship is there? I refer now to a letter dated May 17, 1993, from the Law Society of British Columbia requesting the assistance of a designation of a specified educational institution, suggesting that with federal loan moneys that are coming in under the Canada Student Loans Act, they have an opportunity to gain additional moneys. Does the provincial government have any relationship with the designation process? Is there any incurred liability as a result of this program for the province? What is the relationship?

Hon. T. Perry: I'm not sure I'm familiar with that letter; it doesn't ring an immediate bell. If the member would like to leave a copy with us, we could look it up for tomorrow morning -- if we're likely to continue then. If we have, by the grace of God, finished by then, I'd be glad to reply in the mail.

G. Wilson: I'd be happy to leave a copy of this letter. I believe the minister actually received these submissions.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: Well, essentially it's a letter that comes from.... It looks to me like it's a number of articling students who have a letter-writing campaign because they're finding it difficult to qualify. They would like to know if we can get some assistance in setting up this specified educational institution. This has come to my attention, and I thought I would bring it to the attention of the minister to find out what the relationship is with the provincial government.

Hon. T. Perry: I think I've found the letter in question. It was one we had with us, and I just refreshed my memory by rereading it. The basic problem is that the articled student is in a modest income situation. One can understand their desire that the interest payment be suspended until they start making real money. On the other hand, there are many students who graduate with a loan who are not able to secure even the level of payment that an articled student would receive and who are in exactly the same boat. If we were to accept their position and further defer interest on the loan for that category, not only would we open up a door to all kinds of other students but we would incur an additional cost to the taxpayer, who may be an unemployed person who just lost their job in the forest industry or who, through layoffs in the private sector, is also facing difficulties and may not have nearly so high an earning potential.

One has to remember in the case of a law student that that student has also typically benefited from a very heavy public subsidization of three or four years of college- or university-level undergraduate education and three years of additional education in law school. Although I'm very sympathetic to them, just as I am to medical students who face difficulties repaying their student loans, among the priorities we have to set, that group is relatively privileged compared to many other people we are trying to serve. That's why we've not been able to change the policy at the moment.

G. Wilson: This is my last question with respect to student loans. It has to do with interest. The money being paid on the $6.5 million in quarterly interest -- just for my own information, to be sure I understand this -- is being paid on the loans that are currently outstanding and held by the bank, and that the government is picking up the interest on. The government is not picking up interest on outstanding loans that are in the collectible bin. Is that right?

Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Chair, I'm told that the answer is yes.

G. Wilson: I'm hoping that the minister is onto this. The interest is picked up by the government for the loans that are active. The quarterly interest on those active loans is $6.5 million. For those loans in the $48.5 million, once they are due and payable the government is no longer picking up interest on them, and the interest is accruing to the debtor. Is that right?

Hon. T. Perry: Yes, at prime plus 1.5 percent. I've been threatened, hon. Chair, with being drawn and 

[ Page 8011 ]

quartered prior to my public flogging if I don't shorten my answers, so I'm doing my best.

The Chair: Far be it from the Chair to comment on either side.

G. Wilson: We can move off loans now that we've exhausted that topic....

An Hon. Member: And most of the members.

G. Wilson: Yes, we've certainly exhausted the rest of us in here.

I would like to move to student employment programs. We will perhaps get into this in some more detail later on. Given that there seems to be a reasonably consistent set of figures available on changing demographics with respect to the age and socioeconomic makeup of the student bodies in the universities and the colleges, exactly what programs are being put in place with respect to student employment? How will those be accessed this year? Does the minister have any sense of what percentage of students who are seeking employment will get it? Will they be able to earn enough to meet the increased education costs that we just outlined?

Hon. T. Perry: I referred earlier to a work study program, and I will take the question to apply, I assume, to summer work programs. Under B.C. 21 there is an initiative of up to $3 million this summer. That is being administered through a number of host organizations. The printout I have here is right up to June 25, l993. Hopefully, we will get up to or close to the total available. At the moment, we stand at roughly $2.031 million. To sum up, the kinds of programs are B.C. Agricultural Research and Development Corp., which will be providing 442 summer jobs; Science Council of B.C., which will be providing, or mediating through individual employers -- it is seldom the organization itself that provides the work -- 108 jobs; Immigrant Services Society of B.C., 145 jobs; Canadian Council for Native Business, 65 jobs; Interior Indian Friendship Society, 227 jobs; Cranbrook Women's Resource Centre, 85 jobs; Fort St. John Friendship Society, 123 jobs; and Burns Lake Native Development Corporation, 55 jobs. The total at the moment is 1,250 jobs this summer.

We have relatively modest funds in my ministry allocated towards direct job creation. The vast bulk of the ministry's funds, as the member knows, go as grants to the institutions, with a relatively modest budget for skills development.

I'm sorry, I had forgotten the $1.4 million funding student employment in tourism offices around the province. We supply the funds, but the program is administered by the Ministry of Tourism. It shows up under our budget, however.

G. Wilson: I wonder if the minister could outline for a moment how the priorities are set with respect to these programs. Where's the initiation from, with respect to the programs that are developed? And what kind of regional scope is given, given that what was read out shows a fairly broad spectrum of opportunities around the province? The students, of course -- certainly those coming to the three major universities -- are travelling from far and wide, and often like to seek summer employment back in the communities in which they normally reside. A number of students obviously are involved in the various community colleges and technical institutes. Could the minister outline how the priorities are set and what kind of direction is given from his ministry to those agencies with respect to job creation programs, in terms of those two criteria?

Hon. T. Perry: I think the member is aware that the B.C. 21 program in general is oriented towards the regions of the province. The specific goal was to spread the wealth out of the relatively vibrant economic zone of the lower mainland and southern Vancouver Island into the rest of the province. So that was a key criterion for summer job creation this summer.

[9:45]

The other areas we focused on were single parents and aboriginal students, not because we're not concerned about the others but because we felt these were students who had the most difficulty.... In the one case, the greatest difficulty is affording education; in the latter case of aboriginal students, the greatest difficulty is in breaking into the post-secondary system successfully. The goal of this program was not only to help get them some summer money but also to get them into jobs that would lead to useful futures in post-secondary education.

Maybe it's useful to give examples of what we are funding this summer. From Fort St. John, for example, there are four positions at Northern Lights College, one at Waterous Detroit Diesel, one at the Skyway Butcher Shop, two at the Quality Photo Save, two at the Peace River Regional District, two at 4-M Furniture, one at Lorcon Trout Farm, one at Just Joan's Upholstery, etc. There's a fairly long list. At Dawson Creek there are positions at Goldenook Enterprises Ltd., 10333 Holdings Ltd. -- I'm afraid I can't unveil the mystery there, as I don't know what that company is -- Peavey Industries Ltd., Griffen Sport and Ski Shoppe, and the Dawson Co-op Union. In Fort Nelson there are nine jobs: some at the regional district, one at the Fort Nelson News and four at the college. In Chetwynd there is one at the veterinarians' clinic.

That happens to be the northeast, but the northeast being enterprising, people seemed to have jumped into this project early. The general criteria are described in the brochure "B.C. 21: Community Partnerships For Student Summer Employment, 1993," which I'd be happy to pass around to the member.

G. Wilson: I have the general flavour. As I understand it, these are all under the new B.C. 21 program unveiled this year. Exactly how does this program work? Can the minister explain the proportional amount of liability to the government for the job? What are the criteria by which applicants were received? How was it advertised? What did each of these individuals have to do in order to secure dollars? 

[ Page 8012 ]

What kind of dollars are they going to get, and what are their obligations in the program?

Hon. T. Perry: These are jobs where we're paying up to 50 percent of the wage, to a maximum cost to the province of $4 an hour. If it were minimum wage, it would be less than that. If it is more than $8 per hour, we pay only $4.

The intent is to stimulate as much as possible the creation of jobs which would not otherwise have existed in the regions. It's up to the host organization to decide whether they can generate employment that way, and publicize and administer the program. They decide on their own criteria. We encourage organizations which seek aboriginal students and single parents. We targeted the program to the regions where there's particularly high unemployment for students.

G. Wilson: Is the maximum value of these jobs $8 an hour?

Hon. T. Perry: Typically they probably are, although the employer can pay more. We don't limit the amount; we simply limit the provincial contribution to $4 per hour. With a budget of $3 million, we wanted to stimulate the creation of as much summer employment as possible. We decided that was a reasonable figure to subsidize job creation for temporary summer student employment. We tried to strike a fair balance between a reasonable wage and useful job experience for the student -- because the job is not only important as an immediate source of income but as employment experience -- and creating a reasonable number of good jobs.

G. Wilson: In other words, it's not 50 percent up to $4 an hour. It's 50 percent of the wage, or $4 an hour. Is that right?

Hon. T. Perry: Fifty percent, up to a provincial contribution of $4 per hour. That is up to a total wage of $8 per hour. If employers wish to go beyond that, they may. We'll pay only up to $4.

G. Wilson: In that case, we're not paying 50 percent of the wage; that was my point. Could the minister then...?

Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Chair, it would be ideal if the employer chose to and could afford to pay more than $8 per hour. We don't want to subsidize more than we have to.

G. Wilson: Could the minister give us an idea of the moneys committed this year? How much of those dollars are at the $8-an-hour wage and how much is a proportional amount of a greater value?

Hon. T. Perry: We can attempt to find out. It is still a bit early to answer that now. We may have to answer that either in writing or in next year's estimates; it probably will be a few weeks before we know those figures. It wouldn't be worth the administrative time to track all that down. We're still trying to make sure that we dispense the existing funds and get maximum job creation this summer.

G. Wilson: Most students have been working since May. University and college students are out in May. They've got jobs. They are already employed and working. Presumably, if we are talking about student employment, those jobs must have been created earlier this spring and there must have been some advertising. How were the jobs advertised? How did the employers who benefited know of this program? How was it advertised and how were they selected? What were the selection criteria used in setting up these jobs? Indeed, are these student jobs or low-income jobs?

Hon. T. Perry: A student must be registered in the fall of this year to be eligible for one of these jobs. These jobs are targeted at current students in the post-secondary system. The program was advertised very widely by the ministry to voluntary associations, chambers of commerce, the Science Council and various other agencies around the province. The announcement was on May 13, 1993, through a news release that was widely distributed. Some institutions chose to respond; others did not. The list that I read out included the organizations that have mediated job creation so far. I won't repeat them; I read them out at the beginning of my answers to this line of questioning.

G. Wilson: I'm a little confused by the minister's last statement. The list that was read out are companies that have mediated? It would seem to me that I was hearing employers read out. These are people who are taking actual advantage of the money, surely to goodness. I mean, an upholsterer or a butcher is not mediating a job.

Hon. T. Perry: There may have been slight confusion. I began by reading out a list of people who have administered the program for us on a non-profit basis. For example, in the northeast, the B.C. Agriculture Research and Development Corp., the B.C. Science Council and the Fort St. John Friendship Society; in the Kootenays, the B.C. Agriculture Research and Development Corp., the B.C. Science Council and the Cranbrook Women's Resource Centre. They have administered the program. The individual employers are typical of those. I happen to have the list here from Fort St. John, Dawson Creek, Chetwynd and Fort Nelson. They would be similar individual employers typically employing from one up to perhaps four students in a given site, and they could be as diverse as anyone who chose to apply for the program.

G. Wilson: It might actually save a fair bit of time if the minister would be prepared to duplicate and make available the list. I don't know if that's possible. We could take a look at it tomorrow, because it might.... Rather than go through lengthy questioning on this, if the lists are available, we might have a chance to take a look at it and have a better understanding of what's going on.

[ Page 8013 ]

Hon. T. Perry: We've got it right here.

G. Wilson: That would be great.

I wonder if we could move to the native friendship centres and the extent to which those have been looked at with respect to this particular program. In particular, what have the criteria been for dollars that have gone to native friendship centres vis-�-vis the enrolment criteria in the post-secondary institutions? Could the minister just elaborate a bit on that?

Hon. T. Perry: In general we have provided funding according to the quality of the applications received and the number of jobs the host organization thought they could organize in their region, and they're not restricted to hiring aboriginal students. We tried to give some preference, but that was as a general sort of policy guideline. We can't ultimately control how that hiring is done, nor would we try to. It's up to the discretion of the individual organization, just as with any other hiring.

G. Wilson: Just to clarify on this list. So the B.C. 21 program so far has only been allocated in Fort St. John and Dawson Creek. Is that right?

Hon. T. Perry: I'm sorry, I missed the question.

G. Wilson: The question concerns the list that you've just given me with respect to the B.C. 21 program and the commitments. I notice that the word "expenditure" has been crossed out and the word "commitments" is here. Of the $84,000-plus.... There's a grand total of $130,000. It would seem that the only areas in which allocation has been made are Fort St. John, Dawson Creek, Fort Nelson and Chetwynd. Is that correct?

Hon. T. Perry: That's a sample. We don't have with us the similar itemized list for other regions, but we can provide them.

G. Wilson: That would be useful, and maybe we could pick it up in the morning, which would save us a little time.

With respect to the student-related issues, I would like to try to conclude some of them. We'll pick up on this employment question a bit later when we get under the employment apprenticeship training in the last segment of what we wanted to deal with in a broader issue.

It would appear that one of the greater costs that students are facing is housing. There seems to be a relative scarcity with respect to the availability of student housing. Often that's brought about as a result of bylaws put in place by municipal authorities that restrict the number of suites in dwellings, and so on. Can the minister tell us what initiatives, if any, are being taken with respect to student housing? Is there any kind of cooperative policy now to set aside certain areas adjacent or close to post-secondary institutions that would provide for additional suites, and those kinds of things?

[10:00]

Hon. T. Perry: I'm very glad to have that question. The individual institutions themselves are responsible for planning the siting requirements of residences. Most of them have been fairly aggressive about this recently. UBC, for example, has a long-term goal of accommodating 25 percent of their students on the campus, and in the last two to three years has shown a relatively aggressive new policy of promoting student housing on campus. Many of the colleges are building residences. I just inspected new residences, for example, at Okanagan University College campus in north Kelowna. UNBC will be building residences; UVic is building residences and trying to accelerate the construction to make them available in time for the Commonwealth Games. I'm not sure if there's any campus in the system that doesn't have some residential accommodation; there are a few, like PMTI, Kwantlen and Capilano. But in general, in areas where there is a relatively generous supply of housing fairly close to the campus, there is less likelihood that students would want to live in residence. Even BCIT has some very nice residences. Some of us profited from them in the summit last week; we enjoyed that hospitality.

The other thing that the government has been doing on a more general level, certainly through the Audain-Duvall report on housing last summer, is encouraging the construction of secondary suites and encouraging municipalities to revisit their zoning bylaws.

I've been interested in another project which may interest the leader of the Liberal Party. This is the potential of preserving the old Vancouver General Hospital residence as a student residence. The hospital was prepared to tear down that building a year ago, and we prevailed upon them to allow students a one-year reprieve. In the interim, we did an investigation of the feasibility of resurrecting that building as an inexpensive residence for students from multiple institutions in the city of Vancouver, or as far away as BCIT or SFU.

It turned out that the preliminary estimates made for us by UBC Real Estate Corp. suggest that it would be economically feasible to renovate the Vancouver General Hospital nurses' residence for students at rents of around $275 per month for a modest single room with shared bathroom and kitchen. The barrier, which we have yet to hurdle, is the city's reluctance to allow that use of that property and a compromise solution dealing with parking requirements. We are attempting to do that. The leader of the Liberal Party may be able to exert some influence over one of his fellow Liberals, who would be key to favourably resolving that issue.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Interjection.

Hon. T. Perry: I hear the member asking who that might be. The mayor of Vancouver has significant influence over decisions of the city council on this. We've been endeavouring to take a polite, non-confrontational approach to resolving this problem, and I'm hopeful that we can. There are some 

[ Page 8014 ]

complicated zoning and parking issues to resolve, but we hear from an expert report from the UBC Real Estate Corp., which has a good track record in developing faculty housing, that the building could be preserved. We know it's in excellent condition. It can be structurally upgraded for earthquake resistance and for fire and electrical standards. It could provide modest but inexpensive housing for students. I think it's a good idea, but we have yet to find a suitable compromise with the city on that issue. Maybe the leader of the Liberal Party will be able to help us.

G. Wilson: I was thrown a little off the track when he said "a fellow Liberal."

Nevertheless, let's come back to the question on housing.

Interjections.

G. Wilson: Hon. Chair, it's rare when such an opportunity is thrown to me and I don't seize it. But given that the hour is late and that we do want to try to get rid of some of the issues here tonight....

With respect to student-related issues, this is the first of three broader headings. I'd like to try to deal with a couple more questions on housing. There is no doubt that we need to have municipalities prevail. What the minister suggests with respect to an innovative approach to dealing with current buildings is true. What percentage of dollars in terms of overall capital expenditures is now being committed by this ministry directly toward housing? Is that being increased or decreased? Are we looking at cost-sharing with other organizations with respect to the overall cost of provisional student housing?

Hon. T. Perry: The student residences constructed by the universities and colleges are self-funding. The government guarantees the loan, which enables the institution to secure a slightly lower rate of interest than would otherwise be available, but we have never yet had a default on such a loan. They are paid off through the revenues generated by student rents. They are a very successful example of simply using the provincial borrowing power to bring down slightly the price of such buildings and make them affordable for students.

G. Wilson: I'd like to pick up a little more on this when we get to specifically talk about the institutions; we'll go through each institution and take a look at some of this in some detail. If I could just use UBC as a case in point, what is happening with respect to the government's commitment to the new projects that UBC has put in place? I understand that there is a considerable amount of potential private sector involvement. Is the minister considering continuing this underwriting and this development? What exactly is the minister prepared to commit to with respect to that in this year's budget?

Hon. T. Perry: I take it the hon. member is referring to the Hampton Place development at UBC. That has actually worked out better than I thought it would. I was not overly enthusiastic about -- to put it mildly -- when the university sprung that in the fall of 1989. The university's goal at the time was to use part of the property it owned to develop market housing and turn the profits into a fund to sustain some university operations. Some of the money from ongoing rentals in the apartment towers was ostensibly to be used to help finance the construction of student housing, as I recall.

I was personally a little skeptical of the program, because it looked like the housing costs would be so high that the only people who could afford to live there would be people who worked downtown and who would commute back and forth, and that it would exacerbate the problem of commuter traffic to and from the university. It was not initially handled with the greatest of finesse either. The hon. member may recall that there was a famous Thanksgiving eve bonfire which smoked out many residents from the student housing nearby. As the local MLA, I was summoned on a Thanksgiving night at midnight to see the smoke problem in the student quarters.

But, as it has turned out, the prices have not been quite as high as I had feared, and it appears that a substantial number of faculty are, in fact, able to buy those suites. So it may partly be contributing to the solution of the commuting problem and to affordable housing for faculty members.

Odd as it sounds, I have no hesitation in recognizing, in that sense, that my predictions at the time were a little too dire. It isn't much more popular with the local neighbourhood than it ever was, but it's had some useful benefits, and I believe it has made a substantial amount of money for the university so far. The big payoff has always been intended to be apartment towers, which remain controversial with the local people.

In the meantime, the university has developed on or under budget, and on or ahead of schedule, the faculty housing project nearby, which has modest rents and is very nicely done. One of the reasons that led me to ask the UBC Real Estate Corp. to advise us on the feasibility of renovating the VGH residence is that they had a good track record. They are in the midst of developing another faculty housing project just east of Westbrook Crescent. Again, initially having been rather controversial with its neighbours, it seems to be taking shape acceptably.

The university has, independent of that, a number of plans for the construction of more student residences on the campus. Basically, they make those decisions on their own. They do not require our permission. They are able, through their access to government borrowing power, to get a slightly better rate of interest than they otherwise would, and that benefits the end user -- the student -- with lower rent.

G. Wilson: I understand that we are going to 11 tonight; my original understanding was ten. I guess if we are going to do that, then maybe what I will do is try to generally conclude the student-related issues section and then move into the institutions, with discussion of the ministry's attempt, if you want, to diminish the overall costs to students through a variety of new 

[ Page 8015 ]

programs and program development. I am thinking particularly of the Open Learning Agency and new programs. I am thinking in this instance, as I mentioned earlier in this set of estimates, of students who are outside of the accessible lower mainland area.

I'd be remiss indeed if I didn't talk a little bit about Malaspina and Powell River -- not only because it is my riding, but because I've actively been working with students in that area who face a very difficult problem as a result of the principal investment in Malaspina being in Nanaimo on the main campus. They are a small satellite. They have difficulty setting up second-year programs, and as a result of that they have difficulty accessing second-year programs because of the costs that are incurred. Yet travel to Malaspina doesn't make a lot of sense. I mean, if you know the geography of the area, and if you are aware of the problems of getting down to Nanaimo from Powell River, I think you would concur. So it maybe makes more sense that Malaspina be locked into North Island College and that there may be some kind of shared arrangement in terms of what is available.

[10:15]

I wonder if the minister could tell us what is being done with respect to accessing the institutions in the north through the Open Learning Agency and through various types of new approaches to education. What is the government's philosophy generally in terms of making dollars available for alternatives outside of the mainline campuses?

Hon. T. Perry: That is another huge question. In deference to the drawer and quarterer and public flogger from North Vancouver-Lonsdale, I will try to make the answer brief.

We have four university colleges. The Open Learning Agency has 20 degree partnerships with colleges. I would strongly encourage students at the Powell River campus of Malaspina who don't have access locally to all of the programs they would like, but who wish to remain in Powell River, to utilize the Open Learning Agency -- just as I would encourage students everywhere in the province. I am very impressed by what I have seen personally at the Open Learning Agency. I think that the traditional courses have a good record. The new technologies are even more promising. I am encouraging all of the institutions provincewide to think less "edifice complex" and more electronic solutions to access, and I will push the full utilization of the Open Learning Agency as vigorously as I can. A major step to achieving that was taken last Thursday evening.... I see that the Leader of the Official Opposition has joined us now. I believe he was also with us in the audience when we got a beautiful glimpse of some of the new technologies the Open Learning Agency is pioneering. They are very dramatic, very effective and very popular with the students who are using them.

G. Wilson: In terms of the Open Learning Agency as a functional part of the post-secondary education delivery system, I wonder if the minister might like to break out what kind of dollar figures we are looking at this year in terms of a percentage increase? When we went through the briefing materials -- I don't have them right in front of me now -- there was some discussion of the Open Learning Agency as an alternative system. What kind of commitment in dollars is the minister prepared to give there?

Hon. T. Perry: In terms of FTEs, the increase is 4.55 percent, which is substantially more than the average for the system as a whole. I would like to see us overrun with demand from students in the post-secondary system for Open Learning Agency courses. I would like nothing better than to see us forced to have to make a mid-year adjustment to that, because I think it is a very efficient way to deliver services to people. That would be difficult for us, but in a pinch we might struggle to find a way to do that, because I agree with the hon. member that that capacity and potential are underutilized now.

F. Gingell: I just came to sit and listen, but the minister mentioned our visit to the OLA the other night, and I wonder what his reaction was to one of the four programs that we saw that evening. One of them dealt with a workshop the OLA had put on on the question of diversity. They had spent a total of $45,000 on this workshop and were very proud of the fact that all the costs had been covered by sales to customers. Every single one of those customers except two were either government ministries or Crown corporations, and the other two were the two industries in this province which are regulated by provincial regulation. I must admit that when I saw that I immediately discounted that program. I didn't discount that program, but I discounted the sales pitch that had been given because they hadn't managed to sell it to anybody in the private sector. They had managed to sell it only to other government agencies, and it isn't difficult for one government agency to convince other government agencies to buy their programs. If you can make sales in the private sector, then I can see a much greater basis for support. I was wondering if you'd like to comment on my reaction to that the other night.

Hon. T. Perry: I would be delighted to. The pilot project that we saw was an attempt to introduce sensitivity to issues of multiculturalism, sexual preference, etc., in the workplace for managers. You're correct. The majority of the clients in that example were not government ministries but Crown corporations: B.C. Hydro, B.C. Systems, B.C. Rail. I've forgotten exactly. There were two private companies: B.C. Gas and B.C. Tel. They may be regulated, but I don't think either of them would like the implication that they are controlled or that their investment decisions are directed by government. They see themselves as bastions of free enterprise, and they're both successful companies which make strong investments in training. B.C. Tel is a leader in North America in that respect.

It's a mistake to see the pilot program as the final outcome of that technology, though. It's the first stage, and if such pilots are successful, it's not surprising that large corporations -- and the Crown corporations are 

[ Page 8016 ]

among the largest in the province -- may be some of the initial purchasers. If that technology and that type of program are valuable, the market will decide, and we won't be trying to force it upon institutions. Note that it was financed by OLA itself. Yes, we contribute to the infrastructure required to do that, and we're proud of that, but they found the funding themselves to produce that pilot.

I would draw members' attention to another example, which we saw in the same tour, of the use of interactive teleconferencing and computer-based training by Northwood Pulp and Timber, based in Prince George, for its sawmill in Houston. It seemed fairly apparent -- and I see the member nodding -- that the private corporation had made the decision for itself that use of that technology was efficient and saved them transportation costs. The managers, he told us, were in the plant Saturday morning at 8 a.m. and stayed until 11 o'clock at night, and completed all the lessons in one day. So I think we're on the cusp of a revolution in technology.

I was very impressed by the example of the workplace-based training in literacy, which had improved dramatically since I saw it last summer. The demonstration last summer was impressive, but struck me as rather costly. The demonstration that we saw last Thursday night struck me as greatly improved and very dramatic. As someone interested in education and in some of my professional fields, I could see immediate possibilities for that technology which I had not previously been aware of.

A. Warnke: I was ready to ask a question, but seeing the lateness of the hour -- and I believe there is some arrangement -- perhaps we could move a motion to rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Committee rose at 10:24 p.m.


[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1993: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada