1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 1994
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 14, Number 2
[ Page 9905 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
U. Dosanjh: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming a group of 16 seniors from South Vancouver Neighbourhood House who are going to be in the precincts shortly -- or may be already. They are accompanied by Ms. Pender. The South Vancouver Neighbourhood House is an organization that does wonderful work in the community.
Hon. A. Petter: I would like to ask the House to join me in welcoming to the galleries today some students from Colquitz school in my constituency. I believe about ten students are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Myles. I would ask the House to make them very welcome.
C. Evans: The people who visit here are often those who believe in democracy, and they like what we do here. Such is the case with my friend Tom Mackenzie, accompanied today by his son Jim. Tom is a lifetime New Democrat, a student of this place and a former candidate. Please help me make them welcome.
J. Beattie: Sitting beside the hon. member's friends is an old friend of mine from Penticton who is down visiting with her spouse. Shelley Hawn is a business person in Penticton. I'd ask the House to make her welcome.
Hon. D. Marzari presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Library Act.
Hon. D. Marzari: Hon. Speaker, this bill replaces the existing Library Act with a new Library Act. The new act streamlines and modernizes library legislation and provides the foundation for the continued vitality of British Columbia's libraries well into the twenty-first century.
Libraries are among our most vital resources -- a rich source of inspiration, recreation and instruction, and an important part of the educational and social infrastructure that helps British Columbians compete in the information age. The existing act did not keep pace as our libraries changed. In fact, it was written in the twenties. As the needs of British Columbians changed, it could not provide a realistic basis for future library development.
The legislation introduced in this bill looks to the future. Developed through three stages of consultation over the last seven years, it offers new opportunities for local governments to meet the changing needs of their communities without undermining established library systems that work well. It maintains the strong tradition of community involvement on library boards balanced with accountability to local government. It guarantees free basic library services to all British Columbians, because libraries should be open to all: rich and poor, young and old, newcomers and native British Columbians.
Bill 12 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
Hon. D. Marzari presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 1994.
Hon. D. Marzari: This legislation contains a number of amendments to the Municipal Act and related local government legislation. The amendments continue the annual tradition of modernizing the legislation administered by this ministry to empower local governments with new or more flexible authority, to streamline the rules under which they operate, and to clarify outdated and obscure provisions. This year's modernization package results from ongoing consultations with stakeholders in local government, particularly the Union of B.C. Municipalities. The amendments in this bill give local governments explicit authority to undertake social planning and include social policies and plans, straighten out some minor administrative wrinkles experienced during the local 1993 general elections, provide the additional authority needed by the Islands Trust to make its administration more efficient, address issues of concern to the city of Vancouver through amendments to the city charter, and make local governments more autonomous by reducing the need for ministerial approval of some bylaws. These -- and the other amendments in this year's package -- will make local governments more effective and better equipped to meet the needs of people in their communities.
Bill 25 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.
AN ACT TO INTRODUCE A MINIMUM ETHANOL COMPONENT FOR GASOLINE
R. Chisholm presented a bill intituled An Act to Introduce a Minimum Ethanol Component for Gasoline.
R. Chisholm: There is an environmentally friendly alternative to MMT. Ethanol-blended fuels would reduce carbon monoxide by 25 percent, carbon dioxide by 5.9 percent, nitrous oxide by 5.7 percent, and ground-level ozone by 5.3 percent. When 10 percent ethanol is added to gasoline at a ratio of one part ethanol to nine parts gasoline, it boosts the octane. Up to two barrels of crude oil are saved for each barrel of ethanol used in gasohol.
Rural small-town British Columbia will also gain financially from increased employment in the ethanol fuel plants that would have to be built and operated. In turn, the depopulation in British Columbia's rural areas will be reduced. In the United States -- where the ethanol fuel ethic is well entrenched and expanding -- there are some 60 ethanol plants in operation. If developed in British Columbia, such technology could lead to a potentially huge export market for the product and by-product technology. A state-of-the-art ethanol fuel plant in Decatur, Illinois, uses its exhaust C02 in greenhouses and to fertilize plants.
But the process has squeezed more than ethanol from grains. It also produces a high-protein silage mash by-product that includes original vitamins and minerals which can be used as animal feed or as additives to low-nutrition human food. The perfectly clean and healthy by-product can be dried and used as flour for cookies, biscuits or breads.
[ Page 9906 ]
There appears to be no letup in the battle between the U.S. and Europe over world grain prices. British Columbia grain farmers are major casualties caught in the crossfire. British Columbia government incentives to build a full-blown ethanol fuel industry in order to keep pace with the subsidized U.S. ethanol industry would give British Columbia farmers a new and sorely needed domestic market for their grain.
Bill M214 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.
The Speaker: Hon. members, I table the following reports of the auditor general to the Legislative Assembly: 1993-94 report No. 1, value-for-money audits, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks; 1993-94 report No. 2, value-for-money audits, Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology; 1993-94 report No. 3, report on the 1992-93 public accounts, province of British Columbia; and the January 1993 report on the 1991-92 public accounts. These reports were issued by the auditor general on various dates during 1993, and each report was distributed by me to all members at the time of issuance.
[2:15]
Hon. G. Clark: By leave, I move that the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts be referred the following documents issued by the auditor general of British Columbia: 1993-94 report No. 1, value-for-money audits respecting the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks; 1993-94 report No. 2, value-for-money audits respecting the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology; 1993-94 report No. 3 on the 1992-93 public accounts, province of British Columbia; and the January 1993 report on the 1991-92 public accounts.
Motion approved.
MANAGEMENT OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
G. Campbell: My question is to the minister responsible for the WCB, and it concerns gross mismanagement. Let's look at the facts.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
G. Campbell: Since 1988 there has been a 97 percent increase in administrative costs. The number of WCB employees has doubled in the last five years. Can the minister explain these damaging cost increases which amount to nothing more than a hidden tax grab, and admit that the WCB is out of control?
Hon. D. Miller: It's clear the Leader of the Opposition has not done his homework, and he appears to me to not know anything about the operations of the Workers' Compensation Board. First of all, I should say that the British Columbia Workers' Compensation Board system is on the very best financial footing of any system in this country. We have made some very progressive moves in the short time we've been the government. For example, Bill 63 extended Workers' Compensation Board coverage, for the very first time, to 150,000 additional workers in this province. We have made substantive reforms in providing widows' pensions. Widows who used to be cut off from those pensions when they remarried are now eligible for those pensions to continue.
The WCB system in British Columbia is 90 percent....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. I would ask the hon. minister to please conclude his remarks.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
G. Campbell: Unfortunately, the minister looks at reform as anything which shoves costs up and reduces services. The fact of the matter is that when this government took office the WCB had a surplus of $66.5 million. Today, using the same accounting methods, the WCB is in the hole by $562 million. That's over half a billion dollars in the hole. This government's negligence is hurting workers and employers.
The Speaker: The question, please.
G. Campbell: My question, hon. Speaker, is: will the minister admit that this horrendous deficit is yet another example of the WCB being out of control?
Hon. D. Miller: It is shocking in the extreme that the Leader of the Opposition, who is supplied with researchers to research these issues, knows nothing about the workings of the Workers' Compensation Board. If he needs more information, he should be aware that the Workers' Compensation Board is now governed by employer governors and employee governors who sit and determine that this Worker's Compensation Board should be the best in the country. His figures are wrong, wrong, wrong. The Workers' Compensation Board in British Columbia is 97 percent fully funded. It is the best system in Canada. I would suggest that if the Leader of the Opposition, who appears to know nothing about the workings of the Workers' Compensation Board, wanted to take the time, I would be happy to take him over there, introduce him to the worker governors and employer governors and give him a briefing -- some education.
G. Campbell: I think it's shocking in the extreme that the minister responsible for WCB doesn't talk to the employees of the WCB, who are telling us.... Six hundred out of the 900 employees at WCB have signed their names to a petition saying that things have never been worse. They have signed their names to a petition pointing out that costs are up, employee morale is down, service is down and workers are in jeopardy because this government, including this minister, has failed to act or show any leadership whatsoever. My question to the minister is: will the minister finally show some leadership, move away from the rhetoric, work with the employees at WCB and start to solve some of the problems that have existed there for some time?
Hon. D. Miller: The Leader of the Opposition has a responsibility to check his facts, and he has not done so in this case. That kind of superficial research will not serve the opposition well at all. We have one of the best Workers' Compensation Board systems in Canada. I repeat: it's pretty clear to me that the Leader of the Opposition has never been anywhere near the operations of the Workers' Compensation Board and knows nothing about the operations of the WCB,
[ Page 9907 ]
and I'd be happy to take him over there and teach him a few lessons.
LOTTERY CORPORATION EXPENDITURES
F. Gingell: Yesterday the Minister of Finance stated that she had no knowledge of the purchase of a luxury skybox by the B.C. Lottery Corporation. Today we find out from the president of BCLC that there would be a wet bar in the suite, but, and I quote: "The government has forbidden us to serve booze in there." Clearly, someone gave the A-Okay for the BCLC to purchase the skybox. To the minister: who in your ministry gave the BCLC the go-ahead to spend a million dollars of taxpayers' money on a luxury skybox?
Hon. E. Cull: The decision was made by the board of directors of the Lottery Corporation.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. E. Cull: It was not made in discussions with me. As I indicated yesterday to the media afterwards, we are reviewing this decision of that board.
The Speaker: The hon. member has a further question?
F. Gingell: The chairman of B.C. Lottery Corporation stated that they were given instructions by government that no liquor was to be served there. Will the minister please tell us who in this government gave them those instructions?
Hon. E. Cull: The hon. member should be aware that there is a government policy that public money cannot be spent on liquor, and I assume that instruction came from the comptroller general's office.
The Speaker: The member has a supplementary?
F. Gingell: Obviously the minister and this government are not fully aware of all the things that are happening in the Crown corporations and other government agencies. Would the Deputy Premier please advise us what other Crown agencies or Crown corporations have committed to lease one of these skyboxes?
Hon. E. Cull: We have surveyed all the Crown corporations just to make sure we were absolutely correct in our understanding of the situation. No other Crown corporations have leased a box at GM Place.
MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister tell us what specific steps she has taken regarding the multiple breaches of privacy committed by the Public Service Employee Relations Commission in response to my information request on February 14? Given that the minister was personally copied with information illegally volunteered to me by her staff -- including names, addresses, social insurance numbers, personal income tax data, Canada Pension Plan information and unemployment insurance applications -- has the minister referred the matter to the Attorney General for a criminal investigation?
Hon. E. Cull: I'd be pleased to take all that information from the member and provide the answers to him.
J. Weisgerber: A new question to the Minister of Finance. Last Thursday in this House, the minister assured us that ministerial accountability applies precisely to personal information of this sort, which has been illegally divulged by her staff. In view of the minister's own role in this matter, and her apparent personal knowledge of the information supply, will she accept accountability and resign now?
Hon. E. Cull: I've already said I would take that question on notice. My comments about the responsibility of ministers and ministry employees under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act stand.
The Speaker: Hon. member, the question was taken on notice and the....
J. Weisgerber: I have a supplementary question.
The Speaker: Hon. member, there is no supplementary to a question taken on notice.
RELEASE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION FOR HOSPITAL FUNDRAISING
L. Reid: We continue to find information leaks the size of craters within government ministries. Again, personal and confidential information was used without consent. Does the Deputy Premier agree with the practice of hospitals using information from patient files for the purpose of fundraising?
Hon. E. Cull: I fail to see how that falls within my responsibilities.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have a question that will be in order?
L. Reid: I refer specifically...
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
L. Reid: ...to correspondence that reads: "As a former patient at Royal Jubilee, Victoria General, Gorge Road or Fairfield Health Centre, you have experienced the excellent care and services offered by our community hospitals." This is a request for dollars.
This government stood in this House and said that the information was dated and its release was insignificant. In fact, this past week an appeal was sent to an individual who had died.
The Speaker: The question, hon. member.
L. Reid: The family is upset that such a tactless appeal was made. Does the Deputy Premier now stand by the release of old information and suggest that it is somehow insignificant?
The Speaker: The hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.
Interjections.
[ Page 9908 ]
The Speaker: Order, hon. members. The hon. member was in her seat; the minister did not respond.
I recognize the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. Please proceed.
REPORT ON PERRAULT CASE
G. Wilson: Thank you, hon. Speaker. My question is to the Attorney General and follows up from a question asked yesterday by my colleague for West Vancouver-Garibaldi with respect to the Danny Perrault case. Yesterday the Attorney General led us to believe that it was the lawyer of Danny Perrault who requested that the report be withheld on the basis of privacy of information. Could the Attorney General tell us whether or not Mr. Perrault's lawyer made such a request, whether it was done in writing or verbally, and whether or not that is what influenced the Attorney General to not release the report to date?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Until this morning the lawyer for Mr. Perrault indicated that he wanted to protect the privacy of the information. I gather that the lawyer representing Mr. Perrault changed his mind this morning. I have not had that confirmed by Mr. Rankin. If that confirmation comes later today or early tomorrow, I will release the report tomorrow.
[2:30]
The Speaker: Supplementary, hon. member.
G. Wilson: Will the Attorney General commit today that should the release be provided tomorrow, the full report will be released and not a partial or altered report?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I will release all of the report that I am legally entitled to release.
The Speaker: Final supplementary, hon. member.
G. Wilson: Yesterday the Attorney General said that his ministry has already taken steps to make sure that such a release could not happen again. In light of the fact that the report has not been released, could the Attorney General tell us what steps he has taken and whether or not there has been such a release since this case has come before the public?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not sure what the member means by "such a release," so I'm not sure I can answer that question. But a number of administrative steps have been taken to ensure that that kind of decision does not occur again. In addition to that, the accountability requires now that an individual within the system has to take responsibility for those kinds of decisions.
The Speaker: Hon. members, the bell terminates question period.
J. Tyabji: I rise to table a petition. This petition is on a subject relevant to the Minister of Environment. It has been put together by my constituents and regards a problem with nuisance wildlife in my riding. Under the regulations governing the Ministry of Environment, it is incumbent on the government to act on this. There is a message here for all members of the House, and I ask leave to read the message from my constituents into the record.
Leave granted.
J. Tyabji:
"To the Honourable the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia:
"The damage and loss of income resulting from deer in our orchards in Oyama has been devastating. This devastation is a real fact that has brought the orchardists in our community to the edge of ruin. A few orchardists have actually given up and have either pulled out their orchards or are not replanting and renovating. A few orchardists have had enough money available to erect fences, and a few more have erected deflector fences along one side of their property. Deer are being trapped and injured in these makeshift fences. I have not talked to one of the orchardists that has erected deer fencing that has not had a deer die as a result of running into a deer fence.
"All viable government support programs have been cancelled. Our borders have been opened to allow cheaper fruit to be imported and dumped into Canada. Government regulations and taxes are increasing. Free money is being given to orchardists by the British Columbia government's Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority to replant trees that are being killed or ruined by deer. The OVTFA was formed with a commitment to revitalize the tree fruit industry by the year 2000. It is a fact that Oyama orchardists cannot revitalize their orchards without a community deer fence."
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
J. Tyabji: The letter to all members does go on, and leave was granted to read it into the record, hon. Speaker.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. While leave was granted....
J. Tyabji: I'm sorry that two paragraphs have taxed the opposition. There are two paragraphs left.
The Speaker: Hon. member, the customary practice is to read the prayer -- and you did ask for leave.... It was granted on the understanding, I assume, that it would be of reasonable length.
J. Tyabji: It is; there are just two paragraphs left. I'm sorry, but this is from my constituents to the members of the House.
The Speaker: I think it's only fair, hon. member, to seek further approval to proceed. If the members agree, that's fine with the Chair. Is leave granted for the member to proceed?
Leave granted.
The Speaker: Please proceed, hon. member.
J. Tyabji: My constituents will be most grateful for this.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members. You have given approval for the member to continue, and I would appreciate it if you'd permit her to do so with relative quiet. Please proceed, hon. member.
J. Tyabji:
"The east side of Oyama is a unique area that can be fenced off without having to cross major roads. Our
[ Page 9909 ]
uniqueness would allow a fence to close off each end of the east side with a community deer fence.
"The east side Oyama orchardists have a real problem that has to be addressed by government. We have the overwhelming support of our community, both farming and residential. We desperately and respectfully ask that the British Columbia government help us, in our desperate attempt to earn a living and keep our farm businesses alive, by building a community deer fence immediately this year that will be fully constructed by fall 1994.
"Submitted respectfully, Dave Starling."
LOTTERY CORPORATION EXPENDITURES
Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, I rise to answer a question I took on notice yesterday in question period -- in fact, a number of related questions.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. E. Cull: The first question was asked by the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove with respect to the box that the B.C. Lottery Corporation has leased at GM Place. The purpose of this leasing arrangement is to provide incentive prizes for qualifying private sector lottery retailers, and in doing so, to act as an incentive to stimulate outstanding sales achievement in the future. The financial commitment is somewhat as they indicated, but their research wasn't totally accurate in this regard. The $100,000-per-year tenure lease is accurate. The one-time cost of designing and constructing the suite is $45,000. The cost per person is deemed to be of greater value, and therefore a better motivator than a cheque or gift certificate for the amount for those who are rewarded through this incentive program. In fact, the winners of the incentive prizes are typically retail clerks earning minimum wage or just slightly more than minimum wage.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. I will have to ask the hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands to please stop interjecting; otherwise, I'll ask him to leave the chamber. Would the hon. member please proceed.
Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, because these incentives then result in greater sales of lottery products, the long-term beneficiary is indeed the province of British Columbia. In any event, all B.C. lottery programs, including this one, must pass the test that each dollar spent must yield at least $4 in profit. This one is continuously reviewed to ensure that it does that. I think that this is a reasonable explanation in terms of private sector practices. However, as I said yesterday, I am reviewing this matter, as the B.C. Lottery Corporation is the only Crown corporation which has entered into such a lease with GM Place.
The second question the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove asked was with respect to other Crown corporations. During question period I answered part of that question. No other Crown corporations have a box at GM Place. With respect to B.C. Place, the only Crown corporation that has a box is the B.C. Pavilion Corporation, which, of course, is the owner and operator of B.C. Place.
The third question was from the member for Surrey-White Rock. I regret it when members from the other side toss out bits of information which on their surface appear to be damning to a corporation. All of these expenditures are entirely within the rules and the budget of the Lottery Corporation. The $14,000 to Mr. Jax is for B.C. Lottery Corporation ties which are sold to members of the public and worn by retailers. The $14,000 to Jay-Ray Men's Wear is for uniforms for security staff and clerks. The payment to Mixer Shack is a return of a deposit by a lottery retailer. Mixer Shack is a lottery retailer, and their deposit was returned to them. The $12,000 to the Vancouver Canadians is for signage and advertising and for tickets for retailer prizes. The $10,000 to Viewpoints Research represents 2 percent of their annual research and development budget, and that was conducted on retailer opinions related to the Lottery Corporation's operations. Finally, the payment to the Patricia Hotel was the purchase of three breakopen vending machines that the hotel was operating contrary to the Criminal Code. The B.C. Lottery Corporation purchased them to bring them into the confines of the law and to operate the machines at the same locations.
Each and every one of these is a routine expenditure of the Lottery Corporation and is in keeping with their budget. I think it is really regrettable when members take pieces of information that they have only half researched and fling them out into this Legislature, not caring what it does to the reputation of the corporation.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. Would the hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale please come to order.
J. Weisgerber: I request leave to table some documents.
Leave granted.
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to table a letter to the Attorney General, a letter to the protection-of-privacy commissioner and supporting documents attached to them.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. Speaker, I beg leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. R. Blencoe: In the gallery today we have grade 10 and 11 students from S. J. Willis Educational Centre here in Victoria. They are accompanied by their teacher, Stuart Soward. Would the House please make them all welcome.
Presenting Reports
U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills respecting the matters of recall and initiative.
I move that the report be taken as read and received.
Motion approved.
Hon. D. Marzari tabled a report of the B.C. Assessment Authority for the 1992 calendar year.
L. Reid: I beg leave to table a document.
Leave granted.
[ Page 9910 ]
L. Reid: Hon. Speaker, the document refers to the Greater Victoria Hospital Society asking for dollars to ensure that they always have the tools available when you or your loved ones go to them again. It is a fundraising drive.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply. In Section A, I call the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. In Committee B, in the main House, I call the Ministry of Attorney General.
The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
(continued)
On vote 16: minister's office, $424,063 (continued).
[2:45]
The Chair: I recognize the member for Abbotsford.
Excuse me, hon. member. Could I ask you to wait just a moment until we clear out some of the congestion here, so you can indeed be heard? Thank you. Please proceed, hon. member.
H. De Jong: I suppose when something is available free of charge, there are always questions as to who should get it and who should not get it. The minister alluded to some of that this morning. Under legal services, I can appreciate -- and I was at the opening of the expanded offices at Abbotsford last year -- that the section dealing with family problems and so on was expanded. There seems to be a trend in today's society that there are more problems than there used to be, and quite often these can only be resolved through services such as those provided by the legal aid society and, in some cases, the courts.
However, there are a number of other issues that are assisted by the other half. To my dismay -- and I'm sure to the minister's dismay -- that section has also doubled in staff. The question that obviously arises among taxpayers -- at least it did in my community after the office was opened -- is: why do we need all this assistance for people who commit wilful crimes? Only about a month after the Clayoquot issue was over, you might say, it was very much on the minds of people that people were being hauled off the blockades day after day. It also appeared from the pictures that many of these people would probably not have the financial avails to help them through the courts themselves. So my question to the minister is: have there been any changes to eligibility in those kinds of situations, particularly where perhaps some of these people on the blockades belonged to a specific society?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not sure what the member meant by "belonged to a specific society"; he may want to clarify that for me.
With respect to eligibility, those are decisions of the Legal Services Society board. I don't direct them, and under the current legislation they are not obligated to tell me whether or not they have changed any eligibility requirements. They are independent. They make their decisions within the budget they're allocated and within the law of the country as is determined by the courts concerning who has a legal entitlement to legal aid. I don't know whether they've made decisions on some of the issues the member raised. I haven't heard that they have.
H. De Jong: A further question, then. I said special society, but perhaps I should have said a specific organization, such as Greenpeace or other organizations. It does happen that people who belong to a special organization volunteer themselves on behalf of that movement. I find it strange that in such cases those people would be protected by the legal aid society. The minister may want to comment on that.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The first thing I need to say, in trying to be helpful to the member, is that to my understanding there are no legal requirements that legal aid be extended to individuals in the situation the member is describing: allegations of violations of a court order. The Legal Services Society has the mandate to determine its own policies as to eligibility and coverage. They make those decisions independent of government, because we don't have a public defender system in this province. We do have independence, and the Legal Services Society board can operate independently within the confines of the legislation that governs legal aid in B.C.
H. De Jong: I have difficulty understanding why so much power is given to an organization that can make all the decisions in terms of who can and who cannot benefit from that specific service. Perhaps the minister could clarify why this additional money was needed last year. I understand there was a shortfall in last year's budgetary allocation for this service. Was the money required to assist on the family side of the issue or on the criminal side?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Legal Services Society's expenditures are made in three areas. A small amount is expended on immigration matters. The remainder -- the overwhelming portion of the budget -- is split relatively evenly between family and criminal matters. They don't distinguish in their books, but we know that it's basically fifty-fifty. In recent years the family side has had a higher percentage of the budget than before.
The preamble to the question suggested that the government should be interfering more in determining eligibility. That's not the way the legislation is constructed now. We have an act which, in very general terms, allows the board to make its own determinations with respect to eligibility. Whether the act should be tightened in that respect is a good question.
This might be a useful statistic for members. In the period that I referred to this morning -- the comparison period I generally use, which is 1986-87 through to 1992-93 -- the number of family cases increased by 107 percent and the number of criminal cases increased by 55 percent. So there's a fairly dramatic increase on the family side compared to the criminal side.
H. De Jong: I appreciate what the minister has told us, but I am noting the comments that I receive in my community from the general public. They are not so much concerned about the overall money being spent through the legal services department, but they are very concerned when it's used in the manner we have already talked about: for wilful damage and wilful criminal acts. While this is a branch of the ministry, and even though it is a special society, I would like to hear something from the minister about the rules being changed.
[ Page 9911 ]
All kinds of other levies and moneys are returned to government, and I can think of a couple of them. For instance, a lot of taxes have been placed on liquor simply because of the effects that it has on society. There are probably other ones where a cost recovery has been initiated by government, but there seems to be no cost recovery here.
I have great difficulty when I hear of people who have been caught in a drug situation, in breaking and entering, in the use of firearms where they shouldn't be using them, in blockades and in all kinds of situations. The public is paying more and more. The public has great sympathy towards the families. The member for Prince George-Omineca spoke very well this morning about problems that arise there. But surely to goodness, if the government wants to save money and be responsible for saving money, then this is one area where the rules have to be changed.
I don't think it would be that difficult. The laws were made at first to establish this legal society. Perhaps they were made without knowing what all the consequences might be, specifically in relation to the lack of ability of the justice system to deal with the Young Offenders Act. Because there is nothing that a government or system of justice can do to catch up with the 14- to 16-year-olds, we are really encouraging this kind of lifestyle. I'm going in two directions here, but one flows into the other. If there's nothing they can do about the young people who should be dealt with under the Young Offenders Act, then surely it must be very tempting to continue that lifestyle. Perhaps the minister would like to comment on both those issues.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member has raised a number of questions. First of all, I'll say again that the Legal Services Society is not a branch of the ministry. It is an independent society governed by its own board of directors within the confines of the legislation.
The member suggests that we not provide legal assistance to people who are -- if I can use my words to summarize what I heard him say -- in wilful violation of the law, although that's the nature of criminal offences. These are charges that an individual faces for having committed a criminal act, whether it's in the Criminal Code or is an alleged contempt of court. The principle is that everybody who is charged is innocent until and unless they are proven guilty. That's a fundamental principle that underlies our entire justice system in the British system. It may not in some of the European systems. There are different concepts in different parts of the world, but the British system under which we operate declares in a very affirmative way that you are innocent until you are proven guilty.
Therefore, if you face charges and are financially incapable of defending yourself in court, we have constructed a regime called legal aid to assist you in advancing your case to prove your innocence, if you can. To deny a person that assistance is to fly in the face of the system we have, which states very clearly that you're innocent until you're proven guilty. Everybody has the absolute right to have a defence, and you should not be denied that right because you are poor. It seems to me that it doesn't matter what the nature of the offence is; if you are charged, you are innocent until and unless you are proven guilty.
In respect of young offenders, I just want to refer the member to the Young Offenders Act, which of course we're governed by. Section 11(1) states: "A young person has the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay...." Later on, section 11(4)(b) reads: "Where no legal aid or assistance program is available or the young person is unable to obtain counsel through such a program, [the court] may, and on the request of the young person shall, direct that the young person be represented by counsel." Further, section 11(5) states: "Where a direction is made" -- under the paragraph I read -- "in respect of a young person, the Attorney General of the province in which the direction is made shall appoint counsel, or cause counsel to be appointed, to represent the young person."
This act states that every person charged under the Young Offenders Act has the right to counsel. If a province has a legal aid scheme -- which we have -- that scheme is required to provide counsel. If there is no legal aid scheme, then the court can direct that counsel be hired and the Attorney General has to fulfil that direction. That's my lay way of interpreting what this section means on my first read of it. Clearly, we are required to provide counsel through the legal aid system.
[3:00]
H. De Jong: I thank the minister for his answers. I still have difficulty with the society as such. As I see it -- and I'm sure many people see it this way -- it provides as much protection for the Law Society and the legal system, and for lawyers in particular, as it does for the criminal.
The minister says that crime is all self-motivated. Well, not in all cases. I suppose we have to control our level of anger and anxiety. But there are cases where the level of anger overrules what you would normally do. Sometimes that can break out in a fight, and it can have detrimental effects on one of the two who are at odds with each other. I don't see that as being a self-motivated, self-willed crime. I don't put that kind of crime on the same level as that of those who wilfully blockade a logging road and place 30 or 40 people out of work, making it difficult for those families to make a living. I believe that there are differences in crimes. The outcome may be the same, but I don't think that all crimes are as self-motivated as the ones I've talked about in terms of breaking and entering and blockades, etc. I believe that the government has a responsibility to give guidance to the Legal Services Society in dealing with those kinds of questions.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm going to make two points. First of all, the Legislature does provide some guidance through the act. In the "Objects" section of the Legal Services Society Act, section 3(2) has a series of points which detail where legal aid must be provided. Clearly the Legislature can change that if we so choose, but that's what the law of the province is now.
The second point I want to make is that the member continues to talk about crime and criminals, and in doing so is talking about people charged with a criminal offence. Someone charged with a criminal offence is not a criminal; someone charged with a criminal offence has not committed a crime. I know it's hard to understand that when watching television every night. I don't expect most people in our society to understand it, but I do expect members of this Legislature to understand that you are not a criminal until the courts have so declared and all the appeal opportunities are exhausted. Prior to that, you're innocent. Prior to the trial court proclaiming you're guilty, you're innocent -- and therefore you're not a criminal. What the member is asking me to consider doing is judging before the court case whether or not this person has committed a crime or whether this person is a criminal. Before the court case, I have to say -- as we all should -- that the person is innocent and has the right to counsel.
We referred earlier to the Young Offenders Act, and now we'll go to the Charter. The member for Matsqui.... I'm
[ Page 9912 ]
sorry. I've been here so long that the old names are the ones that come to mind. The member for Abbotsford may not be a great fan of the Charter. I have to say that I'm not either, but we've got it. In section 7 of the Charter, it says: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with principles of fundamental justice." In interpreting that, the right to counsel is described. This is in Martin's Criminal Code, 1994, just so you know what I'm referring to. Here's what section 7 means. "While the constitution has not expressly constitutionalized the right of an indigent accused to be provided with counsel, in cases not falling within the provincial legal aid plans, sections 7 and 11(d) of the Charter require funded counsel to be provided if the accused wishes counsel but cannot pay a lawyer, and representation of the accused by counsel is essential to a fair trial." I could read more, but the point is clear. The Young Offenders Act guarantees counsel, and it guarantees it through the legal aid system, if it exists. The Charter guarantees counsel for anyone charged with a criminal offence if it's required that counsel be present to ensure a fair trial. If a person is indigent, then we have to pay. But more than that, I'm not saying that we have to, therefore we are. I'm saying we should because it's fair in a democratic society that everyone have an opportunity to be properly defended from a charge they may be facing.
H. De Jong: My final comment today is that I agree with the minister that everyone has a right to justice. But I believe the minister will also agree with me that everybody is expected to live responsible lives. Living responsibly carries a responsibility with it -- which everybody can approve of. We all should be living responsible lives; most people do.
The problem I have with the Young Offenders Act is that there is not enough punitive action in it. That's what leads to further abuse later in life. Experiencing it once with practically no punishment invites people to go on with what they started at a younger age. I do believe that once people who have a right to such justice -- even though they believe in living responsible lives -- have had their day in court, you might say, and the judge can clearly see that they were purely self-motivated, something could come back to government to pay for the cost of the legal services that were provided in order for the person to receive justice.
L. Stephens: I would like to talk a bit today about gender equity in the justice system. As the minister knows, the Law Society of B.C. conducted a study in 1992 on the issue, there have been a number of studies done at the federal level, and a well-known study has come forward. We've talked about this before, but I'd like to talk a little more about it in these estimates this year, and find out what is happening and how things are progressing in that area.
The Law Society of B.C. conducted a study which came to the conclusion that gender inequality is pervasive in the legal and justice system in British Columbia. Their report says:
"Gender bias may be direct or systemic, and may be reflected in the attitudes and behaviour of individuals or groups, in the laws their application and interpretation. While the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as provincial human rights legislation, promotes equal treatment and opportunity for women and men in the justice system, laws alone do not resolve the issue. The decisions and the actions of persons who interpret and enforce the law often reflect bias based on gender stereotypes, myths and misconceptions."
We talked earlier in the estimates about training along those lines for justices. The report goes on to define gender bias. I know that a lot people perhaps aren't aware of some of those definitions. They break it down into four component parts. The first is attitudes or behaviours which reflect stereotypes about the roles and true nature of men and women. The second is the perceived relative worth of men and women. The third is the myths and misconceptions about the realities experienced by men and women during their lives. The fourth is a distinction, whether intentional or not, which has the effect of imposing burdens, obligations or disadvantages on one group over another. As a result of this systemic form of discrimination, one group usually bears a disproportionate and unfair burden.
I'd like to talk about some of the findings in that report about violence and family maintenance. The recommendations in the report say that the society would like to address ways of eliminating bias through legislative reform. I wonder if the Attorney General could comment on some of the reforms -- either legislative or policy changes -- in his ministry over the past year that would address gender inequality in the justice system
Hon. C. Gabelmann: One of the things I try to do in the Legislature, to start seeing things from a proper perspective in respect of gender, is to address the Chair and the Speaker as "honourable." It's interesting that when we have a woman as Speaker, we say "hon. Speaker," and when we have a man as Speaker, we say "Mr. Speaker." So I think it would be instructive for all members to remember that and try, in our little way here, to focus on gender equity in every way.
I appreciate the member's comments. I think she and I share values and perspectives on this issue. I know from last year's debate that that was the case, and I sense from her comments now that it continues to be the case.
Since the estimates last year, we released our response -- or the government's response, because it wasn't all Attorney General's response; there were other ministries involved as well -- to the Law Society's report, and the member will have seen that. We released that, I think, in September. In the last six months we've begun to do some things in our ministry that move us along in that direction. I don't pretend that we're anywhere near the final stages yet at all, but we have developed a detailed strategic plan as a first step toward creating a better and meaningful response to the report.
[3:15]
In that plan we have included plans for extensive training of justice personnel, whether prosecutors or others within the justice system. All people who are involved in our justice system need, in my view, to be trained in this matter. I know that's anathema to a lot of people, who say: "I'm not biased; I don't have any prejudice" -- or whatever. We all do, every single one of us, from simple citizen to exalted judge. Every single one of us has a bias of one kind or another that comes from our background, our station and experiences in life. To suggest otherwise is to fly in the face of a reality. So we are moving in an aggressive way to develop training programs.
We have plans underway now for an executive-level planning seminar -- this is for executives within the ministry -- with Judge Doug Campbell. We talked yesterday about Judge Doug Campbell and the Western Judicial Education Centre. We want to learn from him and the very good work he does in this respect, and have that training passed on to our executives, our leadership in the ministry, so they in turn can pass that down through the system.
We have established a position within the ministry called the gender equality special adviser. That position is very soon to be filled -- not quite yet, but very soon. A very
[ Page 9913 ]
important feature of the structure here is that the special adviser will report directly to the deputy minister -- not in the traditional way up through the bureaucracy but, rather, directly to the deputy.
The Violence Against Women in Relationships policy, which was introduced a year or so ago and is being implemented throughout the province, also addresses many of the recommendations raised in the report. There is still work to do in respect of that policy. There are still people, whether on the police or the Crown side, who need to become more comfortable and familiar with that particular policy, but that's coming along in an aggressive way as well.
In general terms, we're also stepping up, as I said, the victim assistance program. That is often a greater value for women than for men.
I won't go through them, but we have a number of more technical programs within the ministry addressed to some of the details recommended in that report. I mentioned yesterday that we put $17,000 aside to deal with what we call the case-expediting study. Yesterday I talked about how we are trying to ensure that spousal assault cases are proceeded quickly through the system, and we are doing a study so that we can get procedures in place to more effectively expedite those cases.
I have one final thing to say in this regard -- it's not the end of the story, but it's the end of the things I want to say now. Last year we spent $2.05 million on issues of violence against women. This year it's up to $2.5 million. That's a funding increase of nearly 25 percent in a budget that has been pretty tight. So it demonstrates our commitment to these issues. I say all of that not with a view to bragging about what we're doing. I think we're just beginning. We've got a lot to do, and I think the reports head us in the right direction. There is a real commitment on my part and the part of the ministry executive to proceed with all of those initiatives as firmly and as quickly as we can.
L. Stephens: I would like to come back to the $2.5 million on spousal assault that you referred to, but I have another couple of questions to ask before I get to that.
One recommendation was that the chief justices and the chief judge of their respective superior and provincial courts develop a confidential and informal dispute resolution process to deal with complaints of gender bias among members of the judiciary and members of the bar, particularly from the female members of the Law Society who felt that there were many instances where they had legitimate complaints. Has there been any headway made on that? If so, what has it been?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Law Society has set up a committee in response to the report, which now has added sexual complaints to the list of other complaints on the list, such as racial prejudice. As to recommendations in the report with respect to judges, I am unable to report on any progress on that matter.
L. Stephens: I have one further question, and I'm not sure whether the Attorney General is able to answer this. Is anything being done in the clinical and skills training courses and in law school courses about gender bias directed toward litigants, lawyers and witnesses? Is training going on in the law schools in regard to this particular subject?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know this firsthand, but I understand that both law schools have incorporated gender equality standards -- those perhaps aren't the right words. Gender equality is addressed as part of all of their programming. I think they have some specific courses as well, which everybody wouldn't necessarily take. But in order to get to everybody, there are these general notions included in all programming in both schools.
L. Stephens: I'd like to move on to the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act. We have talked a little bit about that today, too. What are the stats on the increases and the success rate of the program?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I hope that the data I have in front of me is going to give me the information I want in order to answer the question properly. I have in front of me a base figure from '91-92 through to a forecast for '94-95. In '91-92, 16,500 British Columbians were enrolled, and the forecast is for 25,000. For the year we've just finished, it was 22,000. Out of B.C. it was 1,268 people for '91-92, and the forecast is for 2,600.
I'll read something else in a moment, but let me just say that the '91-92 budget for the FMEP was $5.3 million, and the estimates for this year are for $8.57 million. The FMEP cost per enrolled debtor -- so it's a cost per person -- was $298 in '91-92, and the forecast for the fiscal year we're in now is $310. That's some of the statistical information.
Let me just turn to another page. Currently, 28 percent of the active maintenance orders are fully paid, and 10 percent have never been paid at all. The overall payment rate on all maintenance due since enrolment is 60 cents on the dollar. In the first ten months of the '93-94 fiscal year, $37.5 million was received for creditors' benefit, which far surpassed the FMEP goal of collections predicted when the program began. That's some of the information. The member may want some more specific information. If she does, I'll try my best to find it.
L. Stephens: Regarding the $37.5 million that was received, do you have figures on what was outstanding? Can you give me a percentage rate on how effective the program has been? Twenty-eight percent is fully paid, and ten percent was never paid. Do you have another category, or can you say what amounts are outstanding? Also, 60 cents on the dollar is not that great. What does the ministry have in mind to improve that?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The reason there's some scurrying going on over here is that in respect of these questions, I had a really good piece of documentation that I took to Treasury Board some months ago for a particular presentation. I'd just like to try and find it, because it really answers the questions very well.
Members need to know that from all accounts across the country, our program is the most effective at recoveries. That doesn't mean we should be satisfied with that. The numbers I was looking for, I'm going to give from memory. They're not exact, but they're close. A year or two ago, something like 22 or 23 percent of enrollees were not receiving payment. We have brought that number down to 13 percent, if my memory is correct. Again, I'm doing this from a three-month-old presentation. What we were able to demonstrate by the improvements in the efficiency this year is that the program is actually showing signs that it can work.
I'll just back up and be more general for a moment. One of the first questions I had in the early going was whether or not this was the right model. Was this the way to deal with collecting money on behalf of women, generally from ex-husbands who should be paying? Was there not a better
[ Page 9914 ]
way? In the early going, I asked whether we shouldn't look at what Ontario has done in respect of using the income tax system to gain the money back. If you look now at what's happening in Ontario, I think they're regretting some of the decisions they've made there. They're having some very real problems. In fact, the people who deliver the program here in B.C. are now being invited to go to other provinces to explain our system. I know that the federal government was interested in it, and at least two or three other provinces have invited the contractors to make presentations about our program because of the worse record in everybody else's programs.
[3:30]
I've come to the view that we're never going to be able to collect everything, because some people are going to make themselves unavailable or are going to do one thing or another in order to never pay. Short of throwing them in jail.... Some people are just never going to pay, and jail isn't an answer to these kinds of issues. So we're getting as close as we can to a system that collects what can be collected. There are further things we can do by way of legislation, and I hope to be able to bring in some amendments to the act this session that will further strengthen our ability to make sure that payments are made.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
This isn't the chart that I was looking for, but if I find it.... Let me just say this. This is the current statistic, which is a variation of something I said earlier. If you're looking at last year's money, 1993-94, 70 percent of all moneys due are received. Some 28 percent of all active cases are fully paid, and 60 percent are partially paid. I'd like to ask the member to give me the time it takes to get those other statistics, and I will come back with some other information that will actually be more helpful in explaining how the program is beginning to do what it's supposed to do -- and in a pretty effective way.
L. Stephens: I would be very pleased to have that further information. This is an important program that needs to be strengthened and expanded in whatever way possible to make it work much more effectively for the many families that depend on it.
You talked a bit about training for different personnel involved in the system. Is there a coordinated effort to have some kind of training for the legal profession, the judiciary and court services to actively and effectively address family law issues? Has the Attorney General considered moving family law out of the court system more fully than it is now? What are the pilot projects endeavouring to do? Would you talk a bit about that?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the member's first question was: are there programs to train the judiciary, lawyers and personnel in the court system? First of all, I don't have the mandate or the authority to instruct judges to take training, so I'll leave it at that. Nor do I have the authority to instruct lawyers in private practice to take any particular training. We can encourage the law schools to do what they've begun to do, and we can encourage the Law Society to include more emphasis on these issues in its continuing legal education programs, but I can't direct them. What I can do is ensure that ministry staff -- and this includes the court services branch -- are fully conversant and fully trained in issues around family law and gender equality. That's something I talked about earlier. We intend to try to do that.
Coming to the second part of the member's comments, the family justice centres are very much designed to try to take as many family law disputes away from the court system as possible. I talked about this yesterday. We want to lessen the adversarial nature of family disputes as much as possible. Rather than having people in just about every situation end up being diametrically opposed to each other and fighting it out in court with at least three losers and no winners, we want to try to find cooperative solutions to issues through counselling and mediation and other programs. The family justice pilots are designed to teach us how best to do that. Once we learn how best to do it, those pilots will be expanded into full programs around the province.
L. Stephens: There are a few more questions. I'd like to talk about violence against women and some of the programs that may be coming forward -- or that I would like to see, anyway. Violence is a criminal offence, but in many cases it's not acknowledged as such. Are any changes proposed? Will any policies or processes occur to have the various components of the justice system improve their responses to violence against women?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know whether I can say very much specifically at this point other than that Violence Against Women in Relationships has been a high priority, and the member knows all about that. We're going to continue to ensure that the folks in the system understand the policy and implement it.
Together with the Ministry of Women's Equality, we have put considerable resources into programs around violence against women. We are having a very close look at the Saskatchewan legislation that was introduced a few weeks ago by Bob Mitchell, which takes us a quantum leap forward in respect of domestic violence. I'm determined that we get at this issue, because the member's first comment is absolutely right: it's a crime. I said yesterday that somehow society has said violence is a crime if it happens in the street, in a bar or in the community, but if it happens inside somebody's home, it isn't a crime. Well, that's nonsense and that's wrong. It's a crime wherever it occurs. That's the premise on which we're basing all of our programs and I'm determined that we get at it.
We talked this morning about youth acting out and youth in trouble with the law. I said that a lot of the trouble comes from kids learning that violence is how you respond to problems, because they watch it at home. We have to do whatever we can. I'm not so naive as to think that we're going to eliminate it entirely, but we surely have to make it clear to people in our society that beating -- wife-beating, to put it directly and bluntly -- is a crime. It has huge consequences, and people who are involved in it should pay the same consequences they would if they were involved in a beating down the street with strangers, or with anyone else for that matter.
L. Stephens: I have to say that I agree 100 percent with the Attorney General's comments. There's a lot of lip service paid to those comments by many people. I think what a lot of women and women's organizations are looking for is some kind of concrete action to deal with domestic violence, making it very well understood that it is not acceptable, it is a criminal offence and it will be treated as such.
I know the police have a policy that they now lay charges, whereas before it was the woman who had to lay the charges. Apparently research has demonstrated that using
[ Page 9915 ]
criminal justice intervention deters offenders from future violent acts. I wonder if the Attorney General is going to be pressing prosecutions much more vigorously than is now the case.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: As the member knows and has alluded to, the fact that the investigation and recommended charges are in the hands of the police, as opposed to the battered spouse, takes us a long way toward ensuring that more of this is dealt with. That's the first point. In reviewing the evidence, the prosecutors use the standard charge approval used for any other substantial likelihood of conviction, and it must be in the public interest. Those basic underlying principles are in place for these charge approvals in the same way they would be for any other charge approvals. But I can tell you that the whole system is being more sensitized to the serious nature of these crimes. By that I don't mean the charge approval system; I mean society in general, from the police right through to the courts. I think that will lead to far more prosecutions than we've been used to and have a very good effect on continued patterns of violence in homes, I'm sure.
L. Stephens: The words that you just expressed don't give me comfort, Attorney General, because, again, these things have been said many times. But there don't seem to be any real concrete efforts made at the judicial level -- and in sentencing and laying charges, either. I would like to know whether or not your particular ministry can direct in some way, shape or form the police services to be a little more vigilant than simply following the policy that is there now, and if there can be more vigorous enforcement, in a more directed way that the ministry would like this particular issue dealt with.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: One of the things I do on an annual basis is convey the ministry's and my policing priorities for the year to the RCMP in British Columbia. I can tell the member that the issue of domestic violence is very high on that list of priorities. We're working with the police to implement that policy in an aggressive way. I think some of the evidence that's in about the spousal assault caseload in the court system.... From April 1993 to September 1993 -- that's from the announcement of the policy and initial training through to six months later -- we went from 53 cases completed in April to 473 in September. The graph.... I'm not supposed to do this in the House, but this is Committee of Supply, so I can pretend that I can do it. The graph line is very steep; completed cases, and the new cases as well, have a comparable -- slightly different, though comparable -- graph line increase in the number of cases in the system. I think that even in the first six months -- and we're now another six months since then -- the evidence is in that the policy is having a very direct impact.
[3:45]
L. Stephens: Thank you, Attorney General. That was very helpful. You mentioned earlier that the ministry is spending $2.5 million on spousal assault. Could you elaborate a bit more on how that money will be spent and what programs will be initiated?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm sorry; I owe the member another answer from earlier, and I think I'm going to owe her an answer on this. Here we are -- didn't take us long.
The total is $2.7 million: $1 million on assaultive men's treatment programs; $250,000 on aboriginal family violence programs; $400,000 on developing policies and programs for wife assault coordination -- in other words, the training and structural basis for the initiative; $550,000 for continued implementation and development of all three components of the policy on violence against women and children -- that is, wife assault, sexual assault and child abuse. When I say "continued," that's continuing from the previous year. Another $500,000 has been allocated this year to the known abusers project -- people who have been convicted of sexual abuse or sexual assault and are no longer in custody.
As the member knows, we haven't had a lot of discussion about that in the House. But I have had an immense amount of discussion in the corridor with interested members of the press gallery about this issue, and we've been developing policies with respect to education and other initiatives about how a known abuser is described. That work will come to fruition this fiscal year.
C. Serwa: I have a question for the Attorney General. The other day, in opening, you indicated the number of different areas in your ministry, which is very large. Did you and the official opposition critic come to any conclusion as to the sequence of the questions? At the moment it seems all over the map, and it makes it rather difficult. I am wondering if you are going to propose.... No? So you will continue to accept questions all over the map? Okay, thank you very much.
G. Wilson: Not wishing to abuse my privilege in the House, I'd like to say hello to my friend Cass, who I know is watching this afternoon.
I have some specific questions with respect to ad hoc prosecutors and how they are appointed, how they are paid for and how much they cost. I'd like to home in on this area, recognizing that there are other areas I will come back to. Once I have addressed those questions I will yield to other members who might carry on a more general line of questioning. I wonder if the Attorney General might tell us the nature of ad hoc prosecutors: how they are selected, how they are appointed, how much they cost and where they are paid from.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Offhand, I don't know what amount of our criminal justice branch budget is allocated to ad hoc counsel. Ad hoc counsel are used throughout the province on an as-needed basis. They are used to supplement Crown prosecutors on staff when we have a need to do so. We don't do what the federal government does, which is in large measure to use ad hoc. We have a much higher proportion of staff lawyers.
I want to get the number of dollars for the member to give him some sense of proportion as to how much is inside and how much is outside. I think that's part of the question. If he will just give me a minute, I will provide that information to the member. The payment to ad hoc prosecutors -- let's call them that -- is projected in this fiscal year's budget at about $1.5 million.
G. Wilson: Is there any estimate as to the number of prosecutors that that $1.5 million is divided among?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't have that number, but if it's available, my office staff may well be able to get that to me in a few minutes. But I would expect that there are hundreds of lawyers retained throughout the province. In a small community, for example, if a prosecutor isn't present and an appearance in court has to occur, it may be a lot cheaper for us to retain a local lawyer simply to show up in court on our
[ Page 9916 ]
behalf. I don't know what those numbers are -- other than to suggest that the number of lawyers around the province is probably in the hundreds.
I've just been handed a note which says that the ad hoc budget is $1.5 million, which is 3.3 percent of the budget of the criminal justice branch -- just to put it into perspective as to its proportions.
G. Wilson: The second half of that question was: how are these individuals selected? I recognize that there may be a need in small, isolated communities and in some rural regions. I would argue that it's unlikely to be done in urban areas. I just wonder what criteria are used with respect to the appointment of ad hoc prosecutors, and what kind of review would be done with respect to credentials and abilities and so on.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think it's fair to say that in routine matters the regional Crown counsel -- one of whom exists in each of the five regions around the province -- would make the decision. When they need an ad hoc counsel, they would use their experience to pick someone in the field who they know is competent and who can do the job for them. If it's a major issue, a significant prosecution, and the decision is that there should be an ad hoc counsel for some reason, that decision would be made at the senior levels of the criminal justice branch. They have their own criteria for making those determinations. I don't know how that's constructed. I haven't seen those criteria.
G. Wilson: If I might, I'll focus in, because I want to be completely upfront with the Attorney General as to where I'm headed with these questions. I'm interested to know how that selection might be made in high-profile cases. There may well be high-profile cases where the Crown counsel or senior staff of the justice department may decide that ad hoc counsel is required. The instance where I am headed -- and I'm most respectful of and prepared to be guided by the sensitivities of certain matters, of course -- is toward the matter with respect to Peter Leask. I'm anxious to know how that appointment can be made, how that appointment was made, and -- in light of what I'm sure the Attorney General is aware is an alleged conflict in that case -- who would make the decision on whether that ad hoc prosecutor would be an appropriate person to continue.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I hate doing this, but I have to be a bit careful about specific reference to matters that are before the court right now. The member has made some reference to a matter that is before the court. The official opposition critic did the same thing yesterday, and I had to decline to participate in that discussion. That doesn't preclude me from giving a more general answer.
We're talking about ad hoc, not special, prosecutors. There's a very important distinction. I can talk about special prosecutors later if the member wishes. But in some instances -- I'll put it that way -- ad hoc counsel might be retained to give a second opinion. Where the branch may have developed an opinion about a particular issue, there may be a desire to get a second opinion for some reason. Rather than going to someone else in the branch for a second opinion, we will generally go outside.
Who do we go to outside? Generally the decision about that would be made at the very senior levels of the criminal justice branch -- if not by the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, then someone at a very senior level next to him. The decisions would deal with experience, competency, availability, stature -- all the qualities that one would look for in a senior lawyer. It's possible, but not necessary, that in particular ad hoc cases the Crown might look to the list of special prosecutors, which has been developed in conjunction with the Law Society, to see if one of the senior lawyers on that list is an appropriate appointment. Again, the decision is made using the criteria I've suggested, but it is made at senior levels for the high-profile or "major" cases.
G. Wilson: If I understand it correctly.... I'm sure the Attorney General will correct me if I'm wrong. I'm acutely aware of the need to tread the line on what we can and should appropriately discuss here with respect to matters that are before the court. Yet to get a general understanding of what is now in the public domain.... Some general questions are coming from members of the public that are legitimate parts of this canvass through the estimates debate.
[4:00]
It's my understanding that where a case is deemed by the Ministry of the Attorney General to require either a second opinion or some legal services that might be better provided by an ad hoc prosecutor, the senior members of the justice department would take those conditions, review them and make a decision as to whether or not an ad hoc prosecutor would be appointed.
If I've got that part correct, let me go to my second set of questions. Given that's the case, would it be normal that a second prosecutor be appointed in addition to the ad hoc prosecutor? Is it normal for there to be some backup, some assistant or junior person, who might equally be assigned in that case? Would that be a normal course of events?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In cases that could be described as high-profile or complex -- and we're not talking about the run-of-the-mill case here; these are complex matters that would probably be in the public eye -- the branch will, on occasion, go outside to get a particular lawyer with a particular experience or skill in that area, so that we can get the best possible prosecution. Generally when that happens, the ad hoc has working with him or her members of the criminal justice branch -- regular Crown prosecutors working in a secondary or backup capacity. That happens not frequently but occasionally, and as I say, particularly in high-profile cases.
G. Wilson: So in the event you have a high-profile case and this is all undertaken, specifically what would be the role of the ad hoc prosecutor and any subsequent assistants with respect to decisions taken on a final prosecution or movement toward litigation, and to what extent could the public have access to that special prosecutor? What is the normal role that prosecutor would play with respect to submissions that may be forthcoming from the public and may form part of a report, for example?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Because the member talked about special prosecutors in his comments, I'm going to make it really clear that we're talking about ad hoc, not special, prosecutors. Again, the member did use the term -- I think, inadvertently.
In these special cases, where an ad hoc counsel is retained, the ad hoc has conduct of the case. He or she would take advice and direction from the senior members of the criminal justice branch in the same way as a regular prosecutor in the branch would do. The advice, direction and consultation would be with senior members of the branch, not with the junior members who are attached to the prosecutor. In other words, the Crown counsel who are
[ Page 9917 ]
assisting the ad hoc prosecutor wouldn't be involved in the direction and advice; they'd be involved simply in assisting the ad hoc conduct the case. If direction or discussion are required, that would be done with the senior members of the branch here in Victoria.
G. Wilson: What I'm driving at here is the extent to which the ad hoc prosecutor.... I appreciate the Attorney General making a distinction from a special prosecutor. We've been talking about special cases and I think I blended the two terms, but I am talking about ad hoc prosecutors. To what extent can or should the public have access to that ad hoc prosecutor with respect to information that may be relevant to a particular case, and to what extent is the ad hoc prosecutor bound to accept and review that material? To what extent does the ad hoc prosecutor make subjective decisions as to what he or she will or will not receive or hear?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The ad hoc prosecutors have to follow the policies of the branch, so they would be under the same obligations, requirements and policies as a senior Crown counsel prosecutor. I think I know where the member is going on this. The policy is that the public always has the same access to the ad hoc as they would have to the in-house, and if the public has any concerns, complaints or frustrations, or any sense that they're not getting access, then they should directly contact the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Quantz, who will take the concern.
G. Wilson: I think that is useful information for those people who may feel that they're not getting satisfaction in that instance. On the question of these ad hoc prosecutors, I think the Attorney General might also agree, and I hope he would agree, that it would be critically important that any ad hoc prosecutor who reviews a case which may or may not be high-profile -- but let's say that this case is high-profile -- must be seen to be, and indeed be, completely independent of any other counsel who may be involved in the litigation at any point. Would the Attorney General agree that this is a reasonable assumption?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member is straying perilously close to territory in which we will not engage in discussion, but let me say that the obligations of the ad hoc counsel are the same as those of the Crown prosecutor. I think I have said that the obligations are the same. With respect to some of the suggestions the member is making and the path down which he is walking, the ad hoc prosecutors have the same obligations that all other lawyers have about conflict or any other issue that might be alleged. I don't think I want to say anything more about that, and the member will understand why.
G. Wilson: I recognize the difficulty that the Attorney General finds himself in, and I think he also recognizes where I'm headed with some of these questions. Let me move not so perilously close but more specifically in the hypothetical case that I've built here. In the event that the normal standard practices that occur to Crown counsel or to an ad hoc prosecutor are deemed.... Recognizing that there is no distinction made, whose obligation and responsibility is it to ultimately determine whether or not that ad hoc counsellor could or should continue? To what extent is the Attorney General obligated to take action in the event that recommendations are forthcoming?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer to that is in section 3 of the Crown Counsel Act. The Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Quantz, makes the decision; and if he doesn't, then the Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Neal, would make the decision.
G. Wilson: Given that the Attorney General has made it very clear that he's not prepared to discuss specifics of any case that may be before the courts -- and I appreciate that -- my last question along that line is: who may make representation to Mr. Quantz if indeed there are allegations or if there is evidence to suggest that some form of conflict may exist? Is it only that which may be heard through legal channels or other sources of legal input, or can it be made directly from members of the public who may feel that their interests are affected in the case?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Any citizen has the right to make representation to the Assistant Deputy Attorney General on any matter within his purview at any time if they feel there are issues that need to be drawn to the senior prosecutor's attention.
G. Wilson: I would like to change directions slightly. Not to mislead the Attorney General, I'm not drifting off the topic we are talking about here. It goes to questions that were raised a little earlier today by the member for Prince George-Omineca, who talked about the potential problem citizens may find themselves in if they have to litigate against an agency that has litigation funds provided through public accounts -- from the taxpayers.
I wonder if the Attorney General might tell us what moneys are directed to physicians, for example, who may find themselves under some legal challenge with respect to conduct, and whether the Attorney General's office makes provision for moneys to be made available in a defence fund or any other fund that may be set up by medical service agencies or those people who may regulate physicians within B.C.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Again, we're skating dangerously here, as the member for Matsqui will understand. The answer is that they're on their own, together with their insurance companies.
G. Wilson: Let me move, with respect to matters that are internal to the College of Physicians.... To what extent is the college provided with assistance on matters, and are any moneys available for the defence of members who may be charged with misconduct?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No assistance would be provided. I might say, parenthetically, that they're not likely to be eligible for legal aid either.
G. Wilson: I would agree with that. I will wrap up on this line of questions. I will then yield to other members, reserving the right to come back.
Recognizing that we can't specifically come to this case with respect to matters that may be contained in alleged conflicts, is it anticipated that information coming to the Attorney General in reports formulated about ad hoc prosecutors will be for the public record? Will there be opportunity for people to review any internal documents with respect to the eligibility of ad hoc prosecutors to continue?
[ Page 9918 ]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Reasons are given for any decisions made by the assistant deputy in the kinds of situations the member talks about; but that would not be done if in any way it could jeopardize an ongoing case. So, in other words, it may be done after the fact if disclosing the reasons could put the case in jeopardy.
G. Wilson: I was going to say this is my final question, but it may not be, depending on the response from the Attorney General.
So in the hypothetical event Mr. Quantz reviews an instance of alleged conflict -- despite the case being well advanced and, indeed, before the courts -- and a decision is taken that the ad hoc prosecutor cannot continue, reasons would not be made public or would not be given. In the event they are not given, would that not automatically put in jeopardy a successful prosecution? If it would not, in the event conflict was discovered, maybe the Attorney General might tell us why it wouldn't.
[4:15]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think I can only answer this is in a general way. I have no doubt that the Assistant Deputy Attorney General would take action, or delay or not take action, based on the need to ensure the case could proceed in a way that was not jeopardized by whatever he did or didn't do. It's a convoluted way of saying that I have full confidence he's not going to do anything that's going to jeopardize the case.
G. Wilson: We would all hope that is true. The concern may be that due to actions overlooked in the original appointment -- and I'm talking of ad hoc prosecutors -- or actions taken subsequent to an appointment, the ministry may find itself.... Either a lack of due diligence in the initial stage or subsequent actions of an ad hoc prosecutor may indeed put a case in jeopardy. In that instance, my question is: on whom does that responsibility fall, and to what extent is the ministry empowered to take action that will override that situation?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Again, I want to be very careful here. I don't want to do anything in this chamber that would jeopardize anything in the courts, either. Members understand that.
Let me say this in a very general way. If the assistant deputy has taken some action that the member or someone else feels needs to be reviewed, then the act, in section 3, declares that the Deputy Attorney General can make decisions. In the final analysis, I can give direction and make decisions, as long as I have those directions published in the Gazette, so that it's in full public record that those decisions have been taken. That is in the Crown Counsel Act as well.
M. de Jong: I will also indicate to the Attorney General that I will endeavour to restrict my questions today -- to the Legal Services Society aspect of this. Just a couple of very basic questions -- whose answers perhaps should be apparent to me from the documentation provided us, but I'll ask them anyway. Firstly, what was the grant from the ministry to the Legal Services Society for the year past, and what is the anticipated grant this year?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Last year it was $85 million, plus $6.8 million that was granted by way of a special warrant a week or so ago. The budget for the community justice branch is $108 million, and the money within that budget for legal aid is $82 million for their regular services and $3 million to assist their start-up costs for the new blending model that they're beginning to adopt.
M. de Jong: This may have been covered this morning; I was quickly reviewing the Blues. Just by way of accounting, the allocation to the Legal Services Society represents a significant percentage of the community justice section of the budget. My understanding is that in the past it was set out in a separate line. If that was the case, why has it changed?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We talked about that this morning. I appreciate that members have to be in two Houses at once and also have a lot of other obligations, so I don't mind repeating it. I assume that the decision to no longer have a separate line item for legal aid was made by the Treasury Board staff in the Ministry of Finance who prepare the blue book. We didn't make that decision; they decided how the blue book would actually be laid out. I would be just as happy to have it laid out separately, but they made the decision to lay it out in an integrated way. I don't know why they did that. It would be easy to find out by calling down to Treasury Board. They may have some very good reasons, but I'm just not aware of them. I'm quite happy to tell everybody that the total number is $85 million.
M. de Jong: The minister took some pains to explain and emphasize to other members who were asking questions that the society is a separate board, and implicit in all of my questions today is the recognition of that fact. However, given the amount of money that flows from the ministry to the society, there is also an assumption that the ministry looks very carefully and closely at what is undertaken by the Legal Services Society and has an intrinsic interest in what goes on there.
The minister won't be surprised that I will focus on the Tim Agg report and, more specifically, on his recent appointment to the board. There have been questions about his appointment that centre around the sincerity with which the ministry will be accepting representations from others in the legal community, given that he is the author of the report that appears to be the foundation upon which a very significant change is about to be undertaken. Can the minister render some explanation or assurance about the timeliness -- or untimeliness -- of Mr. Agg's appointment to the board?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: As I said this morning, Mr. Agg is one of 14 members on the Legal Services Society board and one of seven government appointees. He was appointed together with a private practice lawyer in Vancouver a few weeks ago when two vacancies existed on the government appointment side. It seemed to make a lot of sense to have Mr. Agg on the board. At the board meeting on February 18, the board voted 12-0 to implement changes based on a blended model, much of which they had drawn from Mr. Agg's report. Following his report, Mr. Agg continued to be on a part-time contract with the ministry to assist me and the ministry on legal aid issues. He also worked in assisting Marion Buller, who did the review of native legal aid in British Columbia. It seemed to make a lot of sense to me -- given the directions that clearly were being embarked upon and given the knowledge and experience that Mr. Agg gained in the last few years dealing with this subject -- to have him directly on the board. He's one of 14. That's all the power and influence he has. He will be able to contribute a
[ Page 9919 ]
fair amount because of what he has learned in his work the last couple of years.
M. de Jong: As the agency that will be charged essentially with funding the implementation of the Agg report in its present form as contained in the proposal, my fairly general question to the minister is: does he support wholeheartedly the approach recommended by the Agg report, and on what basis does he hold that support?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, it's important to understand the distinction between the Agg report and the reforms and proposal for reform which emanated from the Legal Services Society board of directors. What is being implemented, in fact -- as I referred to earlier with respect to the 12-0 vote -- is not the Agg report but the reforms that have been developed within the Legal Services Society itself. That's an important distinction. What the Agg report did was provide me with an understanding and guidance about the direction that legal aid might take in British Columbia. We were concerned about it because of the spiralling costs. We were concerned about a number of issues, but it's fair to say the one that really drove a decision to look closely at legal aid was the ever-increasing -- in dramatic terms -- cost of legal aid.
Mr. Agg provided his report. That has given me a lot of information with respect to directions that might be taken. But I don't -- and the member knows this -- direct the Legal Services Society. If they chose by majority vote to embark on a different direction, or a direction contrary to Agg's report or contrary to my own views, as long as it was consistent with the legislation, they would be free to do so. As I've said before, the only way I can have any impact on the direction of the Legal Services Society is through the legislation, which obviously could give this House a lot of control if it was very directive, through the budget, which obviously puts limits on what's done, and through the appointment of 50 percent of the directors. The Law Society appoints the other 50 percent. I can't tell them what to do.
The member wanted to know what my personal views are and what the government's views are. I have to tell you that I'm delighted that the board voted unanimously to proceed with implementation of this reform package, because it moves in a direction that will enable us to get hold of the costs. It moves us in a direction that will get the communities involved in the provision of legal aid in a much greater way than they have traditionally been in many parts of British Columbia. It moves us in a direction which I hope and believe will enable a lot of issues to be resolved in a non-litigious manner, so that we don't end up in court all the time but rather end up having resolution in advance of embarking on the path to the courthouse. I'm delighted that the society has embarked on these programs. I've said this today, and I'll say it again here: I hope that they do it quickly and in a serious and rigorous way, because we can't afford to continue with the spiralling costs. The taxpayers won't stand for it, nor will I.
M. de Jong: I appreciate the minister's candour, although I would remind him that insofar as the unanimous passage of that particular recommendation is concerned, there is a dispute within the Legal Services Society about the format followed in that respect. It may not be as cut and dried as the minister would like or would have us believe.
The minister correctly points out that one must distinguish between the original report and how it has now manifested itself into the Legal Services Society proposal. The proposal obviously has as an objective the capping of costs and bringing those under control. One of the difficulties I'd like the minister to comment on insofar as the proposal is concerned.... Again, I preface the question with the assumption that the minister is contemplating funding the society on the basis that it will represent a cap in costs or will bring costs under control. I presume that is what's motivating the minister to look at this program and to endorse it by making the requested funding.
[4:30]
The assumptions that the society's proposal are based on are cause for serious concern in some quarters at least. For example, the proposal recognizes -- based on increased arrest rates and charge rates and increased activity in family law areas -- the continued escalating costs that would result from continuing with the tariff-based model. Yet it doesn't seem to acknowledge and take account of the fact that those same arrest rates, charge rates and prodigious rates of involvement are going to continue. In planning this model, the proposal doesn't appear to incorporate those rates and increased costs into its projections. My question to the minister is: is he aware of that, and has he taken account of it and the fact that they may be on his doorstep very quickly looking for more money?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm certainly aware of that suggestion. I've had it put to me by a number of the member's professional colleagues on several occasions. In a sense it's not for me to say whether or not the report, which was adopted by a motion, is complete. There are suggestions that it has failed in some elements, including the one the member refers to. But others say that that's not the case at all and that they have taken into account the increase in volumes that we clearly face. They have taken that into account by recognizing the load that staff lawyers can carry and by recognizing revenues that may come from some cost-sharing at the margin, in terms of people who are earning little enough to be eligible, but more than people at the bottom end of eligibility, so that they can contribute to the cost of their case -- as well as other reforms that we have talked about before in the House.
I have to say that the 12 members of the board, all of whom are experienced in this issue.... I don't know what the proportion of the 12 was in terms of representatives of the LSS and the government. Of the 14 members, I don't know which two were not there. The motion was really clear and specific, and as I say, it was unanimous.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
The motion was that the LSS adopt the mixed model as the model for reform and that the society move for implementation of the model in the 1994-95 fiscal year and that the society obtain and have ongoing consultation with all interest groups as to the implementation of the model. They have said they want to move toward a balanced model in '94-95, and as they develop the implementation plan they are open to discussion with anybody who has an interest in the subject. If they haven't predicted correctly, we'll find that out during the course of the year.
My responsibility is to give them a legislative and budgetary framework. I have given them that, and they've got a job to do within those constraints.
M. de Jong: Perhaps I'm splitting hairs, but I think the minister has an obligation to satisfy himself that the assumptions upon which the project he is being asked to fund are based.... To suggest that we will find out during
[ Page 9920 ]
the course of the year whether the assumptions set out in the proposal I have just canvassed with him are correct, I would suggest, isn't entirely satisfactory. This is a very significant amount of money, and a tremendously significant amount of money in terms of start-up costs. I would suggest that the minister and the ministry have a serious obligation to satisfy themselves that each of the assumptions upon which the society would propose to proceed are accurate and defensible.
The minister again referred to the meeting that took place by which this proposal became part and parcel of the society's course of action for the coming year. The minister will also know that the proposal that was ultimately passed differed significantly from what several members of the society board had been led to believe would be before them on that occasion. Specifically, the original program called for the maintenance of a number of pilot projects throughout the province that were to be studied, and recommendations would flow from them. The program has clearly been accelerated and the concern is that the jury is still out -- pardon the pun -- on the pilot projects, one of which is located in my riding of Matsqui. The minister was there several months ago for the opening of that facility.
It was understood that those pilot projects would be open, be administered, would operate, and the results would be studied. Is the minister comfortable knowing that the pilot project process hasn't been allowed to run its full course as originally contemplated, and that he is being asked to invest significant sums of money in and commit over a long haul to a project that truly remains untested?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The short answer is yes. And yes, it is a significant amount of money, but it's less than would have been required if we made no changes. Even though I don't direct the LSS, and even though they're on their own and have their budget and have to follow the legislation, I made it my business to talk to a number of people who were involved at various levels of the pilot projects and to become familiar with how it worked and how successful the staff model was from their perspective. The reports are overwhelming. There is not one person who works within those communities who doesn't think that both the Agg report and the LSS reform proposal are understated. They are all convinced that the mixed model will in fact produce greater benefits than have been identified by either Agg or the LSS. The evidence for that is the success they have had in handling cases at the staff level. I'm not going to get into specific issues, because you end up identifying people if you make it too specific. But I can assure the member that I made it my business to talk to people who actually provide those services in those communities, just so that I would feel comfortable that we are in fact moving in the correct direction. I feel comfortable that we are.
G. Wilson: I really want to thank the member for Matsqui for yielding and allowing me to just jump in. There are two very quick questions that I would like to ask to wrap up the section of questioning I was dealing with before. The Attorney General said that the British Columbia government does not provide any money for defence of doctors who may be under prosecution. Does the government not pay the BCMA an $11 million contribution toward the Canadian Medical Protective Association? Is that not part of a contribution that can be used in a defence?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not familiar with that fund, other than to say that if it exists, and if there is that amount, I assume that it would come from the Ministry of Health and not from anything to do with the Attorney General.
G. Wilson: I think that's a fair response, but with respect to those questions, the government does indeed pay $11 million. My understanding is that a contract signed by this government provides $11 million to the Canadian Medical Protective Association directly for the defence of physicians who may be charged, and that when people have to contest physicians who are under review by the college, the college is indeed financing those physicians' defences directly with taxpayers' money -- or, at least, in part with taxpayers' money, because there is a contribution from physicians. I think that needed to be clarified.
The second question -- and then I would go back to the member for Matsqui.... Not that I want to let that first question slide by without some underscoring; we might bring it up in the Health estimates. The second question is with respect to what we hear a lot of in the chamber from the Attorney General, about his ability to comment on matters before the court. In the event of a situation where no charges are laid, despite the fact that there may be an ongoing investigation, is it the Attorney General's interpretation that if no charges have been laid and there is no active prosecution or litigation taking place in the courts, it is constituted as being before the courts because an investigation is underway? Is that the position of the Attorney General?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No, and maybe this is a good opportunity to clarify that. In general terms, there are two occasions when I don't comment. One is if it's before the courts, and the member has just identified that; the other is if there is an ongoing investigation. It's inappropriate for me to comment on matters in which there is a police investigation, and I don't if I can possibly help it.
M. de Jong: Returning to the legal services theme, one of the comments the Attorney General just made was about his belief that based on the discussions he'd had in various communities, there is widespread support for this blended model having greater benefit for the people who need it most in the community. I dare say that if one were to discuss this with people and present it in those terms only, the vast majority would be inclined to agree. The fact of the matter is that you will be injecting more lawyers into the community who are presumably devoted to dealing with lower-income people. On that basis it's irrefutable that there are benefits to be had by those low-income folk in need of legal services. That's not how it's being sold, though.
The impetus and motivation for this was to save money, and that is where the criticism lies -- criticism that is most vehement among private members of the bar. The assumptions that lead one to conclude that this will save money are not valid. So the minister should be clear. No one is denying the potential for an increased benefit to low-income earners. That's irrefutable when you are injecting those resources. The debate exists purely at the economic level.
One of the other assumptions that the proposal is based on is a slight increase in revenues resulting from further contributions by certain individuals. That may be so. The minister will point out, I'm sure, that the Legal Services Society has its own mandate and its own jurisdiction to determine eligibility requirements -- although I will ask the Attorney General a question about that later. But with respect to the proposal, the issue once again is that yes, there
[ Page 9921 ]
is an assumption of greater revenues, but one has to concede that those revenues will arise from greater demands on the service, and that great volume will increase the financial drain on the system. The proposal doesn't include a recognition of that. My question to the Attorney General is: is he satisfied with the assumptions that are made in the proposal with respect to the increased revenues without acknowledging a requisite increase in cost?
[4:45]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm satisfied that the LSS staff and board have reviewed the cost implications of moving to a mixed or blended model. I'm confident that they have recognized the increased volumes that we face every year. I'm confident that they recognize the additional output that can be provided by the staff model in many parts -- but not all -- of the delivery of legal aid, particularly the value of duty counsel. I'm confident that they have put it together in a way that will prove successful.
Having said all that, they're going to have to make further adjustments to a lot of their expenditures in order to fit within their budget. I think they're going to have a tough time this year. The primary reason relates to the fact that a significant portion of the payout this year relates to tariff charges from the past year, and even from years before that. That is going to be very difficult to manage. I know that; they know it. I'm counting on their ingenuity and creativity and effectiveness at implementing changes so they can live within the budget. They're going to have to, and I've said that to them very clearly and very directly.
M. de Jong: The Attorney General made mention earlier of some assumptions that the proposal includes regarding staffing levels, particularly the teams that will be set up and established to administer the projects located throughout the province. One of the interesting facets -- and again the Attorney General correctly distinguishes between the Agg report and the proposal that has arisen -- is the different assumptions that exist regarding the cost of staffing a criminal team and a family team, for example. The proposal that emanates from the Legal Services Society includes significant reductions, which presumably will impact directly upon the delivery of service. Just so the Attorney General is clear and I don't mislead him, from the perspective of this recent practitioner, the assumptions contained within the proposal about the caseload and ability of support staff to service that caseload are absolutely unrealistic.
My question to the minister is: what, if any, inquiries about the proposal has he made of the private bar and those individuals practising, particularly in the family law area? Is he confident that the proposal includes realistic assumptions about the capability of staff members and staff lawyers to service those needs?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, I am. Earlier today -- this morning or this afternoon, I forget which -- I talked about my sense that these caseload numbers for staff lawyers are on the conservative side. The actual ability to handle cases will produce higher numbers than the 230, or thereabouts, that the report is predicated on, if my memory is correct.
There are tariff lawyers doing legal aid now who carry more cases than that on a tariff, earning considerably more than they would if they were on staff. There are staff lawyers who work in the community offices now who are carrying considerably higher numbers than the numbers on which this report is based. Clearly, staff lawyers are going to get the easier stuff and are going to be able to carry greater numbers as a result of that. I understand all of that, and we talked about that earlier today, too. Legal Services don't report to me in this sense, so I don't go through this in great detail. But as I understand it, when they did their projections -- they did their surveys to try to determine what caseload would be appropriate on average for staff lawyers -- they came up with numbers that were higher than the Agg numbers. In other words, they concluded that staff lawyers could handle more cases per year than Agg had concluded. That evidence was obtained not only by surveying British Columbia but also by looking at what was happening in other jurisdictions.
However, they did not base their modelling on those higher caseload numbers. They used the more conservative numbers that Agg had concluded a year and a half ago. Just to say it again -- we're going to tire this subject out -- I had talked to people in the community offices in charge of staff lawyers who are, in fact, delivering caseload numbers that are dramatically higher than the numbers included in the report.
M. de Jong: The Attorney General will know that the proposal in large measure is predicated upon an assumption that a family law referral handled by a staff lawyer represents one less family law referral handled by a tariff lawyer, or a private bar lawyer. Is the Attorney General confident of that assumption, recognizing that it flies in the face of experiences where some of these projects exist, particularly in some rural areas of the province where quite the contrary has happened -- staff lawyers have been booked to their maximum caseloads and the outflow to private bar lawyers continues at an unabated pace -- and there is simply that pent-up demand? The question is relevant from the perspective in that sort of scenario: where is the cost saving?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There is some truth to the suggestion that if you provide the community office with staff lawyers, more activity will be generated. We are only meeting our obligations as a society if that's the case.
In combination with the family justice centres we are piloting, as a result of these two initiatives I hope that far fewer family matters end up in court. That's the fundamental objective. The community legal aid offices can play a significant role at an early stage in helping to steer people to a mediation course rather than a litigation course. I think that will have the opposite effect of the pent-up-demand concern the member is talking about.
The bottom line is that we're spending approximately 10 percent of our budget on legal aid. That's not going to be increased, and the system will have to find a way of providing service to everybody who's eligible for it and who needs it, and they're going to have to find a way of doing that within that budget. That's going to take some creativity, and there is still lots of room for creativity in how we deliver legal aid in this province.
M. de Jong: The suggestion from the Attorney General is that staff lawyers maintaining the sort of caseload that the proposal contemplates will have at their disposal additional time not available to members of the private bar for further mediation, to play more of a mediator's role. Perhaps I have misunderstood the minister.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: A significant component of these offices is going to be paralegals and others trained in mediation and other skills assisting people by steering them to the right place or in a different direction, advising them of
[ Page 9922 ]
their rights, or doing things you don't need a lawyer to do. The lawyers will not be spending time doing work that counsellors or paralegals could do. That's an important element in this whole initiative. I don't expect staff lawyers to be doing work that doesn't require a law degree.
M. de Jong: The Attorney General knows that the amount of staff at the disposal of the lawyers -- paralegals, secretarial and clerical staff -- is significantly reduced from what was contemplated in the Agg report to what has emerged in the proposal. I suggest that that will significantly impact the ability of those individuals to carry on in the way I'm sure he hopes for. But my submission to him would be that it represents an unrealistic expectation.
Another area I would like to canvass with the Attorney General relates to something he may have mentioned earlier. It relates specifically to the issue of choice of counsel. The proposal that has arisen from the society -- and which, again, the society is asking his ministry to finance -- does not, in a meaningful way, embrace the concept of choice of counsel. That is particularly the case with respect to young offenders who, as I understand it, will be required, pursuant to the terms of the proposal, to accept the selection of counsel that derives from the Legal Services Society office or the community legal office. My question to the Attorney General is: is that a state of affairs that he is comfortable with, knowing that individuals in our society will have counsel thrust upon them, perhaps counsel that they are not confident in or content with?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: We have had the discussion on choice of counsel before, and I indicated to the House that my own view is that there should be a choice of counsel; people should have that right. But it is severely constrained by all kinds of realities. The reality I used before was that somebody who is facing a minimum jail term in Prince Rupert shouldn't be able to ask for the highest-priced criminal defence lawyer in Vancouver. If there's an available defence lawyer in Prince Rupert, then that's who should be assigned. Even section 7 of the Charter doesn't put a requirement on us that unlimited funds be made available in defending people who are eligible for assistance. There has to be some give-and-take.
There is that kind of give-and-take now. At the present time, as the member knows, clients of Legal Services are given a choice of legal counsel, if the lawyer they ask for is prepared to do it in their own community. That kind of logic makes some sense. Most people who haven't been influenced through duty counsel or some other arrangement don't have a particular counsel they wish to name. Recidivists who have been through it before and have developed a relationship with their defence lawyer might, and that's going to happen a lot.
I'm going all over the map. Basically there needs to be a right to counsel, but it needs to be constrained by financial realities and some common sense. I would expect that the Legal Services Society would develop that kind of commonsense policy within a framework which underlies the basic right of choice. If you're facing a life sentence and you want a top-notch defence lawyer from downtown Vancouver and the Prince George legal aid office says, "No, you can have this staff guy," I think the right of the person being charged to have their choice should prevail in that situation. I have no doubt about that. There's no absolute right of choice now, nor could there ever be, because we couldn't afford that. But there needs to be in certain circumstances, and the policies need to be worked out by the board that is mandated to make those decisions.
[5:00]
M. de Jong: As I listened to the Attorney General's response, my observation, with the greatest respect, was that he's got it half right. It has worked to this point because there are some built-in checks and balances and equalizers. The top-notch lawyer from Vancouver probably isn't going to go up to Prince George, because it's just not worth his while on the tariff, and there's business for him in Vancouver.
The issue here that I want to emphasize and bring to the Attorney General's attention is that we're moving away from the freedom to choose that exists now. What we're contemplating is a very serious erosion of that, whereby young offenders in particular would be precluded from having any choice insofar as the appointment of counsel is concerned. I'm wondering if the Attorney General can articulate, in any meaningful way, the basis upon which that differentiation between young offenders and adult offenders can be made, particularly when everything we hear suggests that amendments to the Young Offenders Act are being contemplated that will seriously and significantly change the penalty provisions of that act.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I referred to the Young Offenders Act earlier today. It requires that if there is a legal aid scheme in a province, that aid must be provided to all people charged under the YOA. That makes it different from the adult side, in my view. Where there is the legislated requirement that legal aid be provided, it's fair to say that the right to counsel is going to be diminished, given limited resources. I would also say that in circumstances where a youth charged with first-degree murder is raised to adult court and wants a particular lawyer and does not want to be stuck with a staff lawyer, I can't imagine anybody forcing the staff lawyer on that individual. These issues are going to be determined as we go.
I need to say again that these aren't my decisions; these are decisions of this independent board. They have a lot of issues to face. I'm getting tired of hearing myself say this, but the major one is that they've got to find a way of living within a tighter budget.
M. de Jong: In response to the Attorney General, I recognize the distinctiveness of the society, but I also recognize that he does influence those decisions in the ways he has already articulated. He facilitates them by the appointments he makes to the board and financially, which is more direct and the reason that this concerns us today. So he certainly does have a stake in endorsing what the society does.
I would submit to the Attorney General that the choice-of-counsel issue is a serious one. Though he may have a different view than I about how this will work in practice -- and he relies on the example he gives about the murderer -- I can tell the Attorney General that it is not uncommon for one to be in the youth courts on a daily basis and see young offenders facing serious trafficking charges. His concept of what constitutes a serious charge may be different than mine, and it will undoubtedly be different from the accused facing the charge. But the penalty provisions of all of these acts are very serious, and though in many instances they aren't implemented to the full force of the law, they exist nevertheless.
I will leave that issue with those comments and move on to the question of eligibility. Again prefacing my remarks in anticipation of what the Attorney General will say -- that it
[ Page 9923 ]
is a matter to be determined by the society board -- I will suggest to the Attorney General that it has long been a concern of members of the private bar who practise within that area that the society adopts what is essentially a threshold test: if you pass, you qualify; if you don't, you don't. The question I have for the Attorney General is: has he or his ministry made submissions to the society to bring some of these escalating costs under control? Has some examination been made, or has some consideration been taken, about adopting what I would call a more imaginative approach to the means test, whereby -- and I think the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast might have referred to it earlier -- defendants or litigants are asked to contribute in a more meaningful way than the $10 or $30 they are now asked to, assuming those individuals are capable of doing so?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In terms of the direct question of whether submissions have been made to the LSS board, no; we don't operate that way. Have discussions around this very topic been held with individuals who are involved in making these decisions? Yes, I've talked informally to members of the Law Society, benchers, benchers who are on the LSS board and other appointees about a wide variety of initiatives, including the eligibility question and the co-payment that could be made by people at a certain income level. Those questions are, again, within their jurisdiction, but it's my understanding that they are aggressively pursuing that option, among others.
M. de Jong: I think this will be my last question, although I've noticed that every speaker before me who said that has pressed on. By virtue of his answers to the questions and the estimates that appear, one necessarily draws the conclusion.... The Attorney General has answered quite candidly today about the view he takes of the proposal from the Legal Services Society. It is presented as a means of controlling the costs within that organization and the financial drain it represents to his ministry.
I must confess that the question I have is perhaps not the sort of question that would be deemed in order in these sorts of proceedings, in that it anticipates -- as I do, since I believe the program has been embarked upon prematurely and on the basis of incorrect assumptions -- that the Attorney General will be back before this House seeking additional funds. My suggestion is that it will be significant funds, if my own assumptions and observations are correct. What response will the Attorney General have when -- and I say when; he might say if -- the Legal Services Society comes to him and says: "Look, it didn't quite work out as planned, and we need more"?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think I suggested earlier in the discussion that I hoped to present some legislative initiatives during this session of the House which may deal fairly directly with that point. We will be back again discussing this issue, but not in the form that the member anticipates. We'll have to wait for that, I think.
Maybe this is the final word, then.... I'll try not to be provocative, because members get up and say, "This is my final question," and then the respondent is a wee bit provocative and there has to be another question. So I'll try not to be provocative.
I think the reason there's been a lot of emphasis on cost is that it's been very present for me. I sit on Treasury Board, and I'm painfully aware of the issue as a result of that. I've had numerous discussions with the two Ministers of Finance about this very issue. If I didn't do something about it, the Minister of Finance would do something about it. So that's a reality, and that's why so much attention gets paid to the cost issue. I'm sorry that I've let that happen -- that the changes have been sold on the basis of a cost-driven as opposed to a more effective community-based model, which has the merits the member acknowledged earlier in terms of delivery and gets the community more involved in solutions. I think that's really critical.
Communities have generally not been involved in this element of our social safety net. None of them are going to work, and none of them are going to be sustained in the long term, unless communities are far more involved than they have been. If it's just distant issues in front of the courts, just lawyers dealing with it and just government financing it, and nobody else knows anything about it, then it's a program that is going to be ripe for axing some day by some government that says: "Well, the public doesn't support this." If the public isn't involved and doesn't know about it, if the public doesn't find ways of delivering the program more effectively and cheaply, then the programs are going to die.
I see these initiatives as designed to involve the community in a way that is meaningful -- more meaningful, at least, than what we have now -- and designed to ensure there continues to be some viable form of legal aid as we go through these tough economic times.
The Chair: The member for Matsqui. I was about to say, "And now for something completely different," but the member for Matsqui.
M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, except to seek the right to re-inject myself into this debate in the future, I will yield to other members.
The Chair: And now for something completely different. I recognize the hon. member for Okanagan West.
C. Serwa: I have a few questions with that, perhaps because I'm philosophically opposed to the model of having staff lawyers as a cost-effective means of representing people. I think that we're all very interested in the cost of this matter, but we also have to be very interested in the best possible representation. I guess my philosophy is such that I don't think bigger government is better government, and that is what I see happening in this particular case.
But a concern that I'll approach from a slightly different aspect is the inherent bias of employees of government. Depending on the political nature of the particular government, there is potential for injecting a type of bias in the representation. For example, I consider that your party represents the politics of envy and greed. Believing that, I can see where you would surround yourself with staff lawyers who represent that, who think those who have acquired assets have probably either been lucky or inherited their wealth, so we're going to get even with them. That's just an example. But you create this atmosphere in staff lawyers you hire, and it's exemplified. I don't understand how you can move away from the inherent bias, because they're fundamentally employees of government; they are not independent. They are employees of government who are charged with the responsibility of answering to government, their employer.
[5:15]
[ Page 9924 ]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm going to resist the temptation to get into a philosophical debate with the member. We have actually had this discussion before.
I want to make two points, and I think they're both important. The first is that these are not to be government employees. These are people who would be hired by either the Legal Services Society directly or by community societies -- and not by the government in any way. But that is not to accept the other premise the member makes, which is that if you work for the government -- especially if you're a lawyer -- somehow you are going to provide a service that is less worthy or you're going to provide it with a bias. To make those statements -- and I'll try and be gentle -- really slanders the 300 or thereabouts prosecutors who work for the criminal justice branch, and the 90 or so staff lawyers who work for the legal services branch and provide legal advice to the various ministries. All of those people operate in a professional manner, no differently if we're the government or if the member's party were the government. They provide legal advice, they conduct prosecutions, and they make charging decisions in the same way in 1994 as they would have made them in 1990.
It's really important to say that, because I don't think any member of this House could suggest that people who work for the government are contaminated by the politics of the government. Members who work for the government -- I'm not talking about lawyers now; I'm talking about other employees in the government -- are expected, of course, to participate in implementation of the government's policies. If they can't live with that philosophically, they can seek employment elsewhere. But the lawyers who work in the legal services branch of the Ministry of Attorney General are not providing legal advice based on policy; they're providing it based on the law. That doesn't change, whether any one of the parties in this House is the government. The prosecution branch is following the law in an independent way, unaffected by political direction. I think it's really important to say that, because the member might leave an impression that somehow the lawyers in the Ministry of Attorney General are affected by the politics of government in a way that is inappropriate or wrong. They are not.
C. Serwa: Although I would very much like to see transpire what the Attorney General has said should transpire, it has been my observation that government employees are, in reality, responsible to government. In an example of focusing on the law, yes, the enforcement branch and certainly the judiciary are charged with that similar responsibility. When the Attorney General came up with the zero tolerance for speed limits -- normally it was ten kilometres over the speed limit before you were prosecuted -- the entire enforcement agency and the judicial agency took a different stand immediately. That's a clear example of what government policy can do to change the direction of the response of both enforcement and the judiciary. So it's not really quite as independent as you would think. That's just one example.
I'm certainly pleased that the faith is there. Perhaps the one step of Legal Services hiring staff lawyers is leaving lawyers a little further away from the direct control of government. It was not my intention to imply, nor did I say that the services provided for government by staff lawyers within the ministry are any less worthy than lawyer services provided outside. That's certainly not something that I said or implied. I just wanted to clear the record on that.
But I'm concerned that a number of things really transpire with respect to bias. I'll retain those concerns with respect to bias in the system. The bias can be on the focus and emphasis, and it can be on an almost infinite number of variables. If the legal aid service is worth maintaining -- and I believe it is and that it is very necessary -- it appears to me that the individual should have a freer choice, rather than just having staff lawyers.
There's a presumption that the cost-effectiveness of staff lawyers is going to be superior or enhanced when compared to private lawyers. There's some question in my mind as to how the Attorney General feels that that is possible. Will staff lawyers work harder than those in the private sector? I don't think they'll work less, but I also don't think they'll work any harder. The only thing I can see is a collapsed time frame, and that would dictate that a lower standard of service is the only service available to an individual who qualifies for legal aid. I have some concern that the real perception will be that it's going to be cost-effective, because we will allocate a certain block of time and that's it. The net result of that situation will be that the individual will not be as fairly represented. Rather than having a good legal aid service, it will tend to be a bit of a sham -- we know that you're not being as well represented as you formerly were, but it is cost-effective. That's minor solace to society as a whole.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm going to deal with two points. First of all, the suggestion was that if legal aid is provided by a staff lawyer, somehow that is going to be of lower quality than if provided by a tariff lawyer. I just don't buy that at all. The member needs to understand a little bit about how the system works in order to understand why that isn't the case.
The Legal Services Society's tariff for legal aid provides a certain fee for certain procedures. For example, let me just cite two. I don't remember what the tariff is, but significant dollar amounts are provided for going to court and pleading guilty or for appearing on a failure-to-appear motion -- or whatever it's called. There is a fee paid for that. A staff lawyer can attend court in the morning and dispense with half a dozen of those in the course of a few minutes. If the staff lawyer is making $50 an hour, that's your cost, rather than $1,500, which might be the tariff for one of those items -- and that can mount up after a while. So it's that notion: much of the tariff work -- not all of it -- is paid on an item basis, not on the basis of so much an hour. Even if it was paid on the basis of so much an hour, the cost of the staff lawyer per hour is considerably cheaper than the amount most lawyers -- not all -- will charge on a per-hour basis, including the support costs required. It's clear that those services can be provided more cheaply. I just don't buy it that someone who draws a salary, as opposed to working as a contractor, is going to be less efficient or is going to provide less service. In fact, I think that the opportunity for a well-run community legal office to have a high degree of spirit and cooperation and a good sense of purpose will provide a quality of service that is at least as good as what is currently provided. There are all kinds of factors that I think will enable us to save considerable amounts of money in many elements of the legal aid system -- again, not all of them. We're still talking about half the cases being handled by tariff lawyers in the private sector.
I can't resist the zero tolerance issue. The RCMP in British Columbia decided a year ago, as they do periodically -- and they did again, I think last week -- that they were going to have a crackdown on speeding. This is really an important thing to do, given the number of people who are killed and maimed and whose lives are destroyed in this province as a result of speeding. So they did this a year ago. I didn't even
[ Page 9925 ]
know that the week they were going to do this particular crackdown was coming up.
The Vancouver Province had a headline which said: "Zero Tolerance." Within hours I was accused of or praised for having ordered the police to have a zero tolerance instead of the ten-kilometre overage. I didn't even know about it. But it had a good effect. During that crackdown period the number of serious accidents declined. So maybe I should be giving that kind of direction more specifically on more occasions than I do.
But I need to say that as part of my regular commentary or direction to the RCMP, I do give directions in terms of policing priorities. This year I specifically made sure that the directions included reference to carnage on the highways. We have to give serious attention to this. But I've never called it zero tolerance. I'm like every driver in this province. I have to confess that if it says an 80 km limit, I'm probably up at 85 on occasion, just as everybody in this House who drives probably is.
C. Serwa: When I was talking about the cost of staff lawyers as opposed to private sector lawyers -- you called them tariff lawyers -- I was thinking more of the mechanics of the case, working out the details of defence and the amount of time that they could spend with respect to that, rather than simple, straightforward filing.
It seems to me that, depending on the severity of the case, there is a certain time element. Perhaps if you staff the offices with young, keen lawyers, zealots at a young age, you'll get the type of service delivery you're talking about, and it will be fair, objective and efficient.
If you look at the overhead costs and representation, time is a critical factor. I will continue to have reservations about the success of it. If it works, great, but it's a very difficult thing to measure in actual fact. I don't know how you would measure it or rate it with respect to private sector costs. You're dealing with two different variables. If you looked at the total costs of the system, I suspect the tariff lawyers could deliver as cost-effective a system of defending individuals as the legal services branch with staff lawyers. I can see an empire building that we will continue to expand and cost more and more, and I'm not certain that society will be better served by it. But I do know that it will be more costly in the end.
The question to the minister regards the type of services that qualify for legal aid lawyers. In a civil case involving two litigants, will one qualify for legal aid service?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is no. Private matters are not eligible for legal aid, with one major exception. If the member thinks of family law matters as being civil, then yes. But if I am suing you for your failure to pay me a bill, neither of us will be eligible for legal aid. The other area you could conceive of as a civil area is immigration law, where a court case requires that legal aid be provided for immigrants who are appealing their status.
[5:30]
J. Tyabji: I am happy to get into the debate this afternoon. Since we are on the issue of new legal aid lawyers -- what we're calling staff lawyers -- and the Attorney General talked about a pilot project that's beginning, I want to return to that with regard to family court.
To what extent will there be some kind of overlap between the legal aid service and what the Attorney General is calling community law facilities -- is that the term that's being used? -- and the things that would be going on in the new family court system? What role will the masters and the lower courts play as they currently exist in a new family court system in the pilot project?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: There's a melange of questions in that comment. I'm not sure which end to start with. First of all, the pilots beginning in the family justice centres will enable people involved in marital issues that require resolution to attend and be directed to resources that may be helpful. If mediation or other alternatives fail, it may be that one of the resources is the legal aid office. If both spouses are eligible, it would require either that two legal aid offices be involved or that one tariff and one staff be involved, which would prevent the conflict-of-interest issue. The legal aid office would be a resource for the family justice centre, and it would be separate, because it provides a different service. At that stage the legal aid office is going to provide legal aid as opposed to counselling and mediation and all of the other things.
The role of the masters would be unchanged in all of this. If matters get to the stage where they would proceed in court, the role of the masters as it now exists would continue, unless we were to make other changes with respect to court procedures. But that isn't part of the family justice centres.
J. Tyabji: The next question that automatically follows is: are any changes to the court system planned that would include a movement away from the masters or a greater empowerment of the lower courts so they don't have to have litigation at both levels?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the answer at the present time is no, there aren't any changes with respect to the question the member is asking.
J. Tyabji: It has been my observation that in many cases the masters have existed as a duplication of services, and that some streamlining could greatly reduce the cost to the Attorney General's office. I'd like to make a recommendation on the record: if, through the pilot project of the family justice centres, it turns out that the resource that is recommended is litigation, then there should be some determination of whether or not the highest court needs to be used for that litigation. If that's the case, the lower court should be bypassed or used in as small a manner as possible. I've seen in a number of cases that there is an extended process in the lower courts that is duplicated in the higher courts. That is not only very expensive, it's also very time-consuming.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member is right about expense and time. We have a constitutional issue here, of course, because the Divorce Act is a federal statute. New Brunswick has a system of unified family courts, where judges -- some judges, I guess -- have dual appointments as both Provincial Court and Superior Court judges. That's not something we have moved towards yet, but it's on a long list of issues that are being talked about in terms of reforming the system.
J. Tyabji: As I understand it, once the litigation proceedings enter the Provincial Court system, the Family Relations Act and the Divorce Act can be heard concurrently, or the proceedings heard under the Family Relations Act can then be taken into the Divorce Act proceedings -- at least, that was my experience. The Attorney General may take that into consideration.
Further, the courts that the masters supervise run independently of the Provincial Court system. I made the
[ Page 9926 ]
recommendation that if it is going to end up in the Provincial Courts, that system can be bypassed. There's so much coming before the courts these days that if it can be bypassed by the lower courts, or at least streamlined so that there is a preliminary hearing where it's immediately recommended to the higher court, that would save at least six months and clear up a lot of the backlog.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member is talking about something that I first raised here a couple of years ago when I didn't understand.... The member will understand better than I. Unfortunately, she's had more experience with it than I have. I could never understand why we couldn't have a unified court, and I had the constitution explained to me again. That doesn't mean that we can't find solutions to try to speed up the issues and get them dealt with in a unified way that will benefit everybody involved. New Brunswick has such a project underway, and I think it's worth pursuing the look we're taking at that, as well as at a lot of other initiatives to try to speed things up through the courts and to take things out of the courts that should not be there.
J. Tyabji: With regard to the family justice centres, the Attorney General said that people would go the family justice centres and then be directed to resources. One of those resources may be the legal aid office. In that case, I am assuming -- perhaps incorrectly -- that they would be referred only in the case of the person's income being within a certain bracket. Is that correct?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, it is. And I should clarify; I may have left an incorrect impression earlier. There's going to be a far closer working relationship between the community legal aid offices and the family justice centres than I think I implied by saying that legal aid was simply a resource. There has got to be a working together to effectively develop programs together.
J. Tyabji: With regard to the family court counsellors currently in the Attorney General's office, I heard they were being taken out of the probation office, and I think that's an excellent recommendation. In my experience, the family court counsellors have been very effective -- not just in my direct experience but in the experience of my constituents -- in shortcutting a process and sifting through the various elements before them to find the relevant items. With regard to the resources that someone would be directed to at the family justice centres, what would the other resources be, and to what extent would there be a priority list? I'm wondering if there will be an initial assessment.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Resources would include mediation and short-term counselling.
J. Tyabji: Would there be an initial evaluation of the people to determine what the best resources would be, or will it be decided by those people in some kind of consultation? The reason I'm asking is that often I think it would be a considerable saving to the Attorney General, through the courts, if there were some way of educating the public that litigation is not the only, or preferable, route. Generally people will immediately contact a lawyer in the private sector, and bypass the opportunity for mediation and family court counselling. So to what extent will there be an education process, and to what extent, for example, will people be educated as they arrive about the outcome of the route they are pursuing?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think it's very important that the family justice centres be well advertised; that people be made well aware of the resource so that in fact they do make that their first stop, rather than the private lawyer's office. Once they've made that lawyer's office stop, it often -- not always, but often -- leads down the path that they don't necessarily have to follow. So there's an intention to publicize, to do some education around the centres. We hope to do it in different communities in different languages, too, so that people who may not be familiar with our system can be brought into these centres as well. And of course, we have to then deal with the different cultural components that exist in our society, so that people can be handled in different ways. All of that is envisioned as part of these projects. Again, we're moving relatively slowly and carefully and in different ways in each of the four, so that we can see what works and what doesn't work, and so we can hopefully see at the end of this experiment, a year or a year and a half from now, which is the best way to go in terms of the full development. As I said yesterday, I guess, I'm really persuaded that this is going to not only be a cheaper solution for society as a whole, but a far better solution for what I described earlier as the three losers -- because everybody loses in the current system. Really, in the end, it's the children who lose most of all -- and we want to try to avoid that.
J. Tyabji: The question that follows is whether or not in these pilot projects for the family justice centres the government's marriage officers will work out of that office. If not, I would strongly recommend that in a family justice centre people recognize at the time they get married that there are these other potential components to it, and that there even be a counselling component of the marriage officers.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: These are people who work in the Ministry of Health. I must say that I'd never thought of this before. I'll give it some thought. One of the things that Dave Barrett always used to say in this House was that it should be tougher to get married than it is to get divorced. It's all backwards in our society now. If that's what the member is suggesting -- and I'm not sure that she is -- I think there would be a lot of support for it. I hadn't thought of the idea of having marriage commissioners operate out of these centres, but it's something that I'll put my mind to.
The Chair: Hon. member, just to give you advance notice, I'm going to take another question or perhaps two short ones from you, and then I'm going to go to the member for Richmond-Steveston. Please proceed.
J. Tyabji: I'll finish this line of questioning. Not that I'd choose to quote Dave Barrett, but I don't think I would suggest that it should be more difficult to get married. Given the divorce rate in British Columbia -- which is the highest in the country -- and the associated costs to the government, if we want to be fiscally pragmatic there should be an educational process at the time that the government document binding people to the marriage contract is signed. I've seen enough people in my constituency office to have convinced me that people don't have a good idea of everything that's involved in a marriage. That would be a recommendation. In the event of that being difficult because of Health, I would suggest that the family justice centres have a document to hand out to people that would educate
[ Page 9927 ]
them about all of the responsibilities involved in marriage and having children.
To what extent will the family justice centres be involved in educating clients in self-advocacy and possibly allowing people to represent themselves in the courts?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Training for self-advocacy has not been considered as part of these projects. Child advocacy has been, so there can be more advocates for children in that process. But there hasn't been the notion of training people to take their own way through the legal system as part of this process.
J. Tyabji: I'll conclude with this one. So that the Attorney General doesn't misunderstand, it's not that I'm advocating training, but in the last few months I have seen a number of cases that were brought to me by people who began their process when the only course available to them was through the courts. I believe, from looking at their files, that they probably could have represented their case themselves. They have ended up incurring thousands and thousands of dollars of legal fees, which have broken them. They weren't eligible for legal aid, because of the assets on paper, which were then tied up and they had to go through litigation.
If there was some access to information in the family justice centres for them, or even if there was a list of names of people in the community they could contact for advice, where it wouldn't be costing them $150 to $200 an hour just for the advice, that would be extremely useful. I know that many of my constituents, with a little bit of coaching, could have gone through small claims court, as in one case that I know of, or the Provincial Court, as in another case that I'm thinking of, where there was a horrendous cost to the family and it was really an unnecessary and harassing litigation. So that would be my recommendation.
[5:45]
A. Warnke: I have a few questions, not a long line of reasoning. It's to pursue one particular subject I'm interested in. Being a former Attorney General critic, as the Attorney General knows, I've been interested in aboriginal issues and how they're expressed in tribal policing.
I did note yesterday that there was a brief discussion on tribal policing, and if it's quite all right, I'd like to pursue in general -- not too specifically -- the programs that the minister once put in place with regard to native policing, and also any sort of progress on the issue of incarceration of natives. I think both the Attorney General and I have noted the high proportion of natives being incarcerated.
As well, we are moving into a new era of resolving some of the land claim settlements -- optimistically or pessimistically. But we're moving in that direction. Obviously, we do not know what will be resolved. Nonetheless, an issue associated with that is the promotion of self-administered justice in tribal policing, or the self-administered justice on the reserve.
I would like to pursue the extent to which the Attorney General's ministry is involved, and perhaps the Attorney General could give a brief status. I do want to be fair, but perhaps he would state exactly the status of the programs thus far.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Let me deal first of all with the corrections side. I'll just repeat the current numbers of population in custody. As members know, aboriginal people are about 5 percent of our population. Seventeen percent of the adult prison population is native, and 20 percent of the young offenders in jail are native -- four times the rate that one would expect to prevail. We have to do something about it, partly through the treaty discussions that are going on and partly through a recognition of the role of elders and the role of the traditional, very extended family that exists in aboriginal communities. We have to give greater authority to local aboriginal communities to supervise and be involved in the discipline that the courts will mete out.
In respect to policing, we're making good progress. B.C. was the first province to embark on the federal-provincial program for native RCMP officers. We opened a subdetachment in Ahousat on the west coast, just northwest of Tofino. The subdetachment of the Tofino detachment is where two officers are stationed in Ahousat now. One is from the village originally, although he's been an RCMP member stationed elsewhere for many years. Another is a young RCMP constable who is Metis and is working together with the local officer. Police performing that kind of function in small communities are normally paid for 70 percent by the province and 30 percent by Ottawa. In these arrangements for the native program, the cost-sharing is 52 percent from Ottawa and 48 percent from British Columbia. I'll just double-check this. Our allocation in this budget year is to bring our complement up in British Columbia to 58 percent.
I mentioned Ahousat because it's the first specific subdetachment on a reserve in this way. But there are approximately another 50 aboriginal officers around the province serving in regular detachments. We hope to increase that activity because it's really very worthwhile. The other structure of aboriginal policing is the municipal model. We see that in the Lillooet area, where the equivalent of a municipal force is established in that community.
I don't know whether the member wants to pursue this now, or whether the member would, with me, take recognition of the clock. I think this might be a good opportunity.
May I say to members that to help get better answers, if we can talk about one topic for a while, it would be more effective because I can bring in additional staff resources. I'm not talking to very many members now, but perhaps opposition members could talk among themselves and find a way of coordinating the discussion, so that we talk about one topic for a while and then do not keep coming back to it -- if we can. But we are obviously able to come back any time that you like.
With that, hon. Chair, I would move 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 progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Pursuant to standing orders, I would remind members that the House will sit tomorrow afternoon. If there is no other business, I would move the House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.
[ Page 9928 ]
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 2:53 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SMALL BUSINESS, TOURISM AND CULTURE
(continued)
On vote 51: minister's office, $342,000 (continued).
C. Tanner: Just for the benefit of the committee, the minister, the staff and all those people sitting around doing nothing at the back, we reckon we should be through with this part of the vote momentarily. That's as far as Small Business is concerned. As far as Tourism is concerned, we're planning on a couple of weeks, but we may be able to get out today if you give us some more exact answers, Mr. Minister, instead of the long-winded nonsense that we've been getting this morning. I've got only one more question as far as Small Business is concerned. I don't know what my friend has. He might have some more, and there might be another one coming in later.
The question is one that I think is very pertinent to your department. It's obvious that the minister is travelling around and spreading the wealth of his knowledge to the chambers of commerce -- none of which pays any attention, at his own instruction. It's obvious that the ministry called Economic Development, Small Business and Trade that used to exist has disappeared. You've done away with a number of people in that branch, but you haven't done away with -- how many is it? -- 24 regional economic development officers. My question to the minister is this: what do they specifically do in those offices? Are they in government agents' offices, and what do they do there? Who do they talk to?
Hon. B. Barlee: The economic development officers are spread all through the province. They are part of our long-term strategy to make sure that the parts of the province that are not doing exceptionally well economically have a better chance of doing so. They collaborate with the government agents. They also contact business groups in that area such as the chambers of commerce and occasionally the boards of trade. They are my eyes and ears on the ground to see how we are doing in the respective areas. If the unemployment rate is high in Salmon Arm, for instance, I want to know from the regional economic development officer why that is and where the areas are in which we can flesh out some more business activity -- whether it's value-added timber or high-tech industry in a smaller sense. That isn't a lot of government workers.
When I look at the ministry as a whole, some areas -- probably in Small Business -- have grown a little bit. Tourism has come down drastically over the last seven years from 120 employees to 65. Whereas in other parts of the ministry, if we feel we need some added response teams in there, we will put them in.
Those regional economic development officers are really quite important to the long-term analysis of what we are doing in the small business community. Both of us know that is still a fragile community. No matter how well we do, there are always casualties there. They provide valuable information on the ground to government, because we are not always there.
C. Tanner: Madam Chairman, you didn't have the benefit of hearing the diatribe we had this morning. The minister was asked to define the job that these people do and what his ministry does, and he had a terribly difficult time telling us. Apparently it wasn't very much, and we have just had the same thing about his economic officers.
It sounds to me that the minister is saying they go out and find something for him to do. When he is travelling around, he is not getting information from the chambers of commerce, because he is telling them to ignore anything he or the opposition or the government says. His officers have to send out questionnaires to define what they are supposed to be doing. Would the minister be prepared to admit that now he has put those 16 economic officers in the government agents' offices around the province, in actual fact they are feeling their way and don't really know what to do?
Hon. B. Barlee: They are doing fairly well. I remember reading in the Victoria Times-Colonist about 15 minutes ago that there is one city in the entire country that at 6.4 percent has the lowest unemployment rate of all the cities. That is by far a record, so I think that's indicative of our long-term strategy. British Columbia's is lower than virtually all the provinces, including all the Liberal provinces, which have horrendous UI rates because they haven't got a short-term policy -- or a long-term strategy for that matter, either. We are working on both, and I think it's working fine. The small business community is extremely healthy in British Columbia, and I hink everyone will admit that -- even the opposition, very reluctantly, of course. This is part and parcel of the package, and the package is pretty good. Certain parts of the ministry have grown, and other parts have lost FTEs. This is part of the long-term strategy.
C. Tanner: Could the minister perhaps provide this committee with a job description for any of those 24 economic development officers, so that we can make that judgment on the basis of the written job description?
Hon. B. Barlee: I don't have the job description at my fingertips, but I'll provide you with a detailed copy tomorrow.
[3:00]
F. Gingell: On page 8 of the minister's book, "Commitment to Small Business," there is a statement: "Fees, licences and taxation are often cited as problems." Could the minister please advise us which fees and licences his ministry is responsible for?
Hon. B. Barlee: We don't administer them, if that's what the hon. member is asking about. We don't set them either.
F. Gingell: What people refer to as fees and licences, and we call taxes -- as members of the government used to call them in the recent past -- are cost-recoverers in some form. Does your ministry charge any fees or licence charges for the recovery of costs for performing something?
Hon. B. Barlee: Yes, we do in certain instances. For example, the Royal British Columbia Museum charges a fee six days of the week, I believe. So we do collect fees there, and they are allowed to keep that funding as part of their operations budget. Essentially, I can't think of any other area where we do that.
[ Page 9929 ]
F. Gingell: Then perhaps I can get a commitment out of this minister, which we've been unable to get out of any other minister, that he will not increase any of the fees, charges or licences his ministry may be responsible for.
Hon. B. Barlee: We are doing a review of the cumulative impact of fees, licences and taxes on a number of firms in the province. The review will be completed, I think, in about 28 days, which is the end of the month. This review provides a framework for future decisions respecting fees, licences and so on. We're doing that right now.
F. Gingell: I take it that that's the review referred to on page 11 of the report, which is promised in six months. You've actually beat me to my next question.
When one reads this report, you have listed, identified and focused on a whole series of what I will call "obvious" things to do -- things you don't need to talk to business about. There are a whole bunch of relatively minor changes that would ease the lot of small businesses in complying with the ever-growing requirements of government regulation. Do you not feel that many of the issues you've identified here could in fact be done now? You know, let's get on with it and stop delaying these things.
Hon. B. Barlee: I assume you're referring to the White Paper on business, which is a discussion paper. Is that correct?
F. Gingell: Yes.
Hon. B. Barlee: I think it's a fairly important paper for several reasons. We discussed Dean Cooper this morning. He was the former head of the chambers of commerce in British Columbia. He had a very positive response to the White Paper, because it is a contact between the business community and government at large. Government, as you well know, is inclined to occasionally ignore those groups that are definitely affected. I think that paper is helpful in many respects, because it will give us an idea of the ten priorities that business thinks are of paramount importance to them and their longevity. When I discussed this with people in the various chambers I've gone to over the last three or four months, the response has been positive.
F. Gingell: There's one more issue. In the course of the discussions in that document that deal with the problems of equity capital, the VCCs, the employee share ownership program and the Working Opportunity Fund -- which I notice you take credit for in this but wish to avoid all connection to in other matters -- has your ministry, on behalf of small business, had any discussions with the federal government with respect to loosening up registered retirement savings plan funds as investments for small business?
Hon. B. Barlee: No, there have been no formal discussions at all.
R. Chisholm: I'd just like to get something clarified for the record. One thing I'd like to talk about is interprovincial trade and the barriers that are perhaps the biggest problem we have in this country and an immense problem for British Columbia. Trade between provinces is almost as large as trade between countries; in Canada this is between $146 billion and $160 billion. I'm wondering if your ministry has any jurisdiction or is in any ongoing negotiations on trying to reduce these interprovincial barriers, whether they be in agriculture or secondary industry.
Hon. B. Barlee: That's a pretty good question, actually. This basically falls under the aegis or mandate of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, because the blocks in interprovincial trade are essentially in foodstuffs -- milk, cheese and manufactured food products. So it doesn't impact dramatically or even significantly on this ministry. There are small impacts, but the vast majority of the problems occur in the area of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, not in Small Business. There may be some exceptions.
R. Chisholm: What would those exceptions to the rule be?
Hon. B. Barlee: I would like to reply in detail, but firstly, it doesn't fall under the parameters of this vote. Secondly, I can't think of any area where it does have any significant effect.
The Chair: Does the hon. member wish to pursue a new line of questioning?
R. Chisholm: I'll quote from the Creston paper, and then I'll phrase my question:
"The provincial government will provide $25,000 to the Creston Valley Sustainable Communities Project, Small Business Minister Bill Barlee and Nelson-Creston MLA Corky Evans announced recently. The project focuses on linking the social, economic and environmental interests of Creston to help the community determine its own future."
I would like to know exactly what this grant was for and what they have accomplished with this grant.
Hon. B. Barlee: Grants are made cautiously to various areas of the province that are experiencing either high unemployment rates or other problems, and Creston is no exception to that rule.
Creston, as you well know, is a small farming community at the south end of Kootenay Lake. This is part of their strategic planning. It's a city of 3,000 or 4,000 and has been there for almost a century. Judicious funding to certain communities probably makes our job easier, because they are using it on the ground. There are people there who know what they need in the Creston area, so I think these funds are fairly judiciously spent.
R. Chisholm: Exactly what was the money for? Was it for planning?
Hon. B. Barlee: Strategic planning.
R. Chisholm: Okay.
The next question to the minister is: the B.C. Trade Development Corporation, as you know, develops markets overseas. Do you have any responsibility in developing these overseas markets? And what products are we in the process of marketing at this point?
Hon. B. Barlee: That is essentially under the aegis or mandate of B.C. Trade. We do have conversations with them and similar strategic plans in certain areas. For instance, B.C. Trade will collaborate with my ministry in Japan and in other areas of the world where we have mutual interests. But essentially that question properly belongs under B.C. Trade.
[ Page 9930 ]
R. Chisholm: The same question to the minister: where are you now in negotiating with B.C. Trade, and what products are you definitely pushing at this time? That's what I'm trying to find out.
Hon. B. Barlee: That's a fair question. For instance, two years ago we took in $234 million on B.C. Film. Last year that jumped to -- and I'm doing this by memory, but I'm pretty close -- $286 million, so that jumped by about $50 million. This year we think we will take in $365 million, which will be another jump of about $80 million. Our initial conversations occur in markets such as Hollywood, so B.C. Film, which comes under both of our aegises, will send down Oksana Exell, and she will contact some of the major players in Hollywood such as Disney, Warner Bros., Paramount and so on. We will do the same; we have a mutual interest in the film industry. I think the industry, when you look at it very closely, which is now at about $286 million, should be a half-billion-dollar industry possibly by the end of 1996.
C. Tanner: As long as the dollar stays down; that's the only reason.
Hon. B. Barlee: No, that's not the only reason.
The Chair: Any further discussion from the members of Her Majesty's official opposition?
C. Tanner: As far as Small Business is concerned, we've pretty well wrapped it up.
The Chair: So shall I put the question?
C. Tanner: No, Madam Chairman, don't get carried away now. We've a long way to go yet.
The Chair: Oh well, I thought I'd have a go here.
C. Tanner: Before we do finally wrap it up, I've got a suggestion for the minister. It seems to me that he hasn't clearly defined his goals. It seems to me that he is subject to all sorts of criticism from the chambers of commerce. It seems to me that business wants only three things, which we started out with yesterday morning. We said that business wants the government to get out of the way, a reduction of taxes and easier fund raising. The only one the minister has really addressed -- he's done it superficially, and he won't have any effect anyway -- is easier financing, by talking to the banks and the credit unions.
However, I have a suggestion so that the minister can come back here a year from now and prove to us that he's really trying. Why doesn't this minister introduce into his department, for the first time that I know of in this government, a 10 percent bonus to those members of his staff who come in under budget?
Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, we could not do that under the way government is operated. I think my staff in various parts of the ministry is quite well motivated. I think I mentioned this morning that, as a minister, I'm extremely careful with government funding; there's not much doubt about that at all. I'm a good manager. I think the member will be quite happy with all three brackets of this ministry.
[3:15]
The ministry is, as I've said before, a natural marriage and a good fit. Tourism impacts on small business, small business impacts on culture, and vice versa all the way down the line. The proof will be in the pudding, and the pudding will be cooked by the end of this year. I think you will probably -- reluctantly -- admit at the end of this year that it has been pretty well handled.
C. Tanner: Could I be excused for five minutes while I go outside to be sick?
The Chair: Hon. member, really.
C. Tanner: I mean, it's bad enough that he blows his trumpet and gives us misinformation. But really, he's putting it on with a shovel now.
We have finished with Small Business. We would like to talk about Tourism. Both the members here have some questions on Tourism, and I'll get into it later.
R. Chisholm: The ministry has recently announced its commitment of more funding for tourism. How will the minister ensure that most or all of this money is targeted to marketing B.C. abroad? How will the ministry ensure that industry is consulted on how this money is allocated?
Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, we have partnership arrangements with industry at large, whether it be COTA or one of the other sectors of the tourism industry. Indeed, we have some extra funding for tourism, and I think that money will be very well allocated. We have -- and I'll elaborate slightly on this -- about $5.55 billion in tourism revenue as of 1993. It may be $5.6 billion, but it's fairly close. Our target is $6 billion at the calendar end of 1994, and the target beyond that -- the end of 1996 -- is $7.2 billion. Frankly, that will be beneficial to virtually everyone connected with the tourist industry. First of all, it will be beneficial to those businesses that are struggling against other areas such as Florida and California, and they are all competing, in many instances, for the same market.
For instance, we are specifically targeting these areas: Germany, the U.K., United States, Japan and Southeast Asia -- as well as trying to hold the number of travel dollars in British Columbia. Most people do not know that we lose $6.2 billion through B.C. travellers travelling outside of British Columbia. Some of that is unavoidable. However, we think that hemorrhage is too drastic, and we would like to reduce it because $6.2 billion is really quite a staggering loss. So we keep 31 cents out of the travel dollar in British Columbia.
We get a lot from Washington state, Alberta, overseas and so on, and in comparison with any other jurisdiction in Canada, we're far ahead. But, frankly, I don't think we've touched the potential. We have marvellous areas in which people can travel within the province of British Columbia, and many British Columbians, are not aware of them.
So we have a number of initiatives that this money -- or parts of this money -- will be spent on. Some of it will be in partnership programs with the various tourist-oriented businesses around the province; some of it will be spent in projects such as rolling billboards. Rolling billboards are trucks that are going across the line. We're already negotiating with a number of trucking firms in British Columbia to go across the line carrying our message on the sides of their trucks; that's why it's a rolling billboard. We are also negotiating with several railroads doing the same thing all across North America into other parts of Canada and into the United States. We think there should be a reasonable tour book in British Columbia. Any other jurisdiction in the world concentrates on tour books because when people take them back home, they act as your ambassador.
[ Page 9931 ]
We think that IMAX theatre, which carries the message to about 50 million people worldwide -- our target -- is another vehicle we should use. We should have touch-screen computers on the ferries, so people can look at a map of British Columbia. There are 22 million people travelling on the ferries of British Columbia. We think they should be able to touch that touch-screen, look at an area in British Columbia, get some pan views of that area and decide where they want to go. The second stage is how much it will cost them, and so on.
We have about nine definite initiatives coming down the pike between now and about 90 to 120 days from now. They will have a dramatic effect upon our tourism income and revenue generally. We probably have only a l2- to 15-month window on four of those initiatives, because our competitors in Florida, California, New York State and Montana, etc., will jump on board with the same ideas. We have only a 12- to 15-month window, but it's a good start. We are concentrating on those overseas markets plus the U.S. market -- both the short haul and the long haul -- plus those markets right inside British Columbia as well as in other Canadian provinces. We have a pretty good strategy. I will acknowledge that the best strategy in the world right now is probably Australia, and they built much of that strategy on the back of the film industry in the early eighties when they came up with great films like Breaker Morant, My Brilliant Career and The Man from Snowy River. They had great representatives like Paul Hogan in Crocodile Dundee and all the rest of it, and they found that there was a corresponding jump in tourism revenues. We think that is a vehicle we can use as well.
Interjection.
Hon. B. Barlee: Yes, but this is a vehicle we will use outside of this individual here.
It does work because what it does is provide a window into Australia. If you look at Australia's original tourism marketing plan prior to 1980, it virtually did not exist. They put $32 million into tourism in 1985 and they got $1.1 billion back on overseas travel. That is in Australian dollars, which is about 90 percent of ours. They fleshed that out to about $100 million in 1992 and got back $4.4 billion. That's $44 to the dollar.
We look at all of our competitors, including Florida -- who has done a lot of things right and a lot of things wrong as well -- and California, and we pick through their areas to see whether it suits our particular tourism strategy.
We have another advantage which Florida and California certainly don't have. Safety used to be 12 or 13 on the list of priorities; now it is one or two. One of the areas in North America that is probably the safest so far -- touch wood -- is the Pacific Northwest. We will all benefit, and we are better positioned than Oregon, Washington or Alaska. Frankly, we are predicating our strategy on some things our competitors are doing and on some of our own ideas as well. I find it fascinating because it's the fastest-growing industry in the world by far; nothing touches it. I think it's an opportunity that we can't pass up at all. For the few dollars we're putting into it, the dividends will be really quite astronomical. In the next eight months we think we will probably increase our tourism revenues by about $50 million a month, and that may be a conservative estimate.
R. Chisholm: I didn't think such a simple question would get a world tour.
The next question is closer to home, hon. minister, and maybe you could help out here. Hotels in the province are facing a rather disproportionate level of taxes: 10 percent liquor tax, 8 percent room tax and 7 percent GST, to name but a few. This results in a very low return on investment rates and prohibits many hoteliers from maintaining or improving the quality of their product. This, in turn, erodes the competitiveness of the tourism industry on the international market, resulting in job loss and disintegration of local economies. How is the minister helping the tourism industry to prosper by diminishing this disproportionate rate of taxation, and who are you consulting with?
Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, I think the figures don't agree with that. I know that the hotel occupancy rate in British Columbia was 71.1 percent last year. I haven't got it in front of me, but that is what it happens to be. It's up over that this year already. So the increases have been quite staggering.
I just met with the hotel industry about three weeks ago, and on top of that, I check with the tour companies. The tour companies are a good indicator as well; they are the pulse of the industry. They're up 14 to 16 percent on average this year so far. The industry is looking in fairly good shape. Of course, there are things wrong with every business that you engage in, and some of the hotels will be having a hard time. That's why our responsibility is to get the tourists into the province; their responsibility is to hold them there and to get them to come back in repeat business. Frankly, I think our infrastructure is reasonable, and the unfortunate part about infrastructure is it tends to follow business, not precede it.
R. Chisholm: This government has boosted the power of organized labour by simplifying the process of organizing any business. This has particularly hurt small businesses, many of which operate in the tourism industry. Most small operators will not be able to continue in business when yielding to demands that are inappropriate for this industry. Will the minister back the tourism industry in its quest for fair and workable labour legislation geared to maintaining a strong and viable industry, resulting in jobs and economic welfare? What are your ongoing negotiations with the Labour minister at this point?
Hon. B. Barlee: We're always aware of anything that impacts upon small business as a whole. I have been a small business person and have a deep respect for small business people, partly because they are the true entrepreneurs. Anything that government does impacts upon business one way or another. Sometimes it's positive; sometimes it's negative. I think, though, that I have to gauge my response by whether or not any legislation has a negative effect upon small business.
Then I have to look at the small business community and actually see how they're doing. If I strip away my political biases -- and we all do that -- I think you will acknowledge that the small business community in British Columbia is, if not the healthiest in North America, certainly up there on the top floor.
C. Tanner: No thanks to you.
Hon. B. Barlee: Well, that's debatable. I will take some of the thanks, of course.
Utah, for instance, has a marvellous strategy. I know some of the players down there. Colorado did have. I think they've taken a step backwards in cutting their tourism funding; they're realizing that now.
[ Page 9932 ]
We try to take a long-term analytical approach. We try pilot projects as test projects to see if they do work. In my old ministry we tried a number of pilot projects, and invariably they did work. This is the strategy we try to follow in Small Business. If they do work, then we flesh those out and elaborate on those pilot projects. This is just long-term policy stuff.
R. Chisholm: I thought my question was about labour when I asked it, hon. minister. Maybe you can explain what negotiations you've had with the Labour minister as to how these labour agreements are going to affect the tourism industry.
Hon. B. Barlee: Yes, I've discussed that with both the minister and the various groups that perhaps would be impacted. I think everyone in this room would readily admit that $6 an hour is a little tough to make a living on. That's $48 a day after taxes, which have not been relieved too much in that particular area by either the present government or the previous government. If I think there is any impact from any proposed White Papers on labour -- which there is right now on labour standards -- I contact the minister. Those discussions are still ongoing at present.
R. Chisholm: With the current level of the Canadian dollar at an all-time low, is the ministry undertaking any action in the short term to ensure there is additional advertising in the United States to bring tourists into Canada and British Columbia, and to spend their dollars here?
[3:30]
Hon. B. Barlee: Certainly. We realize that the difference in the Canadian dollar -- which is about 71.53 today or somewhere around there; it has come down 32 basis points, I believe -- will have a dramatic impact on us. In other words, $100 (U.S.) will get you close to $140 (Canadian), so the first two days in the week are essentially on us. That's what it adds up to, if you're a visitor from the United States.
D. Symons: I have a few questions to direct to the minister. The first one goes back to Small Business, in that it ties in with what we are discussing on Tourism as well. I have had some business people in my community, one who is moving south of the line, and two or three other people who have expressed the same sentiments that he has said are causing him to move. There are primarily two things common among the people who are complaining about doing business in British Columbia. One is the corporate capital tax, and the other is simply the bureaucracy. It seems to take so long to get government to answer, whether you are applying for a liquor licence or whatever. When you get an answer you get a partial answer. You send things back and forth, and a great deal of time is lost between the time you initially make your application and when it finally gets expedited so that you can get your business going. It seems that a person who is going to operate even a modest business has in the realm of $500,000 to $1 million tied up in getting that business going. The government should somehow be able to cut out that red tape and give an answer, so that the person doesn't have a long wait while that money is tied up in the government's bureaucracy.
Hon. B. Barlee: That's a fair question. First of all, there's a common misconception about the corporate capital tax. We relieved certain groups from the corporate capital tax -- all family farms, for instance. Secondly, the corporate capital tax is not unique to British Columbia.
Many states in the Union have a corporate capital tax -- and not only that. I was just talking to a very large player in the business community who said when we compared taxes in British Columbia to those in California we found we were fractionally better. I asked if medicare had been taken into consideration and was told we didn't even put that on the table. A business in California will not do as well as an equivalent business in British Columbia.
The statement about red tape is true. This is why we put out the White Paper, which is a discussion paper to small business, saying: "Okay, list your ten priorities; tell us what you don't like." I will work on those various ministries to try to resolve some of these problems, which I'm quite willing to do, and I do have some good associations with the other ministers. I said there has to be a more collaborative approach.
Many of us who have been in small business know you don't want to spend half your time filling out papers that will be filed who knows where. We are working on this, but it will not be accomplished overnight; I admit that. It's a slow process. We've got a thousand responses to look at, and I think they will give us an idea of where we should be going. Some of those we've responded to already, but the red tape ones are a slow process.
D. Symons: I'm sure many businesses around the province will be anticipating changes and a reduction in that red tape so they can get on with making money and making the province an economic success, rather than spending a lot of time filling out forms and responding to government.
You talked earlier about increased spending on tourism. I checked the figures, and in the fiscal year ending in 1992, which is really half the mandate of this government and half of the previous government -- this figure was set by the previous government -- the spending for Tourism was roughly $20.3 million; in 1993, $16.3 million; and in 1994, $15.3 million. Do you notice a trend there, a downward trend? And this year we find, perhaps as we're moving closer to the end of the government's mandate and an election, that the figures have jumped to $20.5 million for anticipated spending for the fiscal year ending in 1995. I'm curious that the trend is downward and wonder why it's taken two years to come to the realization that Tourism needs that money to bring in tourists and to help the economy of this province. Why the two-year lag in realizing that $20 million is a more realistic figure?
Hon. B. Barlee: I think a number of us realize that this is an area in government that should be carefully nurtured. It can give dividends to government and the public at large without any doubt at all. I would like this to be a performance ministry. In other words, I think we should be judged by our performance.
If that tourism funding is well spent, which it will be -- and we do realize that we'll save $400 million more next year -- I would fully anticipate that Treasury Board would realize that this has a beneficial effect, both economically and socially, and that we would be given more funding to continue the long-term strategy. I won't say that Tourism has always had a long-term strategy. When I go back over the last 30 years in this province, we were kind of sailing on our ancestors. We have marvellous destinations. We have lots of attractions, but that doesn't last forever, especially when everybody gets into the act.
In my discussions with Treasury Board and other people in government at large -- and in discussions with other MLAs on both sides of the House -- I think we all came to
[ Page 9933 ]
the conclusion that this was a ministry that with very rare exceptions could do very well with an extra few million dollars to prove what we could do. I think that argument.... If, however, next year I came back and said, "I'm sorry, we didn't make our...." Then I'd be free game, and perhaps that's the way it should be. Maybe that's the way a ministry should be governed -- at least this type of ministry -- because this is a revenue-producing ministry. You can't do that in ministries such as Health, Education and Social Services; but this is one of the few revenue-producing ministries, and when you are a revenue-producing ministry, sometimes the addition of several million dollars can make you several hundred million dollars more in gross revenue.
D. Symons: I noticed while the minister was speaking the red light was on. Does that mean something?
The Chair: Mechanical things happen here that are somewhat mysterious.
D. Symons: I just would caution that a cynic might think that somehow in the past few years the government had been salting money away or decreasing the spending in the ministry, in order that they would be able to increase it toward the end of their mandate to show what a wonderful government they are. I would hate to think that that might be the case, because that means that there would be opportunities lost in tourism in the past two years, and tourism is one of those things that I don't think that you can really make up in one year. When we have a rail strike in B.C., as we had last summer, for instance, the effects upon the tourist industry are long-lasting. Tour companies that cancelled out because they knew the trains weren't running aren't necessarily going to book tours into B.C. this coming summer. It will take a few more years until they feel that's a reliable transportation mode up there. So they might not come to B.C. They might go elsewhere, particularly those people who wanted the enjoyment of riding our train there. Trains -- locomotives anyway -- are becoming less popular and available around the world, particularly ones that travel through the scenery we have here. I'm somewhat concerned, then, that decreased spending has a long-term effect; it's not possible to put an extra $5 million in one year and overcome the faults caused in the past year.
I have some other questions that relate more or less to the ministry that I'm critic for but also impact upon the Tourism ministry. I'm looking for some interrelationships here. One of them is that the Highways ministry put into effect a long-term policy that had not been enforced until a year ago. That involved informational road signs along the sides of highways in the province. There are a good number of very small businesses, particularly outside the lower mainland, that depend upon these to indicate where they are. A good number of small businesses throughout the community, particularly bed-and-breakfasts and local crafts companies, have been terribly concerned about this effect upon them. There's been an edict that the only signs that can be there are official highway signs. These signs are prohibited even though they might be in an area where there's not a great deal of traffic and signs would not be detrimental to the environment and the vision of the area around it.
Can the minister respond as to whether you've had some discussions with the Highways ministry on making a sign law that allows for some variability in the areas where possibly the use of those signs would help the business and not detract from the scenery?
Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, I don't believe in indiscriminate signs all over the province. It simply doesn't work. I do believe in targeted signs. We have done some work with Highways in the Okanagan, for instance. There we have a series of signs that indicate where the wine tours are and where the wineries are, and I think that's necessary. In that upper Slocan region, right from New Denver, Slocan City, Silverton and Nakusp, we have all the same types of signs. We're also discussing right now enhancements for segments of the tourism industry, such as bed-and-breakfasts, certain artisans, and scenic and historic routes. But I would have difficulty saying yes, we should let every little business put up their signs regardless of how the sign looks.
When I've gone through states and provinces that have concentrated on tourism, they simply don't allow that at all. We have been searching for an answer and the answer is, of course, not easy to come by. But I think there has to be a targeted policy of signs in conjunction with the Highways ministry. We have to be very careful that we do not clutter up our scenic routes with indiscriminate signs all over. That is happening in certain areas of the province.
As far as your first question is concerned, you were stating that we're trying to make up for lost time. Perhaps you're at odds with one of your own members. You weren't here this morning, but the party Whip said in the Chilliwack Progress that while government is dumping some agencies, it should go further and put some ministries on the chopping block -- the whole ministry, of course -- and that the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture should be the first to go. That is astonishing to me, in that this is a moneymaking ministry. It will make money hand over fist both for government at large and for business generally. We'll see what business thinks about that. In fact, some of them that have contacted me were quite understandably upset about it.
D. Symons: One of the problems with operating the two Houses is that you can't be in two places at once, which creates the problem that I was not able to be here this morning and hear what my colleague said. I might have some difference of opinion with him on some aspects of that. Possibly about having a Ministry of Tourism, I could agree with him. The concept of tourism promotion being carried out by somebody is certainly an important thing for British Columbia. It's a great dollar-generator. Is it number three now? I think it has moved up to the third spot and replaced mining as the third moneymaking industry in this province.
I have another question that relates somewhat to my critic's role. In a few places around the province -- I believe there is one out in Saanich and one near Langley -- there are these big floral displays at the side of the road that have various things.... I believe they were built during Expo, and now the one in Langley says "Tour B.C." There's an earth berm and a floral display of some sort there. These promote B.C. in a sense. What part does your ministry play in these? Are they funded through the Highways ministry or through your ministry? Do you have any input at all in these roadside attractions?
Hon. B. Barlee: These are basically under the aegis of Highways.
D. Symons: I have one final question relating to the ministry I'm the critic for, and it has to do with the Victoria Line. The government, after a long delay, is about to implement a Seattle-Victoria service. They're having a ferry
[ Page 9934 ]
refitted right now, so it should be in operation a couple of months from now. In order for that to be a financial success, it takes a lot of advertising and promotion. I'm wondering what steps your ministry has taken starting last fall until now to promote travel on this new ferry line. Again, is the responsibility for this part of B.C. 21 or is your ministry going to be doing the promotion for this?
[3:45]
Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, our ministry will not be advertising that. Our job is to promote generic advertising. In other words, we have generic advertising to promote British Columbia. We may promote one of those nine tourism sectors in British Columbia in certain instances.
As far as Seattle being one of our windows -- indeed, it is an important window -- I think the ferry line to Seattle will have beneficial effects. I don't think there's much doubt about that at all. Stena did not make any money, but they did bring in a number of passengers. That line carried 900 passengers per day at full occupancy; I believe that's correct. That's almost 1,000 a day, and it could be around 30,000 a month. That would have a dramatic effect upon a number of businesses in Victoria. The chamber here was behind that; naturally, they would be. The spinoff benefits, after analyzing it and analyzing what Stena did, may be.... It provides 90-odd jobs right off the top. The government is picking up taxes on that, as well as other employment, so that they don't drop back onto the welfare rolls or UI. On balance, I think it's an issue that should be tried, and it may be successful partly because of changing conditions in the northwest and partly because we are becoming a destination for visitors from all over the world.
D. Symons: I gather from your answer that you're not financing any of the advertising relating to Victoria Line. That means that Victoria Line, which is a separate corporation now, is doing all its own advertising, and the city of Victoria might be involved in funding some of that. I believe you do have government books that the Tourism ministry puts out. Has the existence of this line been advertised in your most recent editions put out in the Seattle area so that when people pick up Beautiful British Columbia books they can find that there is another way of getting into B.C. through the Victoria Line.
Hon. B. Barlee: We're already working on that, and it has already gone out in some of our brochures. Although that doesn't fall specifically under us, we think there should be a collaborative approach. I also think that the province would be wise to at some time in the immediate future look at a significant window in Seattle, seeing how the tourism industry goes. The old window in Seattle wasn't good enough: it was five storeys up; it wasn't on the ground floor. With changing conditions, certainly California has not become a preferred area, and that has happened to Florida, and it happened a long time ago to New York State. So we have to be flexible, and that's why I'm looking more positively at the Victoria-Seattle connection.
D. Symons: I am somewhat disappointed in the answer, because I gather from the way you answered the question about the advertising in government tourism brochures that you're just beginning on it. The tourist season is well upon us -- at least people are making plans for it -- and I think the brochures for this tourist year probably should have been out in these communities some time last fall. I gather from your answer that at least this particular mode of transportation to B.C. was not included in brochures that were put together for this tourist season.
Hon. B. Barlee: If I had 650 people in the Tourism ministry, I certainly would have taken care of that, but we have 65, down from 120. We have a list of priorities in this ministry which address short-term strategies and long-term strategies, and we get to those one at a time. This is important because it is part of the whole package, but it isn't the most important part of the package. The most important part of the package is to get our message out to those five areas in the world: Germany; Japan and so on; our neighbouring states, which would include much of California, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, and possibly Utah; as well as the fairly close-by provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario to a lesser extent. So we have to prioritize what we think is very important. We have a finite amount of money to go around. Look at the results at the end of the year; I think the results will be very positive. This is but a small part of the overall puzzle.
J. Sawicki: I want to just come a little closer to home. I appreciate what the minister has said in terms of the cutbacks in staff and having to set priorities in marketing tourism. But I'd like to ask the minister just what the status is within the Tourism part of his ministry of a land- and resource-based inventory of tourism products. If we're going to market these products, we need to know where they are.
Hon. B. Barlee: That's a good question, one we're working on right now. So we are looking at that overall picture. For instance, when land use policies are going on in the Cariboo, we are sitting at the table, because some of those policies impact on the ranching community, which in turn impacts on tourism. In the Okanagan the same thing applies.
An admission I don't mind making is that we haven't been significant players at the table in that respect for a number of years. We realize this is part of our whole infrastructure in how people view the province. For instance, in the Clayoquot we have a professional forester called Pieter Bekker. He's our watchdog there. We have other individuals watching over this in various parts of the province -- for instance, the 25 agents we have, as well as our 60 offices in various parts of the province. It's kind of a long-term realization that we have to take very good care of the province. We have to be at the table wherever this is discussed, and we are, I think, in every instance.
J. Sawicki: That's all very well, Mr. Minister. And I'm a great fan of tourism; I'm particularly concerned about sort of mid-country and back-country tourism. But if we're going to be at the table to fight for tourism, surely we need to know what areas are really important to be able to market the tourism products.
I guess the area I'm concerned about in particular.... We can encourage people, let's say, to come and invest in heliskiing operations or fly-in fishing camps, but if we don't know the carrying capacity of the area they're going into, we could end up with five, ten or 15 operations and the land resource may support only five of them. Therefore we end up destroying the very product that we've marketed.
I'd like the minister to expand a little and give us the confidence, before we market these things, that we actually know where they should be, what the carrying capacity is, and ensure that we don't oversell the products -- especially
[ Page 9935 ]
those products based on land resources that are competed for by every other ministry as well.
Hon. B. Barlee: Certainly that's again a good question. First, there's planning, which we're doing. But the actual doing is carried on by the Ministry of Lands, so we have to collaborate with them. As far as the mapping is concerned.... We just had a meeting last week, discussing exactly what you are discussing right now: the various parts of the infrastructure that should be attractive to tourists from around the world.
As far as back-country recreation is concerned, we also had a meeting about that last week. We think we have to get caught up there. It is becoming a new area for many tourists from various parts of the world, specifically in Europe, and we're quite aware of that. When we get the mapping done, this will contribute, in part at least, to a tour book, which I think is complete. I don't think we've ever had a tour book in British Columbia that is complete, but this will probably take us eight or nine months to get in shape.
J. Sawicki: I wouldn't want to be accused of harassing the minister, but can he just tell me how many people within the ministry are actually involved in mapping these tourism products -- like on-the-ground mapping? What I'm trying to get at here is that every other ministry has maps that they put on the table. If tourism doesn't have maps to put on the table, then how can you fight for the areas you really need to fight for? So could the minister just tell me how big a program he has, and how many people within the ministry are still actually mapping and doing tourism product inventory?
Hon. B. Barlee: Okay, essentially what we've done is to use technology to improve input into land use planning -- the GIS system. We have mapped the entire province. We have about four or five people -- I think it is five -- working on that, and that is their main project; that's what they concentrate on. The scale is 1:250,000. We hope it will come down to 1:50,000, which is much more logical, I think. We are inventorying the entire province. We have quite a bit of inventorying done already, but it will take a while before we have all those maps completed, knowing exactly what we've got in each specific area of the province. That work is progressing, and about 8 percent of my staff is devoted to that.
W. Hurd: The member for Burnaby-Willingdon has raised an excellent point, though, about the relationship between the Ministry of Lands and Parks and the minister responsible for Tourism. As the minister knows, the Ministry of Lands has been involved in a back-country and wilderness recreation policy development process that obviously will have a major impact on the entire tourism industry in British Columbia. Can the minister tell us whether his ministry is actively seeking input into development of that policy, or is he just monitoring progress for the Ministry of Lands?
Hon. B. Barlee: We have had steady input into that decision-making, and we're still at the table. We hope that those problems will be resolved, and I think they will in the relatively immediate future. We certainly have a number of areas, specifically in the outlying regions of the province -- parts of Vancouver Island, certainly parts of the Cariboo, the East and West Kootenays and the Okanagan -- that are impacted by the decision-making under the Ministry of Lands. So we have been definite players there, and we continue to be.
W. Hurd: The minister will be aware that there appears to be at the present time a considerable backlog of operators who are seeking tenure to pursue the kind of ventures that the member for Burnaby-Willingdon has identified: heliski operations, fish camp operators, wilderness and back-country adventure tour operators. There is a significant backlog now in the province. I guess what I'm seeking is assurance from the minister that he is aware of the magnitude of the problem and aware of the size of the investment that's currently hung up awaiting policy from the Ministry of Lands. And I'm seeking assurance that not only is the ministry aware of the problem and the roadblock that exists for tourism but that he is determined to become an advocate for resolving these bureaucratic roadblocks and for trying to get some of these operators through the hoops and barrels and into the tourism industry, where they can benefit not only the regions they're in but British Columbians as a whole.
[4:00]
Hon. B. Barlee: Certainly these operators, almost without exception, contact me or one of the officers in my ministry, and we have been in close contact with the Ministry of Lands and Parks. I do represent them. I believe I am an advocate, and I think the problems will be resolved. I hope it won't take much longer. Some of them have been waiting some months, and I'm quite aware of the individuals concerned, practically all of them.
W. Hurd: I certainly appreciate that the minister knows all of them. He will then also be aware that one of the difficulties they face is the entire aboriginal lands question, the fact that in many cases they have to negotiate side agreements with local aboriginal bands. I note that the ministry does devote funds to aboriginal business development. Is the minister using his good offices to attempt to offer timely and constructive intercession in these rather difficult negotiations that the tourism operators are facing? They not only seek to have tenure granted from the Ministry of Lands but also must now negotiate interim agreements with aboriginal bands in the province. Does he see his ministry playing a constructive role in those difficult problems, which I can honestly say are frustrating? Many tour operators and small business entrepreneurs in the province have wonderful ideas for responsible tourism ventures on the land base of British Columbia but are currently in a twilight zone of interdisciplinary responsibility between two ministries, I suppose -- Aboriginal Affairs and the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.
Hon. B. Barlee: That's a good question. We know that negotiations are difficult. We know that the treaties have not been signed in most cases, and this has been an oversight of previous governments. We are trying to rectify that. Some of those involve what the first nations call their hereditary lands, which may or may not be -- in many instances are not -- in present reserves. That makes the resolution of that quite difficult.
I do use my good offices where I can. But in many instances that is kind of a set-aside negotiation between Aboriginal Affairs and the first nations involved, so it does make it difficult and has slowed down the process. I'm hoping we will be able to speed up the process and alleviate
[ Page 9936 ]
the pressures on those individuals who want to get into the tourism business.
W. Hurd: I note, under a vote in the ministry budget, a devotion of resources to identifying aboriginal business opportunities in the province. Surely if funds are available the minister would be attempting to bring the parties together to sign these kinds of interim agreements. They would be of significant benefit not only to the tourism operators, but also to the aboriginal groups themselves, who would realize some revenue or some job commitment. I'm aware of at least three or four ventures in the province which would result in significant employment opportunities for local aboriginal groups. I would think that the Ministry of Small Business and Tourism would be actively attempting, through a voted expenditure in the ministry, to facilitate these types of arrangements. I get the distinct impression that many of these operators are on their own devices. They have to go in to negotiate with the local bands and try to arrange their own financing, if that's what's needed. Can the minister tell us exactly what he is doing with respect to encouraging aboriginal business opportunities, which is identified as one of the activities within a vote in his ministry?
Hon. B. Barlee: Last year we had several programs which were, I think, a step in the right direction. First was an inventory program, which we completed with an aboriginal tourism inventory. Second, I believe we did hire six students in the Royal British Columbia Museum, who have, I guess we can say, a curatorial sort of training. And third, I think we realize that those areas in North America, specifically the Four Corners region of the midwestern United States, have made a great deal out of aboriginal or first nations tourism. I think the most significant state would be Arizona, followed probably by New Mexico, Utah and Colorado, in that order. It has proven to be a great boon to tourism in those areas. Prior to a couple of years ago, no government had done much on it. The potential is really quite staggering.
Last night I was at the unveiling of Bill Reid's marvellous piece called Spirit of Haida Gwaii, which is going to be the centrepiece of the new addition to the Vancouver International Airport. This is going around the world, for instance. It's not paid for by government, by the way -- although we'll naturally take the credit. It is dramatic. It is a bronze done by the noted Haida artist, Bill Reid. It's probably 16 feet long by 8 feet wide by about 10 feet high. It incorporates into that marvellous piece the mood and part of the history of the Haida nation.
We have some resources in the province that are equal to none in the world. Ninstints, of course, is an example. It's a world heritage site. We don't think we've made enough of Ninstints. We don't think we've made enough of the Kwakiutl nation on the northern part of Vancouver Island. So the strategy is going on in that area, and I think this year will show some signs that we're starting to make progress here, although I feel that we have a lot more work to do. We're prioritizing about ten different areas. It's there, but it isn't at the top of this list, and perhaps it should be higher up on the list.
W. Hurd: Perhaps I could just back up a minute and talk in terms of numbers. Clearly, there is a real appetite in the world for back-country and wilderness adventure packages in the province of British Columbia. Once you've been to Disneyworld and to Europe, you begin to look at other opportunities, like whitewater rafting and a whole range of activities that require some form of licence agreement with the Crown.
As the minister who identified this emerging trend in the world and whose responsibility it is to monitor tourism trends and activities, can he tell us in round numbers how many applications he or his ministry would be aware of from operators in the province who have a business proposal and have approached the ministry for technical assistance with respect to setting up a legitimate wilderness tourism proposal in the province? How many are we talking about? Can he give us any idea?
Hon. B. Barlee: If I guessed, it would be a best guess but it might be a poor guess. I know there are operators out there in various parts of the province -- specifically in what we call the outlying regions -- who are concerned about this. They realize that it is a trend of tourism in the future, and there's no doubt about that. Our trend lines indicate that wild-river rafting is important, that accessible wilderness tours are important -- ghost-towning, cattle drives and all the rest; we've tracked all of that. But with a rather small part of my ministry in the tourism sector, we haven't tracked precise numbers of how many people are out there waiting to jump on board and whether they're serious or not. Even if I said I could give you this answer, I doubt if I could.
W. Hurd: Can I ask the minister whether he can tell us how many of these proposals are hung up on an agreement that's required with an aboriginal group in the province? How many would be able to go ahead but have unfortunately been unable to negotiate a suitable business arrangement -- in most cases with the aboriginal group whose traditional territory might comprise the boundaries of their application?
I ask the question for a logical reason. The minister has indicated during the course of these estimates debate that he is prepared to use his good offices to facilitate these types of agreements. If he doesn't know where they are or at what stage they're at, that speaks to me that what we're seeing to some extent is lip service to the problems that exist out there. I wonder if he could comment on that.
Hon. B. Barlee: Yes, I could comment on it. We did have a meeting with the Minister of Lands last week concerning this. They're aware of the impact. I don't think many of those holdups are essentially tied in with land claims -- and I would be guessing at that. The ones that come across my desk are probably in numbers under 20 percent.
W. Hurd: I just have one other logical question then. The minister has indicated to us that his ministry does devote resources to monitoring the land use debate and land use decisions in British Columbia. Would it not be more prudent for the ministry to spend more time monitoring what entrepreneurs are actually trying to do out there in the wilderness tourism process, rather than concerning itself with CORE tables, for example, or with the protected areas strategy and other initiatives of government? Is not his ministry mandated to provide assistance, to provide a service, to individual entrepreneurs? Would it not be more prudent to say to an entrepreneur in the province of British Columbia: "Look, I understand that you have" -- for example -- "an excellent proposal for a back-country wilderness venture and a fishing lodge in Skeena. Where are you in terms of your business plan? What financing problems might exist? Where is your agreement with the aboriginal group in the region?" Would that not that be a
[ Page 9937 ]
more beneficial investment of resources for the ministry than trying to simply monitor the ongoing valley-by-valley land battles going on in the province?
Hon. B. Barlee: As minister responsible for tourism, culture and small business, part of my responsibility, along with that of my ADMs and directors, is to find out which priorities are first and rate where they come in the priority list. This is important. There are many areas in tourism that are important. Probably the most compelling part of tourism is making sure our generic advertising is targeted to those areas we want -- in other words, U.K., Germany, Japan, United States, and Southeast Asia. These are the areas where our market is growing significantly, where we track their trends. The majority of our resources -- both monetary and otherwise -- will be devoted to picking up that business in those parts of the world, plus the business in British Columbia, plus the business that we attract from other provinces, notably Alberta and to a lesser extent Ontario.
I probably have in this ministry about 60 priorities, but I have to work on the first ten. So when we get those off the mark -- and some of them are ready to go now -- then we'll work down that list. If I had 650 people and another $50 million in this ministry -- which I don't -- it would be quite easy to accomplish. So I make do with what I have.
[4:15]
Our long-term strategies, in conjunction with my Deputy Minister of Tourism, whom I consider very capable -- and that's an understatement -- are the only way we can go. I wish there were more funding available and more FTEs available and other resources, and so on. But there don't happen to be, so I have to go down that list very logically, which I'm doing.
W. Hurd: I have no wish to belabour the point, but I, with respect, would suggest that the issue is not a matter of FTEs and funding but an allocation of existing resources. I'd be far more comforted if I thought the minister would commit today that yes, there is a significant problem out there in terms of the bureaucratic barriers to wilderness tourism operators in the province; yes, his ministry is going to commit to cataloguing how many are out there and what stage of development they're in; and yes, he's going to use the good offices of this ministry to try and put their shoulders to the wheel to get some of these ventures into active participation in the tourism industry. Surely that would be a responsible role for a minister. Even acknowledging that there's a problem out there would be a start. I again say -- without wishing to belabour the point, and as part of the last question I'll ask on this issue -- that I would hope the minister would commit himself in the coming months to undertaking a meaningful directory of these ventures in the province of British Columbia: what stage of development they're in and when they may have cleared all the hurdles and be inviting tourists from around the world to come to British Columbia.
I think it's a wonderful opportunity for the province that is being squandered. It's easier to apply to the Ministry of Forests to get a cutting permit than it is to facilitate a much finer imprint on the land base in the form of a wilderness adventure operation or a fishing camp. So with that, I will express the hope that the minister will commit what limited resources he has during the coming year to spending a lot more energy and time on these wilderness tourism proposals, which offer so much promise to the province of British Columbia but are really struggling now.
Hon. B. Barlee: There's eco-tourism, agri-tourism, first nations tourism, adventure tourism, wild-river tourism, diving wrecks, mountain tourism, historic trails, and on and on. There are a hundred areas where people want to go; I'm aware of that. But I do have to list those in what we consider to be priorities. Some of those are growing areas, and the member mentioned a couple of them. Adventure tourism is a growing area; we're aware of that. But we have these priorities at the top of the list, and I have to go through them logically. Sometimes we shift those, depending on the trends in other parts of the world, which we're tracking all the time.
The member has made some good points. We haven't fleshed out all of this, but we are aware of them. We are at the table, and I think that's important. The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks knows where they are and that we are concerned, and knows that it does impact upon tourism and tourism revenues.
As far as getting a list of every individual who may or may not be interested in eco-tourism, agri-tourism or any of the other types of tourism in the province, that would be a very difficult task for us to accomplish and be accurate about in any sense of the word. But I can say to the member that we are aware of the trends and are tracking the trends, and we're doing something about it.
For instance, we found that there was a definite trend in agri-tourism. As far as winery and vineyard tours in the Okanagan were concerned, we're probably better situated than the Napa Valley is. The Napa Valley is probably the leading area in the world. Their wines, interestingly enough, are probably not as good as ours. Certainly the pinot blancs aren't, and I don't think the chardonnays will be either. We have twice as big an area as the Napa, and we are a safer destination. So this is what we are doing: we're fleshing out the obvious areas first. Then we'll go down the line on the list of priorities and get more involved in these other areas as we drop those other priorities where we've achieved our goals off the list.
The Chair: Hon. member, perhaps on a new question?
W. Hurd: This is my last question on this topic, Madam Chair, and....
The Chair: New words, new angle.
W. Hurd: New words.
Maybe I can help the minister to sharpen his research. In order to secure a legitimate wilderness recreation venture in the province of British Columbia, you're required to sign a licence with Crown Lands, as the minister knows.
When I say an inventory, I'm referring to those individuals and companies that have gone through the process and are at a point where they have either applied for or are in the stages of being granted a licence. Surely that can't be too hard to catalogue. I would hope that by the time we get through these estimates -- or perhaps even in the House -- the minister will have that inventory and will be able to advise the committee of the constructive and positive role he has played in getting some of these licences out of the twilight zone and into active tourism in the province of British Columbia. That's my last comment, hon. Chair, and if the minister chooses not to comment, I'd like to go on to a new line of questioning.
I had a more basic question about the client base of the ministry, particularly the definition of small business. Does the ministry have a firm set of financial figures as to what
[ Page 9938 ]
constitutes a small business in the province? What is the client base for the ministry?
Hon. B. Barlee: Small business is specifically designed to include those businesses that have a gross income of $25 million or less, or 20 employees or under. By all accounts, this would incorporate the vast majority of all businesses in the province.
W. Hurd: In light of the comments made this morning and earlier this afternoon about the impact of the corporate capital tax on small business, can the minister tell us, in approximate terms, the percentage of his client base in small business that would be subject to and have to remit the corporate capital tax on a quarterly basis?
Hon. B. Barlee: I would have to sort out which ones belong in the small business category and which ones belong in the corporate category. I haven't done that.
W. Hurd: This certainly provides me with the opportunity to get on to a subject that's near and dear to my heart, and that's the impact of this particular tax on the small business sector on the forest side. As I was looking through the ministry operations, I noticed a subvote with a number of lofty goals for community and regional development in the province. I'm speaking now from the standpoint of having participated in the select standing committee which two years ago toured the province and looked at the lumber remanufacturing sector. One of the things that struck the committee was the number of small business ventures that were taking shape and that were really instrumental and crucial to the future of those communities in the province.
In light of the importance of the small business sector in the forest industry, and in conjunction with economic and regional development, I just wondered whether the minister, as the spokesman for small business, has decided that he needs to be assessing the effects of the corporate capital tax on those forest ventures, which are having to borrow substantial sums of money to upgrade their plant and equipment? In some cases, they are new business ventures that have to make that kind of capital investment. In light of the importance of this particular industry to regional development in the province, is he devoting the resources or funds to assessing the effects of the capital tax on that small business component?
Hon. B. Barlee: I think I can answer that in one respect. The Premier made a comment about two weeks ago that when we balance the budget, the corporate and capital tax will be gone. I think there are indications of that; it has been lightened significantly in the last budget. I don't think there's any doubt that the corporate capital tax, when we get back on our feet.... When we look at a deficit of $2.4 billion, down to about $1.9 billion, down to about $1.4 billion and down to about $900 million, I think that budget will be balanced by 1996.
W. Hurd: Maybe we can deal with a different set of numbers than the ones we've heard in the House for the last three years. The minister has defined small business as having assets of $25 million or less, and the threshold for the imposition of the tax is $1.5 million in paid-up capital -- and the accounting community has a great deal of difficulty defining paid-up capital sometimes. Can the minister tell us -- does he have any idea, again referring back to the question of his client base -- how many businesses in British Columbia would qualify between the $1.5 million threshold and the $25 million?
Hon. B. Barlee: I will give you a best-guess estimate. There are -- this is not a best guess -- about 135,000 incorporated firms in British Columbia; I think there are 353,000 unincorporated firms. So that's very close to half a million; in fact it would be more than that. These would be small firms. The total number of firms in the province is probably around 589,000. How many of those are impacted by the corporate capital tax is anybody's guess, but I know it isn't even near that 589,000.
D. Schreck: Hon. Chair, I'm also interested in this discussion, but I think that if the questions were put to the Minister of Finance, who is the minister responsible for the tax, we might all have the precise answer.
Interjection.
The Chair: Wise advice, hon. member.
W. Hurd: I will point out that I am certain the minister receives many submissions about the effects of taxation on small business. It wouldn't matter whether it was the corporate capital tax or whether it was the tax on fuel or on machinery. I'm sure there are a number of issues out there that the minister would take an active interest in, even though they might fall technically within the purview of another ministry.
I go back again to my questions about community and regional development in the province, and the importance of the small business sector of the forest industry, and the fact that the corporate capital tax -- as the minister well knows -- is a tax that kicks in as soon as a business goes out and borrows money for capital plants and equipment. Given the importance of the small business enterprise sector in the forest industry, and given the fact that this sector has to spend more of its capital on acquiring plants and new equipment just because they are a relatively new business, can the minister tell us whether he's aware of this tax causing a significant problem for a small business that is required to go to the bank and borrow quite a large sum of money, considering the asset base of the company, in order just to be able to start up and compete?
[4:30]
Hon. B. Barlee: I think the figures give you your answer. Corporations in the province are up 14.3 percent last year; bankruptcies are down 20.1 percent. Businesses are coming into, not leaving, the province because it's a good place to do business, and they are generally doing extremely well.
W. Hurd: Perhaps we can ask another question about basic numbers. As the minister does represent an interior riding, he will be aware that there are almost two economies in British Columbia: there's the economy that we call the economy of the lower mainland, and then there's the economy in the interior and the North Island and the rest of the province, where the minister, I'm sure, will acknowledge that it's somewhat more difficult to start up a business -- to acquire the capital you need to succeed in business. Can the minister tell us, to his knowledge, what percentage of these new business formations are located in the lower mainland, and how many might take place in the rest of the province? Clearly, the answer to that question would be important, considering that the mandate of his ministry is community
[ Page 9939 ]
and regional development, or at least one of the mandates of the ministry.
Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, I think the member has made a mistake. He said the lower mainland and Vancouver are doing very well. Well, the highest unemployment rate in the province is in Vancouver today. If you check the front page, I believe, of the Sun today or yesterday, you'll find that it's 9.9 percent, whereas Victoria is at 6.4, and the province as a whole is 9.6. So, what we've done in our strategic planning has impacted and is impacting more significantly on the interior now than it was last year at this time.
There is active growth in the Interior. One of the fastest-growing regions, as the member from Okanagan-Vernon will attest to, is the Okanagan itself. There is significant economic activity outside of the lower mainland, which actually is going in the opposite direction at the present time. I think that the long-term policy -- looking at all parts of the province and seeing where the advantages lie and where we can take advantage of them -- is gradually paying off.
W. Hurd: Can the minister tell us whether he has done a regional comparison of new business formations in the province? The figure of 589,000 incorporated businesses in the province is certainly an impressive number, but in terms of new business formations that his ministry would track, has he broken them down on the basis of region? This is surely an important question, hon. Chair, given that the ministry is actively involved in the community and regional development of the province.
Hon. B. Barlee: At the risk of boring people, I will read out two of the regions, and not all of the regions. For the Thompson-Okanagan development region, the regional statistics are: in 1993 the estimated number of incorporations is 1,993, which is an increase of 15.6 percent from 1992. The number of bankruptcies in that area is 611, which is a decrease of 14.2 percent from 1992. Estimated retail sales is up to $2.9 billion, which is almost a 4 percent increase. For the Kootenay development region, the estimated number of incorporations for 1993 is 413, which is an increase of 29.5 percent from 1992. In the Kootenay region again, the estimated number of bankruptcies for 1993 is 70, which is a decrease of almost 50 percent -- 47.8 percent in fact -- from 1992. Retail sales came up 12 percent.
So what the member was talking about was essentially incorrect. There is significant activity going on in all parts of the province and specifically in those areas. For the North Coast, for instance -- which we sometimes don't pay enough attention to -- the incorporations increased by 14.4 percent, bankruptcies decreased by 30.6 percent and retail sales were the highest in North America, with an increase of 13.4 percent. We can go on and go over each region if you wish.
W. Hurd: Give the minister an inch and he'll take a mile when it comes to statistics. The question was really pretty simple. In terms of new business formations in the province, which I assume he equates with incorporations, how many are in the lower mainland and how many are in the rest of the province? Surely the minister can provide us with that information.
Hon. B. Barlee: That's very difficult to track because there are so many. There are literally hundreds of thousands of home-based businesses -- some who sell at swap meets -- most of whom are not incorporated at all. It's easy to track the incorporated businesses and what is happening to those incorporated businesses, but tracking every small, home-based business is.... I won't say it's a virtual impossibility; it is probably a definite impossibility. We could track most of them. I've given you some of the numbers, but I haven't given them all to you. I think that would be a gargantuan task.
W. Hurd: One of the mandates of the ministry, one assumes, is community and regional development, and I think it fair to say that if we eliminate the lower mainland statistics -- because obviously the lower mainland is almost an autonomous economy.... I'm surprised and somewhat disappointed that the ministry doesn't have the business activity in the other regions of the province at its fingertips in this set of estimates. I mean, can he give us a number, any number? He's never been short of numbers before. Can we get a number on what he defines as a new business formation in the province, and how many occurred in the lower mainland, and how many...?
The Chair: Hon. members, I wonder if this line of questioning is not running a little tediously at this stage of the game. We've had some questions and answers back and forth. I think the minister might well take some of these under advisement and perhaps provide some numbers at a later date. I'd like to encourage the hon. member to perhaps take a new line of questioning.
W. Hurd: Thank you for that direction, hon. Chair. Perhaps I could settle for a basic statement of philosophy from the minister, since these statistics aren't taking us anywhere.
Does he not agree, when it comes to community and regional development in the province, that for those businesses that do have to go out and borrow substantial sums of capital, the corporate capital tax has been an unreasonable and unfortunate burden? Given that some industries, particularly in the forest sector, do have to go to the bank -- not the Working Opportunity Fund, as we've established before -- and acquire the financing they need to spend in totality on the enterprise, in fact it's a little unfair that they have to pay a tax on taking a risk. As the Minister of Small Business, will he not at least concede that?
Hon. B. Barlee: Any tax is unfair, I think. Nobody likes a tax. I can't name one person in this room who likes a tax. If we find one, we will immediately indicate that to the Chair of the House, and they will have to do something about it.
Frankly, I didn't like income tax. It was brought in as a temporary measure in 1918. God, we were told that income tax would never last. Now it's here with us from the cradle to the grave. If there's any tax....
W. Hurd: I guess you remember it well.
Hon. B. Barlee: Both of us do.
Frankly, there's no tax that people accept. I can't think of one, even if you give all sorts of good reasons for it. There are some fairly logical reasons for a corporate capital tax. I don't say I particularly like it, but there are some fairly logical reasons. As the Liberal Minister of Fisheries says -- the new ministry of fisheries -- British Columbia is the only province that can stand on its own. Sometimes you have to do things that aren't too popular. The Premier has alluded to what is going to happen eventually to the corporate tax, and I accept that.
[ Page 9940 ]
W. Hurd: I'm sure the Minister can see the difference between a tax on income and a tax on machinery and equipment purchased in order to foster employment in a community or region of the province. This is, as the minister knows, a tax on paid-up capital, which includes the money that is borrowed for creation of employment. I would have expected, and I hoped, that I would have received a somewhat more aggressive approach to this tax than what was offered during this set of estimates. I'm sure that when the opposition sends a copy of Hansard out to the small business community in the province of British Columbia, they'll be most interested in the assessment by the Minister of Small Business of the corporate capital tax. I rest my case and defer to the hon. critic, who I understand has a further line of questioning.
C. Tanner: Let me just warn the minister that unless I get some straight answers for the rest of these questions, which are going to be to the point, my friend's going to take over again. We've got another member we'll bring in here who will give the minister an even harder time.
Let me just correct something that the minister said a couple of times today about the deficit. I can read this book as well as anybody. else. It says: total direct and guaranteed debt at year end, $27 billion. That's the debt of this province.
Interjection.
C. Tanner: Well, thank you, Mr. Minister. That's the first time anybody in your government has ever admitted it. We're talking about the debt of this province as $27 billion. Well, why do we have this other nonsense from every other minister except you? There are more and more advantages in dealing with you.
Mr. Minister, I want to ask you some specific questions. Would the minister agree that the corporation capital tax probably impacts on hotels more strongly and more thoroughly -- because of the huge investments required to run hotels -- than on any other business?
Hon. B. Barlee: I think you'd have to take into consideration which industries in the province are not doing well and where the corporation capital tax hits them. The corporation capital tax hits a number of pulp mills that are in a worldwide depression significantly harder than would hit the hotels, for instance.
C. Tanner: I'm not going to flog the question that the previous.... The question I put to the minister is not as a comparison of the amount of money involved. In actual fact, because of the heavy investment -- and that's all you've got in the hotel business.... You're investing in beds, buildings, cutlery and all those sorts of things. You're not buying and selling a product other than your investment. The corporation capital tax affects hotels proportionally more than any other business.
Hon. B. Barlee: Frankly, I can't agree with that line of questioning or with the premise advanced. I think that hotels, like all small businesses, have a difficult task. When I look at the results in the last year of over 70 percent occupancy -- 71.1 percent and up again this year -- I look at a very short list of incorporations and bankruptcies. In all seven areas we tracked, bankruptcies were down by 14 percent to 48 percent. Incorporations were up by 6 percent to 58 percent. There are no exceptions to that; there are no ups and downs. So the trend lines indicate to me that any hotel in British Columbia -- with rare exceptions; I can think of a couple -- is much better off than those in any other province in Canada or in almost all the states of the Union, with the exception of Utah and Nevada. So comparison stuff....
[4:45]
C. Tanner: Maybe we should buy this minister a trumpet or a violin or something, because that's all we're getting: the same old comparisons all day long. I'm not going to pursue it anymore. I'll ask some other specific questions.
Last year the minister who preceded you had some trouble with the bed-and-breakfast directory. What happened to that? Has it been produced and is it now operational?
Hon. B. Barlee: That is being done through a private agency right now, so there is a listing coming out through private entrepreneurs.
C. Tanner: Were they able to produce it last year?
Hon. B. Barlee: Most of them were in the Accommodations Guide last year. We found it more acceptable to do it through private entrepreneurs.
C. Tanner: I know about the Accommodations Guide, and it did include some bed-and-breakfasts, but there was talk a year ago that you were going to produce a separate bed-and-breakfast guide which was going to be put out to contract to be produced. There were some difficulties with that. My question is: was it produced last year?
Hon. B. Barlee: Yes, it was.
C. Tanner: The B.C. Tel Discover B.C. program, which was initiated last year... Considering we invested, I would guess, $2 million total between ourselves and B.C. Tel, what were the results you experienced from that new program?
The Chair: May I just remind the hon. member to direct questions through the Chair, as opposed to directly to the minister.
Hon. B. Barlee: I'll give the member some of the background. Since 1988, which was six years ago, the ministry has operated a toll-free inquiry system throughout North America. Conversion research shows that 46 percent of all inquiries convert into a trip to British Columbia, and I believe that is very high.
In 1993, in partnership with B.C. Tel, the ministry expanded the toll-free inquiry service to service B.C. residents as well and to provide accommodation, reservations, etc. Action to date: more than 300 accommodation operators currently provide inventory. The system is expanding to offer a variety of services to visitors, which was the intention originally. In March 1994, Discover B.C. began taking West Coast Trail reservations for Parks Canada. Travel counsellors made more than 800 reservation bookings in the first week. I believe they were sold out entirely within about ten days; the whole summer was booked, basically on the strength of that program.
During the first six months of operation, reservations have been slow, which provides us the opportunity to work out any glitches from the software, because most of that stuff was in the off-season. So now we're getting an idea of how much impact it can have, and it's projected to increase as more travellers plan their summer vacations. I think we will have a good handle on that probably by September or
[ Page 9941 ]
October of this year. Frankly, I think it's the right way to go, especially when you look at the 46 percent who actually convert into a trip in British Columbia, which is a significantly high percentage. I haven't got the numbers.
C. Tanner: How much did we invest in that program last year?
Hon. B. Barlee: We haven't got the figures right here, but I think it was $1,450,000, and that was in partnership with B.C. Tel, who put in a corresponding amount. And I think it will help us significantly, especially when we track in-province visitors, and that's what it's aimed at essentially.
C. Tanner: That was a one-time investment. As I understand it, the majority of the costs will be borne in the future by the hotels which are making the bookings. Is that correct?
Hon. B. Barlee: Yes, that is correct.
C. Tanner: So in actual fact, because you won't have that expenditure again this year, we can really say the budget's gone up this year by $7.4 million, not $6 million.
Hon. B. Barlee: Actually, the way it works out -- and it's a convoluted process -- we'll be spending about the same amount this year on that system.
C. Tanner: Your predecessor, Mr. Minister, told us last year, when they introduced this program with a great deal of hullabaloo.... And, frankly, I thought it was a great idea. The only criticism I've heard, as a matter of interest, is that some hotels thought there was a preference given to the hotel, but in fact there's a rotary system, and each hotel gets a shot at being on top of the list. So that criticism wasn't valid.
However, it was my impression that that was a one-time investment. Certainly, the major portion of that money was a one-time investment. I'm interested now why we're spending it again this year.
Hon. B. Barlee: There are two parts of that. One is the inquiry part of the system, and the other is a reservations part. So both of those we have to keep active. And the numbers, we think, will increase somewhat this summer, because.... When did we start that? Last fall. We haven't had a full season, so there's a bit of guesswork involved here. Of course, most people take their holidays in June, July, August, September, sometimes May and perhaps at the very end of the shoulder season into early October. This is a bit of a best guess, but we think it will be approximately the same as last year.
C. Tanner: I didn't expect to get into this depth in this program, but you have confused me a little, in that it was our understanding....
The Chair: Excuse me, I hesitate to interrupt, but words like "you" are not appropriate in these chambers at this stage.
C. Tanner: It was the understanding of the opposition from our questioning of last year's minister that it was a one-shot deal, and it doesn't sound like this is what it has turned out to be. However, let's assume, Mr. Minister, that we can anticipate -- primarily nothing from what you do, but because there are going to be so many visitors, and because of the Commonwealth Games...
Interjection.
C. Tanner: You're in trouble, Mr. Minister.
...and because of the very low Canadian dollar, at 71 cents -- that we're going to get a large influx of visitors this year. If during the period of introduction of that Discover B.C. you had 300 operators, it sounds to me that when the full year comes into place now, you're going to need (1) a great many more operators, and (2) a great deal more money if you have been spending money all the way through and it's not being supported by the hotels.
Hon. B. Barlee: This is a toll-free number, as the member knows. So there may be some marginal increases but not dramatic increases at all.
Of course, what you say about the low Canadian dollar is correct. It does have and will have a significant positive impact on tourists coming into the province. You come in for seven days, and two days are on us for nothing -- great! That's attractive. We're getting that message out. But we are also concentrating on keeping that Canadian and British Columbia dollar inside British Columbia. Of course, that works as well with the Canadian dollar, because your dollar isn't worth as much in Disneyland or wherever you were planning on going. I think that on balance, and with an examination of a full year under our belt in this program, we will find that it does pay dividends.
Frankly, I think we're going to notice dramatic numbers over and above other provinces, because the other provinces are also looking at a low Canadian dollar. I mean, if you want to go into southern Alberta -- into that Milk River region or down to Writing-On-Stone -- the dollar is worth just as much for the Montanan coming up into Alberta as it is for the resident of Washington State coming into British Columbia. But I will make a little wager, if I were allowed to do so: our tourism revenue will be up dramatically more than Alberta's.
C. Tanner: The minister is, of course, talking on a percentage basis: we're taking from Alberta today and B.C. today. Well, I'm quite prepared to make a wager with him at some acceptable time to the Chair.
I'm changing the subject somewhat, because I think it's fair for the minister to ask us to wait a year to see a full year's program and then be critical if we should be. I'm quite happy to do that. In fact, in that respect I think the ministry is in better hands this year than it was last year. But the minister did mention the fact that $6.2 billion is spent by British Columbians in tourism outside of British Columbia. It seems to me that that should be priority number one for the ministry. That's the target we should be shooting for, because it seems that that's the easiest dollar for us to get -- the one that's already here -- and keep here. I haven't heard the minister say that that's his number one priority.
Hon. B. Barlee: That's a good point, and if I didn't make it clear, I should. We have three major priorities: first, offshore and North American markets, specifically foreign countries -- the U.K., Germany, United States, Japan and Southeast Asia; target two, inside British Columbia only -- that's the $6.2 billion the member is referring to; target three is immediate short-haul traffic from the states of California, Washington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and the provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Ontario,
[ Page 9942 ]
with some intrusions into Quebec, because they're having problems in Florida. Those are the three areas we are concentrating on as far as generic advertising and short-term and long-term strategy is concerned. I hope that clarifies it.
C. Tanner: I think the minister has his priorities wrong. It should be B.C., local area and then foreign. That's the way I would go, but at least he's in the right area. In the same vein, when we were talking about advertising and where you were going to spend your advertising dollars, all the dollars that you spend in advertising are spent in conjunction with a major tourist operator, generally speaking. Could the minister provide me with a list of the contracts that were given and those associations that were made with the industry in the past year?
Hon. B. Barlee: Certainly. I think we can get most of those agreements to you. You're referring to Partners in Tourism and so on, aren't you?
[5:00]
C. Tanner: Of all the advertising the department did in its own right last year, and all the dollars it spent in advertising in its own right and with Partners in Tourism, could the minister then separate out how much was specifically spent by the ministry in its own right for freestanding advertising, so to speak?
Hon. B. Barlee: I'm taking a guess here. Out of those funds we had available for generic advertising, almost all would have been partnered with industry. There would be a fractional amount, a couple of hundred thousand maybe, that we did on our own hook in specific areas where we were planning private projects, and so on.
C. Tanner: Of those approximately $200,000, could the minister give me a list of the agencies that he used in that respect? Where they were involved with partners, which is the biggest part of the dollars, could he indicate to this side of the House whether the government had any influence and which agencies their partner used?
Hon. B. Barlee: The agency names are available to any member in Public Accounts -- I believe that's correct. I think we can get to Partners in Tourism.
C. Tanner: I'm changing the subject again. I'm covering a lot of independent and individual subjects in this case.
Last year the ministry undertook a survey of first nations tourist facilities. Can the minister tell us the cost of that survey?
Hon. B. Barlee: I'm recalling this from memory. I seem to recall it was around $15,000. It wasn't a lot of money, but it was around that figure; I haven't the figures here.
C. Tanner: Since the Tatshenshini was set aside, how many visitors and how many tours went into that area of British Columbia?
Hon. B. Barlee: I haven't got those precise figures at my fingertips. I would think it's an area we're looking at very closely, because it's an area where our trend lines seem to indicate people want to go. I do know that a number of major magazines -- including National Geographic, I believe -- highlighted the Tatshenshini. If you get a free article in some of those magazines, it's worth several hundred thousand advertising dollars.
The Tatshenshini is the last major, untouched wild-river watershed in the Americas. I know both of us are ex-miners and are interested in the mining fraternity. I think that by the year 2000 the Tatshenini will indicate to the province of British Columbia that it is not only a great natural destination for tourists but is something beyond that. I think we have to keep some of the wild areas in British Columbia virtually untrammelled and untouched. The habitat of grizzly bears and other wildlife is threatened even in that part of the northwest coast, which the member and I both know quite well.
When I look at that very analytically, and balanced with both a mining and an environmental background, I tend to definitely side with the environmentalists. When we look at the rivers in the United States, such as the Columbia, the Colorado, the Mississippi and all the others, we see that virtually no major rivers are wild rivers and no watersheds have been untouched.
I look at the Tatshenshini, and I think it is of such stature that I have no regrets. It's unfortunate that there was a proposed mine in the immediate area that would have yielded some dividends to the province. There are some things you cannot measure by money alone, and I think the Tatshenshini is one of them.
C. Tanner: That was an interesting discussion on that particular wild river. One doesn't have to go very far to get onto a wild river. Both the member and I have been rafting on wild rivers within 100 miles of Vancouver. The fact of the matter is that that particular wild river, as you call it, cost at the minimum $2.5 billion in mining potential -- which was known -- and I think other mines were included. But isn't it true, Mr. Minister of Tourism, that only a very limited number of people will ever see that river or take advantage of that tourist facility for the simple reason that it's too far from anywhere to get to? Secondly, it's too expensive, and it's all controlled by one operator. Isn't that the truth, Mr. Minister?
Hon. B. Barlee: To the hon. member -- and I think he understands the wilderness like I do -- I'm not thinking of tomorrow, or even next year, or perhaps even this century. I look at the Tatshenshini as pristine wilderness that should last into and hopefully all through the twenty-first century, and I think it's something we cannot afford to sacrifice. Dollars are important, that's true. Wilderness may indeed be more important. Whether or not you and I see the Tatshenshini is not important, and neither, necessarily, is whether my children see the Tatshenshini. If I have grandchildren, that may be different. I do think that when everything is considered, the Tatshenshini, like the Agricultural Land Act, in many respects, will be looked upon by future generations as a wise move. I think our initial response is: "Yes, by God, that's $2.5 billion dollars in gold and copper and silver in that area. What are we sacrificing?" There are other things perhaps more important.
I don't frankly expect that the Tatshenshini will attract droves of tourists. To get there is difficult -- maybe that's part of the charm of it: to get in is difficult; to get out is difficult. One of my great friends, Ken Madsen, is probably the living expert on the Tatshenshini. He says it's virtually unnavigable in certain places. There are some experts, who are no longer living, who were experts on the Tatshenshini. You cannot raft that river. As far as rafting expeditions go, no one has a lock on the river.
[ Page 9943 ]
C. Tanner: Of course, Mr. Minister, nobody has a lock on the river. I think you'll find it's said you shouldn't ask a question without already knowing the answer. My understanding is that about a thousand people went down the river last year. I think it's about a twelve-day tour, and it costs a great deal of money. This is, in effect, what you've got: you've put aside a vast area of northern British Columbia for some very rich people. In fact, the vast majority of people in British Columbia will never see that river and will never have an opportunity to enjoy it, be they your children, your grandchildren or mine, or my great grandchildren. The fact of the matter is that the decision that has been made by this government was made in error and for the wrong reasons. It was made because you wanted something to compensate for what you're doing in the Clayoquot. It wasn't made for the tourist industry. Isn't that a fact, Mr. Minister?
The Chair: The hon. minister will undoubtedly take under advisement that the opinion and judgments being expressed.... The estimates on the table are Tourism ones.
Hon. B. Barlee: That's very true, Madam Chair, but I think he deserves a reply.
To the member, I think that isn't the point. I think the point is: do we value those finite resources that are important to the public whether they take advantage of them or not? My sense is yes, we should. I may never see the Tatshenshini, even though I'm the Minister of Tourism. I don't know if I will or not. But knowing that it's there is important. Knowing that it is pristine, knowing that those species that cannot protect themselves are protected through our good offices, hopefully -- or are not unprotected through our errors in judgment -- is very important. Frankly, I think whether or not we get hundreds of millions of dollars or more out of the Tatshenshini is more than compensated by saving an untrammelled, pristine wilderness area that is truly unique in all of North America. Nothing can really quite match it. I'm not saying that as an expert in wilderness areas; I am quoting experts on wilderness areas. They say there is nothing that can really match it. There are wild rivers, that's true; there is wilderness; but the combination of the two in that area is truly unique.
The Chair: Are we ready to put the vote, by any chance? Are we ready to put vote 51 on the table?
C. Tanner: Madam Chair, we've only enjoyed your company for this afternoon. You will be ignorant of the fact that we haven't even gotten near Culture yet. Two members were in here asking whether or not they will be able to talk Culture, and, of course, I assured them that they will. And I have some extensive questions that are so convoluted and so complicated that I don't even understand them, so I know the minister is going to have trouble with them. He's going to need a lot more time.
The Chair: Then perhaps it's time to put the vote and move on to vote 52, which, of course, also covers cultural issues, at which point relevance is useful, too. The hon. member wishes to continue then?
C. Tanner: Is it the intention of this committee to adjourn at 5:30 p.m.?
The Chair: I'm in the hands of the committee. The rules have suggested that we finish at 5:30 p.m. If it's appropriate that the committee wishes to proceed a little longer, we can do that. I think the other House breaks at 6 p.m. We could go until 5:45 p.m., if that suited the committee's interests.
C. Tanner: I did give the assurance to some of the other members that we'd still be around. I'm wondering whether we should start into Culture this afternoon or just adjourn now and come back whenever we next come back and start in again.
The Chair: I'm in your hands. As the Chair of this, all I do is direct traffic to the topics you want to work on. That's therefore up to you. The sooner we get going on them, the sooner we finish and get on with other topics. So we could get started on it; I'm sure we won't exhaust it by quarter to six.
C. Tanner: Let us launch ourselves, then, into Culture.
The most obvious and biggest change that I've noticed in the budget this year is the fact that we've lost the B.C. cultural special account. Could the minister explain -- and we're talking about $20 million, I think -- why the change has been made and what the consequences of the change are?
Hon. B. Barlee: The British Columbia Cultural Fund special account, because of the decreased rate of interest we receive now.... We have, actually, an identical amount of voted funds, which signifies to the cultural community that the government has heard their concerns about the stability of cultural funding. Our total amount on that before was $1.6 million. Ten percent of $1.6 million is $160,000 per year; 5 percent of $1.6 million is $80,000 per year. That's the major reason why this fund has been treated as it has been: because of the declining interest rates, which seem to be set around 4.8 percent. It's gone down dramatically in the last few years.
C. Tanner: It is my understanding that the fund was set up by the previous government in about the mid-eighties, maybe even a little earlier than that. And at the time it was set up, I think, interest rates were running around 12, 14, 16 percent; in fact it might initially have been set up when the rates were around 20, 21 percent. But the fact is, it surprises me that the government, Mr. Minister, would be changing the special interest account as the interest rates change. I think you're setting a dangerous precedent. I think the idea of setting up a special fund specifically for this particular purpose, and to spend money in this way, was a good one. And because the rates dropped is not sufficient reason, in my view, to be changing it now.
[5:15]
Hon. B. Barlee: The original funding, I believe, in the mid-eighties was $20 million. The cultural part of my ministry could spend the accrued interest on that fund, which I believe was $1.6 million -- which was about 8 percent, right? And if that were to continue, this year it would be about $900,000. So it seems to make more sense to me that they know exactly what they're getting year to year, without depending upon fluctuating interest rates, upon the decline of the Canadian dollar and so on. This does give the cultural community an exact idea, an exact window, of where they are going. And it does stabilize the funding and, I think, increase administrative efficiency, because you know exactly what you're going to get. So there are pluses and minuses in it; I think the pluses outweigh the minuses.
[ Page 9944 ]
C. Tanner: This government, I think, can be rightly accused, during the time leading up to the last election, of raising expectations -- particulary the member who occupied the minister's chair before him -- in the Vancouver area and all over British Columbia. The many societies and organizations in the province were looking forward to a golden era when this government came in. It didn't happen. In fact, the amount of money we allocate to culture in this province compared to the other provinces has dropped considerably. I think it's dropped by one-quarter of 1 percent.
Would the minister tell me what his reaction was when he saw the state of culture when he took over that responsibility -- what he found and how he's going to rectify the situation? Could he also answer to those expectations that were raised for the two or three years before this NDP government got in?
Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, I think we're aware that there are about 43,000 full-time jobs in the cultural community. Also, something I'm very aware of is that $1 million in ordinary business in British Columbia will provide around 15 full-time jobs; $1 million in the cultural community will provide about 28 jobs -- almost double. So when I was given this ministry to manage, I felt that we would be wise to put some more money into culture.
We managed to get an increase, in times of economic duress, of $1.8 million for culture, and that's about 5 percent over the restated estimates in 1993-94. It's not as much as I would like. I don't necessarily believe -- and I can be quite candid with the members -- in the trickle-down theory of economics. I can say that I would rather have this ministry on a performance basis, and we can prove to Treasury Board and to government at large, including the opposition -- and I include you as part of government at large -- that we have done extremely well. Say we bring tourism revenue up to $6 million this year, and this is an increase of, we'll say, $400 million. I hope government and Treasury Board would look at that as a positive sign that this is an economic ministry and that this performance deserves some reward -- in other words, 1.5 percent or 2 percent of that total amount, which would in turn give us somewhere around $6 million to $8 million more next year. This would be my goal. If we can measure that adequately, that $6 million to $8 million would then be divided among the three parts of this ministry: Culture, Small Business and Tourism. It has worked extremely well in other jurisdictions. Australia started out with $7 million, and they're up to over $100 million in tourism alone. The results have been dramatic. They are treated as a performance ministry. I think this is what the member was getting at when he addressed this particular question.
The $1.8 million is a start in the right direction. It's redressing something that I think should have been corrected some time ago. The trend line in Culture and Tourism has been downward for seven years. I think that should be turned around, and I'm on my way to doing that by several different methods -- mostly by putting us on what I hope is a performance rating. I don't say that works with every ministry; every ministry cannot do that. Frankly, only the revenue-producing ministries are really capable of doing that, unless you want to go into a performance audit. That's entirely different; it doesn't come under my aegis.
G. Wilson: I'm perfectly willing to yield to the member for Saanich North and the Islands if he's not finished. I had a fear as we approached 5:30 that we might hear via the grapevine that this set of estimates had finished. I did want to get into questions with respect to Culture, which I understand is where we're at in these estimates. Having read the Blues, one of the difficulties with the way that things are split up is being in two places at one time.
The Chair: Hon. member, we've also decided to go until to 5:45 this evening, so there's an extra 15 minutes.
G. Wilson: I'm delighted to hear that. If we wanted to press on until 6, 7 or 8 p.m. -- no problem.
With respect to culture, the people who live in Powell River-Sunshine Coast come from an area that really is culturally rich. I think the minister would recognize that. A number of very prominent artists and writers live there. An extremely successful writers' festival that is renowned across Canada, if not North America, happens there during the summertime.
One of the difficulties we have with respect to our geographic position is that we run the risk of not being eligible for grant moneys or moneys from lottery and casino revenues that often go into culture, because we are not in the lower mainland. Similarly, we are not able to tap into grant structures that come from the North Island. The minister, I see, has some figures on that, and he might want to talk to us about that. I am not talking specifically about B.C. 21. I am glad the minister has some figures, because if we could address that.... What I am asking for here is some review of the amount of money that is expended in rural or isolated communities which may have a particularly rich cultural heritage and whose small business community -- I understand that is also a part of this minister's jurisdiction -- is actually quite dependent upon the revenues generated through cultural events in the summertime. These events attract a certain clientele that comes in, spends money and enhances -- on a seasonal basis, at least -- the local economy. I wonder if the minister would talk a little about what his ministry has in mind for those isolated communities.
Hon. B. Barlee: The member has a longstanding interest in the cultural community and cultural activities. I believe we both have, in different parts of the province.
Interjection.
Hon. B. Barlee: No, but he's in the cultural community and, believe it or not, so am I. I am still a member of ACTRA, which sometimes amazes me.
We have a review going on right now to see.... I think we have those figures for 1992-93 at our fingertips, or we can get them back to you. They are not completed yet for 1993-94 because the fiscal year just ended, so it will be probably some time before we get those figures to you. But we are reviewing that and seeing whether or not and how it does impact on outlying regions that don't have the access that regions in, say, greater Vancouver and greater Victoria do to certain amenities that give them an advantage over the outlying regions.
Certainly what the member does say is correct. There's no shortage of talent in the outlying regions in the province. I can think of a number of towns where that applies. One of them is in the Powell River-Sunshine Coast area; others are in the Okanagan, such as Summerland, Osoyoos, parts of the Kootenays, Nelson, the Queen Charlottes, and so on. We're going to be taking a very analytical look at how this funding does affect those areas.
[ Page 9945 ]
Many people don't regard the cultural community as important, but I think they give a face to Canadianism. Our culture is under fire from our great cousin to the south, partly because I think it's no secret that they are very keen on taking over our communication system or having a significant impact on it. In that respect, I think we should be very careful to keep our cultural community alive and well. It's money well spent.
Film comes under that cultural community, of course, to a degree. When you put a million dollars into culture, as I alluded to very briefly before, it goes a heck of a long way. People are willing to sacrifice some of the ordinary amenities to follow their own star. I find that admirable. I won't say I'd make the same sacrifice, but I do find that admirable. I think it's part of government's responsibility to protect them in that choice they have made. We are looking at this with a slightly different eye than I think we have in other years.
G. Wilson: It's encouraging to hear that, and we're obviously going to reserve our final comment until we see what the review holds.
I would like just to mention, for the record, that I do play tennis, although I haven't had the distinguished pleasure of playing tennis with this particular minister. I would also say, as both of us have been involved in thespian activity to some degree or another, from my perspective at least this is the most demanding role that I have undertaken yet. I have to say that the critics are the most savage that I've found. Although they don't throw things, at least literally, they certainly have no problem doing it figuratively.
With respect to this question, though, the difficulty that is faced is more immediate than perhaps your review might consider, because it seems to me that there are two particular groups of people that your ministry must take into account. One are people whose profession is involved in activities that are generally in the bracket we would classify culture. There clearly is the film industry and people who are now involved in video production and so on. But these are professional people whose livelihood is dependent on culture. The other are amateurs, and the amateur group are those who clearly cannot maintain a livelihood strictly through the pursuit of their cultural activity.
[5:30]
There's a fine line when we look at the difference between the professional and the amateur. There's a fine line to be drawn as to which is more significant in a particular community, because one doesn't want to necessarily equate quality of work with one or other classification. In the case of the Sunshine Coast, there is a large number of people who would be considered amateur but whose quality of production is outstanding. It's only because they can't make a living at it that they have to pursue something else, like working in a restaurant or driving a truck or working on a fish farm or whatever.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: Or getting into politics, as the member for Saanich North and the Islands points out.
The minister needs to address the question of the amateur versus the professional with respect to funding availability, and also talk about where we are headed with respect to the arts councils in the province and where we are headed with respect to some of the mainline festivals that we run. The Festival of the Arts, for example, is happening in Campbell River this year in the upcoming months. Could the minister address these particular questions? I think they are of concern to a large number of British Columbians.
Hon. B. Barlee: You have some good points. When I look up the figures, what we are trying to do is leaven the loaf. I think that's what the member is referring to. You mentioned that Campbell River is receiving the Festival of the Arts annual general meeting, and that's true. Last year it was at Trail, and we're moving it around the interior. We fund 80 community arts councils in the province and 40 to 60 community museums.
Regional orchestras outside of Vancouver. The member didn't mention this, but I think we both know that the professionals are generally in the lower mainland -- either in Vancouver, greater Vancouver or Victoria. We're worried about the arts communities outside of those centres. We fund regional orchestras in the Okanagan, Kamloops and Prince George.
Film productions are getting out into various areas. We're looking very closely at putting a film region into Kamloops and Vancouver Island, as well as Vancouver, which I think will help.
As far as funding outside of the lower mainland, we have a number of areas. For instance, Powell River, which is in the member's riding, gets only $2,800 for the Powell River Community Arts Council. The Squamish Arts Council gets another $1,895 -- and this is 1992-93. Sunshine Coast Arts Council gets another $8,510. As you well know, $1,000 in Powell River on the Sunshine Coast will go much further than $1,000 in greater Vancouver, generally speaking. What we are trying to do is make sure that the arts community outside of the more heavily populated and cosmopolitan areas are doing very well too.
Interjection.
The Chair: Oh, I beg your pardon. I'm busy anticipating next events.
The hon. member continues.
G. Wilson: I lament at how obedient I've become waiting for the Chair. There was a time when I would have just leapt right in. I know it's a tragedy, but I guess that's what happens.
The Chair: It demonstrates respect for an institution, perhaps.
G. Wilson: Or perhaps the lateness of the hour, but let's put it down to respect.
I just wanted to point out to the minister that Squamish is not in my riding, although I am interested in how much the....
Interjection.
G. Wilson: Well, we could put it into my riding if you want, although the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi might have something to say about that.
The reason that Powell River Arts Council is at $2,800 is because the choral society, which is perhaps one of the finest in Canada and puts on Kathaumixw, which is well-known around the world and is an international choral festival.... It's probably one of the most outstanding enterprises that a community could put on. Incidentally, by way of an ad for Kathaumixw, it is operating primarily with community-based funding, and it does not look to government for a whole lot of money.
The point I wanted to raise with respect to funds that are going into cultural activity is that there seems to be little
[ Page 9946 ]
accounting to review the actual dollars that filter into a community as an account of particular kinds of activities. I know this minister is responsible for tourism, and I know we've already canvassed that. If there is some short period tomorrow that I might revisit one or two questions on that, I'd like that opportunity. The minister will acknowledge that there are many parts of British Columbia in which the cultural activity and the activities that are supported -- both by provincial government and, in some instances, by local government, but basically off the tax base -- account for a major influx of dollars seasonally and are a direct result of community-based activity that supports local business. And we don't hear enough about that; we don't hear enough about how the arts are, in fact, an instrument for local business success. And often we hear the arts discussed tangentially, almost as an aside. Unless you're a climatologist interested in the deterioration of the atmosphere, or a seismologist interested in when the next major earthquake is going to come, you probably travel to California for tourist activities, much of which are culturally based. So I wonder if the minister has any studies underway that are looking at the impact on small business in communities.
Hon. B. Barlee: We are tracking that. We have asked the B.C. Arts Board, for instance, to review that entirely and to track the economic impact of the arts community upon small business, the local community, and so on. We know there's a direct relationship; unfortunately, I think the public at large does not understand that generally. So it's an educational process. I've talked to a number of people on the ferries when I come across. Many of them have come to British Columbia directly from other parts -- the United States for instance. A couple I just talked to from Indiana, for heaven's sakes, came to see one of the shows at the Vancouver Playhouse; I forget which one it was. They came all the way up here for that and then decided to take in Victoria. So there are all sorts of spinoff effects. I forget what the figures are, but as far as tourism is concerned, culture plays a dramatic part in that as well. The figures are, I believe, in the 40 to 50 percent range, or somewhere in there. Tourists come in partly because they are attracted by the cultural amenities in that area.
G. Wilson: I do note the hour, and despite the fact that there was an agreement to move to 6:15, I'm hearing from my colleagues that we have to report. Let me ask you a question that will get you on your feet to be able to move it perhaps.
Could the minister simply provide what mechanism is available if chambers of commerce or small entrepreneurial groups in a particular community wish to access some kind of documentation with respect to dollars spent on community activity? Where can they get that information? A number of communities are prepared to do their own analysis, in terms of direct impact for dollars spent. If the minister has that information, I'd like to know where we can find it.
Hon. B. Barlee: I'll answer that very briefly for the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. This is one of the books that does give you some inside information about the cultural services and the various programs in British Columbia. As for the impact on tourism and so on, we have those figures as well; we'll try to get them back to you.
Assuming that the hour is leading on toward 6 o'clock, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:39 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]