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)
THURSDAY, APRIL 21, 1994
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 14, Number 12
[ Page 10163 ]
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
L. Reid: I have the privilege this afternoon of welcoming members of the British Columbia Medical Association to the public gallery. We have the president, Arun Garg, the vice-president, Mark Schoenfeld, and Steve Hardwicke, who is with us as public affairs committee chair. In the gallery today, hon. Speaker, you'll notice approximately 65 local action committee chairs from around this province. They're here today to see if this Legislature can come to grips with some of the pressing issues in health care. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I had the honour -- as did a number of members of cabinet -- of having lunch with and addressing the members of the B.C. Medical Association. They are in Victoria to look at the progress that has been made in bringing about a far better relationship in the province between the leaders in medicine.... The doctors here today are in seminars to learn about the political process and to meet for dinner later on with their MLAs.
I too would like to welcome the leaders who are here. You've heard, of course, of Dr. Arun Garg, who has played such a strong leadership role in helping this new relationship come about; Dr. Steve Hardwicke, who is the chair of the public affairs committee; and Dr. Mark Schoenfeld, who will be the president shortly when the elections occur. They are here to watch question period -- they're quite fascinated -- and asked me whether we would require the services of the surgeons or psychiatrists afterwards. I left that to their very good medical judgment. Would you please give a very warm welcome to leaders in the medical community who are here today.
L. Reid: I would also ask the House to please welcome Tom Hitchmough, who is visiting from Chester, England, and Sheila Seehagen from West Vancouver. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.
H. Lali: Visiting us today is a constituent of mine, Mr. Bill Sturn, superintendent of the Lillooet School District. Would the House please make him welcome.
L. Stephens: In the House today, visiting with us from King's School in Langley is a teacher, Mr. Ferguson, and about 11 of his grade 11 students and their parents. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. B. Barlee: In the gallery today, visiting British Columbia, are His Excellency Bjorn Inge Kristvik, Ambassador of Norway, and his wife. They are accompanied by Mr. Bjorn Hareid, honorary consul general of Norway in Vancouver, and his wife, as well as Mr. Cecil Paul Ridout, honorary consul of Norway in Victoria, and his wife. Would all members of the assembly, including those of Norwegian background, give them a warm welcome.
V. Anderson: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming students of the Machon Esther School, who are here today visiting along with their teacher, Mrs. Gladys Brown. They are accompanied by Yoseph Thomson, the director of development for the Central Organization for Jewish Education. Please make them welcome.
Hon. M. Sihota: Joining us from Ottawa today is Mr. Ludovic Dsouza, the special projects adviser with the Minister of National Defence, who is touring some of the National Defence facilities in the greater Victoria area. I also notice, just looking up into the gallery, an assistant in my office, Bev Carry. Would all members please make them welcome.
J. Sawicki: I would like to welcome two constituents of mine to the Legislature today, Lou and Doris Jaccard. They are actually here for the jazz festival, and of course, wouldn't miss the Legislature while they're here. I also want to mention that they're here partially at the courtesy of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, who apparently offered the use of his apartment as an auction item at a fundraiser.
D. Symons presented a bill intituled Uranium Moratorium Act.
D. Symons: The Uranium Moratorium Act, as the name suggests, is an act to protect the environment and the health of citizens of this province from the harmful effects of radiation that's released into the environment when uranium is mined. The moratorium would be achieved by amending the Mineral Tenure Act to ensure that mining for uranium is prohibited. The act recognizes and makes allowances for the fact that trace amounts of uranium are found while mining for other minerals. It would not, nor is it intended that it would, inhibit normal mining operations for other materials.
This act is not new. I freely admit to plagiarism from the moratorium regulations brought in by the Social Credit government -- now somewhat reformed -- and...
Interjections.
D. Symons: Oh, they caught that.
...in effect from 1980 through 1987. When that regulation expired in 1987, the then opposition New Democrats strongly advocated the reinstatement of the moratorium. This act does precisely that. Because of that past support for the act from both parties, I would hope for all-party support to bring forward and, with leave, pass this bill tomorrow on private members' day to coincide with Earth Day, which falls on April 22. We can do no better than do all we can to leave our environment as clean as possible for future generations. Uranium tailings and waste remain radioactive for tens of thousands of years. That is not a legacy we should leave to our children.
Bill M215 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.
USE OF SPECIAL PROSECUTOR IN CASE INVOLVING ATTORNEY GENERAL
M. de Jong: We are advised that a special prosecutor was appointed to investigate the accused minister on April 7, 1994. When did the Premier first become aware that his Attorney General was being investigated by a special prosecutor for perjury and obstruction of justice?
[2:15]
[ Page 10164 ]
Hon. M. Harcourt: I became aware that a special prosecutor had been appointed on the Monday after the appointment.
M. de Jong: This House was not advised of that appointment until April 13. I wonder what the Premier was up to for those days that he was in possession of that information prior to advising this House. Who was he speaking and meeting with? How far does his contempt for this House extend, that he wouldn't advise this House right away?
The Speaker: Order, hon. member. The Premier wishes to answer?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I find it very upsetting -- as somebody who was called to the bar in this province in 1969, although I am not a member of the bar and haven't practised for many years -- to see someone who considers himself an officer of the court using the kind of language he has used and showing the ignorance he has shown of the process that is very clearly laid out in the Crown Counsel Act. Very clearly, he should know better: the Premier is not informed of these things by the Attorney General's department.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order!
Hon. M. Harcourt: These appointments are made by the Assistant Deputy Attorney General in charge of the criminal justice branch...
Interjections.
Hon. M. Harcourt: ...from a list of names...
The Speaker: Order, hon. Premier.
Hon. M. Harcourt: ...put together with the Law Society of British Columbia...
The Speaker: Order, hon. Premier.
Hon. M. Harcourt: ...of lawyers of immense integrity in this province.
The Speaker: Order! Please take your seat, Premier.
Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, when one of those lawyers is attacked....
The Speaker: Hon. Premier, order, please. Thank you, hon. Premier. The Chair is having great difficulty with the length of time it is taking you to respond.
I should ask all members to please take their seats. Obviously, it's going to be necessary for the Chair to remind all hon. members to apprise themselves of section 47A of our standing orders. As a matter of fact, in the next few days I will undertake to provide some comments on how question period should be conducted. But when questions are raised with preambles that suggest argument, tend to be inflammatory or border on unparliamentary language, it is very difficult for the Chair to expect a response to be in order. I would ask hon. members to keep that in mind.
Does the member have a final supplementary?
M. de Jong: I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier calling this member ignorant may have bordered on being unparliamentary, but I didn't.....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. member. Please proceed with your question.
M. de Jong: I also appreciate the Premier drawing attention to the Crown Counsel Act, because, as he correctly points out...
The Speaker: The question, hon. member.
M. de Jong: ...it is that act...
The Speaker: Hon. member, your question, please.
M. de Jong: ...that dictates the manner in which material and special prosecutions....
The Speaker: Order, hon. member.
I'll recognize the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston.
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S ABILITY TO CONTINUE IN OFFICE
A. Warnke: Hon. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Environment. Given that the minister has spoken out so passionately in the past about the integrity of the Attorney General's office, how can he sit in the same cabinet as an Attorney General who has failed to meet the same ethical standards as former AG Bud Smith?
The Speaker: A further question, hon. member?
A. Warnke: The minister missed a heck of an opportunity, because that minister is also facing a special prosecutor from Alberta recommending that charges be laid against him.
My next question is for the Attorney General. Could the Attorney General explain the difference between his current situation and that of Bud Smith? Indeed, I'm wondering why the Attorney General is so determined to go down in history as one who has failed to meet even the same ethical standards as Bud Smith.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I will resist all of the obvious temptations and simply say there are no parallels.
The Speaker: Final supplementary.
A. Warnke: I think that really does illustrate some of the tremendous weaknesses that the Attorney General has in his post. So I ask my next question of the Premier, who was asked to withdraw from this House for demanding ministerial accountability from the previous administration. Why did the Premier demand Bud Smith's resignation then, yet as Premier now, he continues to compromise himself by hanging onto his somewhat discredited Attorney General, contrary to all legal and parliamentary convention?
Hon. M. Harcourt: That is the same question that has been asked of me at least ten or 15 times in the last week, and I will give the same answer as I have over the last week and a half.
[ Page 10165 ]
Interjections.
Hon. M. Harcourt: The difference is that this province now has the toughest conflict-of-interest laws in this country. Conflict-of-interest laws were brought in because cabinet ministers in the previous government couldn't tell the difference between private and public interests and had to resign over and over again, because they put their own pecuniary interest ahead of the public interest. On top of that, we have the most intense freedom-of-information laws in the country, so citizens have access to information like they never have seen before. As well, there are changes to the Crown Counsel Act that we didn't have under the previous government, which allow the appointment of a special prosecutor in cases involving a cabinet minister or an important public official. Those are the differences between the previous government and this government.
CALL FOR INQUIRY INTO CORRECTIONS SYSTEM
D. Mitchell: I wish I could ask this question of the acting Attorney General. I will have to ask the Attorney General, who remains in office. With respect to the scandal over Danny Perrault and the scandal within the corrections system, when will the Attorney General's office be announcing a public inquiry into the corrections system in British Columbia? Is he prepared to do that today? If not, when will he be making such an announcement?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In the very near future I intend to make a public announcement with respect to the Danny Perrault matter.
D. Mitchell: Supplementary to the Attorney General. I know that over the last number of days he has received significant representation from a number of people on this issue: the general public, victims of crime and their families, the peace officers' association and corrections officials. Will the Attorney General commit that when he makes the announcement to which he just referred, it will be of a full and independent public inquiry not only into the Danny Perrault escape but also into conditions within the corrections system in British Columbia which have concerned people with respect to the handling of dangerous offenders.
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order, hon. member.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Members will have to await my announcement before they see the details of the package.
The Speaker: A final supplementary, hon. member.
D. Mitchell: The government of which the Attorney General is a member says that it believes in whistle blowers' protection for government employees. Can the Attorney General commit to the House today that the very brave corrections officials who came forward over the last number of weeks to help expose the scandal within the corrections system will receive full protection and immunity; that there will not be any disciplining or reprimanding -- evidence already exists that some of that has taken place -- within the corrections system; and that they will be offered full protection to come forward and provide details of what is going on in the corrections system, without any repercussions to their careers?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: In the last few weeks I made that commitment to employees of the corrections branch and to others in British Columbia who want to come forward with information. If they feel more comfortable coming directly to me, I will ensure that they are not disciplined in any way for providing the kind of information we need.
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S ABILITY TO CONTINUE IN OFFICE
J. Dalton: Again to the Attorney General, in his press release of April 13, it is stated that no further comments would be made on this matter. However, on Tuesday of this week the Attorney General made several comments in the House on this unfortunate case, and yesterday he made further comments. Does the Attorney General not agree that it is inappropriate to be making those comments, which fly in the face of the very statement he made in his release?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member made reference to "this matter," and the only matter we were discussing was the Perrault matter. I assume he's referring to another matter. I am very careful about what statements I make. I have always seen my role as being accountable to British Columbians through this Legislature. I say as much as I can on issues, and I'm going to continue to do that.
J. Dalton: Unfortunately, there are so many matters in the Attorney General's ministry that it's very difficult to know which ones to comment on. However, again to the Attorney General, he's saying that there will be a full investigation of this matter -- that is, of course, his affidavit -- and that he will be found innocent at the conclusion of it. That is a very unfortunate and wrong comment for this Attorney General to make. Is he not putting the special prosecutor in a very awkward position by such a comment?
The Speaker: The hon. member has a final supplementary.
J. Dalton: Finally, again to the Attorney General, apparently his advice to the criminal justice system is: "Do as I say, and not as I do." Will the minister not step aside pending the results of this investigation?
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S MEETING WITH B.C. COALITION FOR ABORTION CLINICS
C. Serwa: My question is to the Attorney General. Can the Attorney General tell us if Hilda Thomas was present at his meeting with the Everywoman's health clinic group, or was she involved in any way in making arrangements for the meeting?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Given that the matter is being looked at by Mr. Peck, I'm not going to make any comments in respect to that question.
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S ABILITY TO CONTINUE IN OFFICE
W. Hurd: A question to the Attorney General. The Attorney General has advised this House that there are no legal parallels between the case involving former Attorney General Bud Smith and the current investigation. Can the
[ Page 10166 ]
minister tell us whether he has commissioned a legal opinion on that, or is he just basing it on his own interpretation of both events?
The Speaker: A further question, hon. member?
W. Hurd: I again ask the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks -- who had so much to say in this House about former Attorney General Bud Smith and had charges recommended by a special prosecutor outside the province of British Columbia -- why does he refuse to stand when asked a question about the former Attorney General, inviting comparisons with the current situation?
To the Attorney General: why has he not gone outside British Columbia to have a special prosecutor appointed, as the previous administration did?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Behind the member, against the wall, are some blue books. One of them contains the Crown Counsel Act, and I would advise the member to read it.
G. Farrell-Collins: The public is very concerned about this issue. The public is wondering when the Premier of this province will finally exercise the leadership he is required to exercise and restore the integrity of the office of Attorney General if he cannot restore the integrity of the individual. Day after day, it gets worse and worse for this government. When will he finally do what he's supposed to do as the Premier, as the leader of this province? When will he ask the Attorney General to resign, and put somebody in there who can deal with this case while it's ongoing?
The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM
Hon. M. Harcourt: I would like to make a ministerial statement. The statement is that British Columbia will not participate in the federal Liberal government's social security reform if it is going to be used as a mechanism to cut transfer payments to the provinces and funding for social and educational programs. We are serious about the income security review, but we will not let this review be carried out on the backs of British Columbians.
[2:30]
The federal Human Resources Development minister, Lloyd Axworthy, will be in Vancouver tomorrow. I'm instructing two of my ministers -- the Skills, Training and Labour minister and the Social Services minister -- to meet with him to deliver these key messages. We will not accept the federal government's off-loading of the federal deficit onto British Columbia. British Columbia supports the renewal of our social safety net, and we will have our own agenda for that renewal. The federal government must involve the provinces in a real partnership to reshape Canada's social programs. We must have a genuine federal-provincial discussion that will lead us to building a British Columbia and a Canada that are compassionate and affordable.
This province leads the country in the creation of jobs and economic opportunities. We have an important role to play in the reform of social security. But if British Columbia is to participate in this review, the meetings must be based on real consultation and negotiation. We will not accept an arbitrary imposition of changes to programs that affect so many British Columbians.
The federal Liberal Finance minister, Paul Martin, has said that the federal government expects massive cuts to transfer payments for provincial programs. He expects massive savings by cutting transfer payments to provinces. This is a policy of blaming the victims of unemployment, poverty, illiteracy and illness, instead of a progressive and compassionate policy of being good neighbours to our fellow citizens in need and instead of taking the fair and progressive approach that British Columbia has taken in leading the way in this country.
I say let the federal government make its savings in legitimate ways, as we have here in British Columbia. Ottawa should take its cue from British Columbia. We lead the country in economic growth; our deficit is down, and it will be eliminated by 1996; and we have frozen taxes for three years. We have done all of this while protecting the essential services that people in this province rely on. We have put our fiscal house in order, and we anticipate that Ottawa will do the same without attacking social programs and transferring its debt to the provinces.
We don't want to see the federal government use the same terrible approach that the Tory government used in capping funding to the Canada Assistance Plan, post-secondary educational institutions and health care. There is a better way. We're prepared to sit down and genuinely negotiate that, instead of having the Minister of Finance accelerate the tax dump from Ottawa onto our citizens from $3 billion this year to $3.2 billion next year, and add what we anticipate could be a $2 billion cut across Canada -- $500 million to British Columbia alone. That is not the way to bring changes to our income security system.
F. Gingell: I understand, and I completely agree with the concerns the Premier has spoken about. But on this issue I plead for him to recognize his responsibility to represent all of us in the province, not only as British Columbians but as Canadians. A series of things need to be done. The rationalization and creation of new social service programs that are integrated with job creation, skills training and various other options that are open to us are critically important. Please do not allow the federal government to act unilaterally. We must have real consultation and real negotiation.
I believe this government only gives lip service to this subject on certain occasions, but this matter is critically important to all of us. Please meet with the federal government. Don't cut off the lines of communication. Stick to your guns that these problems have to be solved by all of us together, not by the federal government taking unilateral action that creates problems for the British Columbia government to solve on its own.
At this point we are dealing with one issue. I would like to suggest that there are a series of issues: major tax reform, the whole tax system in Canada, and the way in which social programs, health and education are paid for. I can assure you that when the Liberal Party of British Columbia forms the government, we will continue to look after the interests of British Columbians in exactly the same fashion that I trust our Premier will.
The Speaker: Hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, regrettably I cannot recognize you for a response to the ministerial statement. As all members know, according to MacMinn's Parliamentary Practice, page 51.... The rules are clear; you are not a recognized party.
[ Page 10167 ]
Interjections.
The Speaker: I hear members saying aye. I also hear a nay, hon. member.
C. Serwa: I ask leave to respond to the Premier's ministerial statement.
Leave not granted.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I listened very carefully to what the member for Delta South had to say about....
The Speaker: Order, hon. Premier. Ministerial statements are not motions; they are simply statements. There is no reply to a response.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee A to consider the estimates of the Ministry of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services. In the House, I call adjourned debate on Motion 43.
FEDERAL ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION
G. Janssen: I rise to conclude debate, I would assume, on Motion 43, the discussion about the redistribution of federal seats which quashes B.C.'s efforts to be recognized and take its rightful place in the democracy that we call Canada. The Liberal Party in Ottawa is again depriving British Columbia of its rights. By the year 2001, 1.3 million more people will have moved to British Columbia, yet we will receive no more representation.
David Anderson, the member from Oak Bay, said: "What do you expect? Do you want more like us? Just look at the quality of MPs in Ottawa." Hon. members, let's look at the quality of the member from Oak Bay: a former provincial Liberal leader and a former Liberal president who, after being retired from politics in British Columbia, joined the pork-barrel politics of Ottawa and was appointed to federal positions. When he was elected to the House of Commons, he couldn't double-dip into that pork-barrel, and he threatened to take his own government to court so he could get two paycheques out of one government. He supported killing TRIUMF-KAON -- something that cost this province over $10 million. He supported no more shipbuilding in British Columbia and $11 billion worth of shipbuilding contracts to eastern Canada. He supported a tax dump of $3 billion onto this province, with $3.2 billion more to come. He supported closing Royal Roads Military College. He supported turning Clayoquot Sound into a park. After Moresby Island was turned into a park, it wiped the community of Masset right off the map. That's not what my constituents want, and that's not what British Columbians want from their Member of Parliament. All British Columbia Liberal MPs voted in favour of this dump on British Columbia.
B.C. is doing it right. We're reducing the deficit; jobs, housing starts and new business starts are up. We are leading Canada out of the recession, but it's like swimming upstream. British Columbia is meeting the challenge despite Ottawa's attempt to thwart B.C.'s determination. British Columbia is the favourite place to live in Canada. Federal Liberals are kissing cousins to our friends across the way. They're helped by Members of Parliament of the Liberal persuasion in Ottawa.
The Leader of the British Columbia Liberal Party wrote the Prime Minister a letter:
"I urge you to withdraw it from third reading and, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, ask that your government and the Parliament of Canada proceed with redistribution of seats to reflect the founding principle of democracy: one person, one vote.
"Thank you for your consideration."
Thank you, indeed. The Prime Minister doesn't listen to the provincial Liberal Party. He takes their money, I presume, but doesn't listen to their requests.
[2:45]
I want to ask the provincial Liberal Party: was there a response from the Prime Minister? Was representation made on behalf of the other Liberal MPs? Did Anna Terrana talk to the Prime Minister? Did Hedy Fry, Raymond Chan, or Edward McWhinney? Were they there on British Columbia's behalf, or did they follow the lead of David Anderson and dump on British Columbia? The provincial Liberals try to distance themselves from their federal counterparts. Will they return that portion of their tax rebates when they contribute to the federal Liberal Party? Will they tear up their federal Liberal Party membership cards, or will they continue to carry them in their back pockets while they say something out of the front of their mouths? Those members worked to get the federal Liberals elected. Will they now commit in this House to help rid B.C. of those Liberal MPs who try to thwart British Columbia at every turn?
I quote from Hansard: the member for Richmond Centre is "not connected" to the federal Liberal party; "will not kowtow" to what the federal Liberals do. Later in his speech he goes on to say: "I am quite sure that the federal government will see that B.C. receives its just representation in the next federal election." What is it? Confidence or no confidence; that is the question. Do you have confidence in British Columbia, or do you have confidence in the federal Liberal Party?
This House has a duty to stand up for British Columbians and to see that their federal Members of Parliament support British Columbia, not dump on it. The Liberals on the other side of this House have to commit to seeing that their federal counterparts support British Columbians. We on the government side of the House know where we stand. We support British Columbia. We want to see that British Columbia gets its fair share, and I urge all members of this House to see that British Columbia comes first, now and always.
R. Chisholm: I would like to rise in the House on this motion. I think it's a complete and utter waste of time.
The problem is that we have spent a day debating a motion put forward by the Premier. Our leader put exactly the same motion prior to the Premier's, but this one was pulled forward. I think people are getting sick and tired of the waste in this House. When you tabulate the waste that is happening federally and provincially on this matter, it is tremendous; it should stop.
I want to read into the record a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada dated March 28.
"Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
"I understand that on April 12 the House of Commons is to pass third reading of Bill C-18, the Act to Suspend the Operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, which delays the redistribution of seats in Parliament on the basis of a 1991 census.
[ Page 10168 ]
"Mr. Prime Minister, this bill makes no sense. Parliament does not strengthen the country by disenfranchising its fastest-growing region, nor does Parliament strengthen its bond to the people it serves by further weakening the principle of one person, one vote.
"Mr. Prime Minister, the damage done by this piece of legislation will be significant. I urge you to withdraw it from third reading, and on behalf of the people of British Columbia ask that your government and the Parliament of Canada proceed with redistribution of seats to reflect the founding principle of democracy: one person, one vote."
That's the end of the quote from the document that was sent to the Prime Minister. And I will remind you that it was April 12....
I'd like to remind these hon. members, while we waste the taxpayer's dollar, that on April 14 the Hansard from Parliament in Ottawa stated -- and I'll table it at the end of this:
"Government Business, March 17:
"The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons:
"That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill, in accordance with standing order 68(5), respecting the system of readjusting the boundaries of electoral districts for the House of Commons by electoral boundaries commissions, and in preparing the said bill, the committee be instructed to consider among other related matters the general operation over the past 30 years of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, including: (a) an assessment of whether there should be a continual increase in the number of members of the House of Commons after each census, as now provided in section 51 of the Constitution Act; (b) a review of the adequacy of the present method of selection of members of electoral boundaries commissions; (c) a review of the rules governing and the powers and methods of proceedings of electoral boundaries commissions, including whether these commissions ought to commence their work from the basis of making necessary alterations to the boundaries of existing electoral districts wherever possible; (d) a review of the time and nature of the involvement of the public and of the House of Commons in the work of electoral boundaries commissions;
"That the committee have the power to travel within Canada and hear witnesses by teleconference; and
"That the committee report no later than December 16, 1994."
In other words, this bill has been withdrawn. A committee was struck to hear what Canadians think about it, and they will respond by December 16, 1994. In other words, taxpayers are paying for a committee to look into the situation, and we are debating it for a full day here in this House. I wonder what it costs to have 75 members stand up in this House and debate something that is not even of any importance. What does it cost to have all the support staff in this Legislature while we debate something that is not an issue? Hon. members, it is time you learned how to use a pen. Write a letter, send it to Ottawa and have your points heard. Go and talk to the committee. Stop wasting the time of the people of B.C., and stop wasting taxpayers' money. Get with it!
We sit in this House day after day, and we're supposed to debate the business of the people. When are we going to start? When are we going to stop wasting time and resources? We have deficits and debts. But what do we do? We talk about something that is not an issue at this point in time. It is a political ploy by this government to try and embarrass the provincial Liberal Party. This provincial Liberal Party does not have connections to the federal Liberal Party. When you look at our constitution, it does not read.... I will quote the New Democratic Party's constitution. You might be interested in this, hon. members -- it's your constitution.
"Article I -- Name and Purpose.
"1.02: The party shall constitute a section of the New Democratic Party (of Canada).
"1.03: Should conflict arise between the constitution of this party and that of the New Democratic Party (of Canada), hereinafter referred to as 'the Federal Constitution,' the Federal Constitution shall prevail."
Who is pulling your strings, hon. members? You will not find that in the provincial Liberal Party's constitution.
We've had members from the opposite side stand up and rant and rave. As members know, I don't usually get up and rant and rave, but this time I'm getting a little fed up with the way they are acting. For instance, the Minister of Investment stood up and with pompous and righteous indignation denounced the Liberal Party as being guided by the federal Liberals. I've just proven who is being guided by whom. The NDP is being guided by the federal NDP. That's right in your constitution. It's about time for you to be honest about what you're doing, hon. members. I can look in the mirror: can you?
I'd like to bring in another point here. This is one of your constituents, hon. members. I guess the constituent is about as angry as I am. Maybe he's a little angrier, because he has had enough backbone to pick up a pen and write a letter -- you haven't been able to do that -- and send it off to Ottawa. It's addressed to the Premier -- reference: motion in debate. He states:
"Please, Mr. Premier, withdraw this motion. We do not need this debate. As a matter of fact, 295 seats in the House of Commons should be reduced to half, not increased. There is more important business that should be debated, and more important to the ordinary British Columbians. Therefore please debate more important issues than the above, which is in my opinion much more important. Adjourn this debate immediately.
"J. Labrosse"
That's from Kelowna.
Hon. members, pick up your mail and read it. Guess what. You're going to find that your constituents are writing those letters.
Interjection.
R. Chisholm: Every person in this province is one of your constituents, hon. member. If you haven't learned that yet, you'd better learn it now.
If I recall a few months back, there was only one party in this country that opposed the Charlottetown accord. This Premier got the nickname.... We won't say it, because we're not supposed to say "bonehead" here. This hon. Premier agreed to fewer seats. That was your party. If I recall, you were wearing Yes buttons, not me. Before you stand up here and start spouting off all this pious, pompous garbage, you'd better take a look at your past history.
Hon. Speaker, I'm going to end my speech right now. I'm going to keep this short, because I don't believe I should be debating a bill that's not before this House and has no effect on this House at this time. If these members want to affect it, they should get in front of the committee, write a letter and stop wasting the taxpayers' money and time -- my time and their time.
T. Perry: I'm going to be very brief. I'm going to be voting in favour of this resolution.
[ Page 10169 ]
Do you know what the real issue is, hon. Speaker? You do know. So does the member for Esquimalt. So does the member for Kootenay. So does the former member for Atlin. Some of us who formerly represented double-member ridings know it extremely well. We had a redistribution report in British Columbia that threatened to take our seats away. I used to sit over on that side representing the riding of Vancouver-Point Grey. I felt I represented it well, and the voters seemed to like me. They gave me a near majority -- even a majority, I think -- in an election. But the report of Justice Fisher came down and dissolved that riding. It meant that my seat disappeared.
The seat of the only aboriginal member of this House disappeared. Some of us felt very distressed about that, and one member of the Social Credit Party stood up near where I'm standing now. I can't remember who, but someone was brave enough. I think it was Mr. Loenen, the member for Richmond, a much more articulate member than the present members, who stood and pointed out that there were some problems with that redistribution as well.
[3:00]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove rises on a point of order.
G. Farrell-Collins: I believe we're short of a quorum, hon. Speaker.
The Speaker: I believe we have a quorum now. Would the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain please proceed.
T. Perry: Let's see if I can remember where I was. I still don't see any members of the opposition. There is one of the official opposition. Perhaps a few government members will filter in and make it look more respectable on that side.
There was some pain from that redistribution. A lot of members had to shift their seats, yet they recognized, when Justice Fisher brought down his report, that the public demanded a fair electoral redistribution and that our interests came second. Not one member of this House, if I remember accurately, voted against the Fisher commission recommendations for redistribution. It was a unanimous vote -- a rare occurrence in this House -- in favour of electoral redistribution. Virtually every one of those MLAs stood to lose something personally. At least one of them lost the opportunity to contest again in the election -- one of our most unique members, Mr. Larry Guno, who then represented Atlin.
Do you know what this is really about? This is about the failure of the parliamentarians in Ottawa, particularly the Liberal majority that passed that bill and have now sent it for confirmation in the Senate. It's about their own gutlessness and failure to recognize that the public interest comes before the interest of their seats. People who claimed they were elected on the new politics, who were elected only last November -- or October, or whenever it was -- were claiming to represent a new political philosophy. As soon as they saw that they might risk losing their own seat in another election, they bolted. They about-faced and ran away from the truth, ran away from fairness to the people of Canada and, in particular in this province, ran away from fair representation for British Columbia.
I hope that people who are sitting in the gallery and anyone who is watching on television will think about that. I contrast it with how members on both sides of this House in 1990 or 1991 faced the fact that the public demanded a fair electoral redistribution and that our interests came second, that if we wanted to run again we should find ourselves a nomination in another riding and face not only the electorate but also the constituency associations in those ridings to prove we were good enough to be nominated -- and then prove to the voters that we merited re-election, even in a different riding. I was one of those, and it was very difficult. It meant lots of extra work to get that nomination, to get the voters to recognize and support me, and yet it was the right thing to do.
Unfortunately, our Liberal representatives in Ottawa did not share that philosophy. They felt it was better to protect their own seats -- protect their own behinds, so to speak -- and sell out the interests of this province, despite the most rapidly growing population in the whole country and the enormous difficulties in keeping the country together while at the same time recognizing provinces such as Quebec and the Maritimes, with their enormous economic difficulties. Ontario, with its 98 Liberal seats, has dominated Confederation historically and will hold onto that monopoly of power, while we are represented by seven relatively weak government MPs in Ottawa -- and one incompetent cabinet minister -- and will be condemned to less representation proportionally in the future.
That's what this resolution is about. I can't conceive why any member would not want to support this motion and call on the conscience of our recently elected parliamentarians in Ottawa. They have a second chance. The Senate could defeat this bill. The Senate could stand up for the rights of British Columbians, and it ought to. I hope that it will. I hope that the Liberal and other Members of Parliament who voted in favour of blocking electoral redistribution and reform in Ottawa will think twice and go back to their own consciences and the people they really represent, and think not only of the interests of the country but of the fair interests of British Columbia in Confederation. I'm proud to vote in favour of this motion. I hope we get on with the vote and make it unanimous.
G. Farrell-Collins: Before I enter into the debate, I just want to remind members of this House that the position of the Liberal opposition on this issue was clear some time ago. It was clear at the time the Leader of the Opposition wrote a letter to the Prime Minister of the country demanding that the problems created by Bill C-18 -- the removal of two seats from British Columbia -- be addressed in such a manner that no province was disadvantaged because of that bill, and that the justice and representation that comes along with a growing province arrive on time and not some time in the future.
A motion was put on the order paper by the Leader of the Opposition well in advance of the motion brought forward by the Premier. I'm not going to bother to read it, but it quite clearly calls on the federal government to do away with Bill C-18 and address the problem of electoral distribution in this country as soon as possible. That was before the NDP found out that this was an issue; that was before the Premier stood up in this House to move his motion last week; that was before the NDP got excited about this motion. I don't know why it took the NDP so long to realize that this was a problem, when members of the Liberal opposition in the province realized it was a problem some time ago. We forwarded a letter to the Prime Minister expressing our objection to it and put a motion on the order paper so this House would have a chance to do just what we're doing today -- which is to debate this issue and show the federal government that British Columbia needs to be represented by its fair share of MPs in the House of Commons.
[ Page 10170 ]
I think that deals with the motivation. That addresses up front some of the very odd factual and historical revisions that have taken place by members opposite, particularly the member for Alberni -- which I found quite interesting. I don't know how it related to this motion exactly, but he started to make all sorts of disparaging comments about members of the House of Commons who were double-dipping and triple-dipping and getting their snout in the public trough. Quite frankly, I agreed with much of that, but what the member didn't bring up were the New Democrats who have their nose so far into the public trough that they're touching bottom. The former leader of the New Democratic Party and former Premier of this province collected a pension from the province of British Columbia at the same time he collected a paycheque from the people of British Columbia when he sat as an MP in Ottawa. How is that any different than the things the member for Alberni alluded to? I don't hear him commenting; I don't hear him saying anything. I don't see the same outrage as before.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: He says that I'm right. That's true, because I am right on this one.
What about Mark Rose, a former opposition House Leader of this House, a New Democrat who now sits in England representing this province and collecting a paycheque of some $120,000 a year at the same time he's collecting a pension from the taxpayers of British Columbia? He forgot to mention that one. What about Dave Stupich -- among others -- who collected a pension from the province of British Columbia at the same time as he collected a paycheque by sitting as a Member of Parliament? I understand he has been defeated, along with the previous leader. We know what British Columbia thought of the job their NDP Members of Parliament did, because there are only two left out of 32 representatives from this province.
I find it really interesting that that member would get up in this House and defame a number of members of the House of Commons in such a selective fashion. Somehow, because he's a New Democrat, he has a little halo above his head, he's beyond reproach and his own motives are beyond question. I agree that a lot of things go wrong in this country. There is a lot of double- and triple-dipping, which has to stop. A lot of things take place in this country that need to be changed, and a lot of things need to be done. But let's not be blind to the things that go on right around the country; let's not be selective.
The government has brought forward this motion not so much to defend the interests of British Columbians or the rights of British Columbians to be represented.... Most of what they have been saying is an attempt to somehow weld the federal Liberal Party together with the British Columbia Liberal Party and identify them as one.
An Hon. Member: Well, it's true.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, it's interesting. The member says: "It's true." Let's look at the facts. We just heard the member for Chilliwack read from the provincial New Democrats' constitution, which shows that the provincial New Democratic Party takes its orders from the federal New Democratic Party. It says that right in their constitution.
An Hon. Member: How did they vote?
G. Farrell-Collins: The member asked how they voted. I think that the six MPs who are members of the federal Liberal Party should be ashamed of themselves for supporting that bill. Do you know who should be even more ashamed? -- the many New Democratic MLAs who stood up in this House and voted, not once but twice, in favour of agreements that would see a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament representing this province, relative to the rest of the county. At Meech Lake they supported it, and with the Charlottetown accord they supported it. In fact, they negotiated the Charlottetown accord. We saw the most embarrassing demonstration by a Premier in this country -- by the gentleman who normally sits opposite me in this chamber, the present Premier. After the previous Premier, I didn't know you could be any more embarrassing on the federal scene. I can't even say the word in this House that was used to describe the capability of the Premier in those negotiations; that's how embarrassing it is.
When I see these members stand up and put their haloes on and start to talk about how wonderful the NDP is in standing up for British Columbia, I ask: "Where were they in October 1992?" They were voting in favour of an agreement that would have entrenched a level of representation from this province that would have been less per capita than we are entitled to. I don't think anybody in this House would say that we can solve the country's problems with more politicians. I don't think anybody in this province or country would say that. We need to reduce and tone down this House. This House jumped, I believe, from 69 members to 75 members in the last parliament -- probably not the best direction to be going.
[3:15]
The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain, I believe, was up talking, and he said that there were.... I just want to set his facts straight, because I think if he's going to be addressing this issue he should get his facts straight. In the province of Ontario, 98 of 99 seats went to the Liberal Party; I believe that's the fact. And in British Columbia, contrary to what he said, there are not seven Liberal MPs from the province. There are six. I just want to set that straight.
The argument that the member used was interesting, too. He says that the reason behind this bill being brought forward -- Bill C-18 in the federal Parliament -- and voted upon by the federal Liberal Party was that they were afraid of losing their seats because of redistribution. They'd be shuffled over a bit this way or that way, and they'd have a different constituency and perhaps a somewhat different riding association to deal with in order to get the nomination. And because of that they were terrified that they would lose their seats. Well, if they won 98 out of 99 seats, it seems to me they could run anywhere and win, with the exception of one riding. So I think the logic that the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain uses is somewhat faulty, not to mention that his facts are faulty.
If we're going to talk about parties and the relationship between federal and provincial parties, I find it really interesting that the gentleman who's purported to end up being the interim leader of the New Democratic caucus in Ottawa and the New Democratic Party nationally, who actually is a member from British Columbia, Mr. Riis, has put forward a proposal that he join -- and his caucus sign a pact with the devil, as he put it -- the Reform Party of Canada, that he put aside the principles he espouses all the time and join with the Reform Party of Canada. For what reason? So that they can become the official opposition and get more money. Do you know what it is? The NDP caucus, the eight NDP federal MPs who are left, are finding that they have to be weaned from the wonderful perks and allotments of cash
[ Page 10171 ]
with which they were allowed to go out and set up a nice research department, nice offices and all these things. They want to get their noses back in there. They're willing to give up all the things these members stand up in the House and spout as their undying principles. They're going to join with the Reform Party of Canada in order to be the official opposition.
First of all, I find the motivations of the members opposite suspect in bringing this up. I find their commitment to British Columbia suspect, given how they voted on the Charlottetown and Meech Lake accords. I find their facts and their understanding of the legislation less than accurate. And I find them a little late in the program, having followed after the Leader of the Opposition in his motion and in his letter to the Prime Minister.
I wonder why they brought this forward. All it does is highlight their hypocrisy, their lack of principles, the shallowness of their principles, the shallowness of their understanding of the federal scene and the ineptitude of their Premier, who participated in the negotiations leading up to the Charlottetown accord. Aside from trying to commit political suicide, I can't find any logical, political or rational reason why the New Democrats would choose to bring this motion forward.
We thought we were scooping them by putting this motion on the order paper. We thought that they'd never dare to call this motion and have to stand up and defend the negotiation talents -- or lack thereof -- of their Premier, that they'd never have the nerve to stand up and defend their facts and understanding of the federal legislation, that they wouldn't have the nerve to stand up in this House and answer for Nelson Riis's comments on joining the Reform Party of Canada, that they'd never have the guts to stand up in front of this province and really have the truth out about how well or poorly they and their Premier have represented the people of this province. During the Charlottetown accord, right across this country there was one provincial party, outside the province of Quebec, that stood against the other provincial parties and their federal counterparts, whether distant or close. There was only one party that did that. It was the British Columbia Liberal Party. So people in this province should have no doubt at any time that we will speak for the province of British Columbia first. We will speak for the province of British Columbia within this country of Canada.
I'm amazed and shocked that the members would bring this motion forward and actually choose to debate it, for the reasons that I've stated. I assume we can go on for some time and hear more embarrassing facts from other members, more embarrassing tales from the New Democratic Party as they try to change history, as they try to change the facts and make up for the ineptitude of their Premier in negotiating on behalf of the province of British Columbia. I am very interested to hear the next speaker in the House.
The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, the question is: "Be it resolved that this House condemns the federal Liberal government's Bill C-18, which shortchanges British Columbia of two seats in the House of Commons, and that this House calls upon the Senate to reject this unfair legislation."
Motion approved unanimously on a division.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply B, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.
The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS, AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND MULTICULTURALISM
(continued)
On vote 30: minister's office, $386,800 (continued).
[3:30]
G. Wilson: I appreciate that we have almost finished canvassing this particular issue. I would certainly, by agreement, yield to the official opposition as soon as I have finished a couple of questions.
To the minister, if he is ready: when we adjourned for lunch, we were on the question with respect to the jurisdiction of local government. I recognize that local government has jurisdiction with respect to waste management issues. In this particular instance, even that local government was split virtually fifty-fifty. There was not a great deal of agreement -- certainly not unanimity -- on that question.
I draw now on a broader level with respect to some of the issues around the whole question of waste management and the technical aspects of what Dayton and Knight, the engineers, may have recommended. As the minister will know, in 1977, Dayton and Knight could find no suitable sites. They have now yielded on that, presumably because of increased technology, new methodology or whatever the reasons may have been.
My question to the minister is simply this: how much money is the ministry now putting into direct site survey work? That is survey on site; I'm not just talking about air photo analysis or topographic analysis. To what extent is the cost of that ongoing monitoring system going to be borne by the Ministry of Environment, and to what extent is the cost going to be borne by the municipality if, in their wisdom -- if I can use that term loosely -- the ministry decides that this proposition should go forward?
Hon. M. Sihota: The monitoring requirements will be put into the permit to be funded by the municipality. I don't have the actual quantum of funds allocated in this year's budget for the issues that the hon. member raised at the outset. I'll get staff to get that number. You can appreciate that trying to get that precise number out of a budget of $250 million is going to take a little bit of time.
G. Wilson: I appreciate that, and I appreciate the fact that the minister is going to get back to us with that.
With respect to potential costs on this site, it is also understood that there is an intermediary step with respect to permitting. The minister might want to clarify what seems to be a point of dispute, where the recycling portion of the waste permit happens after general collection. This doesn't refer only to Powell River, but to any of the areas around the province where there would be a similar permitting process. There is a central depository and items are then taken out of the waste stream, put on a truck and hauled off to the disposal site. What kind of permitting and what kind of site inspection is done with respect to the location of that central depository? I raise this only because of the proximity of the proposed site to the Powell River airport. My reading of the Ministry of Environment regulations is that they prohibit the location of such a site within proximity of any piston-driven
[ Page 10172 ]
aero engines. I wonder if the minister might clarify that, because there seems to be a point of some dispute.
Hon. M. Sihota: Sorry, hon. member, we don't have the specifics of a transfer station. So that staff can research it, are you talking about a transfer station situate within a certain kilometre range of the proposed landfill site? I just want to make sure that I understand it before I ask staff to research it.
G. Wilson: That's exactly what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a transfer station at which general collection will be deposited, where recyclable materials will be taken out of the waste stream prior to that material being trucked to the eventual site. It's not the proximity to the landfill site that we're concerned about; it's the proposal that it be proximate to the airport. My understanding of the regulations is that particulates that may get into the atmosphere would prohibit the location of such a transfer station proximate to an airfield where piston-driven aero engines are operating. It's a point of some discussion and confusion, and I'm asking if you might clarify it.
Hon. M. Sihota: I believe that you are talking about the proposed transfer station. It would therefore fall under the provisions of the solid waste management plan. This facility doesn't actually exist, as I understand it. As we go through the solid waste management plan and its application to that site, if there are contraventions of the regulations the appropriate authorities are notified.
G. Wilson: I would hope, then, that the minister would take our discussion today as at least notification of our concern. I don't pretend in any way to be an expert on it. In reviewing the plan, I think there have been two or three options discussed. This one seems to be of concern to a significant number of constituents, and that's the only reason I raise it now. I looked through the regulations, and it was difficult to find the area they were citing in any regulation. So I'm just assuming that it's policy, and therefore not necessarily in written form.
I have two other questions, and then I would yield to the official opposition. The minister will know that our exchange prior to lunch was viewed by large numbers of people in Powell River who, purely coincidentally, happened to be watching the television at the time of this debate. That coincidence is, of course....
D. Streifel: A few faxes and phone calls.
G. Wilson: This is true, there were a few faxes and phone calls -- and I know the regulations with respect to what you can and can't hold up in the House.
There were two issues brought to my attention over the lunch hour that I think the members would like to know. Specifically, they have to do with the cleanup cost in the event of a breach of the liner. At the public meetings, Dayton and Knight apparently indicated that there clearly would be leachate. There wasn't a question of it not leaking; it will leak. The question is how much it will leak and what kind of damage that is likely to do to the environment. The question that was put to me came from both sides of the argument, so the minister can rest assured I'm not trying to score any political points on this one. It's an honest question, hopefully to get an honest answer.
In the event there are leachate and cleanup costs, if that is as a result of compliance with the permit, is it the minister's understanding that the cost of cleanup and any reclamation will fall upon the municipal government? Or does this ministry have funds available to assist local government with respect to reclamation and cleanup costs that may result because of a condition in the permit that was approved?
Hon. M. Sihota: I would suspect it would be the offending party, which would probably be local government, and there are bonding requirements.
G. Wilson: My second question, and the last before I yield to the official opposition, is with respect to the bonding requirements. How is the bond determined? To what extent is that based on the permit and the liability potential? Or is that just a flat rate applied to solid waste disposals whether they're in watersheds or not? If the minister could allow us some information on that, it would be useful. Local taxpayers are clearly going to have to bear the cost of this; therefore it's important for people to know what costs are going to be incurred in this project.
Hon. M. Sihota: It's not a flat rate. It's based on an assessment of risk.
G. Wilson: I thought the other question was the last, and this probably will be -- although I certainly reserve the right to come back to all other aspects of environmental questions in the estimates.
With respect to the bonding, then, will the risk assessment be part of the permitting process, or will that be done internally by the Ministry of Environment? What kind of public information will be available with respect to that risk assessment -- the methodology by which it is determined and the potential liabilities identified by it?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm sorry. You asked your last question; I can't answer that one. Just kidding.
It's part of the permitting process. The information is generally available to the public. The final negotiations with regard to the quantum of costs obviously are private with the ministry, but I would think that once they're done they would be available to the public through the regional level of government.
I want to say that the hon. member indicated in his comments that there have been quite a few letters on this issue. I'm not doubting you. I'm just saying that we did try to check over the lunch break, and we were able to find only one that came in a few days ago with the same pamphlet that you tried to hold up that started with the word "stop." For your information, that's the only one we can find in the system at this stage.
G. Wilson: I couldn't possibly let that last comment go without some correction. I would be happy to provide the minister with a list of the names of people who have written in, and I would further be happy to provide him with the petition on which there are literally hundreds of names. The minister can see here that it has names, addresses and phone numbers. So if the minister thinks that there are very few people, then I would suggest he might want to be apprised of these concerns, since there is literally page after page of people who have indicated concern.
I am trying to yield to the official opposition. I know they are trying to get in, and by virtue of their agreement they have allowed me to continue after lunch on this matter.
With that said, the last comment I would make is on that risk assessment -- and I mean this in all seriousness. The
[ Page 10173 ]
public really want to have access to the technical information that the ministry is using to make a final judgment on this question. As the minister will well know, when you're talking about the potential damage to a watershed, emotions run very high all over the province. People feel very strongly about the protection of their water systems and their water courses.
So I hope that the minister will honour what I believe he said before lunch -- we'll of course check Hansard to make sure he did; this may be a good chance for him to suggest he didn't, if I have it wrong -- which was that all of the technical review information and the information with respect to the assessment of risk and the viability of such a project will be made available to the public for their review prior to any permit being issued in this instance.
[3:45]
If that is so, then I believe that the public would feel more comfortable recognizing that they would have an opportunity to review the potential impact as determined by experts in this field and to respond to that prior to any permit being issued. Would the minister commit to that? I believe that's what he committed to before lunch, but I don't want to hold him to something if he didn't say it.
Hon. M. Sihota: I think my statements this morning were clear enough. If they're not, then I'm sure the hon. member and I can work it out.
G. Wilson: I appreciate that, and I would like you to say for the record.... I appreciate also the fact that the minister makes himself available to this member on a regular basis, and we do have an opportunity to have ongoing and useful discussions in the interests of not only my constituents but British Columbians. He's one of the more accessible ministers.
With that being said, I would yield to the members of the official opposition and reserve the right to come back in future aspects of this estimates debate.
D. Jarvis: Did the minister have an opportunity to obtain from his staff the information I asked about regarding Mount Washington?
Hon. M. Sihota: There was a study to control the acid mine drainage. The Ministry of Energy has paid about $2 million to remedy the tailing site.
D. Jarvis: Then I assume, Mr. Minister, that you have a report now and that nothing has been done. Is that right?
Hon. M. Sihota: The Ministry of Energy paid about $2 million to remedy the site, which meant that we covered it with clay. There has not been any further deterioration of the situation at Mount Washington.
D. Jarvis: Can you tell me when that was done? Or could you tell me when the ministry will have this completed? I'm receiving reports that it has not relieved the problem at this time.
Hon. M. Sihota: I agree that the problem has not, in its entirety, been relieved. I wouldn't want the member to have the wrong impression; I've just answered the question you asked this morning. The problem hasn't gotten any worse, but it hasn't been remedied in its entirety, either.
D. Jarvis: Do we assume, then, that you're going to go further in this remedy of it? Or is this it now?
Hon. M. Sihota: I suspect, hon. member, that it's a matter of resources. As resources permit, obviously, we'd like to solve all the problems that are out there.
D. Jarvis: I'm rather surprised, Mr. Minister. If this was a private concern, such as in the Charlottes, you would have been up making a grandiose statement at a press conference with photo ops and all the rest. Or up in Britannia Beach, which has no money, you'd be doing further ops and all the rest of it. The government has made a commitment to this problem. Why are you just sitting around doing nothing? There's a problem there. Go out and do it.
Hon. M. Sihota: There's no easy remedy to the problem from a technological point of view. Therefore it's difficult to just throw money at the problem. Obviously, we have to have solutions that work. The solution we used at Britannia, for example, was a solution that -- from the work that had been done -- we knew would work. I would be most interested in hearing a solution, from a technical point of view, that the hon. member could suggest in this chamber.
D. Jarvis: The government is in the position of having.... It's their responsibility, and you were aware of the responsibility. You told me that when you sidestepped down that black diamond hill, you could see the mine; you knew it was a problem all the time.
But I want to say this: you commissioned a report on it. If that report is not satisfactory, then how come the ministry hasn't gone out and found another report? If it was a private enterprise, you'd be screaming and yelling blue murder. Now you're sitting back. You've got a report; you tried to act on that report. You found it's unsatisfactory, and now you're saying....
The Chair: Member, I'm sorry. I don't mean to interfere with what you're saying, but I must caution you. Please do not use "you." Go through the Chair, please.
D. Jarvis: Well, you all....
The Chair: Please, member, we do have rules. Please abide by them.
D. Jarvis: Yes, I appreciate that.
As far as I can see, it's a cop-out. It's a different thing when the government is responsible, versus a private enterprise outfit that's responsible.
Hon. M. Sihota: I want to make sure the hon. member knows that an interministry committee is working on this problem. So please don't think that nothing is being done. An ambient water quality report will be available to the stakeholders in about three weeks; that may assist us in finding solutions. The hon. member should also know that, given the history of the site, the materials that have been released have drained out of the mine and found themselves well into the water level. Consequently, the solutions and expenditures that would be required are fairly significant. Given the potential significance of those solutions, surely the hon. member would agree with me that before we start putting taxpayers' dollars into dealing with the problem, we had better make sure that the solutions we have identified will work, because the costs to the taxpayer would be significant.
[ Page 10174 ]
D. Jarvis: You could have said that at the start, I am afraid, because all you indicated to us on this side was that the Minister of Mines had spent $2 million for the report, you had acted on it and so far it hasn't cleared up the problem. All we were trying to do is find out if you're going to do further work on it. The Minister of Mines was laughing about that point a few minutes ago, but this is what we had asked. What was happening there? That's all we wanted to know.
Another subject I want to go on to is with regard to the 120-day scan report that you have. An item in here states that it's your intention to make an announcement with regard to water export. I was wondering if the policy on water export has changed in your department.
Hon. M. Sihota: I couldn't hear you at the end. Were you asking whether or not we had changed our position?
D. Jarvis: Yes.
Hon. M. Sihota: The position of the government has been very clear with regard to the export of water. We do not think that a commodity like water should be exported. We're concerned that that would occur under the provisions of NAFTA. I would hope that the hon. member and his party would agree with the position of the government, which has been outlined for some time -- namely, that NAFTA allows for the export of bulk water and that there ought not to be exports of bulk water.
D. Jarvis: It was an inquiry in the sense that I see that an announcement on water export is to be made by you and the minister of development. We were wondering if you were just going to repeat what you've already decided. Or is there going to be some change?
Hon. M. Sihota: Our position with regard to water exports won't change, but I do hope that the hon. member's position with regard to mining in parks will.
D. Jarvis: No, my attitude to mining in parks has not changed. As far as I'm concerned, if you can mine in parks in a responsible manner, as they're doing up in Myra Falls now, there's nothing wrong with it. I trust that the minister would realize that.
Another aspect I want to ask the minister about is with regard to an article in the paper. An environmental group in the east is quite concerned about the export of natural gas, which is theoretically the most environmentally safe way of heating. That group felt that the environment and energy security costs were at stake, and they were supported by the Energy Council of Canada -- or it was brought to their attention that maybe the council was concerned about it as well. I was wondering if you had any thoughts about the export of natural gas being environmentally wrong for this province.
Hon. M. Sihota: I have thought about many things, hon. member.
D. Jarvis: That was a classic example of an answer from a minister who is very bored with questions. The minister came back with a short, sharp answer that meant nothing, when we asked him a specific question.
However, I'll go into something he might know of: his ministry's regulations and inspections of the mining industry. We all appreciate that there are problems in the environment out there. Most of the mining companies, as far as I'm concerned -- and from what I have been informed of and what I have seen -- do really concern themselves with it. It appears that in a lot of cases I have heard about, instead of using a shield to protect the environment, the inspectors have been going out with a sword.
In cases where the minister gives instructions to the inspectors who go out there, what does he tell them? Does he advise them and try to help them prevent further problems, or is he out looking for problems with a sword? This is what appears to be going on. If you go out and talk to the mining companies, they will tell you that an inspector comes with only one thought: find something wrong and fine the companies. I know of an instance where an inspector walked into a mining company and looked at an oil tank that was leaking. They then grabbed him, took him out to his own car and showed him where it was leaking oil all over the site as well. This is the way they feel. I'd be interested to know how the minister feels about it and what instructions he gives his inspectors. If he doesn't give them any instructions, he should, because it's not serving proper relationships with the mining industry.
Hon. M. Sihota: They are told to enforce the law.
D. Jarvis: That's exactly what I was trying to tell the minister. He's obviously not using his office to promote good relationships between the mining industry and the Environment ministry by giving the department a shield or helping them. He's just going out with a sword. He's acting like a little policeman. He sits back there.... You laugh about it as though it's a funny thing, but it's not a funny thing. There are people out there who are working for a living. They are putting up their money and trying to make an investment in this province to provide work and taxes for people like you and your deputies, who are sitting back here....
Both you and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources laugh and smile about things like that, and you don't care. Well, Mr. Minister, as I said before, you are probably one of those individuals who had better start writing your curriculum vitae ticket, because both of you are going down very hard in the next election.
Now, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would put another question to the minister: can he tell me what the status of the Burrard Thermal plant is?
[4:00]
Hon. M. Sihota: I've tried to be short with the hon. member, because after listening to the advice of the member for Okanagan West, I felt that I should be when he gave me some gratuitous advice during his opening comments. I have listened to what the hon. member has had to say about mining and parks, about environmental regulation by government and about the relationship between this government and the mining industry. I have had occasion to listen to what he has to say about the electoral chances of this government.
Let me say, first of all, that this government enjoys its relationship with the mining industry. I know that my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has done an outstanding job in making sure that there is a good relationship between the mining industry and this government. In fact, if memory serves me right, in the budget that was introduced by my good colleague the Minister of Finance, there were significant changes in taxation, which showed the mining industry, with clarity, that we welcome their participation in the economy. We
[ Page 10175 ]
enjoy working with them closely as a government. That's not to say that there won't be tensions from time to time, but it's to say that when a compelling case is made, it's made well. If it had not been for the vigorous representations of my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, I'm sure that some of those taxation changes would not have been forthcoming. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate her for her hard work in that regard.
With regard to the other issues the hon. member raised, let me make it abundantly clear. The hon. member seems not to know what's happening in British Columbia today. One-third of all the new jobs created in Canada this year have been created right here in B.C. That's because British Columbians are enjoying unprecedented economic good times. That's because our resource communities -- forestry, mining and the agricultural industry -- are doing well. There are opportunities for working people in those areas. There are also opportunities in secondary industries in British Columbia. The hon. member should know that as a consequence of what's happening in this buoyant economy of British Columbia, jobs are up. Because of the fiscal progress that the Minister of Finance has made here in British Columbia....
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm glad the hon. member knows that the deficit is down. The deficit that we inherited from the Socreds was about $3.4 billion, and it's now down to about a billion dollars. The Premier has indicated that by the year 1996, we will be able to balance the budget in British Columbia, and I know that we will. At the same time, the government has indicated that taxes are frozen for the next three years. The hon. member opposite would like to see this government defeated, but I'm sure that, unlike him, most British Columbians appreciate the fact that jobs are up, the deficit is down and taxes are frozen. I think that's a recipe for electoral success.
During the course of his cross-examination, the hon. member made reference to the fact that he was worried about the way in which we enforce our regulations. The current Leader of the Opposition indicated the difference of opinion which exists between us on this side of the House and his political party. We think that environmental regulations are required in British Columbia and that British Columbians have a strong environmental ethic and want enforcement of environmental regulations. We think that British Columbians want polluters to pay and the quality of our environment to improve. As a consequence, we have brought in some of the toughest environmental regulations in the history of the province. A little earlier we debated the fact that, as a consequence of the leadership demonstrated by this government, we have the toughest pulp mill effluent discharge standards in North America. We have the toughest standards with regard to the elimination of CFCs, as a result of the environmental regulations that this government has brought in. We will not hesitate to bring in appropriate environmental regulation to protect the integrity of our environment and to make sure that future generations will have access to an environment that is as safe, clean and bountiful as the one we inherited.
I regret that on February 1, 1994, the hon. Leader of the Opposition said in the Vancouver Sun that his first environmental priority as Premier would be to "get rid of the bureaucratic overload" of environment regulations. I'd like to know exactly which regulations he's talking about. Would the opposition prefer to get rid of those tough pulp mill effluent discharge standards? Would they like to see us go back to the Socred standards in terms of AOX discharge? Do they disagree with us in terms of decisions we made with regard to CFCs? Do they take issue with the initiatives of this government with respect to clean air? I'd like to know which environmental regulations those members opposite would seek to eliminate from the face of regulatory reform in British Columbia. It speaks volumes in terms of whose side the opposition is on. As evidenced by the statements of the Leader of the Opposition, they are clearly not on the side of the environment.
I think a perfect example of that is the comments the hon. member made just a few minutes ago, when he said there should be mining in parks in British Columbia. We have indicated -- for example, during last year's session -- that we will establish some remarkable and internationally renowned parks in British Columbia. One of those is the Tatshenshini; the hon. member is familiar with it. I want the hon. member to understand that under no circumstances will this government allow mining in parks. I just do not understand the mentality that would support mining in our pristine protected wilderness areas in British Columbia. If that is the record of the opposition, in terms of wanting to allow for mining in parks, then it would seem to me that it demonstrates the degree to which the Liberal opposition has no respect for the environmental ethic in British Columbia.
With regard to Burrard Thermal, the facility exists in downtown Vancouver and provides assistance in terms of our overall electrical plan.
D. Jarvis: That was a great campaign speech. I guess we're getting close to an election. It was full of untruths -- first of all, the fact that he would suggest that the Minister of Mines has done a proper job in this province and that she's well thought of in the mining industry. You just have to go out and quietly talk to some of the people and listen to what's reported across Canada about the Minister of Mines and how she treats the mining association in this province. Unfortunately, the minister doesn't realize that she tossed the mining industry peanuts. Although they certainly appreciate the approximately $25 million they got in tax savings in the coal industry, it certainly wasn't enough. It hasn't created any more jobs.
When we get into the aspect of jobs, you're sitting there with a large number of deputy ministers. You've created 12,000 more jobs in Victoria for the likes of the people -- the academics -- who are sitting around here. When you have deputy ministers who write books -- and we all read those books -- where they say they don't give a damn about mining in this province and that they want to take over the mines.... The minister's deputy feels that the mines should be owned by the government and not by private industries. He's a typical socialist. That's the way he thinks, and that's the way you think.
An Hon. Member: That's the way he wrote.
D. Jarvis: It's exactly what he wrote. As I said, all I wanted to know.... And I say this about the environment aspect of it: at no time did I say that I was not an environmentalist. I happen to be from six generations in this province; my family has been in this province for quite a few years. We have just as much concern about this province as you have, and perhaps more. We have a lot more invested in this province than you have. So don't tell us over on this side that we're not environmentalists.
[ Page 10176 ]
The thing about mining in parks -- the Tatshenshini aspect of it -- is that you didn't go through the process. Your department set up the mine development assessment program, which mining had to go through in order to get a licence to do it. But you shortcut it, because you -- and perhaps your deputies or your friends at the B.C. Federation of Labour -- didn't like the people who were in the mine.
The Chair: The member for Mission-Kent on a point of order.
D. Streifel: I would like to draw the member's attention to the necessity that debate be carried on through the Chair in order to respect parliament, and I recommend that the member spend some time in the evening reading the standing orders.
C. Tanner: Why don't you do that?
The Chair: I hope we're not going to get into a battle over points of order now. The member's point, by the by, is well taken. I would caution the member to please, if at all possible, avoid referring to the minister as "you"; refer to him, rather, as "the minister." I am the only "you" that can be referred to in debate, according to a strict reading of the standing orders. I give the member that caution.
Interjection.
The Chair: Excuse me, member -- I have to hear the first point of order before I can take the second. Please continue, minister.
Hon. M. Sihota: I have had the privilege to be an elected member of this House for seven years, and I have witnessed many debates. It strikes me that the lowest form of debate in this House is when hon. members attack those who have no right to speak in this House. Hon. Chair, I want to appeal to this House that members not attack the reputation of staff who serve this province, and not direct comments towards those who serve our province.
The Chair: That is not a point of order; however, the point is a valid one.
Member for North Vancouver-Seymour, do you wish to continue on the point of order?
D. Jarvis: I am quite aware of what the gentleman said about the point of order. Everything I was discussing dealt with the minister's ministry. The minister brought up the matter of employment, so I had to discuss the aspect of employment.
The Chair: I'm sorry, member, there seems to be some misunderstanding. I apologize if I haven't made it clear, so I'm going to try once more. The point of order made by the member for Mission-Kent -- the one that I said is well taken -- has to do with the means whereby we conduct debate in this chamber. One of the basic rules of debate in this chamber is that we do not refer to members opposite as "you." In short, we don't talk directly to them; rather, we talk through the Chair. If one wants to disagree with the minister, one says, for example: "I would point out that the minister is wrong when he or she says...." We do not say: "I would tell you, Mr. Minister, that you are wrong." That's the only point of order made by the member for Mission-Kent, and I would ask all members to please pay close attention to that rather important point which governs how we conduct our affairs in this chamber.
I will now ask the member for North Vancouver-Seymour to please carry on, and he's perfectly in order.
D. Jarvis: Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister, after his little speech in trying to castigate me.... I would like to say to the minister that I can see nothing wrong with mining in parks. If you feel that the Myra Falls mine in Strathcona Park is so bad and so dangerous to our environment, why don't you close it down? You have the opportunity to do so. That's the question. Or is the minister going to sit back and smile, pretending that he knows more than everyone else in this room, and not answer any questions? I originally asked the minister about the status of Burrard Thermal, and he gave me a short, cute, quick answer that made no sense whatsoever. So I will specifically ask the minister again: can you tell me what is wrong with a mine such as Myra Falls in Strathcona Park, and if it is wrong, are you prepared to close it down now?
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member knows full well the unique situation with regard to the mine in Strathcona Park, and if he doesn't know it, I'd be surprised. He knows the situation in terms of its pre-existing status and its tenure, and some of the compensation issues related to that. So the hon. member knows full well that at the time there was a policy of the day.
[4:15]
But if it is the Liberal Party's position today that there should be mining in parks and that they see no difficulty with mining in parks, I'd rather leave it at that. That is a statement, and that is the official position of the Liberal Party, and I can assure the hon. member that it will meet with appropriate comments from those who have an interest in the environment.
With regard to Burrard Thermal, I'm not sure what the hon. member wants to know about it. He knows full well it's a facility that exists in Vancouver. It has some permits to be able to proceed with activity in Vancouver, and it provides backup power to maintain our electrical system in the province.
D. Jarvis: Mr. Minister, you didn't answer my question. The question I asked you at the time was: is there anything wrong with the mine in Strathcona Park?
Hon. M. Sihota: There is everything wrong with mining in parks, and this government will not allow mining in parks. If that is the position of the Liberal Party, then I must say that I'm sure the Liberal Party will be the recipient of many comments from those who have an interest in the environment. With regard to the particular mine, the hon. member knows that it has a pre-existing status.
D. Jarvis: I would ask the minister again: is there anything wrong with the mine in Strathcona Park being there?
I just want to put on the record that the minister has therefore stated, by not answering, that there's nothing wrong with the mine in Strathcona Park. With that conclusion he is signifying there's nothing wrong with mining in parks in British Columbia. That's all I wanted to get out of him -- that he agrees with me that if it's done in a responsible manner, there is nothing wrong with mining in parks.
[ Page 10177 ]
Hon. M. Sihota: I see that the Environment critic for the Liberal Party is here. I'd sure be interested in knowing whether he supports the notion of mining in parks.
M. de Jong: In reviewing the hon. minister's estimates, I note, not surprisingly, that a significant amount of the budget is allocated to staff salaries. One of those employees interests me: Mr. Gerry Scott. I wonder if the minister could confirm that Mr. Scott is an employee of his ministry.
Hon. M. Sihota: As I was saying a few minutes ago, I've had the privilege of being in this House for seven years, and never before have I been aware of the critic for any portfolio remaining outside the House for most of the estimates. We've been debating these estimates for, I think, the better part of six or six and half hours, and I find it astounding that only now does the critic for the Liberal Party find himself engaged in debate on environmental matters.
Interjections.
Hon. M. Sihota: With regard to the question, that issue is already on the record in Hansard.
Interjections.
The Chair: The member for Matsqui continues. I caution other members to please try to at least keep it down.
M. de Jong: To the minister again: what day was Mr. Scott hired?
Hon. M. Sihota: Sorry, I don't have the exact date. But if it's important to you, we'll try to get you the exact date.
M. de Jong: How many applicants were there for his position?
Hon. M. Sihota: I've addressed the question of Mr. Scott. The matter of advertising, notice and the like are all matters of record in Hansard, and all members should familiarize themselves with that information first.
M. de Jong: What was Mr. Scott hired to do?
Hon. M. Sihota: I've answered that question; it's on the record in Hansard.
M. de Jong: What is Mr. Scott paid?
Hon. M. Sihota: Again, the hon. member obviously isn't aware of the fact that those questions were asked. The question was taken on notice in my absence by the Premier, and some days later I had the occasion to put all that information on the record.
M. de Jong: Did Mr. Scott and the minister have a relationship prior to his being hired by the ministry?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not too sure what he means by "relationship."
M. de Jong: That's why I asked the question.
Hon. M. Sihota: I take it the hon. member doesn't know what he meant by "relationship."
M. de Jong: Did the minister know Mr. Scott prior to hiring him?
Hon. M. Sihota: I knew many British Columbians prior to the last election.
M. de Jong: I think the difference between the minister and me is that I recognize where I have homework to do and am prepared to brief myself on coming into a new ministry or new critic's portfolio. Let me put it to him very simply: did he know the gentleman before he hired him?
Hon. M. Sihota: Sorry, I thought the reason the hon. member was outside the House was that he was engaged in double-dipping -- something the member for Langley is well aware of.
D. Jarvis: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think it's incumbent on you, if you are going to admonish us about talking out of turn, that you do the same thing with the minister and make sure that he doesn't inflame the situation, which he is trying to do. Have him answer the question if that's the situation.
The Chair: Member, please take note that nobody has been admonished by me or by any other Chair, to the best of my knowledge, for anything other than deviations from the rules of this chamber. I have done nothing to impede the flow of this debate, nor will I, except to caution all members to please stay on those matters that are properly within the compass of the estimates of this ministry. I would suggest to members on both sides that we seem to be moving some distance away from vote 30, and I would caution them to please address both their questions and their answers to what is germane to that vote.
D. Jarvis: The point is that every question I have asked, and the member for Matsqui has asked, has been directly pointed toward the minister's ministry. If we have got off track, we can only assume that the minister has inflamed that situation by not answering the questions.
G. Farrell-Collins: I had the displeasure of being the critic for that member when he was the Minister of Labour. I must say that it was a displeasure, because I have never in this House -- in the very limited time, mind you, that I've been here -- found anyone as unwilling to speak to the public and answer questions put to him, or as incapable of answering questions put to him. We spent time in estimates for Labour last year when this member was admonished and chastised for his inability to answer questions within that ministry. I see he's not even aware of what's going on in his new ministry. He's already moved down the ladder one notch, the next is the back bench, and I assume that the Chair will be taking over his job.
M. Farnworth: Is the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove rising on a point of order, or is he on estimates? If he's on estimates, would he please stick to estimates. We seem to be hearing a great deal of preamble. Brevity is supposed to be the order of the day.
The Chair: Again I am not confronted with a point of order; rather it seems to be with the quality of debate and what is happening. The points made by a number of different members on both sides have validity. May I just suggest that we would all be much further ahead if we could
[ Page 10178 ]
refrain from any personal insults and attack and deal with the administrative operations of the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks, and Minister Responsible for Human Rights and Multiculturalism.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'd like to ask the minister a question. I hope he'll answer, because the question that was asked of the Premier, which was taken on notice for this minister, included not one patronage appointment -- that of Gerry Scott -- but two patronage appointments within this ministry. The other gentleman was Jas Manak, and ministerial comments with regard to him are noticeably absent from Hansard. Perhaps the minister can inform us when he was hired, who hired him, who else applied for the position, how much he is paid and what his responsibilities are. What justification can the minister give for appointing a personal and political friend in the bureaucracy without advertising that job for all British Columbians?
Hon. M. Sihota: If the hon. member had paid attention -- as he should have -- to the question taken on notice, he would know that the question taken on notice was with regard to Mr. Scott. When the subsequent question was asked with regard to Mr. Manak, it wasn't taken on notice. Hence there was no need to reply at that time to the question as it related to Mr. Manak. The member knows that, and he pretty well admitted that in the heckle that he just sort of hurled towards this side of the House. As a result, I've answered many of the questions with regard to Mr. Scott. I'll be happy to answer the questions with regard to Mr. Manak. I would encourage the opposition.... They know full well the rules of this House: a question once being answered does not need to be answered a second time.
With regard to the individuals we are now discussing in the House, both are temporary auxiliary employees of government with no pension or seniority rights. Both of them have assisted us in the development of policy: Mr. Scott in the environmental area, and Mr. Manak in the multicultural area.
As I indicated during the response regarding Mr. Scott -- and the same applies to Mr. Manak -- the salary is $65,000 per year. Auxiliary positions are not advertised. If they are to be converted to permanent positions, they are advertised and, at that point, available for anyone who wishes to engage in securing those positions.
Mr. Scott's responsibilities -- I don't think I said this at the time, so I will amplify on this point -- relate to oil spills, clean air, pulp mill discharge regulations and some of the other matters that we have been working on in terms of regulations that are long overdue.
With regard to Mr. Manak, he is working to develop a community-based ESL program and doing some communications work around that, which would encompass non-English-speaking ethnic populations that do not have access to traditional institutional settings to assist them in that regard. In conjunction with community organizations, Mr. Manak is also working on a youth employment and skills training program targeted at immigrant youth, and he is working to develop models for anti-racism education for youth in the province. There are other issues that he's involved in as well, but those are the ones which occupy the bulk of his time.
I'm sure that there is a passing interest in Mr. Scott's and Mr. Manak's work, but it should not overshadow the fact that the Liberals have no environmental policy and no stated multiculturalism, immigration and human rights policy. It seems to me that the tactics on the part of the opposition are such that they find little scope to be able to criticize the policies of this ministry, in terms of both the environment and human rights, and therefore they would rather focus their attack on the good people hired to implement those policies.
G. Farrell-Collins: By his comments the minister has just indicated exactly how truthful he is on a regular basis, and how open he and his ministry are. It's exactly the same thing I've seen over the last two years. The fact of the matter is that a question was put to the Premier in this House. He took part of that question on notice. With the other part, the Premier sat on his behind and didn't answer the question. Upon finding out that questions were asked of his ministry, the minister stands in this House and gives the minimal information he's required to give by the standing orders -- if at all. He gives the minimal amount. He knows full well that there's a full question for the minister to answer, but he evades the question. He avoids answering the question. He fails to be truthful and forthright with the public. Those questions are asked on behalf of the public, and the minister knows that. For him to stand up in the House and play his piddly little legal games, which he has played for so many years in this House....
M. Farnworth: On a point of order, the comments that the minister was being untruthful are, I think, offensive to members in this House, and I would ask that they be withdrawn.
[4:30]
The Chair: As the Chair, I must confess that I didn't hear the direct impugning of one's integrity. I'm sure the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, in order to see that the debate proceed smoothly, would be willing to withdraw the remark if indeed it was made and gave offence.
G. Farrell-Collins: I have no need to impugn the integrity of that member opposite. I have no need to do that.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Of course, I withdraw the comment. I don't need to impugn the minister's motives. I don't need to impugn his integrity.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: That's not required. The minister made comments with regard to these two gentlemen. Can the minister tell us how long people stay in his ministry as auxiliary....
U. Dosanjh: Point of order. The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove has made allegations accusing the minister of being untruthful. Then he withdraws them in a qualified fashion, allowing the impression that he first created with his remarks to linger.
The Chair: I'm sorry, hon. member, but that is a subjective judgment, and whatever sympathy I might have is irrelevant. The member was asked to withdraw and did so. I must take him at his word and proceed accordingly. May I suggest, however, that we try to avoid the personality clash and conflict, and focus our remarks and concerns very much on the issues. I hope that will get us over these high hurdles.
[ Page 10179 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: I think that's advice well given and well taken. I hope the minister takes it, too. What's happened here is that members on this side have been rising to ask legitimate questions of the minister, and he has felt it important to put himself on a pedestal as the almighty god of the environment and to talk down to members of this House as if he were somehow better than everybody else. That's not uncommon. I spent eight weeks doing the Labour Code with this same minister. It's his personality, and that's fine. His reputation among the public is well known, and his....
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: I don't intend to help, hon. Chair.
I think the minister's attitude speaks for itself, and I'm sure it will serve him well in the next election, because as we know, the NDP stronghold in Esquimalt is no longer there. In fact, it has been eroded -- unless he too intends to join the Reform Party.
My question to the minister gets back to hiring policy and practices within his ministry. How long does somebody stay in his ministry as an auxiliary? Does it start whenever the minister feels like it and then end at the next election? Is there some time line where a person sitting in a position must eventually become a permanent employee? Do they just stay as auxiliary people, put in by the minister for political purposes, in perpetuity?
Hon. M. Sihota: They are term contracts, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: They are term contracts. Have those contracts been renewed since those gentlemen were personally appointed to their positions by the minister?
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes.
G. Farrell-Collins: How many times for each?
Hon. M. Sihota: Once.
G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell us the length of the terms of those two contracts for each individual, for a total of four contracts?
Hon. M. Sihota: We're functioning from memory here, but the first ones, we believe, were for six months; the second ones are for 12.
G. Farrell-Collins: I seem to remember some members of this House -- I can't remember exactly who they were -- standing up time after time to talk about contract employees, and the way this government deals with contract employees. Are these employees going to be there for a long term? Are we going to see those contracts renewed? Are they likely to be renewed after 12 months? That's an 18-month temporary assignment. That seems to me to be relatively significant. Should not those positions, if we have 18 months' worth of contracts, be put into the permanent category and put out for public posting so that all British Columbians can apply for them, not just the friends of the minister?
Hon. M. Sihota: They may well be advertised in due course, in keeping with the statements that I made at the outset. But the intention at this point is to maintain them as temporary employees. I can't read a crystal ball about what will occur 12 months from now.
G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell us if any other such employees within his ministry are going on similar contracts?
Interjections.
The Chair: Sorry, minister, if I may. Members, please, we aren't serving the public interest very well with this activity, so please let the dialogue and question-and-answer go on.
Hon. M. Sihota: There are quite a few employees who are hired on an auxiliary basis. If the hon. member would like a total number, I guess we could find it for him. But if his concern is whether these are the only two, they are not. There are a lot of auxiliary employees hired within the ministry at any time. You can appreciate that we have about 2,500 employees within the ministry.
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps we can be more specific, then. I understand these gentlemen were hired as managers of special projects. I believe that was the title given to both. Is that the title they both have?
Hon. M. Sihota: They work on special projects in the communications component of the ministry.
G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell us if any other special project coordinators or managers will be hired within his ministry on an auxiliary basis doing similar work, perhaps on different policy matters?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'm sure other people have been hired from time to time. People are hired on special projects.
G. Farrell-Collins: Could the minister tell us what other special projects are taking place within his ministry at present?
Hon. M. Sihota: There are hundreds of special projects at any given time in the ministry. You have to understand that the ambit of the ministry is quite significant. We have people looking at grizzly bears, the impact of water on particular watercourses, insects and fish habitat -- just go down the line. The ministry has all sorts of potential to engage people on special projects.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm sure it does. Can the minister tell us if there are any other special projects within his ministry with a communications slant? The minister obviously knows what I'm asking. How many other political friends has he parachuted into his ministry? I know he's not going to answer that question, so I'm trying to ask the minister not how many friends he has out there counting grizzly bears or insects but how many friends he has hired in his ministry who directly or indirectly deal with various matters. I can't ask the minister how many of his friends are in the ministry, because he won't answer me, but I can ask him if there are any other special projects. Particularly let me ask the minister about special projects within the communications area that he alludes to, which seems to be where all the patronage bodies are buried in his ministry.
Hon. M. Sihota: I note that the first person the Liberal caucus hired immediately after the 1991 provincial election campaign was Paul McKivett, the defeated Liberal candidate in Oak Bay-Gordon Head. The second person they hired was Jim Bennett, the campaign manager for the then-Liberal
[ Page 10180 ]
MLA for West Vancouver-Garibaldi. I also know full well that one of the people the opposition party hired was the individual who, I believe, ran for the party in Kamloops. I know full well that the former MLA for Vancouver-Quilchena, Mr. Art Cowie, was hired by his party in order to make room for the Leader of the Opposition in this House.
So the hon. member knows full well that the Liberal caucus, shortly after it formed the official opposition -- and currently I'm sure it does the same -- went out of its way to hire known Liberals. It's a decision that they have made for their own reasons, and that's a determination they will have to speak to. Just functioning from memory, the Liberal caucus also reached over to Mr. Chretien's office in Ottawa...
Interjection.
Hon. M. Sihota: Sorry, whose office was that?
...to look at some communications options.
The Chair: Excuse me, minister. The member for Abbotsford on a point of order. Your point, member?
H. De Jong: I have great difficulty understanding where the minister is leading. Certainly what he's mentioned so far has nothing to do with the Ministry of Environment.
The Chair: The member's point would normally be well taken -- albeit not a point of order, except perhaps on relevance -- except that it's an answer to a question that raises precisely these issues. Therefore, just as the question is in order, so must the response be, I'm afraid -- though you're quite right to wonder whether this is taking us in a direction that seems appropriate.
Hon. M. Sihota: That's fine.
G. Farrell-Collins: I think this minister knows as well as everybody else that any government has a political staff. Certainly no issue was raised when Mr. Jas Manak was a member of this minister's political staff, serving him directly as an executive assistant, I believe. Those are political positions. They're temporary; they come and go with the minister, the party and the government. That's understood, and that's necessary. One needs political people in political positions, doing direct service to the minister and particular MLAs. Nobody disputes that fact.
I'll repeat the question I put to the minister because I notice he didn't answer it: how many other temporary auxiliary positions, or whatever the minister wants to call them, does he have within his communications department, spread out throughout his ministry?
[4:45]
Hon. M. Sihota: I've just consulted with staff. We can find out how many other auxiliary employees there are, so that the hon. member can engage in his witch-hunt. But I can assure the hon. member that there must be occasions when we hire people in communications. There's a fairly large communications component in the Ministry of Environment, because it does a lot of things that other ministries don't regularly put into communications. So I'd have to find out to what extent we have engaged, or anticipate engaging in this year's budget, the services of people as auxiliaries in the communications department.
G. Farrell-Collins: This certainly isn't a witch-hunt. We all know, and the public knows, there are no witches in the NDP. They're not allowed to be in or to run for the NDP. We all saw that. This Minister of Multiculturalism should have something to say about that. It's amazing he can stand up and hold his head high.
The minister knows what the question is. It's not sufficient for the minister to say anymore in this House that he'll get back to us. In his previous portfolio he was asked a series of questions, and it took 13 months to get an answer back from the minister. He is incapable of either coming up with the answers or administering his office in a manner that he can put out that information. The first ten times, we took the minister at his word that he would get back to us, but he's not able to do that. So I assume these estimates will continue at another time, throughout either tomorrow, the next day, the day after or some time next week.
I assume that 24 hours should be sufficient for the minister to go through his office and find out how many other auxiliary employees that he has hired personally are working on his behalf in the communications department within his ministry. I'm sure he would be able to know that figure; he should know it off the top of his head. We all know that he hired these two gentlemen for personal reasons. They're in there as political staff, taking auxiliary positions in the ministry that normally should be posted and advertised so all British Columbians can participate in them. They should probably be considered -- given the minister's and other members' comments -- as actual government employees and be employed as such, with full rights, benefits and pension benefits in accordance with the laws that he and the Premier talk about so often. I don't want the minister to think he's getting off lightly. We will be coming back to him with these questions, trying to determine exactly how many of his friends he has parachuted into his ministry, how much they are being paid and why all British Columbians can't apply for those jobs and have direct access to employment in the government of British Columbia.
It's sort of back to the good old days of Louisiana, when you had to be related to the right person to get the job. It appears that that sense of morals and that sense of management style has now gone into this minister's ministry to some depth. I think it's quite disgraceful, actually. We hope to hear back from the minister very shortly. I would assume that 24 hours is long enough for the minister to get that information, so that if his estimates come up tomorrow or Monday, he will have that information available to us and the public can find out just how many jobs they are missing out on.
Hon. M. Sihota: We think we should be able to get you that information by tomorrow. I have chosen to participate in this debate and try to ignore many of your comments. I note again that the Liberals seem to have some difficulty taking issue with the policies of this government around environmental matters. They know full well that we've embraced a rather progressive environmental agenda, so they choose to criticize the people behind the development of those environmental policies. I would hope that the debate can focus on issues as they relate to policy.
I guess it's fair for the hon. member, in terms of my capacity as Human Rights minister, to criticize with regard to religious rights -- if you want to put it that way -- and the role of witches. I hope that he will take occasion to lecture his colleagues on the issue of double-dipping in the same fashion he was lecturing members of this House a little earlier with regard to that issue.
H. De Jong: I would like to introduce a different subject at this point. It has to do with the Chilliwack River valley. I'm
[ Page 10181 ]
sure that most members and the minister know about the problems they've had there. There were the '89 and '90 floods -- two years in a row. During 1990 and 1991, I believe that the government of the day spent a quarter of a million dollars each year to do a lot of cleanup on the river -- stump piles, trees and who knows what all -- but the riverbed was never touched.
The main problem, as I and the residents of the Chilliwack River valley see it, is that the Chilliwack River has lost its flow capacity due to lots of rocks and gravel having come down with the heavy rains. It has affected not only the Chilliwack River, but also the Vedder Canal through which it flows into the Fraser River.
[S. O'Neill in the chair.]
The Vedder Canal was once used for a canoeing contest during one of the games held there -- the Canada Games or whatever. If anyone is a little familiar with the Vedder Canal, they would know that if they tried to do that today or any time during the year, except for when there is high water, they would have great difficulty having a canoeing contest in the canal. It's also loaded with stumps, trees and a lot of silt that has flowed through the Chilliwack River into the Vedder Canal, so that everything right down to the Fraser River is impeding the flow of the Chilliwack River.
The previous administration initiated a study done in 1991 by Hay and Co. It was turned over to the auspices of the Regional District of Fraser-Cheam. There was some manoeuvring, and I'm not sure where. But instead of the river management study that people had called for, it turned into a river hazard study. Many things were studied -- and I'm not criticizing Hay and Co. for what it was mandated to do. But I have difficulty understanding where the mandate came from for changing the course of the study. The minister may want to comment on where that change of course came from, but I will complete the whole procedure that they went through.
The people were very hopeful that this study would bring out something that would indeed help the situation. The residents also saw that if the study were done as they thought it would be, the cost of improving the river flow would not be extremely high. But Hay and Co. looked at all the little things -- the small creeks flowing in from the adjacent hills, not just the main source of the water. They looked at all the problems. With the planner of the Fraser-Cheam regional district, Dr. Cave, being involved, they have put in a lot of lines crossing different properties as to the 100-year flood level, the 200-year flood level, and so on. Now the owner of any property in the so-called danger areas between those lines can't even get his roof repaired. They go to the regional district office to find out whether they can get a permit to put a new roof on the house or make internal changes within a house, let alone build a new one, and they simply cannot get a permit unless they sign a covenant stating that they will take full responsibility should a flood ever occur. I find those rather harsh and unreal measures. I think it's high time the minister took a hard look at the study done by Hay and Co. and how it is affecting the property owners and their properties.
The people were very enthusiastic last fall, because they thought some money might come forward if they put a bylaw to the people to share the funding for some of the immediate improvements. There are a couple of very dangerous areas; there's no question about that. The people voted on these bylaws on April 9, but they didn't have enough information. In fact, they received negative information from the Premier of this province. In their final attempt in January, they sent a letter to the Premier -- and I sent one as well -- asking why nothing had been done after two years of waiting, other than lots of people tramping along the riverbank. The point is that the letter from the Premier stated that there would be no money available this year for the Chilliwack River valley diking works, the rock work or whatever is needed. I believe that $100,000 would have covered a lot of the work that needs to be done immediately. Because of that negative letter from the Premier, the referenda were voted down. People lost faith.
[5:00]
The people are well aware of many river projects -- not only the Fraser River program, which has been in existence for many years, but projects on other rivers in the lower mainland -- that have received assistance in order to save riverbanks and to save properties from being washed away. Before I go further, my first question to the minister would be: what caused the change of direction on the study? Is the minister fully aware of the implications for properties in the Chilliwack River valley within the 100- and 200-year flood lines?
Hon. M. Sihota: It's my understanding that the cost of proceeding with the work is fairly significant, and I think the hon. member knows that. We're talking some millions of dollars. We have to rank the needs and risks of the Chilliwack River against the needs in other areas of the province. We try to deal with areas of the province that have the highest exposure to risk and then move down the list, as we go from one problem to another. I think that, in large measure, explains some of the delays with respect to Chilliwack.
It's not as if I haven't had discussions with you -- we've read your correspondence -- or with representatives from both Abbotsford and Chilliwack at the UBCM level with regard to the problems in Chilliwack. It's not as if I'm not aware of the difficulties there. But we don't have the resources at this time to be able to address all the problems that exist in the province, including those in the Chilliwack area.
As you may be aware, the Fraser basin has been an area of significant study by a federal-provincial agency, the Fraser Basin Management Board. They are looking at a number of ways in which we can deal with zoning issues as they relate to floodplains. I'm expecting their report on May 26. A representative from Abbotsford -- the administrator, I believe -- has been a part of that process. That may give us some indication.
But I want to be candid with you; I don't want to give you false expectations about our ability to deal with that issue on an imminent basis. You might as well know that. I know there is (a) a limited amount of money, and (b) a lot of competing needs. I'm well aware of the depth of feeling people in the region have for it. I have to tell you that there's a limit to what we can do.
H. De Jong: The minister has failed to answer the question as to why there was a change in the direction of the study after it was agreed that a river management study would be done. Why did the study change from a river management study into a river hazard study? The minister has not answered the question. Could he perhaps go into that?
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. member, there was an agreement among the parties that we would go through the estimates in a particular order, that we would start off with
[ Page 10182 ]
environmental protection issues and subsequently deal with land and water issues, and that I would have staff come in on those issues at different times. That was the understanding with the members opposite.
I don't know why the terms of reference or, as you put it, the direction of the study was changed. I think we should discuss that issue when we have water management staff here in the House, as opposed to the environmental protection issues that were originally agreed to be the first item of priority that we would discuss. I can either answer your question in a generic way or have staff come back and be more precise when we get to that component of the estimates. I'd be happy to let your House Leader know when that occurs.
I'm confident that the estimates aren't going to wrap up today -- and I hope the member for Okanagan East is listening as well. We have a little bit of time allocated tomorrow, and then we'll be continuing the estimates subsequent to that, so there's plenty of time yet to canvass those issues. I'd openly undertake not to conclude the estimates today or Friday to be able to deal with that water issue later on. I expect we'll be going into estimates a little bit further on. We're somewhat limited, because we don't have the appropriate staff here. I think it would be best if we dealt with it when we have them.
H. De Jong: I would appreciate having some notice of when they may be coming up so we can discuss this in greater detail.
To ask a further question: would those people be the same ones who deal with the restrictions and regulations that are put on the agricultural industry in terms of waste disposal? Are we talking to the same people at that time?
Hon. M. Sihota: No, we're dealing with those kinds of waste disposal issues now. Then, by agreement, we'll move over to fish and wildlife issues, and after that we'll be dealing with land and water matters. So, in terms of waste disposal issues, now is certainly the time to debate those.
H. De Jong: Since the minister was talking about people who had been hired for special projects, perhaps he could explain the purpose of people in his ministry snooping around dairy farms in the lower mainland in terms of environmental problems, which, in many instances, are not there. There have been no complaints, but they phone up and say: "Can I come around tomorrow and look around your farm?"
Hon. M. Sihota: We have broad agricultural waste regulations, for which the industry bears responsibility. However, in order to make sure that there is compliance, we do spot audits. I would think, in a general way, that that would deal with the question you asked. If you could raise specific situations, I'll try to provide you with amplification with regard to the specifics.
H. De Jong: I became rather curious last year when I happened to find a copy of a waste management act that was deposited April 9, 1992. It talks about a number of issues in terms of waste storage, the use of waste on agricultural land, the application of waste, and so on. There are some areas in there, and because of my curiosity as to how this would be implemented and whether it would be practical.... Perhaps from the ministry's point of view some of these things would be quite practical, but in reality they are not.
I'll just refer to one item in this booklet, which I think deals with the kinds of regulations these people are checking on. Farmers spread their waste on the field in the springtime mainly, although out of necessity they sometimes have to do it at other times of the year. This says that it has to be done with a certain wind direction. The minister knows full well that if it's reasonably good weather, we generally have wind from the east in the morning in the Fraser Valley, and in the afternoon it comes from the west. My question really is: what is the farmer to do? He can't spread it in the morning, because there may be neighbours affected to the west of him when the wind is from the east. Similarly, in the latter part of the day, he's stuck again because of neighbours on the other side.
The other problem is that some storage regulations are not only becoming very costly but they're almost impractical in terms of application. I think the minister knows full well what's being talked about. If the farmer disposes of it within two weeks by spreading it on the field, then he can put it in storage on the field for two weeks. But if it's longer than two weeks, it must be covered or a berm must be put around it -- or whatever the case may be. It is simply not practical.
Hon. M. Sihota: We develop agricultural waste regulations in conjunction with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. They have an environment committee that works with us. They have agreed to these regulations and have signed them off. When there are difficulties like the situation with regard to wind, then the ministry and the committee discuss those matters and try to alleviate the problem. If this is an ongoing problem.... I don't know why the regulation is there for wind, but I'm sure it was part of the discussion and the sign-off. If it's proving to be a problem, then we refer it to that committee to be ironed out.
H. De Jong: I'm not saying that some of the regulations are not correct; I have no problem with some of them. But when it talks about diverting winds, for instance, I would hate to see an inspector being sent out all of a sudden because of a complaint coming from someone living up on the hillsides -- these smells usually travel upwards -- and stopping a farmer in his tracks, on his day for fertilizing the fields, to dispose of it. If this goes too far, there could well be a strong demand from the agriculture community to put a bill in terms of the right to farm through this House.
Hon. M. Sihota: There are all sorts of situations where regulations could be applied with vigour to frustrate an operation. That could happen in a number of areas; environment is just one of them. That's not the way you ask people to implement them. You expect them to be reasonable and sensitive to the operations of the competing interests that are at stake when regulations are being applied. I don't know of situations where they have been applied in such a way as to shut down an operation. It may have happened, but I would suspect that it would be an unusual, as opposed to a regular, occurrence. But if they are not working, that is why we've set up that process with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. I'd be quick to agree, as I'm sure you would be, that where there are problems, that's the forum to work them through, rather than having us try to resolve them here in this House or through the ministry in isolation from the concerns of the agricultural industry.
H. De Jong: It is my understanding that the Minister of Environment, through the Ministry of Agriculture, has set certain guidelines in terms of the size of storage facilities. I
[ Page 10183 ]
think the minister and this government should realize -- in fact, we all should realize -- that farming has become a very competitive business, particularly with the trade agreements that have been signed, the open markets, and so on. To put more unnecessary costs on the agriculture community -- whether or not it is environmentally acceptable in the eyes of some people -- may not be acceptable to the farming community in terms of economics. I think we as a government -- and all those who serve the public -- have to take strong note of that.
[5:15]
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. member, those are valid points. One of the things I have noticed during the time that I have had the privilege to serve as Minister of Environment is that I find myself spending a fair bit of time with the Minister of Agriculture discussing some of these regulations. To be honest with you, because of the concerns of the Minister of Agriculture, there have been more than a few occasions when we have chosen not to proceed with regulations until we were able to work them through again and get to something that we thought was a little more workable.
I am very sensitive to the economics of agriculture and the marginal nature of the industry at times. That is always in my mind as we look at these agriculture regulations. The Minister of Agriculture and I have taken a lot of care in developing these things. So I want to give you some comfort that I share your concern, and I understand precisely where you're coming from. The Minister of Agriculture and I often find ourselves engaged in discussions just to make sure that we fine-tune some of these regulations so as not to be an economic hindrance.
H. De Jong: I have one more question in regard to second homes required for help on the farms, particularly on the lower mainland -- but I'm sure in other parts of the province as well. There are a lot of problems in getting a second home approval not only from the Agricultural Land Commission's point of view, but also from the Ministry of Health.
I realize that this is not part of the Ministry of Environment directly, but it's an environmental issue in terms of septic disposal fields in floodplain areas. Since the minister has indicated that he's working very strongly with the Minister of Agriculture to deal with certain aspects of the agriculture industry, I would ask that he undertake close communication relating to septic tank approvals, and the extreme and unreasonable length of time it takes through the Ministry of Health. Some of them take up to two years and get no further than the day they applied, which is not in the best interests of the farming community. There must be better ways to handle that aspect through the Ministry of Health, and I will speak to the minister more privately on these matters.
I know that in years past natural soil could be used to bring up the level of the area used for septic fields. Today this seems to be an impossibility, and in some instances that is the only way to accommodate farmers for those services. It's been done for 100 years in the lower mainland, and there is no good reason why it cannot be done today.
Hon. M. Sihota: We can look into it with the Ministry of Health. A fairly significant component in my riding is engaged in the agricultural industry, and on a constituency basis I have had a lot of problems in dealing with the septic tank side of the day-to-day problems that arise. I'm not too sure if there are ways in which we can build more efficiencies with the Ministry of Health. But I agree with you: that is something we need to pursue, and we'll do that.
M. de Jong: I'd like to return briefly to a matter that was canvassed earlier. I think that the minister has been unfairly maligned during the course of that questioning. People reading the debates will think that his ministry is chock-full of political hacks and appointees, and friends of the minister. We know that's not true. That's why I asked the minister earlier -- and he didn't answer -- whether he was acquainted with Messrs. Scott and Manak prior to their being hired by the ministry.
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member knows full well that I knew both those men before I took over my responsibilities as Minister of Environment.
M. de Jong: That is why I also asked in what capacity he knew those gentlemen.
Hon. M. Sihota: I knew them in several capacities. I don't know which capacity the hon. member wants me to refer to. Mr. Scott's background is well noted. I note that the opposition, when it was choosing to attack the decision to hire Mr. Scott, rolled out his CV. So the hon. member knows his background. I think it's fair to say I've known Mr. Scott in that vein. Mr. Manak is someone who formerly worked with my Member of Parliament, Mr. Barrett, and provided services for him.
M. de Jong: Insofar as Mr. Manak is concerned, can the minister indicate what particular aspect of his qualifications made him attractive as a candidate for the position?
Hon. M. Sihota: Mr. Manak has a post-secondary degree. I'm really functioning from memory here. I can't remember if it was in political science or in the arts, but it was one or the other. He is familiar with multicultural issues; there are no two ways about that. He's had involvement with multicultural issues in the past, of course, as a member of a visible minority, and he certainly has the skill base necessary to deal with multicultural issues.
M. de Jong: Was that the extent of his experience in multicultural matters -- that he's of a visible minority?
Hon. M. Sihota: I'll resist temptation for a while. The hon. member knows that that wasn't what I said. I just mentioned that as a matter of fact in the course of answering the question. I don't have the entirety of his educational background here sitting with me. I told the member very candidly that I was working from memory in terms of his educational background. In the time that we've had him on staff working on these issues, he has certainly proven to be doing a very good job in terms of the outreach that is required with the multicultural community.
To be candid with the hon. member, I've certainly had no reservations with regard to the type of work he has done. There are occasions when we hire people, and those reservations emerge and we make decisions, but in this case I'm quite satisfied with the work that he's doing.
M. de Jong: I guess the gist of the question is: what qualifications did Mr. Manak have that distinguished him from the numerous other candidates who presumably would have applied had they known about the position?
Hon. M. Sihota: As I indicated to the hon. member a few minutes ago, the position is one that can be advertised. When it's advertised we'll assess him vis-a-vis the other
[ Page 10184 ]
applicants. But we had some immediate needs in terms of communications. The hon. member knows that Mr. Manak, as his colleague just mentioned a few minutes ago, is someone who is not unfamiliar to me in terms of work that he's done for government in the past. I believe he had worked in the Ministry of Labour as an executive assistant. We had immediate needs, and we turned to him to apply his skills to those needs.
M. de Jong: Perhaps the minister could indicate the extent to which he is normally involved in the hiring process to fill these temporary positions and, more particularly, the extent of his involvement in hiring Mr. Manak.
Hon. M. Sihota: As the hon. member knows, the minister does not do the hiring. Those matters are worked out between the ministry and the individual involved.
M. de Jong: With all due respect to the minister, perhaps he presumes too much when he prefaces his remarks with "as the hon. member knows." That is not necessarily the case, and I certainly look forward to hearing further edification from him on these points.
Along the same line, did Mr. Manak come to the attention of the ministry because of information the minister himself provided? How did he come to the attention of the ministry?
Hon. M. Sihota: I've answered that question.
M. de Jong: Again, with all due respect, the minister has indicated some manner of ad hoc procedure. Forgive me if I don't follow it from point A to point B, where Mr. Manak has landed in the comfortable womb of the ministry. My question was: how did he come to the ministry? It was apparently a contract position. The minister says he wasn't personally involved. My question is: did he make a recommendation to his ministry staff to seek out Mr. Manak?
Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member knows full well that Mr. Manak had worked as an executive assistant to me in my previous portfolio. He knows full well that when there were changes in my portfolio, Mr. Manak came over and worked for some time as an executive assistant to me at that time. During the course of anyone's tenure in a ministry as an executive assistant or ministerial assistant, as the case may be, they become aware of opportunities that arise in the civil service. Mr. Manak chose to avail himself of that opportunity, but it was an auxiliary position without seniority or pension rights.
M. de Jong: Do I understand by the minister's comments that Mr. Manak serves essentially the same purpose in his new ministry as he did in his former ministry?
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Hon. M. Sihota: The answer to that question is both yes and no. Yes, for some time he worked as an executive assistant in the Ministry of Labour, and subsequently he worked for some time as an executive assistant in the Ministry of Environment. So for a time period there was an overlap. Currently he performs other duties, which I enumerated a few minutes ago, and I now have someone else performing the responsibilities of an executive assistant.
[5:30]
M. de Jong: Leaving that for the moment, I wonder if the minister could indicate the rationale behind the decision the government and his ministry took to dismantle the B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. My initial question, however, should be: am I correct when I state that the Round Table has been dismantled? And if that is correct, could the minister indicate the rationale behind doing so?
Hon. M. Sihota: Yes. As a part of the budget decisions taken by the Minister of Finance, the Round Table on the Environment was an agency that the government chose to no longer fund. It fell under the mandate of the Ministry of Environment. My view of the matter is that the Round Table on the Environment performed some useful work for the government and produced studies that gave us some good insights. It seemed to me far more important that the government move toward the implementation of some of the work that had been recommended, as opposed to wanting further studies to be done on other issues that, realistically, we would not be able to implement in the balance of our mandate. I also felt that there are ways in which we can incorporate their work into the structures of the ministry in a far more efficient fashion, and it seemed to me that there were some efficiencies to be gained in terms of structures within the ministry. Consequently, the decision was made to not fund the Round Table in its entirety this year.
M. de Jong: Could the minister indicate the extent of the budget savings he anticipates realizing from that decision? Further, I presume that the Round Table had some work in progress at the time of its dismantling. Could the minister indicate what that work was and what has become of the projects that were being undertaken at the time?
Hon. M. Sihota: The savings are in the neighbourhood of $1 million. The budget was in the neighbourhood of $1.2 million, I believe, for the previous year. About $200,000 is allocated in this year's budget for winding down its affairs. A number of studies that it had done are now before the ministry for analysis and review. They included issues -- again, I'm functioning from memory here -- such as the Georgia basin strategy and urban containment matters, for example, all of which we are now dealing with and digesting within the ministry.
M. de Jong: I became aware this morning of the report conducted by Michael Brauer dealing with air quality in the Fraser Valley, and, in particular, insofar as the farm workers in Matsqui and Abbotsford are concerned. What work has the ministry undertaken by way of a study of the air quality problem that clearly exists in the central and eastern Fraser Valley, and what can the minister tell us about the intentions of his ministry to address that problem?
Hon. M. Sihota: I can see what is happening here. The Liberal Party has always been unprepared for these estimates. We are getting questions that have been canvassed once already in the House. We get, secondly, the things that jump out at you in terms of the budget for the Round Table, and now thirdly, a set of newspaper stories that came out today.
With regard to the story that came out today, the hon. member should know that shortly after assuming this portfolio, I indicated -- I believe it was around October or perhaps November 1993 -- our desire to look at the feasibility of implementing California's air emissions standards here in British Columbia. The hon. member needs to know that the California standards are among the
[ Page 10185 ]
toughest in terms of automobile emissions in North America. In other jurisdictions -- the New England states, for example -- they have now taken to adopting those kinds of standards. No jurisdiction has done the same in Canada, and I've indicated that we will look at the feasibility of doing the same in this province.
Historically, and even recently, there have been significant studies done by the Greater Vancouver Regional District, the federal government and the provincial government regarding air quality in the Vancouver airshed. There are some significant problems. The hon. member should also know that the GVRD, in looking at these airshed problems right through to the Fraser Valley, has adopted a plan which would see a significant drop in the level of emissions into the atmosphere. I don't have the study here before me. I can only, in my own mind, visually recollect looking at some of the graphs, and they indicate a discernible drop if the plan of action were to be adopted -- somewhere in the neighbourhood of 30 to 50 percent.
In about February of this year, a new report was issued by the Greater Vancouver Regional District which indicated that they were not going to be able to achieve those targets without more drastic action on the part of either the GVRD, the federal government or the provincial government. Moving backward in time for a moment, I advised the federal Minister of Environment that I felt it was incumbent upon the federal government to move on the adoption of clean air legislation at a national level. I made that point when I met with her towards the end of November 1993, and I reiterated that when I met with her in March 1994.
On top of that, I had occasion to meet with representatives from California who were here in British Columbia in December to discuss the program that had been developed in California. I found those discussions to be particularly useful. Since that time, I have had further discussions with the automobile industry to ascertain the practicalities of the government proceeding on the clean air agenda and the feasibility of applying California's tough standards to British Columbia. I followed that up with meetings with representatives from the petroleum industry and indicated our desire to proceed. I inquired about which initiatives they thought could be done immediately to reduce the level of automobile emissions into the air. As I'm sure the hon. member would appreciate, on the one hand the problem is the automobile, and on the other hand, it is the fuels which are used by the automobile.
I also had occasion around February 1994, I believe -- again, I'm functioning from memory here -- to meet with a representative of the natural gas industry to look at alternatives that we could exercise with regard to natural gas. In January 1994 I had occasion to go to California and profile technology that we have developed in British Columbia -- which the hon. member is, I'm sure, not aware of -- known as a Ballard bus. It looks like a bus, drives like a bus, but functions on a hydrogen fuel cell. The byproduct from the utilization of that vehicle is water. It is leading-edge technology in terms of alternatives. It would meet the California standard of having 2 percent of vehicles on the road being zero-emission vehicles by the turn of the century.
We have a tremendous opportunity in British Columbia, because the Ballard fuel cell now has been recognized in California as the front end of technology. It was certainly a privilege on my part to be there, first of all, to promote that technology in California, and secondly, to study their programs while I was down there. Thirdly, it was a pleasure for me and the Minister of Employment and Investment to indicate that our government was prepared to put in further funding with regard to Ballard technology. As a sign of the degree of interest that other jurisdictions have in the leading technologies we're developing here in British Columbia, the south California air quality district provided around $1 million as funding toward that technology.
I have also had meetings in Vancouver and have worked to try to establish a North American alliance to deal with air quality issues. I've had the benefit of medical evidence throughout North America. Through the ministry, we have had the benefit of assistance from people like Dr. David Bates.
I want the hon. member to know that the study referred to in the paper today is yet another reminder of the kind of health effect triggered by the automobile. It reinforces the case to proceed with tough environmental regulation. I can assure the hon. member that this ministry -- obviously, from the background I've just given him -- has been taking a very proactive stance in the last four or five months, let alone over the last couple of years, with regard to the problems caused by automobiles.
In the near future, we'll be able to outline this in greater detail than I am able to do now. We're in the process of approving my budget, so that I can then go on to implement some of these plans of action. There will be an announcement forthcoming with regard to steps that we intend to take to make sure our air is clean. Although I will be meeting with the federal Minister of Environment on April 27 to discuss this issue, I will tell the hon. member right now that if the federal government is not prepared to move, we will, because of the kind of health effects outlined in the report the hon. member referred to. So we intend to bring in regulation.
I note that your leader has indicated his first priority would be to get rid of environmental regulation, by virtue of a promise he made in the Vancouver Sun on February 1, 1994. I would hope that your party would not take issue with efforts on our part to improve the quality of our air, in keeping with our goal of bringing about the toughest standards possible in Canada.
M. de Jong: The minister will know that his penchant for making derogatory remarks, when confronted by questions he's either unwilling or unable to answer, doesn't go entirely unnoticed.
The report that I alluded to, and that the minister has made some comment about, describes not only the air quality situation but also the resulting health effects. My question to the minister is: do studies of recent vintage exist within his ministry which confirm the rather dramatic effects that the author of the report refers to, where he goes so far as to suggest a heightened disease and death rate resulting from the present situation? Has work been undertaken in that area? If so, what work, what reports, and when will they become public, if they are not already public?
Hon. M. Sihota: There are a variety of studies throughout North America that make the point that there are impacts as a result of emissions from automobiles, and we as a ministry are aware of them. As I'm sure the hon. member would appreciate, we do not do studies into disease; that falls under the mandate of the Ministry of Health. But obviously we're aware of studies that come into their hands. There are also a number of very significant studies that have been done in California, which also reinforce the case. They are all publicly available.
[ Page 10186 ]
W. Hurd: I want to address a brief series of questions to the minister about the serious hazard posed by the disposal of normal household batteries in landfills in the province. I wonder if the minister has taken the minimal step of mandating that the ministries of government seek to recycle those batteries as an example for the rest of the British Columbia economy. Is that something that his ministry is actively working on?
[5:45]
The Chair: I'm sorry, hon. member, apparently the question didn't come through. Would you mind repeating the question?
W. Hurd: It is a question related to the recycling of normal household batteries. The minister will be aware that studies from the southern United States have indicated the lethal effects of the leachates from household batteries in landfills. I wondered whether the minister was aware of those studies, and whether he has taken the minimal step of mandating that government ministries be actively involved in recycling household batteries as an example for the rest of the people in the province.
Hon. M. Sihota: Black and Decker is currently, much to its credit, engaged in a voluntary program with regard to the recycling of batteries. That is one initiative that can have an impact. As a ministry, we've also done some innovative stuff, I think, with the private sector. For automobile batteries, for example, we had a program where Canadian Tire would voluntarily take back the batteries at their 39 stores in British Columbia.
Thirdly, we are moving toward recycling. We are trying to work on the issues that seem to be causing the greatest number of problems. We monitored what is being disposed of, particularly in terms of our depots throughout the province, when we had that program up and running. We found that the problem wasn't so much with batteries as it was with paint. About 70 percent of the problematic material coming back was paint, so the first one we focused on was paint. Effective July 1, a retail paint recycling system will be established in British Columbia, where people can take paint back to the shop they bought it from. That has been the most salient environmental recycling issue along the lines of household....
There isn't a lot being done on batteries, but it is a small part of the problem. We have tried to focus on the larger parts of the problem, which have been predominantly paint and batteries from vehicles. We have developed some strategies with respect to those, and in the interim we rely on the private sector to work on the batteries, through the kind of program I referred to at the outset.
W. Hurd: I have reviewed those scientific studies -- and I use that term again -- about the impact of household batteries entering landfills in North America. A whole range of toxic chemicals such as lead and mercury has resulted in landfills being declared dangerous sites in North America. My question to the minister is: to his knowledge, is any ministry of the provincial government currently landfilling household batteries in British Columbia?
Hon. M. Sihota: I don't have clear indications of what each ministry does with regard to batteries and whether there are different programs. I took your question really to apply to the stewardship role of government. I'm not too sure what other ministries do, so I can't speak for them.
But you raise an excellent point with regard to some leadership steps that the government could take. You were here when I spoke at the outset of the estimates debate and indicated that I look forward to the opposition putting forward some useful ideas. That is one, I think, that we should be able to do more on, showing some leadership with regard to recycling batteries in the provincial government realm. I know you haven't said that, but that is where your line of questioning legitimately should go. So I take that point; it's a good one. I thank you for raising it, because right now we don't have a program.
W. Hurd: I can shed some light on the subject. It's my understanding that many ministries of government have a contract with Laidlaw Waste Systems to pick up batteries that are obviously dead, and that those batteries are currently being landfilled in the province. The minister will know that there are firms in British Columbia seeking to adopt pilot projects on recycling household batteries, which, as I've indicated earlier, do constitute a serious long-term hazard when they're introduced into landfills.
My question would be: is the ministry prepared to make a minimal commitment on behalf of government to ensure that, at the very least, government is practising what it preaches and is determined to prevent household batteries from being introduced into landfills? Is it prepared to think locally and act globally when it comes to the provincial government?
Hon. M. Sihota: I think I just made a commitment to you that this is a valid issue, where the concern is both constructive and legitimate. It's one that I'll be happy to work through with staff, and I thank you for raising it. But I'm not going to stand up here right now and make a commitment to a particular quantum of expenditures on that issue. I'm not going to do that on a one-off basis, but I take your point seriously.
W. Hurd: I interpret that remark to mean that the provincial government will continue to be landfilling household batteries. It's an important issue to raise, and I would hope the minister will take some action on that.
Perhaps I could also ask a question about the batteries that are used in the SkyTrain system. I believe they are nickel-cadmium industrial batteries, which create a disposal problem for B.C. Transit. Could the minister tell us, to his knowledge, where those batteries end up in the province? Are they also being landfilled?
Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. member, I regret.... I took your point, and I told you it was a legitimate point. I was very candid in telling you that. For you to retort back with that kind of comment, suggesting that it means the status quo will prevail, is not in the spirit of the comments that I made. I must confess that I find it surprising you would offer that kind of reply to a commitment I've made.
Hon. Chair, noting the time, I move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
[ Page 10187 ]
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. M. Sihota moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 2:45 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HOUSING, RECREATION AND CONSUMER SERVICES
(continued)
On vote 44: minister's office, $354,847 (continued).
The Chair: I'd like to call you all to order at this time. The floor is now open for questions from hon. members.
K. Jones: We'll just continue with the rental housing area, trying to see what the minister has in mind to deal with the very serious problem of lack of rental housing, not just for poor or less fortunate people but for people of all scales of income. One of the features of doing something about the serious shortage of upscale housing is that it allows people who are currently in low-cost housing to move into the next scale of better housing, and it opens up low-cost housing for those people who are desperately in need of appropriate housing for themselves and their families.
Some actions of this government have made it hard for many people who currently have or in the recent past had rental housing. People with regular jobs, who have invested in second homes and are renting those homes out, are providing a large part of the rental housing market, and they have been for years. Today, because of the changes to the regulations and the attack on these so-called bad landlords, they have less desire to continue in that rental housing field. They are now moving out of that field; they are selling; they're no longer providing that rental accommodation. I think some of those things have to be addressed, and I don't think the minister is really looking seriously at the impacts on both sides.
I recognize the need to look after the interests of those who are renting; I've been a renter myself. But there is definitely a need to provide rental housing, and if their housing market itself is eliminated, there's just no accommodation for them. I don't think the government is prepared to provide the amount of housing that's needed to meet the demands of a large number of people who have no other choice but to go to rental accommodations. What is the minister doing in this year's budget to address that serious problem?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'll take a little bit of time to answer the member's questions, because there were a number of them in his introductory comments. First of all, let me share with you some demographics as to who rents. The member talks about both low-end and high-end renters. In my introductory comments, I emphasized one of our first initiatives in this year's budget -- an initiative that has been welcomed, complimented and embraced by the home-building industry and will do exactly what the member is calling for. We estimate that some 25,000 renters in this province will be able to take advantage of the first-time homebuyers' tax exemption and move into home-ownership, thus freeing up those rental accommodations that the member talked about.
In addition to that, we have initiatives through B.C. 21 that will support people moving into home ownership, recognizing that on occasion there's a need for bridging programs when people have difficulty getting into the low end of the market -- starter homes and that sort of thing. In recognition of that, we are now developing programs which we will hopefully be able to announce within the next month or so. Again, I believe that will be greeted well by first-time homebuyers, will free up opportunities for those who are unable to take advantage of those programs and will make those rental accommodations available to them.
Our demographics show that in British Columbia renters earn some $20,000 less than homeowners do and spend a greater proportion of their income on accommodations than homeowners do. Our focus is specifically on low-income earners, recognizing that while the marketplace provides opportunities for many of us, it does not provide opportunities for all. While the government recognizes that the homebuilding industry in the marketplace serves many in this province, there is a role for government, unlike the leadership that this province has provided, in developing a housing policy at the same time that the federal Liberal government has completely abdicated. It is the first time since the end of the Second World War that we do not have a national housing strategy, and the province recognizes that there is a role for and a responsibility to those people who are unable to participate in the marketplace that we're not prepared to vacate.
The member talks about the consumer protection review of rents that has been underway. I think the member is seriously misled in his view and his comments about the residential tenancy branch. The member fails to recognize that the branch provides significant support for landlords, and that in our consultations we heard from many landlords as well as tenants about their issues, and those concerns -- both of landlords and tenants -- will be reflected in the legislation we bring forward.
If I've missed some of the questions, I'm sure the member will let me know.
K. Jones: I'm not going to jump to the bait of the minister. She seems to be a little irritated with regard to the issue. I don't know why. Is she rather unsure of where she's going with the issue or something? I'm not quite sure what's causing the problem. I hope she'll pass through that stage and carry on a proper dialogue with regard to the actual questions.
The Chair: Perhaps you could just continue with your questioning, hon. member.
K. Jones: I think the minister believes that there are some great things going on there. I certainly hope that she continues to believe that, but she's not looking at all
[ Page 10188 ]
the factors involved in the housing market. Obviously, as she's already admitted previously, the supply side is faltering; it's in terrible disarray at the present time. There are not new housing starts coming on that are available for rent, and there are no old housing facilities available for rent.
That's what we're talking about, hon. minister. We're talking about recognizing that such things as forcing a person to take a day off work to go in to state their case for the security deposit that may have been required as a result of the damage done to the house, or failure to make a payment, is not going to encourage people to continue in that business, because they can't afford to take time off work -- as a union employee or a worker in industry. They have to write off all the costs that would normally be covered by the damage deposit, which is the purpose of the damage deposit, and would end up with another loss. Each time this happens, it's another loss that the person who is renting out the house is not able to recoup. In many cases, the rent is not covering the mortgage payment. As a result, they are always putting some subsidy into it as they go along, with the hope that there will be an appreciation of property value in the future.
That's a reasonable thing for most people; it's something that our friends in the union movement -- who are investing pension plans in development projects, housing and office space -- are practising on a regular basis. I know my own union is doing that very actively. There has to be a reasonable expectation of some return through these investments. People put their hard-earned money into something like this -- investing in a piece of real estate with a house on it. They fix that house up and then rent it out.
Hon. minister, these concerns are not being addressed by your ministry, and I certainly would like to ask you to tell us what things you plan to do this year that might rectify that. Changing the regulation that requires a person to have to take a day off work to appear before a rental review board would be a good place to start.
Hon. J. Smallwood: We are currently exploring options around the residential tenancy branch to enable easier access not only around times of business but also, as we identified earlier in the budget, accessibility throughout the province.
The member talks about the situation in the housing market, both rental and otherwise. I hope that, as a member of the Liberal Party, he would encourage his federal counterparts to deviate from the Tory agenda and to put the national housing strategy back in place, recognizing that there is a real need in this province. The member is well aware, I hope, that through the federal withdrawal and lack of commitment from his Liberal federal colleagues, we have lost two-thirds of the funding for social housing in this province. That means not only the loss of needed social units but the loss of jobs and of significant dollar investment in construction as well.
When we're talking about the good initiatives we have underway in embracing the very real challenges in B.C., one of the ways opposition members could be of great assistance in meeting the needs of their own constituents is by sending a clear message to Ottawa and to their own colleagues.
K. Jones: The minister mistakenly seems to think that because I happen to be a Liberal provincially, I am able to speak on behalf of the federal Liberal Party. She has just as much opportunity. As a minister, in fact, she has more direct opportunity than I do. Perhaps she's having some difficulty carrying on that dialogue, and if she's asking me to intervene through some vehicle, I'll try to contact the ministers in Ottawa and see if they can facilitate the minister. Maybe you'd like a meeting arranged, would you, or something like that? Is that the problem? You're not able to talk to the minister; you're talking to an associate or deputy or executive assistant? I'll be happy to try my best to contact the people in Ottawa and arrange some appointments, if you wish, hon. minister. But to keep thinking that I speak on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, when I'm here as an elected member of the province of British Columbia....
[3:00]
The Chair: Excuse me, hon. member. Would you take your seat, please. We're here to discuss the administrative work of the ministry and the estimates today, and I'm having a lot of trouble hearing a question the minister can reply to dealing with the budget of her ministry. I would like you to address that, if you would.
K. Jones: Thank you very much, hon. Chair. I was just getting to that point. I was trying to understand and clarify the minister's statement, so I could then ask her a question about what her problem was in trying to deal with Ottawa and in not getting appropriate responses when she needed my help.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I apologize. I do realize that earlier on today the member was sleeping in his seat and was unable to take note of the reference to the meeting we had with the minister responsible. But if he'd like to read Hansard, I'm sure he'll be brought more closely up to date.
K. Jones: Hon. Chair, I think it was most unparliamentary for the minister to make reference to any presence or absence -- or whatever activity -- of a member in this House, and I believe that should have been picked up on by the Chair. Certainly it was an oversight on her part. The hon. minister was making an assumption that was not correct.
D. Mitchell: I, with the indulgence of the committee, would like to revert to the Consumer Services portion of the ministry, which I know was canvassed somewhat this morning during the review of estimates. I just have a few questions that I didn't have a chance to raise this morning.
On this issue, I would actually like to applaud the minister for the position she's taken in a matter of consumer arbitration, which is becoming an increasingly popular issue throughout Canada and particularly here in British Columbia. I'd like to compliment the minister for her initial caution on this issue, especially on whether or not this province should automatically accept the proposed Canada-wide program to settle disputes over defective automobiles. This is known as CAMVAP, or the Canadian Motor Vehicle Arbitration Plan. I have a natural resistance to anything imposed on British Columbia from Ontario, but I notice that the minister has been somewhat cautious in automatically adopting this program. I think there's recently been some discussion on this in the media. I think what it's really about is growing interest in the issue of arbitration for consumers over a host of products, including automobiles.
For the record, I've done some research on this. In the United States, for instance, all 50 states have some kind of lemon law when it comes to automobiles. At least a dozen states have some kind of state-run arbitration program for consumers who feel they've purchased a lemon. I know that California is considering this as well and might well become the thirteenth state very shortly.
In Canada, Ontario has an arbitration program which is essentially run by the industry. It's basically designed to keep people out of court. I think that's something we should
[ Page 10189 ]
applaud, because court should not be the only answer for consumers. That program has been in place in Ontario since 1986, and it's now being proposed that the Ontario plan be copied or extended throughout Canada. The problem -- as I think the minister knows -- is that the Ontario program is not perfect; in fact, it's deficient in a number of areas. I know she's had some representation on that, from consumer critics in particular, about this model of program.
Unless we're vigilant, we could have this program foisted on British Columbia. In fact, maybe we need a made-in-B.C. program that deals with specific concerns in our province, addressed by organizations like the Consumers' Association of Canada, British Columbia branch. I wonder if the minister, just for the record, could state where she and her ministry are on this today?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I have had an opportunity to meet with a number of people on this issue. Just recently I met with the general manager of the Canadian Motor Vehicle Arbitration Plan. As the member may have noted in the press, he paid a special visit to British Columbia because of our concerns. He made the point that the eyes of many provinces are on British Columbia, waiting to see what we will do in accepting or rejecting this plan.
I have listened very closely not only to the Canadian Consumers' Association but also to the Automobile Protection Association and the Better Business Bureau on their representations concerning the Ontario model. I have had some reassurances that CAMVAP have addressed some of the issues. I am not yet satisfied; they have not addressed all of the issues. However, in our meeting with the general manager, I was able to put a number of those points forward. We're awaiting the board's decision on those points before the province signs on.
There are a number of issues we would like to see resolved, or at least a commitment to resolving those issues. The point that I made in meeting with the general manager.... Very clearly our ministry will be taking forward points to the discussions with the national board that are substantive concerns. Even should the board recognize and address those concerns, we have made it very clear that, should we sign on, we will be there as watchdogs, representing consumers' interests. That is our legislative mandate. In addition, it would not waive any future action as far as legislative change.
In convincing this province that this particular model will serve consumers, we have to be assured that consumers are well-represented on the board; that issues such as out-of-pocket expenses are dealt with; and that when an arbitrator makes a decision pertaining to fixing a vehicle, the consumer can be assured, should that vehicle need further repair -- and, thus, the reference to lemon laws -- that they have not waived the right to future redress on that vehicle.
In the discussions with the general manager, and referencing the issues around the number of consumers or consumer seats on the national board, I was really quite interested to hear the gentleman say that they have discussed the issue of increasing consumer representation but then make a reference to the west as including Ontario and everything west of Ontario, and to the east as including Quebec and everything east. I assured him that that would not be viewed well, that Ontario did not represent the west nor did we in the west include Ontario as part of the west and that we would be looking for a representative from British Columbia.
D. Mitchell: Thanks to the minister for that answer. She has addressed a number of the specific issues I had planned to discuss with her. She talked about the Ontario model for the arbitration board, which is indeed flawed, I think. It's too heavily weighted in favour of industry -- and government, for that matter -- and didn't have strong consumer representation. I know that the mandate of her ministry is to represent consumers, but consumers, individually or collectively, don't see government as necessarily representing them directly. So I believe there has to be some direct representation for consumers on any board.
The Ontario model, I believe, has a board with four or five industry representatives, four or five government representatives and one or two consumer representatives. What kind of balance would the minister anticipate being more fair and equitable to individual consumers here in British Columbia?
Hon. J. Smallwood: We're looking for the numbers for the CAMVAP. My position has been that the majority must be consumers, and I include government representation in that. I believe that the consumer service ministries that have the legislative mandate have the ability, and certainly are directed, to represent the interests of consumers.
Let me tell you that the expertise that exists in the ministry not only in representing consumers' interests but in our ability to access information in the direct contact we have with individual consumers and their concerns is significant and carries a great deal of weight. One prime example is the position we find ourselves in now in British Columbia, in that this province is able to put a number of issues on the table and hopefully influence the agenda early on, whereas consumer associations have been involved in that but haven't had the same kind of weight. So the role of provincial governments on these boards will be significant. They do not represent the industry but do, with significant resources, represent the interests of consumers.
D. Mitchell: The minister has addressed some of the specific concerns that have been raised about the deficiencies with the Ontario model for consumer arbitration. One issue that has been raised -- and I'd appreciate the minister's comments on this -- is with respect to leasing. I understand that under the Ontario arbitration model, for instance, there really isn't much protection for consumers of leased automobiles, or for leased products generally. Because there aren't any clear rules on leasing.... My understanding is that CAMVAP, for example, covers leasing only if the company agrees to be bound by arbitration decisions. Would the minister find that acceptable, or would she be looking at a different model that would apply to leasing? I raise this because it's well know that automobile manufacturers, in particular, are promoting leasing right now in a very significant manner. I would hope that any new plan we would be willing to adopt or approve for British Columbia would provide equal protection to consumers who lease and consumers who purchase.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Leasing was one of the issues I raised with the general manager, who has since responded to our meeting. I quote from his letter:
"The first issue was access to CAMVAP for owners of leased vehicles. CAMVAP currently covers leased vehicles provided the leasing company agrees to be bound by the arbitrator's decision, particularly where a buy-back is the appropriate remedy. The manufacturers are working on specific recommendations for their related leasing companies
[ Page 10190 ]
to ensure that their consumers can use CAMVAP without first having to get the lessor's approval."
As the member will know, CAMVAP has the sign-up of all manufacturers in Canada, both domestic and foreign. You can see from the general manager's reply that they are working through the manufacturers to address our concerns. We'll watch to see how that progresses.
He goes on to talk about issues as they pertain to independent lessors, and makes the point that that issue is more complex because there are no direct connections with the vehicle manufacturers. As you can see, the model has some strengths when it deals with legitimate manufacturers who buy into and sign onto the process, but as we move further out, there are other issues that all parties acknowledge have to be worked on.
I want to reinforce the point to the member that should we have our issues addressed in the process that is underway now, and should the province decide to sign on, the signing-on and the involvement with the process will provide a good base of information, a window into the industry that we may not otherwise have. It will not limit our ability to move on future legislative changes but may instead provide the foundation for those needed changes.
[3:15]
D. Mitchell: Thanks to the minister for that response.
So I understand the process ahead of us now, and because the minister indicates that British Columbia may sign on, I'd like to know what the alternative is to signing on. Is there a possibility, if we decide that the CAMVAP program is not acceptable, that we would develop a program of our own for consumer arbitration in British Columbia? I wonder if the minister plans on tabling some sort of a plan that would address this. It could be the basis for further consultation with consumers as well as industry groups in B.C. before finally entering into a decision. Should there be some broad form of both consumer and industry input before automatically moving into a program?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Should this particular model provide an avenue for consumers to have their issues addressed, I am very reluctant to suggest to the member that we'll engage in some broad consultative process that will further stall the process of remedy for consumers. The particular model we're talking about -- as the member, I'm sure, is well aware -- is a fully ministry-funded, voluntary process. It does not exclude the province acting on other fronts. The process we're now engaged in, first of all, is one of putting our consumers forward to this organization. Hopefully they will be able to address those concerns to the extent that it would provide an opportunity for the province to be involved and provide a remedy for consumers here in the province. Even if the province were not to sign on, I think it's pretty clear that CAMVAP can go ahead and provide this particular program here. It doesn't take the province to sign on, but there is an advantage to us in actively supporting and accessing that information.
In the longer term, we will continue to look at issues around leasing. We have some work underway as far as leasing contracts are concerned. We will continue to bring forward consumer protection legislation as it pertains to the automobile industry. That work will not stop. Should we find that this does not provide the sort of remedy that they feel it will provide for the industry in addressing consumers' issues, then we will open the whole process up to a broad consultation with consumers. We're at the initial stages, and we'd like to take a look at this. Our hope is that the model will be a successful one and that our concerns will be addressed so that we can move on here in British Columbia.
D. Mitchell: Just one final question on this issue. The minister referred to this earlier on but I just wanted to make sure I understood. In order for British Columbia to agree to either sign on with CAMVAP or any form of consumer arbitration, did she state that there must be an appeal process for decisions that come out of the form of arbitration that we agree to? One of the criticisms that comes from the Consumers' Association of Canada, British Columbia branch, is that there must be an appeal process. I just wonder if the minister would make that a precondition of signing onto the program.
Hon. J. Smallwood: We have been referencing CAMVAP, and so my comments are specifically on CAMVAP. I'm not quite sure where the member is going with his other reference. The appeal to an arbitrator's decision is a judicial review available for anyone going through a commercial arbitration. The person has a right to file for that judicial review within 90 days after the decision.
D. Mitchell: I'd like to move on to the other issue I was hoping to canvass this afternoon. I think I understand what the minister said about appeal; my only hope is that the courts aren't the answer. The whole purpose of arbitration is to keep these issues out of the courts as far as consumers go. Yet when it comes to an issue like CAMVAP, for motor vehicles, I believe that an arbitrator's decision perhaps should have an appeal process that doesn't simply force the whole issue into the courts. I think that defeats the whole process of arbitration.
The minister made some comments about vehicle leasing; the other issue I'd like to talk to her about is leasing. In fact, she referred, in her opening remarks this morning, to plain-language leasing contracts. I'd like to talk to her about that briefly, because I think when it comes to automobile purchases or any other kinds of leases that individual consumers sign, they're often....
I wonder if that's a call back to the House, hon. Chair.
The Chair: I have been informed, members of the committee, that it is a division, so we are required in the main House.
The committee recessed at 3:23 p.m.
The committee resumed at 3:33 p.m.
D. Mitchell: I was just about to ask the minister about the issue of plain-language leasing contracts. She referred to this in her opening statements this morning. I'm puzzled about the minister's refusal to grant interviews on this subject, as reported in the Vancouver Province. I'm not sure what that was all about, but I note that as recently as March 22, according to the Vancouver Province, the minister was absolutely refusing to make any comment on this subject. I wonder if today she'd be willing to let us know, in some detail, why that might have been, and if it's because there's an announcement forthcoming with respect to government policy on the promotion of plain-language leasing contracts -- something that's much needed in our province.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I can assure the member that that must have been a misprint, because I am particularly pleased to talk about that and invite that particular reporter to do so.
[ Page 10191 ]
This happens to be one of my favourite topics. The issue that we referenced in our opening statements around plain language is only one aspect that we're looking at as far as regulations. We are also very concerned about full disclosure. We'll include a number of issues in the development of the regulations and ensure that the regulations themselves are in plain language for all to understand.
We are targeting the end of June to have the OIC in place for the regulations. Then we will give approximately 45 days, to allow the industry to get up to speed using the new regulations, to have those in place. That's the time line that we're currently looking at. There has been extensive consultation to ensure that the regulations and the forms that will be used are easily useable by the industry and will address all of the concerns we've heard so clearly registered by consumers we serve through the ministry.
D. Mitchell: On the same subject: the misprint. I don't want to dwell on this, but there's an article by Marlaina Gayle in the Vancouver Province, March 22, which said that the minister refused repeated interview requests from the Province on this issue. That's what I was referring to, just for clarification. I'm not sure that that's a misprint, but I do appreciate the minister's answer on this issue, and I'm encouraged to hear that as early as the end of June we may see something on this.
The minister says there's been extensive consultation. I wonder if she could tell us who has been consulted; which individuals have played a part in that process; and over what period of time that consultation has taken place. There hasn't been a lot of public discussion about this; there appears to have some secrecy, in fact.
Hon. J. Smallwood: With reference to the article, I want to assure the member, and I have made assurances to the reporter, that there were no requests denied. I have made myself very available to that reporter, so the comment made is quite regrettable. I can again assure the member that I'm more than happy to talk about this issue.
The consultation has been conducted over the last eight months. Since the legislation was brought into the House last spring, the consultation has included the B.C. Automobile Association, Consumers' Association of Canada, Better Business Bureau, Automobile Protection Association, Motor Dealers' Association of B.C., Recreation Vehicle Dealers' Association of B.C. and Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association.
D. Mitchell: I'm not going to dwell on the issue with respect to the article I quoted from, but I'm sure the minister wouldn't want to suggest that a member of the news media was being dishonest when she wrote this story.
The issue here is something important: plain-language leasing. We need that in British Columbia. The minister has said we are going to be bringing it in, and she's indicated that there's been an extensive consultation process. We need plain-language leasing not simply to make lease agreements intelligible to consumers but also to make sure there aren't any hidden costs, so that consumers aren't ripped off, in effect, which often happens. I think this issue has been somewhat covered by some of the daily newspapers in the province.
Can the minister make a commitment that when she brings in the order-in-council she's referred to, not only will we be talking about a literacy issue -- bringing in model regulations for plain-language leasing so individual consumers know what they're signing -- but she will also be dealing with the issue of making it very clear what hidden costs, if any, are contained in any lease agreement?
Hon. J. Smallwood: In my earlier comments I referred to full disclosure. Let me tell you what full disclosure means. It means that included on the lease form will be the price of the vehicle, the lease rate or interest rate, the residual value of the vehicle, the cooling-off period, early-termination penalties, and wear and tear. That's what we call full disclosure.
D. Mitchell: Thank you for the definition, hon. minister. I look forward to seeing what happens. I hope that when the minister brings forward the order-in-council to cabinet, it will be done in a public way, and that there'll be some public announcement that accompanies it. I can only imagine the government would want to take advantage of that kind of opportunity. We're talking about plain-language leasing; I hope the news release is also written in plain language.
She mentioned interest rates as part of the issue of full disclosure. The final issue that I'd like to refer to today relates to interest rates. Her ministry, which deals with consumer services, must be concerned that consumers in British Columbia not be gouged by excessive interest rates on, for instance, credit cards. We're living in a time when interest rates have gone down to almost historic lows, and yet credit card interest rates have been three, four, sometimes five times the amount of the real rate of interest charged in Canada by banks. What action, if any, has her ministry taken to address this issue? Is there anything within her jurisdiction that can possibly be done to protect British Columbians from continuing to pay excessive interest rates on, for instance, credit cards?
Hon. J. Smallwood: We do not have provincial authority or legislative authority to affect interest rates. One of the vehicles that we have very successfully used is raising this issue in the public by informing consumers that there are those anomalies in the marketplace and that many credit card companies are in the practice of selling credit rather than goods. In particular, we can look at some of the furniture stores that are charging 28 or 29 percent and up in interest rates over long periods of time. The member can see very clearly that they are in the business of selling the use of their money rather than selling merchandise.
We raised it with the federal minister responsible, Paul Martin, and regrettably the federal Liberal minister would not see fit to examine this issue. Again, he pointed to the work that was underway by the Tory government, where they reviewed with all their cohorts in corporate Canada the issue of interest rates and declined to look at the issue on behalf of consumers.
We haven't left it at that. I have been in correspondence with other provincial ministers. While there has not been a provincial-federal ministers' meeting on consumer services in Canada for some four years, we have now called for a meeting of provincial and federal ministers and have put this item as well as others on a call for an agenda in order for us to sit down and look at this issue.
The member may well be aware that we are also responsible for debtors' assistance, and we see here that the issue of interest rates is a significant one when people find themselves in a difficult financial situation and often do not have options other than federal legislation -- the Bankruptcy Act and the orderly payment of debt -- to deal with the additional burden of interest rates. We are pursuing the issue
[ Page 10192 ]
on two fronts. We're pressuring the federal government as well as ensuring that this issue continues to be on the public agenda and that consumers have the information necessary to make informed decisions.
D. Mitchell: I can only encourage the minister to keep the pressure on the federal government. Surely something can be done by governments at all levels in Canada to provide protection for consumers on the issue of interest rates and excessive interest rates.
My final question to the minister. I'd like to ask her to be philosophical for a moment, if she would care to, on the issue of consumerism in our province. Why is it that consumerism seems to be in decline? She has just indicated that intergovernmental relations in this area haven't exactly been a boom industry in recent years. There hasn't been a high degree of public policy turned toward consumer issues. Even in our province or our country we don't have any Ralph Naders out there championing the cause of consumers anymore. We don't have a lot of electronic media representatives or newspaper columnists championing the consumers' cause in Canada. I don't know why that is. Would the minister care to speculate on why that is the case?
[3:45]
Also, philosophically, since she is the minister responsible for consumer services in British Columbia and she talked about the mandate of her ministry this morning, I wonder if she would like to elaborate on whether or not the role has fallen to government now. We have consumer associations, but their voices don't tend to be heard as much as they were in the 1960s or even the 1970s. In this day and age, there seems to be a waning of that. There's a need for champions for consumers. It can't fall to government only, because the consumers' voices need to be heard. Why is the state of consumerism where it is in British Columbia in 1994? Would the minister like to comment on that? I'd be very interested in her thoughts.
Hon. J. Smallwood: When you look at the history of this particular ministry, it is most instructive. Much of the legislation that has been brought forward, the consumer protection legislation and the health of consumerism -- and the member rightfully references the early seventies -- was around the time of the NDP government in '72-75. There was a great deal of support not only for change or consumer protection legislation but for resources in government to support community action.
D. Mitchell: Was Ralph Nader a New Democrat?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Actually he is a Democrat, but in the States. Here in British Columbia we've had a history of governments that have not had a commitment to consumers, that had a philosophy believing there was no place for consumer protection legislation and that it interfered with business. We subsequently saw the dismantling or the divestiture in this ministry and its resources. This government is committed to equity and a levelling of the playing field, ensuring that consumers have information and are assured that bad business practices are exposed. Ironically, the good business practices that are in place are supported through that process. We find that the business partners this ministry consults with and works with on an ongoing basis are very much in favour of good consumer protection legislation. The Better Business Bureau is a good example; they are very committed to ensuring that there is fairness in the marketplace.
We're seeing a revitalization in this province. There is increased focus on fairness from the government's perspective, as well as that of the reporting public you referenced, and community associations such as the Consumers' Association of Canada.
As for the Ralph Naders you talk about, I would encourage you to speak to Evelyn Fox of the Consumers' Association of Canada. People such as Evelyn have carried the torch for many years and have a wealth of knowledge. We're looking for ways of supporting that voice and strengthening and encouraging younger generations to become involved in consumerism.
K. Jones: I'd like to move away from these two areas and into the area of recreation, which is also a major part of the minister's portfolio. To start off with, I'd like to ask the minister to describe what recreation means to her and what she is doing at present in her portfolio in the recreation area.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The recreation portion of our ministry provides us with an opportunity to meet with the recreation commissions that are formally constituted and staffed at the municipal and city levels. It also gives us the opportunity to provide small grants to smaller towns and communities that are in the process of pulling together, or already have, voluntary recreation commissions. We also work with aboriginal communities, particularly in one of the programs we were very pleased to have sponsored last year and are looking to support again this year. An aboriginal youth leadership program has been very well received not only by the participants but by aboriginal communities throughout the province. As a matter of fact, we're seeing an increasing call for investments in such programs.
K. Jones: That's an interesting description of some of the things she's doing, but I was really asking the minister what recreation means to her?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Recreation means the opportunity for every British Columbian, regardless of their economic or social status, to be involved in community recreation events. What it means to me is an activity that promotes healthy living and team leadership and provides inclusive, community-building opportunities for all British Columbians.
K. Jones: Based on those personal insights into recreation, and they seem to be fairly comprehensive, what is the minister doing within her ministry to provide a direction that enhances that?
Hon. J. Smallwood: In addition to the comments I've already made about our program, and our involvement with a number of different partners, I've had an opportunity to meet a mutual advisory committee with the Ministry Responsible for Sports. A comprehensive community process developed a plan within the past year. We embrace that plan and look for opportunities to work with those partners around the principles I've outlined.
K. Jones: This ministry is a new ministry that was really created for the minister. This particular area of recreation came from the former Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing. Could the minister tell us how much money was spent to provide recreation programs and give a breakdown of the money spent in the previous year's budget?
[ Page 10193 ]
Hon. J. Smallwood: The 1993-94 restated budget is $1,652,673; this year it is $1,675,132. The areas that fall under that subtotal are: administration, block contributions, the Premier's sports award, active living -- participation, leadership, administrative assistance and building occupancy.
K. Jones: The minister gave us a quotation for last year of $1,652,000. Is that the actual expenditure last year, because the voted expenditure was $1,656,452? Which is the correct one?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Where are you quoting from?
K. Jones: I'm quoting from the 1994-95 budget book, the estimates.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Will the member indicate what page he is looking at, because our numbers are different?
K. Jones: Page 86 in the supplement to the estimates.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The difference between.... What you're looking at is the voted expenditure for 1993-94, and I'm referencing the restated budget. So the numbers I'm giving you are the actual numbers spent. Then the numbers I quoted for 1994-95 are the budget numbers.
K. Jones: Could you then restate the restated budget figure and explain why that differs from the actual expenditure that's supposed to have been restated in the estimates for this year?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The restated budget for 1993-94 is $1,656,452.
K. Jones: That's the figure I had, and the previous one you gave was $1,652,000. Where was that from?
Hon. J. Smallwood: My apologies. I can only assume that was a clerical error on another sheet.
K. Jones: We have several items under recreation programs in the estimates. Could the minister explain what STOB 1 and STOB 3 are?
Hon. J. Smallwood: STOB 1 is salaries, and STOB 3 is benefits.
K. Jones: Could we carry on then? STOB 10 and STOB 20: we're talking about $28,000 and $10,000 there.
Hon. J. Smallwood: STOB 10 is employee travel, and STOB 20 is professional services.
K. Jones: Could you tell us what the $10,000 for professional services is being used for within the recreation program?
[4:00]
Hon. J. Smallwood: This money provides an opportunity to employ contractors to help support programs such as Participaction and Fitweek.
K. Jones: Is there a difference between the sports programs provided under the Government Services area and the Participaction programs? Is the Participaction programming done within your ministry, or is it a federal program, which I understood it to be? Or is it actually a program that's run under the sports program of the Ministry of Government Services?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Participaction is a program that is partnered with the federal government and our ministry.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us the percentage split in contributions to the program between the federal ministry and your ministry?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The total federal expenditure on this program is not available to us at this point.
K. Jones: Do you mean to say that you put $10,000 into your budget and you don't know whether there's federal participation in it, or how much federal participation? Do you have any agreements or discussions with the federal ministries that are providing the funding?
Hon. J. Smallwood: We don't have that information available to us now. I'll make the commitment to provide the member with that information following this....
K. Jones: If the minister doesn't know how much money, or what sort of participatory role Participaction is playing in British Columbia, how is she able to just plunk $10,000 into her budget? This is a commitment you have to be accountable for, yet you don't even know whether you've got any commitment from the sharing agency, which I believe is providing most of the funding for this program.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Hon. member, I've made the commitment to provide you with that information. We simply don't have the exact numbers with us today.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us when she will give those figures to us?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'll have them for the member tomorrow.
K. Jones: Could the minister explain STOB 30?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Those are office expenses.
K. Jones: Office expenses. Could the minister tell us why $12,500 is needed for office expenses? How many staff are going to be included in this program?
Hon. J. Smallwood: We have eight staff in the recreation department of our ministry.
K. Jones: Is that eight FTEs, or does it include part-time?
Hon. J. Smallwood: That's eight FTEs.
K. Jones: Could the minister explain STOB 25?
Hon. J. Smallwood: That's systems charges and telephone bills.
K. Jones: Is the minister saying we're going to spend over $1,000 per person for systems charges and telephone bills? Are they going to be on the phone a lot?
[ Page 10194 ]
Hon. J. Smallwood: First of all, I'd like to reference page 118 of the supplement. This will provide the member with an explanation of each STOB. Secondly, with reference to the expenses for this particular department's communications and systems charges, our ministry serves the whole province. We have eight staff and focus particularly on small communities and voluntary organizations in those communities. So we do intend to talk to the people who live throughout the province.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us how she measures value for money in the program she's operating?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The program is highly valued by the people we serve, and not only as a recreation department such as the one in your own municipality, member. Voluntary organizations throughout the province.... It is so valued and many of our programs are in such demand that we're having difficulty meeting that demand. I think that's a very good indicator that the ministry provides a good product that is valued by the people of this province.
K. Jones: Did I hear the minister correctly when she said that the recreation commission in my own municipality was being supported by the ministry's recreation program?
Hon. J. Smallwood: We are in consultation with the recreation departments of many major municipalities. As a matter of fact, prior to taking on this responsibility, there was a representative from the Surrey parks and rec committee serving on the ministry's advisory board.
K. Jones: Did the minister indicate that funds are being allocated to programs relating to Surrey parks and rec?
Hon. J. Smallwood: No, there are no funds going to major recreation departments. They're funded through the tax base at the municipal level. Our funding goes to smaller communities that are developing volunteer parks and rec.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us whether a TV set for a senior or a person with certain disabilities is considered as a recreation opportunity?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm at a loss as to how to answer that question. If it is a recreation opportunity, it is not covered by our ministry.
K. Jones: What part of your ministry addresses outdoor recreation, if any?
Hon. J. Smallwood: That provides me with an opportunity to name some of the organizations we work with on a fairly regular basis: Recreational Canoeing Association of B.C.; Federation of B.C. Naturalists; Canadian Ski Patrol System, B.C. division; Canadian Association of Nordic Ski Instructors; Royal Life Saving Society, B.C. and Yukon branch; Federation of Mountain Clubs of B.C.; Recreational Facilities Association of B.C.; B.C. fitness alliance; B.C. Snowmobile Federation; B.C. Volkssport Association; fitness appraisal, certification and accreditation program; Black Powder shooting; Practical Shooting; B.C. Motorsport; Parks and Recreation Association in B.C.; B.C. Horseshoe Pitchers' Association; B.C. Carpet Bowling Association; B.C. Disc Sport; Baton Twirling Association; Operation Trackshoes; and the Premier's sport awards program. I'm sure I've missed others.
K. Jones: I heard three shooting organizations mentioned there. Is that correct, hon. minister?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I reference two.
K. Jones: The minister seems to have identified a large number of sports-oriented clubs and organizations. Could the minister tell us how she justifies this whole recreation program being in her ministry versus it being directly associated with the sports program in the Ministry of Government Services? Why is there a separation of the functions? I understand that the two functions were joined prior to the ministerial change in September.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The opportunity for the government in splitting sports and recreation -- very much like the separation between Municipal Affairs and Housing -- provides a strong advocate for the recreation organizations and a voice that doubles the representation for sports and recreation. There are now two strong ministers representing those interests not only at the cabinet table but throughout the province.
K. Jones: Based on that statement, I would have great concern about accountability for the expenditure of funds. It looks like there could be considerable overlapping of funding and programs to the same people through these various sports clubs. How do you justify this?
Hon. J. Smallwood: I can assure you that we work very closely with these sports organizations and the minister responsible. We have joint advisory committees and work with the organizations that often represent both sides. That kind of work is ongoing and is done in consultation with the other ministry responsible to ensure that we can maximize the use of limited dollars both in sports and recreation, and to ensure that these organizations can fulfil their mandates to their members.
K. Jones: You say you've consulted with these organizations. Have these organizations not told you that they would rather be under one ministry, so that there would not be this division of direction? Have you not been communicating with them yourself? Are you not aware that they are asking for a coordinated program for the entire sports and recreation area? That's what they're telling me.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Yes, I have met with these organizations, and they did express concern. However, they welcomed the opportunity and the assurances that the voice of recreation organizations and the need for a more inclusive approach to recreation were well received. Quite frankly, I believe they enjoyed the attention of two ministers.
The Chair: I would like to recognize another member on the committee....
Interjections.
The Chair: I think you'd both better sit for the moment, while we sort out the questions we want to ask.
[4:15]
G. Wilson: I thank the member of the opposition for yielding. One of the difficulties with having the House split is that you have to get in when you have an opportunity to get in.
[ Page 10195 ]
The minister just mentioned, with respect to matters of recreation, the combination between Municipal Affairs and Housing, and I wondered if I might come back to matters that perhaps were not canvassed this morning with respect to housing. I'll try to keep my questions succinct and then yield to the members.
First of all, I'd like to thank the minister for the opportunity to meet with members of the minister's staff with respect to understanding a little more about the B.C. rental supply program. I had an opportunity to understand exactly what was at work there, what was intended and what was actually realized. I also had an opportunity to review, in particular -- with respect to the Vancouver Land Corp. -- the relationship VLC had to this ministry and, under a former administration, to the city of Vancouver.
I raise this in these estimates on the basis of what I think is a sizable amount of projected expenditures still owing by this government to the Vancouver Land Corp. Some $6,660,326 is still owed to Vancouver Land Corp. Properties Ltd. with respect to subsidies on some 651 units that have been constructed. The government has already paid, in addition to that, $2.5 million with respect to paid subsidies. In addition, the ministry is likely to find that there will be liability with respect to subsidy on the basis of the supplementary rates of interest that will be assessed against the committed projects still in progress -- additional millions of dollars, which have yet to be negotiated and determined when those units come on stream.
There is some real concern with respect to the original agreement. We're currently being somewhat stonewalled by the city of Vancouver in attempting to get the original contract between Vancouver Land Corp. Properties Ltd. and the city of Vancouver with respect to what was promised vis-a-vis land; the kind of contractual obligations there were within the rental supply program with the city of Vancouver; and the kind of agreement there has been with the city, and with the province, with respect to the amount of moneys that are proposed.
My question to the minister is this: if there are some 651 units out of a total of 8,000 units that were contracted for and constructed, and if only $2.5 million is paid in total subsidy, and the government owes $6.6 million and is likely to have to negotiate additional millions of dollars to a company that has categorically failed to meet its obligation in terms of projects that it proposed -- having been financed in large measure by grants of public land which have been used for the development of private profits -- would the minister not agree that it's time to negotiate an end to the subsidy, and that that company should simply pick up the cost of doing business like any other private company would do?
I say that particularly in light of the fact that there are roughly 350 or more of the units left to be constructed -- I'm just doing some mental arithmetic -- and that this government finds itself in a liability position in which it should not be, because the government has honoured its side of the agreement. The city more than honoured its side of the agreement, but the Vancouver Land Corp. Properties Ltd. has clearly failed to live up to its original obligation. Given that we're in a tight position financially, I would think that it might be worthwhile for this government to simply renegotiate the cost of what they see as their mortgage supplement program.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd like to make two comments. First, the member well knows that this particular program and the contractual arrangement the government has with VLC were established by the previous government. Second, in inheriting this contract, the B.C. Housing Management Commission, under my direction, has done due diligence to ensure that we are able to minimize government's exposure, that the B.C. rental supply program provides an interest write-down and that it will write down a maximum of 5 percent interest from 13 percent to 8 percent. The member can see that for the last number of months it would not have been to the benefit of VLC to draw down this particular contractual arrangement
Having said that, I agree that there are significant outstanding commitments under this particular contract, and at this point there is very little this government can do because of the contract having been signed by the previous government.
G. Wilson: I'm certainly not pointing a finger at this minister or this government. I believe this minister has done due diligence and that there has been an attempt to limit exposure, but the people of British Columbia have been really ripped off by this agreement. This is an absolutely unspeakable rip-off. The 651 units were supposed to have been low-income rental units made available in a housing crunch period. A private company negotiated with two levels of government to receive, first, land grants, and second, interest write-downs, and the 651 units they provided are anything but low-income rental housing. Of the ones in the so-called Collingwood proposals -- Collingwood 1, which is under construction, and Collingwoods 2 and 3, which may or may not ever materialize -- we may finally see some low-income affordable housing, but probably not.
It would seem to me that VLC has totally ripped off the people of British Columbia for private profit. As a result of that complete rip-off, this ministry, and indeed this government, should be able to find due cause to break the agreement or to find that the agreement has, in fact, been breached. They should be under no further obligation or liability to write down any interest, especially in light of the fact that interest rates are starting to climb, and the exposure and liability of government is going to become greater rather than less. It would strike me that now is the time for the government to simply indicate that this has been a complete rip-off. We're looking at millions of dollars of potential moneys paid, which this government should try to save for the taxpayers.
Hon. J. Smallwood: In looking at this contractual agreement, this government has looked at each and every project we were committed to subsidizing. I apologize to the member if he has already used these numbers, but let me restate them.
He is absolutely correct: VLC has already produced 651 housing units. The government is still committed to 1,147. Through the work our ministry has had underway, we have been able to cancel 1,223 units, because VLC has not been able to meet the contractual arrangements about deadlines and the use of property that the complexes were designed to fill.
Concerning the 1,147 units that are still on line and that the province is legally required to fill under the subsidy commitment, we believe at this point that VLC will meet those contractual arrangements. We are therefore bound.
G. Wilson: This becomes a little more complex, because the original agreement was with the city of Vancouver. With respect to the B.C. rental supply program, it is my understanding that this was simply a financial contract with
[ Page 10196 ]
the province to write down interest on mortgages that were taken. But the original agreement, in terms of the site and the accommodation proposed, was worked out between the city of Vancouver and VLC Properties Ltd. If that isn't so, perhaps the minister would clarify this point.
Hon. J. Smallwood: VLC has managed to put together a package that includes an agreement with the city of Vancouver around land, as well as a separate agreement with the province, which is the rental supply program. That is the agreement to write down interest on the mortgage.
G. Wilson: We are speaking the same language here, and we're coming from the same direction. I understand that, but the land was originally granted on the basis of the provision of 2,000 affordable units per year to the city. That's what we're attempting to do, and we are getting stonewalled by the city. Their argument is that the former administration cut the deal, so they're having to go back and try to sort out where that is. We're working on getting that contract, because quite clearly Vancouver Land Corp. Properties Ltd. has failed to deliver on the units they contracted to provide. The minister is to be credited with the fact that 1,223 units have been written off. That's good, because it's going to save us even further liability and exposure. But I seriously question why the minister would not terminate forthwith the delivery of everything -- other than Collingwood 1, which I understand is under construction -- to further limit the exposure of government, given that the province is about to kick another $6,666,326 into the coffers of VLC, which has not fulfilled its agreement in contract.
As a supplementary part of the same question regarding the amount of write-down provided to those people who have financed VLC, those lenders are getting better than market rate for the moneys lent to VLC for the construction of property and are being subsidized -- thank you very much -- by the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia. That seems to be a completely unworkable arrangement.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Let me run some of the numbers again for the member. There are 651 completed units, with 496 committed -- a total of 1,147.
Of the units in progress, 88 were completed for Westridge in February 1994. According to my information, Collingwood 1, 2 and 3 have commenced construction, fulfilling their arrangements to meet contract dates. Legal opinion makes it clear that, even though the rental supply program no longer exists, the province is legally obligated to fulfil the commitments it signed on to.
[4:30]
G. Wilson: I'll try to wrap this up with the next few questions. It seems to me that the Westridge project at 26th and Nanaimo, completed in February 1994, is still in interim financing, and there has been no agreement made. Could the minister tell us what the cost of that interim financing plan is to the government and what the subsidy is going to be when that final agreement is made?
Hon. J. Smallwood: We don't have any involvement with the interim financing.
G. Wilson: Nevertheless, there is a cost that will be ultimately picked up through the final subsidy program. I think the minister will agree that that is the case. Is there any projection of what that final subsidy is going to be?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Depending on when the mortgage is acquired, the cost of the subsidy will depend on the interest rate of the day.
G. Wilson: On Collingwood 1, 2 and 3, it was my understanding that only Collingwood 1 had actually commenced excavation and construction, but I stand corrected if the minister suggests that's not so. Would the minister answer just for the purposes of Hansard? I think this is important information that the public is going to want to know. Of the 651 units completed that are now receiving subsidies to the tune of some $9 million, how many could be considered low-income rental housing, and what are they renting at?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Because this is a legal question and we are very concerned about this agreement, I want to make sure I give you the right answers. I'm going to ask you to restate the second half of your last question.
On the question on Collingwood 1, 2 and 3, the agreement gives an address for the site and a date for commencement. They have lived up to the letter of that contract by commencing that site by that date.
G. Wilson: I'd like to correct a comment I just made. It's not $9 million; it's $6.6 million because the $2.5 million is, in fact, a portion of the $6.6 million paid to date. I should correct that for the record, and I thank the member for Delta South for pointing that out.
The second half of my question was: of the 651 units completed to date, how many would the minister consider to be low-income rental housing units, and what is the rental charged on them? In fact, how many are rental units and how many are self-owned?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Under the agreement signed by the previous government, there was no requirement to be low rental. All the units are at market rent.
G. Wilson: I've just got three other questions, then I'll leave this for the time being and come back to it at a later date.
The second question is with respect to the legal agreement that was signed on Collingwood 1, 2 and 3. Is there any obligation for those units to have a proportion or a number of rental units that are below market rate? Or are they all going to be sold simply at market rate?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The focus of the entire agreement is to produce rental stock; there's no requirement for it to be below market rate.
G. Wilson: So what we're looking at here in terms of the agreement.... I understand that the 600 Drake unit, which has received a total subsidy of roughly $745,000, has 191 425-square-foot apartments -- which is not a very big apartment, I think we'd all agree -- renting for $780 a month, which is above the average city rent of $612 per month. So even the smallest unit, which has been built on land provided by the city and subsidized with an interest write-down by the province of British Columbia to this company, doesn't provide housing at an average city rent. Would the minister responsible for housing perhaps tell me how she feels about that?
[ Page 10197 ]
Hon. J. Smallwood: I think the actions this government has taken to reduce government's exposure on the previous government's contracts speaks for itself.
G. Wilson: I have one last question on this for the time being. One group, I think, is not listed in any of the information we've seen. I understand there is perhaps an opportunity to get that list -- certainly the members of the Alliance would be interested in getting it -- and I wonder if the minister might assist us in getting it, although I don't expect you to have that with you today. But I wonder if I could get an undertaking from the minister to provide a list of lenders to Vancouver Land Corp., so that we can find who has been lending money to the corporation, and what kind of subsidy write-down in total may be provided vis-a-vis that list.
Hon. J. Smallwood: There's no problem in producing that. We don't have it with us right now, but we'll be glad to provide that information.
G. Wilson: With that, hon. Chair, I thank the members of the official opposition for allowing me an opportunity to come back to the housing question. Given that these estimates may well continue on, if there's an opportunity to get back in on some other matters later, I'd appreciate doing so.
F. Gingell: I wonder if the minister could turn to page 176 of the budget estimates, which gives the financing transaction for social housing. This is the account through which funds are advanced to the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation to acquire sites for social housing projects, as is explained here. Receipts through this are from the corporation for funds they have received through selling prepaid leases and the proceeds of other transactions with respect to the purchased sites. So one presumes that at any moment in time a certain amount of provincial funds which have accumulated over the years is tied up in inventories of land. Can you advise us what the cost of that inventory of land -- if any -- is as of March 31, 1994?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Let me clarify the question. Are you asking for the value of the land that is currently held by the province?
F. Gingell: For this purpose, which has gone through this exercise. Whether it's March or April isn't important; I just want to know if we've got a $100 million worth of land sitting there or $10 million worth of land.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I can give you an approximate number for any given time. If the member wants specifics, we'll be happy to get those, but it's approximately $10 million.
F. Gingell: If one goes to the financial statements of the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation, which, as I understand it, is a joint venture between the federal government and the provincial government -- is it? -- one sees that they own a series of properties. Included in their assets is an item called social housing land.
On March 31, 1992 -- which is the latest date, of course, because it takes everyone so long to get their statements out -- it indicates that there is $22 million worth of land sitting there. If you look at page C303 under note 3, "Investment In Properties," there is a series of subsidized rental housing units. Those that the province owns jointly cost roughly $25 million, and those that the province owns 100 percent of cost $65 million. There's $35 million in group homes. Then there's an item called social housing land at $122 million. I was wondering where that is and what the plans are. Is it all zoned for use? That's a huge amount of money, and I really don't know what the program is. I'm looking for some explanations.
Hon. J. Smallwood: In regard to your earlier question as to whether this is provincial-federal, PRHC is provincial only. The accounting reference is leased land for non-profit housing.
F. Gingell: Just to make sure that I've got the right end of the stick, certain aspects are owned by the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation, and they just had to pay 25 or 30 percent interest on it. The federal government, through the National Housing Act, owns the other portion. The Provincial Rental Housing Corporation just records and holds title to the portion of everything that the province has.
[4:45]
Hon. J. Smallwood: The province owns land. It leases it to non-profits usually over a 35-year lease, and the non-profits get their subsidies from the federal and provincial governments. Those are existing units in this program, because the federal government no longer invests. We're no longer a partner with the federal government.
F. Gingell: If one turns to the accounts of the British Columbia Housing Management Commission.... We do complicate our lives with these different organizations. As I understand it, the British Columbia Housing Management Commission manages, administers, leases out, collects rents and pays the bills on properties that are owned by the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation. In their financial statements -- again, they have a December year-end, so unfortunately we're back to this point; the latest numbers I have are for the year ending March 31, 1992 -- there's an item called shelter supplement. Is it the case that this shelter supplement is the amount paid by the B.C. Housing Management Commission to individuals to help them pay their rent on properties that the Provincial Rental Housing Corporation doesn't own?
Hon. J. Smallwood: That is the subsidy to non-profit societies. It's not to individuals, and it breaks down the difference between market rent and subsidized rent that is required of tenants.
F. Gingell: I understand that the rent people pay is generally 25 percent of their income or market rent, whichever is less. Can the minister confirm that?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Since 1986 in this province, the amount is 30 percent of income.
F. Gingell: During the previous administration, there were some interesting media reports about cabinet ministers -- I think it was cabinet ministers -- living in subsidized housing. Can the minister assure this committee that all proper forms of review and survey are carried out to ensure that the resources which the province is committing to this program are available only to the people who qualify?
[ Page 10198 ]
Hon. J. Smallwood: The particular focus on a former cabinet minister had to do with a CMHC-subsidized co-op -- not to duck the question. But....
An Hon. Member: Who was the minister? Name names.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The previous government.
The subsidized rental units are income tested. A tenant is required to provide information indicating their income in order to qualify for the 30 percent or market rent.
F. Gingell: The amount of shelter supplement.... I presume that the amounts of the grants are in fact calculated sums -- that is, each particular cooperative has to bring in a set of financial statements that shows what happened last year and what they anticipate happening this year, which, when all is calculated out, gives a specific result.
In 1990-91 the amount of money paid out was $54 million; in 1991-92 the amount was $70 million. I'm not sure exactly what portion of the housing program under grants and contributions is for this, but this year it is shown on page 175 in the estimates as a fraction under $82 million. The amount paid up for '93 was anticipated to be at $82 million. Is that $82 million the 1993 number for the $54 million that went up to $70 million?
Hon. J. Smallwood: We're having difficulty finding the numbers you are quoting. We have the '91-92 figure that you quoted, then numbers from....
F. Gingell: In this year's budget, on page 175, it's the grants and contributions amount under housing programs. Am I looking at the right line there?
Hon. J. Smallwood: We're comparing apples and oranges. The numbers you quoted about shelter supplements cannot be compared to grants and contributions. The grants and contributions that are quoted also include SAFER and.... Is that the only other thing? Just SAFER?
F. Gingell: Of the almost $82 million in 1993-94 and 1994-95 in the budget estimates, can you advise me how much is for SAFER and how much is for the British Columbia Housing Management Commission?
Hon. J. Smallwood: We are getting those numbers for you. In addition to the '94-95 numbers, including SAFER, which the '91-92 numbers do not include.... The '91-92 numbers are the total budget for B.C. Housing. That includes the federal supplement payments, so it's not exclusively the provincial supplement payments.
On your question on the '94-95 budget, the operating subsidies for B.C. Housing are $61,396,035, and the SAFER grants are $20,379,134.
F. Gingell: So clearly, on a whole portion of the expenditures listed under the B.C. Housing Management Commission, there's an arrangement by which Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation picked up $60 million of them, and the remainder was the cost to the province.
Then there's an item called subsidy receipts, and I presume that is the province's portion. So the figures to compare are $35 million in 1991 and $45 million in 1992. Then in 1993 -- and I recognize that we're dealing with slightly different fiscal periods when we get into the estimates -- it's some number in the $60 million range, and for 1994-95 it will be $61,396,000. That's the number that in fact compares with the $45 million in '91.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm not altogether sure that we're playing with the same numbers here, but the bottom line is that the province's contribution is $61.4 million.
F. Gingell: We are dealing with the same numbers. We have the problem we always have, in that one is a calendar year and the other is a fiscal year. So we have those carryovers. The only thing that is in grants and contributions is SAFER, and the subsidies to the B.C. Housing Management Commission, which says that, as a result of that, all your housing programs are done through this one organization.
The provincial government has been pressing for financial restraint. The minister's offices have been held to very small cost increases, but the administration at the B.C. Housing Management Commission has gone up by 10 percent, which is a fairly substantial increase. I wonder if the minister would like to comment on that. If one looks at the number of units that the B.C. Housing Management Commission manages, it's up by only 1 and a fraction percent.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I think we need to do another reality check on numbers. Can the member reference the numbers on administrative costs for B.C. Housing?
F. Gingell: I'm sorry. I'm talking about the administration costs for the British Columbia Housing Management Commission. The only place I can get those, of course, is in Public Accounts, page C107.
While that is being looked up, there is another item in the financial statements for the British Columbia Housing Management Commission. In 1991 you spent $6 million, and in 1992 you spent $10 million; it's called provincial programs. I wonder if the minister would be kind enough to give the committee a feel for what that covers.
Hon. J. Smallwood: The program that you are asking about is the B.C. rental housing supply program -- the one we were talking about earlier.
[5:00]
F. Gingell: Regarding the item called provincial programs, are you saying that's the sort of subsidy that the province is committed to, as we've been discussing under the VLC situation? I was here for only a small portion of that.
Hon. J. Smallwood: With reference to the question around administration, we still don't know if we're comparing the same numbers. We would have to have the breakdown of the numbers included in Public Accounts. Our figures show that administration costs have been static; they have not increased. We'll pull that document and make certain that we are indeed comparing apples and apples. The B.C. rental supply program was created in 1989. We began to draw down the subsidies in 1990-91, and that is the increase. It is simply that single program, and that program has been finished. We are simply fulfilling the contractual agreements that are in place under that program now, and we are not taking on any more.
F. Gingell: Just for clarity, the minister isn't saying that all these expenditures are just for the Vancouver Land Corp. arrangement that we've been discussing. There must have been a whole series of them.
[ Page 10199 ]
From some of the things that are said, it seems that the Vancouver Land Corp. arrangement was rather unique. Am I hearing you say that there has been a series of these kinds of programs in the past with other corporations in other cities? We can see that the amounts of money here are far greater than the amounts that have been expended under the VLC arrangement.
Hon. J. Smallwood: In the B.C. rental supply program, VLC was the only organization that enjoyed a pooling agreement. The units that are subsidized to VLC make up approximately half of the total program. All the other projects are single-agreement projects.
F. Gingell: When the minister speaks of pooling arrangements, does this mean that within a development some of the units are subsidized and some are not?
Hon. J. Smallwood: No. As we discussed earlier, the agreement is simply to increase the supply of rental housing. The rents charged are market rates, not subsidized. The reference to a pooling agreement versus single-project agreements is a reference to the fact that VLC had an agreement covering a total of 19 potential projects.
F. Gingell: As I understand it, one of the subsidies that the province agreed to was to bring down the interest rate on the funds borrowed to 8 percent. If mortgages have been arranged at less than 8 percent because of interest rates in the past little while, was the Vancouver Land Corp. required to pay the difference to the province?
Hon. J. Smallwood: That's a very interesting question. The obligation the province has under this program and its contractual obligations with VLC do not permit such an innovative suggestion.
F. Gingell: Because we're dealing with a complete package, is the subsidy calculated on the complete package? Will a 6.5 percent mortgage on project 2 help cover a 9.5 percent mortgage on project 4?
Hon. J. Smallwood: The agreement is project by project. It is a maximum of 5 percent write-down from 13 percent to 8 percent, so there's no ability to draw benefit from a mortgage that VLC might sign for a lesser amount.
F. Gingell: Without sitting down and spending a lot of time taking all the numbers and statistics, and dealing with the total number of units, recognizing that there are all kinds of different arrangements -- I'm sure that's the sort of thing the ministry has done -- I wonder whether the minister could give us a feeling for the average subsidy paid for a unit. At the same time, have there been any studies done to look at whether this program -- the way we're doing things now to ensure that people on limited incomes have housing -- is the best way of accomplishing those goals?
Hon. J. Smallwood: A considerable amount has changed over the past year, as I'm sure the member is well aware. We've lost two-thirds of funding for non-profit social housing due to federal government withdrawal. In addition to that, we're in the process of looking at some fairly innovative options in providing housing. We're asking those fundamental questions ourselves. We're not basing our decisions in providing housing in this province on past federal-provincial agreements or on previous models of providing social housing.
I'm not sure that giving the member an average for a subsidized unit in the past would have that much relevancy to where we're going in the future. The province recognizes that with only a third of the pie left, we're going to have to bring other options to bear. We talked a bit earlier about the supply side, in particular around rental housing and what has happened to the marketplace in the past ten years because of the increasing costs of land and of borrowing money, as well as the changes at the national level around income tax forgiveness. That's where we lost most of the investment in rental stock -- by the changes in the early eighties when we saw the wonderful MURB projects that popped up after that provision was withdrawn.
F. Gingell: How wonderful if you're the Minister of Housing, but not if you're the Minister of Finance.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Right. That was a little tongue-in-cheek, because most of those projects ended up being big holes and never actually produced rental housing stock.
To come back to your initial question, this is a time for the province when we're asking some of those fundamentals. Some projects that are in place right now are not good examples, and I don't believe they have been. I hear the same story as I'm sure the member hears about some of those subsidized units. So we're asking ourselves some of those same basic questions. We want to be confident in the year to come, particularly with some of our B.C. 21 projects, that we and our partners -- whether they are non-profit housing cooperatives or the municipalities -- are trying to meet some of these challenges.
F. Gingell: I wonder if you have any statistics that give the average stays of tenants in housing supplied through the British Columbia Housing Management Commission. Do you have many tenants who have been living in units for many years? My reason for asking is that in Britain and in other European countries, where government-owned housing has been a fairly major part of the housing supply, families continue to live in the same house rented from local councils -- normally the same government agencies that own these properties. I was wondering what the situation is in British Columbia. Is it a fairly fluid group of tenants moving through or have you got a lot of longtime tenants?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Projects differ. For obvious reasons, seniors' housing is more stable than family housing. Our information is that family complexes pretty much mirror the market; they are parallel. The question, I think, again reflects some of the thinking that we are doing in developing a housing strategy for the province. We recognize that there has to be a continuum starting from projects which support the homeless or people at risk of being homeless all the way to non-profit rental societies and cooperatives, and we're now working to develop a bridging program to home-ownership.
To reflect that thinking, I had an opportunity to meet with members of an aboriginal housing society. They very eloquently made the point that many aboriginal families and individuals in this province have been able to take advantage of job skills and training opportunities and are now in a position to move into the marketplace. That type of strategy serves us well not only by providing opportunities for those individuals to better themselves by entering the marketplace
[ Page 10200 ]
but also by freeing up housing, whether it's social housing or rental housing. A reflection of that strategy -- I'm not able to announce some of the B.C. 21 projects now because they are not part of these estimates -- is the removal of the first-time homeowners' tax. This tax credit was announced in the budget and has enabled approximately 25,000 renters in this province to move from rental status into home-ownership.
[5:15]
F. Gingell: I wasn't going to turn this into a little exercise.
I would caution the minister in believing that a lot is going to happen because of the change in the tax. I think you will find that virtually every single one of the people who have been trying to save up enough money to acquire their first home would have qualified for the high-ratio financing credits that have been eliminated through this budget.
I appreciate that the high-ratio financing credits were never more than 80 percent. I think the credit had a maximum amount of 80 percent, so there was always 20 percent of the 1 percent that was going to be paid. So I really don't think it's going to make a great deal of difference. I think the elimination of the high-ratio financing will produce a great deal more revenue for the provincial government from the property transfer tax under the new rules. And through the way one files one's returns, we will be able to see in one year's time whether I'm right or the government is right.
The amount of credits for the high-ratio financing has been running in the $12- to $13-million range; they've been roughly $800 to $900 per transaction. You can see that the amounts have been reasonably high, and when you think about how many people in those transactions were first-time buyers, I don't think the number was great. I'd like to suggest that we leave that now, and one year from now we will go to the Ministry of Finance and get all the statistics. I'll bet you a $5 bill that the amount of additional taxes paid, because there's no high-ratio credit, will be far in excess of the exemptions that are granted for first-time buyers. We'll have lots of statistics to go back to, because I've got the numbers for the 1991-92 and 1992-93.
I wonder if the minister would be good enough to commence a discussion on the issue of cooperatives by advising the committee -- I have read what it says in the budget -- of what the minister's role is. It talks about the regulation of cooperatives. What does that really mean? How are we regulating them? I don't believe it includes credit unions. They all come under the Financial Institutions Commission.
Hon. J. Smallwood: This is another one of my favourite topics, so I'm going to take a bit of time. The regulatory responsibility for cooperatives is not part of this ministry. The ministry's responsibility is coordination and access of cooperatives to government.
If I can provide the member with a little background as to how this responsibility came about, it might help the member to understand where we're going in the future with this new responsibility. In the last year and a half -- I suppose up to two years ago -- my previous ministry struck a task force along with the Ministry of Small Business. We were looking for opportunities for community economic development that could enhance local communities in putting people back to work and in developing both individual and community economic spinoffs. In doing that, we invited a group of co-ops -- ranging from credit unions, work co-ops, housing co-ops, and health co-ops to agricultural co-ops, just to name a few of the vast range of cooperative ventures in the province -- to sit down and talk to us about their experiences in the province. The question was asked of them: were there barriers to their development and enhancement in the province? They told us a number of things.
First of all, they shared with us a rather extensive report that was done through the federal cooperative secretariat, which was a culmination of a number of years' work at the national and international levels. That report helped identify barriers that existed at the national level, and we started going through the legislative barriers as well as issues of access to provincial governments. In the work the task group did, one of the first recommendations was that there should be a minister responsible and a single access to government to help coordinate the necessary education. In our initial discussions with a number of ministries in government, we found that many of them were not aware of the opportunities presented through the cooperative model. That became a recommendation from the task group: once there was a single entry and a minister responsible, we should conduct the same kind of information-sharing with the different ministries.
What comes to mind as an example is a health cooperative in Nanaimo, where a group has formed to look at the opportunity for providing a health service through the New Directions program. There is a fair amount of energy going into providing a health care cooperative in that community. There are a number of other very successful ventures that we hope to be able to profile. We hope to be able to work with credit unions to identify opportunities for enhancing their abilities to invest directly in local communities. As the member can well imagine, there may be very few opportunities, particularly in single-industry towns, where there are tangible and human resources or economic ones. If governments can facilitate the coming-together of the talents and skills of the people who built the province, we may be able to encourage the necessary development, instead of holding our breath and waiting for a multinational to come in and bail a town out.
F. Gingell: Can you advise us why this project was put into the Ministry of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services? It does sound somewhat like small business development.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I think there were a number of reasons. Our ministry has the major responsibility for housing co-ops. I was going to say exclusive, but there are agricultural co-ops, which obviously Agriculture and Small Business have involvement with. Housing co-ops are housed in our ministry. As well, extensive work was already underway, which I described to the member.
We're looking for opportunities in our ministry for building a housing strategy, using many of those levers -- whether it's through community investment, credit unions or worker co-ops. We're investigating a number of models -- sweat equity, as an example -- that will provide opportunities in the years to come for the innovative home-ownership programs that we're hoping to develop. While the responsibilities and the regulatory authority still lie within the specific ministries, obviously it was the Premier's decision to house the coordinating and education component with us. It was a commitment to both economic and social community development, and it reflects the core thinking for our ministry.
F. Gingell: One of the ways that members try to keep up with and find out what's happening in the ministries is
[ Page 10201 ]
through the annual reports that ministers are supposed to file. I was serious today when I applauded the Minister of Health for filing his report, because the majority of the ministers are behind.
Recognizing that this is a new ministry that is made up of portions that have been pulled out of a series of ministries, can the minister -- not being able to blame a prior minister, being the minister of this ministry since its inception -- make some commitments here and now about the filing of annual reports, which is required by law? Can she give us some encouragement that we will be able to receive the interesting summaries -- as they always are -- of what the ministry has accomplished and where they plan on going?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Keeping in mind that this ministry has yet to be in existence for a full year, the member has the assurance that this minister takes every opportunity to brag about this ministry and the work we have underway. The commitment to file the annual report will reflect that desire to brag a little about our work.
K. Jones: I'm going to take the minister back to the recreation area now. She's had all that relaxation; I'll give a little fitness program again. What say does your ministry have in the Participaction program?
[5:30]
Hon. J. Smallwood: For a start, I have a challenge for the member. I ride 85 kilometres on my bike. What is your activity? There's one.
F. Gingell: How often?
Hon. J. Smallwood: Whenever I can.
The Chair: We should perhaps leave this topic for another time and get into it a little later. The question here has to do with estimates for the province of B.C.
Hon. J. Smallwood: While I notice the time, I can't resist challenging the member to a ride.... The fitness week is coming up. It might be an appropriate time for all members to test their fitness and see if they, too, can ride 85 kilometres on their bikes.
Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:31 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]