1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, MAY 17, 1994
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 15, Number 12
[ Page 10911 ]
The House met at 2:04 p.m.
U. Dosanjh: I take great pleasure in introducing to the House today grade 11 students from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School in Vancouver-Kensington. They are in the company of a friend of mine, their teacher Ron Pajala, and other colleagues from the school. Could the House please make them welcome.
Hon. E. Cull: It's my pleasure to introduce 11 students from St. Michael's University School, along with their teacher Mr. Don Mackay. Would the House please make them welcome.
R. Chisholm: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce to the House Grace and Ralph McDonald from Chilliwack. Ralph was my riding president during the last election. I would ask that you make them most welcome.
N. Lortie: It's my pleasure to introduce a very good friend in the House, and apparently a very good friend of many members on this side of the House. He was a member of this Legislative Assembly from 1972 to 1975 and a cabinet minister in that period, the still honourable Carl Liden. Would the House please make him welcome.
Hon. A. Edwards: It's a great pleasure for me today to welcome a couple from Calgary: my niece Moira Williamson and her husband Wayne, who are here to enjoy a little Victoria weather. So please help me make them welcome.
R. Chisholm: I have a second introduction today: Mr. and Mrs. Boake from Chilliwack, who have been involved in the chamber of commerce there. They are on the Island for two weeks, and they've been at a Soroptimists convention. Would you make them most welcome to the precinct.
M. Farnworth: In the gallery today we have a team of baseball enthusiasts who are expert in the arts of curve ball, fast ball, hard ball, and sometimes even the occasional slime ball. Last night they played a team of MLAs and suffered a severe drubbing -- 16-14. Unfortunately, this drubbing was so humiliating for them that they have asked me not to name them. So would the House please welcome the unnamed baseball enthusiasts in the gallery.
REPORT ON AND ACTIONS ARISING OUT OF VAUDREUIL CASE
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, Matthew Vaudreuil died two years ago in Vancouver. He was not quite six years old. He died after much suffering, and his story is difficult to hear or read about. Matthew's death has affected me deeply and personally. It has also shocked and disturbed and angered British Columbians. As members of a caring society, we all feel horror and pain over Matthew's senseless death, and we feel compelled to find out how this could have happened. As Minister of Social Services, I share the feelings of other British Columbians, and I am committed to taking action to discover everything we possibly can to prevent such tragedies in the future.
An internal review of the circumstances surrounding Matthew's death has now been completed by my ministry's superintendent of family and children's services. Today I will be tabling in this House the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the superintendent's review. In the simplest possible terms, the review has concluded that the system failed Matthew and that he should have been removed from his family home. This review was an important first step. However, I have questions that remain unanswered, and I know that other members of the Legislature and the public do, too.
Today I am taking the following action. A provincial child abuse response team, which was disbanded 11 years ago, will now be re-established. This team will provide leadership, coordination and advice in support of those workers and agencies encountering child abuse in our province.
Our child protection laws will now be strengthened. The Family and Child Service Act will be replaced with new laws to help identify abuse, make it easier to report abuse and ensure that children at risk are protected and that families in need are supported.
As well, an independent advocate for British Columbia's children will be established. The advocate will listen to children and act for them.
Changes will be made to the handling of child abuse complaints by the Ministry of Social Services. We will tighten procedures for transferring a file when a family moves to a different community. We will put in place new procedures for better coordination among community agencies dealing with children, and social workers will have better training on protecting children from abuse.
These are the immediate steps that will be taken. They are in addition to steps that have already been taken over the past two years. The steps that we have taken include a nine-month provincewide community consultation process aimed at improving British Columbia's child welfare legislation. Since then, we have hired new staff to establish innovative provincewide services in support of high-risk families. We've hired additional new staff to focus on community development and to get at the root causes of child abuse and neglect. We have established an aboriginal services division within the ministry to improve the response to child welfare issues in aboriginal communities, and started a review of the services we provide to the 3,000 children under the permanent care of the ministry today.
I am also announcing an independent external inquiry under the Inquiry Act. The inquiry will be asked to deliver findings and recommendations with respect to the Matthew Vaudreuil case. In particular, the inquiry will review issues of policies, practices and administrative procedures, assessment and investigation of allegations of child abuse, case management tracking and service provision, staff training, case documentation and file transfer among workers and offices, and coordination and case information sharing with community agencies and other professionals.
I ask all members to provide support for this action. If ever there was a task that should be above partisanship, it's the protection of British Columbia's children. Many of us in this chamber are parents and all of us share the concern that British Columbia's children be safe and well cared for. The important steps that I've announced here today will need the support of all British Columbians and members of the Legislature if they are to fully succeed. I call upon all members to join me in making sure that they work.
Releasing these findings is not a happy task. Nothing in Matthew's story gives us reason to feel comfortable, and everything in it makes us feel sadness and anger. While we grieve for Matthew and are outraged over what he experienced, we must also learn from these events. More than anything else, it's our mutual responsibility to do
[ Page 10912 ]
everything we can to prevent another child from suffering as Matthew did during his short life.
I ask leave to table the superintendent's findings, conclusions and recommendations and the minister's response to the findings, conclusions and recommendations.
Leave granted.
V. Anderson: I join with the minister today in the very difficult presentation she needed to bring forward, because every person in this House is intimately involved because of the responsibility that devolves on each and every one of us. We are grateful that she has undertaken the independent inquiry, and that the other actions which are promised will be coming forward. Advocacy for children is very important. There has been a children's advocate for some time in Vancouver, and that has been very important within our own community.
Although we commend these actions as they come forward -- as significant and as important as they are -- we still must understand what has happened. They are not enough in and of themselves to deal with the needs of the children in this province. It is not enough to deal with abuse after it has taken place. We must work to prevent abuse, and these actions, in and of themselves, will not do.
One of the major causes of abuse is poverty. Some 100,000 children in this province, along with their families, live in poverty. It is those very situations that affect the children in the communities in which we live.
[2:15]
A report in the Globe and Mail this morning indicates that the life of a child is set by the time they are three years of age. The system which we are trying to alter in small part cannot be changed that way. We will need a much more drastic review, not only of the social services system but of the whole system of government -- education, health, policing and community services -- that affects children at the very basis of their life.
I commend the minister for responding as sincerely as she has, but I trust that not only the minister but all of us will take equal responsibility in moving much, much further than this, so that children do not need to grow up in poverty and so that families do not find themselves in the position of not having the resources to care for their children and the places to turn for help.
I commend the minister for moving forward. Children need our support, but they need it prior to the abuse as well as after.
R. Neufeld: This is a sad day. I feel for the minister because of the announcements she has had to make on the case of young Matthew. As the MLA for Peace River North, representing the city of Fort St. John, and also as the Social Services critic, it probably affects me a bit more. I commend the minister, and our caucus supports her move to set up an external enquiry. Our hope and request is that the inquiry will be conducted as quickly as possible but that it will still look into all aspects of what took place, as it is very serious. I would hope that no more than three months will pass before that inquiry is completed, along with the ombudsman's inquiry into this case, and that upon receiving the findings, we will act as quickly as possible to do whatever we can. In the meantime, I hope that the minister is cognizant of the needs of Matthew's immediate family and also of those workers in Fort St. John who may be experiencing some difficulty in their positions.
With that, I would like to say that the Reform caucus supports the minister in what she is doing. We hope that we can review those findings fairly quickly and deal with them in a way that will mean something for all children in British Columbia. I commend the minister on her move.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Okanagan East rises on what matter?
J. Tyabji: I ask leave to respond to the ministerial statement.
Leave granted.
J. Tyabji: I'd like to commend the minister; I certainly support her initiatives in this. Some child advocacy and protection for children on these issues are long overdue.
I'd like to remind the minister that two years ago, on the steps of the Legislature, we saw a very large demonstration in support of tightening the laws. The minister has said she will be changing the laws, but she didn't refer to whether there will be community publication of repeat offenders and convicted pedophiles, which was the specific issue brought before this Legislature at that time. When we're dealing with the most vulnerable members of our community -- our children -- I think we should keep in mind that the community can help in their protection. Being on guard against people who are repeat offenders and convicted pedophiles can only strengthen the community's ability to participate.
We'd like to urge the minister to bring in the legislation soon and to have in it a community-based support mechanism for the teams that she is already putting together.
TENDERING PROCESS FOR OGDEN POINT PROJECT
G. Campbell: My question is to the Premier. When this government sought office, they made a commitment to an open tendering process for public contracts. On February 22 a contract was opened for the Ogden Point fendering project, as part of the Victoria Line. On February 28 the companies that tendered were informed that the project would not be proceeding. Yet within ten days of that time, a company which had bid but was not the low bidder was on the site and carrying out activities. It happened to be a union contractor, whereas the low bidder was a non-union company. Can the Premier tell us who decided to deny the low bidder the right to work on this public project, and who decided to give the work to the NDP's friends?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'll take the question on notice and get the information that the member requests.
The Speaker: The question is taken on notice. The member has another question?
G. Campbell: I do have another question, hon. Speaker. The work has now been done on the project which I was referring to. The project was not tendered, and those who did bid on the project were not contacted to see if they were able to do the work. I would like to know who decided to give the work to the government's friends.
The Speaker: Hon. member, it appears as though the question is a repeat.
[ Page 10913 ]
APPOINTMENT OF FORMER HYDRO CEO TO INTERNATIONAL POWER GROUP
M. de Jong: Marc Eliesen's mismanagement cost him his job at B.C. Hydro. Now we learn that the reward for his incompetence is an invitation from the Premier's office to chair the B.C. International Power Group. Does the Premier have a directory that might assist British Columbians in tracing the comings and goings of failed NDP hacks into his office -- via B.C. Trade...?
The Speaker: The member has a further question?
M. de Jong: We have serious doubts about this Premier's lack of judgment, as demonstrated in these sorts of cases. British Columbians are already on the hook for Mr. Eliesen's extravagant pension and benefits package. Can the Premier tell us what the total bill will be for Mr. Eliesen's NDP-sponsored tiptoe through the treasury? What is it going to cost British Columbians?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The answer is nothing.
The Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary?
M. de Jong: That equates to the nature of the answers we get from this Premier: absolutely nothing.
Pity the poor people at B.C. International Power Group. Their project has received the kiss of death. How could the Premier nominate a man to head this joint venture who was shown the door at Manitoba Hydro, shown the door at Ontario Hydro and, only a week ago, shown the door at B.C. Hydro? How could he give the kiss of death to the people involved in this venture?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm astounded at the naivety of the member for Matsqui. He would say that not only the chair of the Business Council of B.C., who is the head of the largest gas company in Canada, Westcoast, but also the largest European technology and consulting firm, the equivalent of Westinghouse in Europe, who sought out this venture, who worked with Mr. Eliesen for over 20 years and who recognizes his skills.... He resigned from B.C. Hydro to take up this enterprise. I'm astounded that the member for Matsqui would question the judgment of Michael Phelps at Westcoast, who is the head of the B.C. Business Council. And he probably doesn't even know what ABB is: the largest consulting firm in the world, with tremendous ties to the Asia-Pacific. This is going to make money for the people of British Columbia.
PREMIER'S COMMENTS ABOUT QUEBEC
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier. The Premier's threats to Quebec on the issue of separation are reminiscent of the scare-mongering he supported during the Charlottetown accord. Does the Premier honestly believe that he can intimidate Quebec voters with his absurd posturing?
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, hon. members.
J. Weisgerber: Or is the Premier trying to tell us, in his own subtle way, that he's totally incompetent to handle this important issue for British Columbia?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I get a little confused by the opposition. This is supposed to be a Reform leader, who has misled the people of this province about equalization and the nature of this Confederation.
Quite frankly, I was asked by a couple of news organizations yesterday about the state of Confederation, and I gave a very honest answer. I said that the people of British Columbia, whatever their politics, want to keep this great country together and to make sure this country stays together. They are going to be opposed to anybody, whether it's Lucien Bouchard and Jacques Parizeau, who are trying to be the pied pipers of Quebec, who want to lead the people of Quebec -- and they won't be led; they're not going to go for that nonsense -- not into the mountain but over the cliff.... I know that the people of Quebec realize that their best allies in Confederation -- because of a similar sense of grievance -- are the people of British Columbia, and that we can change this great country within Confederation, not in separation.
The Speaker: The hon. member has a supplemental?
J. Weisgerber: Instead of threatening the people of Quebec with those outrageous statements about British Columbia being their worst enemy, the Premier should be standing up for British Columbia on issues like equalization. The Premier should be saying to Ottawa and Quebec that we're not going to continue to contribute money from British Columbia for Quebec. We should stand up for British Columbians and not threaten the people of Quebec. Will the Premier start standing up for British Columbians on the issue of equalization payments?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The member is quite aware of the nature of this Confederation, whereby federal taxes collected from across the country are used for those provinces that have lost their cod fishery and have had problems with their grain industry. Canadians understand that to be able to provide health, education and social services from coast to coast, there is some equalization of revenues from the wealthier parts of the country to those that aren't as well off. Surely the member is in favour of that great principle of fairness throughout Canada. I would hope that he would say yes, he is in favour of that principle. I would also hope that he would be willing to back me up much more forcefully when I say that British Columbia is not being treated equally by Ottawa. They cancelled KAON; they cancelled Royal Roads.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. M. Harcourt: They cancelled out on a whole series of areas, and I hope the member would be quite as upset about that as he is here today in the House.
The Speaker: Order, hon. Premier.
Final supplementary, hon. member.
J. Weisgerber: It's incredible to hear the Premier standing up and defending the idea of equalization payments going from British Columbia to Quebec at the same time that he threatens them with being their "worst enemy." Did the Premier have the courage to stand up and tell Lucien Bouchard, when he was here, how he felt about separation?
[ Page 10914 ]
PROGRAMS FOR TREATMENT OF EATING DISORDERS
L. Reid: My question is to the Minister of Health. Currently over 280 individuals are on a wait-list at St. Paul's Hospital for treatment of eating disorders. The assessment list is a year and a half long. Cases of young women in this province have been brought forward to this Minister of Health. The system isn't working. There need to be alternatives. What is the status of the minister's promise to establish alternative residential care programs in British Columbia?
[2:30]
Hon. P. Ramsey: I was very pleased to meet with the opposition critic earlier this month to discuss this subject and the ministry's process -- and progress -- in developing a comprehensive approach to dealing with the very serious matter of eating disorders in British Columbia. I'm pleased to announce today that the ministry has committed to establish by July 1, 1994, two alternative residential facilities at St. Paul's Hospital and Children's Hospital to deal with eating disorders.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
L. Reid: Certainly for the young women and their families who have been waiting in this province for the last two and half years, adding extra time is not helping. We understand that this minister has recently been in contact with, and discussed a $45,000 allotment to, the state of Texas for treatment of eating disorders. My question to the minister is: why does this government engage in conversation to spend more dollars on the treatment of eating disorders outside the province than they have spent inside the province?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I'll be glad to provide the hon. member opposite with a further briefing on the matter. The reality is that for the past several years this ministry and this government have consistently increased the amount that we spend dealing with the serious issue of eating disorders in this province. In 1993-94 we spent approximately $2.7 million assisting people with this very serious condition. Some 550 people received in-patient care, with stays averaging about 30 days. This year we expect to devote approximately twice that amount to dealing with eating disorders.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
L. Reid: The question directed to the Minister of Health asked exactly how many dollars have been spent outside British Columbia for the treatment of eating disorders. He and I know full well that the Montreaux clinic has come forward and asked for funding. Are those dollars continuing to be spent outside the province?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I will take that question on notice and get the figure for the hon. member.
The Speaker: The question is taken on notice.
PROVINCIAL REFERENDUM ON B.C.'S ROLE IN CONFEDERATION
G. Wilson: My question is to the Premier. I read with interest the Premier's hard-line position on the front page of the Globe and Mail. I agree that the vast majority of British Columbians want to be a strong and equal partner in a united Canada. The fact is that there will be a referendum in Quebec coming within the end of this year or early next year if the provincial election turns out as it is intended to be. It is clearly the stated position of the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition that a referendum in Quebec be held. Would the Premier commit today that in the event this referendum proceeds, his government will put in place propositions for a similar referendum to be held in British Columbia with respect to our position in Confederation?
The Speaker: Hon. member, the question appears to be on future policy. However, if the Premier wishes to respond, he may.
Does the member have a different question?
EQUALITY AMONG PROVINCES
G. Wilson: I have a different question for the Premier. Would the Premier acknowledge that there is mounting concern within the province with respect to a lack of leadership in the federal government in advancing British Columbia's interests as an equal partner in Canada? Would he tell us what steps his government is currently taking to try to promote the question of equality across this country, so that we do not have to have the referendum I've just alluded to?
Hon. M. Harcourt: That is a good question. Over the last few months I have made it very clear that British Columbians are not being treated equally by the present Liberal government in Ottawa, nor, of course, were they by the previous Tory government. As members of this House know, I have said very clearly on four or five occasions that we have been treated abysmally by the Ottawa-based Liberal government.
I can say that I see a slight change, with their change of mind regarding the two seats that British Columbia is now going to get, from what I can see. In the redistribution we're going to get two new seats in the House of Commons. Last week the Minister of Finance had a good meeting with the Minister of National Defence, David Collenette, and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Marcel Masse, regarding Royal Roads and some of the other cuts in the unfair federal budget. So I hope that there is a thaw and a rethink starting to happen in Ottawa regarding the unfair treatment that British Columbians are receiving.
The Speaker: A final supplementary, hon. member.
REFERENDUM REGARDING "THIRD ORDER OF GOVERNMENT"
G. Wilson: A final supplementary to the Premier. Many British Columbians believe that the current policy being negotiated by the province of British Columbia, the federal government and the first nations for the implementation of a third order of government is in fact an implementation of provisions in the Charlottetown accord, which was defeated. Does the Premier believe that prior to the implementation of any such agreement, the people of British Columbia should have a right to go to a referendum on that question?
[ Page 10915 ]
The Speaker: The bell terminates question period, hon. members.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members.
Hon. members, I have the pleasure of presenting the auditor general's reports Nos. 4 and 5 for 1993-94.
Hon. G. Clark: By leave, I move that the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts be referred the following documents issued by the auditor general of British Columbia and tabled in the House two seconds ago by yourself, hon. Speaker: first, 1993-94 report No. 4, Compliance with Authorities Audits: Statutory Tabling Requirements; Safeguarding Moveable Physical Assets; and Treatment of Unclaimed Money; and second, 1993-94 report No. 5, Value-for-Money Audits: Ministry of Health -- Transfer of Patients from Riverview Hospital to the Community; and Psychiatric Services.
Leave granted.
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, using the technical jargon, I call the wrap-up of Committee A estimates for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.
REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
J. Weisgerber: We spent several days discussing issues of a wide-ranging nature with the Minister of Transportation and Highways. I was struck by two particular issues. One was the serious lack of funding that again exists within the ministry in the area of rehabilitation. By the minister's own documentation, the province needs $250 million a year in rehabilitation work to maintain our highway system. What is happening instead is that this year spending on rehabilitation has fallen to an all-time low of $139 million. At a time when this government is spending recklessly in areas across ministries, it is failing to provide the basic, fundamental money needed to maintain our highway infrastructure. Indeed, the government is spending less than $140 million, when the minister's own officials identified the need for $250 million.
The other striking thing to come out of this discussion is that the Minister of Transportation and Highways has completely and totally lost control over decisions and funding for major new highway projects. These are not being funded, as they have been throughout history in British Columbia, out of the ministry's budget. They are being funded through something called B.C. 21. Payment.... [Applause.]
Mr. Speaker, for some strange reason, the members across the way like the idea that we are now financing major highway projects for 20, 30 or 40 years and adding as much as quadruple the cost to those projects through the interest charges that will be inflicted.
We're no longer building highways as we go. We have now fallen into the trap of financing highway construction. It's clear that the minister has lost control over this critical part of her ministry's budget. We were disappointed to find that not only had the minister given up control over major highway projects, but that even rehabilitation projects -- basic and fundamental maintenance -- were now being advertised under B.C. 21 rather than the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.
It's a sad thing to have seen the ministry fall to the sorry state that it's in today, where it is basically a manager of highway maintenance contracts and doesn't seem to have any real control over the big issues of rehabilitation and major highway construction.
D. Symons: I too found that the discussions we had with the Minister of Transportation and Highways were interesting. It was interesting this year, to begin with, because I often go by line items. This is two years in a row that the line items have been readjusted, and it makes it very difficult for us to find out year by year exactly how they are changing things. Last year it was mainly a result of putting amounts in different pigeonholes, or so the minister told me last year. This year it seems to be mainly a result of dividing responsibilities between the ministry and the Transportation Financing Authority. As the previous speaker said, the Transportation Financing Authority now seems to have a great deal of responsibility for things that had previously been the responsibility of the ministry, and this gives me a great deal of concern. I have also discovered that the Transportation Financing Authority doesn't yet seem to be fully functional. We had many projects that we were asking questions on, and we were basically told that they were contingent on funding coming from the Transportation Financing Authority.
There are a lot of projects around the province, projects that have been announced, but we find out when we look into it.... Have the contracts been let? In some cases yes, and in some cases no, because they're still waiting for the funding to come through. In other cases, when the contracts have been let, has the work actually begun on them? Very, very few projects that have been announced actually have people in the field doing the work. It's a real concern of mine that even the projects that were announced and whose funding was announced for this year are not yet in place. These projects are not going ahead at the best time of the year.
The ministry's contributions to municipal programs appear to have been drastically cut from the last few years, from $20 million in 1991-92 to only $4 million in the '94-95 fiscal year. This appears to me to be a downloading onto the municipalities from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.
Total ministry spending is down to just below $700 million. We were told that there's spending of $304 million coming from the Transportation Financing Authority. We could add that to the previous figure that I gave you, and that brings the total to $1 billion, but this is still well below what is required in the province.
The real problem, as the previous speaker said, is that that $304 million is going to be deficit-financed. It is money that we're borrowing today and paying for in the future. Supposedly it's recoverable through tolls or taxes that are as yet unknown to the people of this province, but we're going to pay for it one way or the other, and we'll pay the interest charges on top of it.
I was also very concerned about rehabilitation. There's spending of $139 million in rehabilitation this year. Both the Good Roads Cost Less study and the auditor general agree that we should be spending $250 million a year just to keep our infrastructure at the level it is, so we don't lose it. We have been progressively losing infrastructure, year by year, through underfunding for close to the last decade. This government is not meeting the challenge of keeping our
[ Page 10916 ]
current roads up to standard. We're losing infrastructure every year.
We discussed the Island Highway and the Lions Gate Bridge and tolls. In most of these cases we were simply referred to the Transportation Financing Authority.
I have some concerns, and I expressed them, over the expropriation process used, particularly in getting property for the Island Highway. I think some people's property rights are not being given due credit in the process.
We canvassed many outstanding projects around the province. In many cases I was pleased to know that the minister and the ministry are fully aware of the projects that need doing, but in almost every case the answer we got was: not now; we'll have to wait for financing for that project.
We also looked at motor vehicles and the Motor Vehicle Act, and I discussed graduated licensing for a length of time. I suggested that maybe the ministry should be looking into this, and indeed they are, as well as tightening vehicle registrations, which is an area that will keep some rebuilt and dangerous vehicles off the road. The ministry has already addressed some of those issues.
The Motor Carrier Commission was discussed recently. I have real concerns over the delay and the red tape and whether the whole process of that commission is valuable. Today we seem to be using techniques to restrict giving out licences that are reminiscent of years gone by.
[2:45]
We also discussed ICBC and the issues relating to ICBC. Primarily, I suppose my concern is that maybe ICBC has had a monopoly for too long, and it's time that maybe we allowed some private enterprise into even the public liability portion of the insurance.
We also discussed AirCare and the concerns we have with whether AirCare is going to be expanded to include trucks and other vehicles and whether AirCare will take into account vehicle safety inspections as well. I thank the minister very much for her time in answering our questions.
Hon. J. Pement: This is in response and, as the Government Leader pointed out, a wrap-up.
I'd like to say first of all that the budget itself has to be explained in terms of the restated budget. The restated budget was in effect because the incoming motor vehicle branch has changed the budget in quite a dramatic way. The member was made aware of that prior to estimates, so he had a heads-up on it. That is the reason the budget has been restated, and it was difficult for the member to be able to refer back to last year's process.
With regard to rehabilitation work on the roads, we would always like to have more money. The members definitely wanted to see more money in their specific ridings and constituencies, and that can be understood. On the whole, with SHIP and other programs within rehabilitation, we actually have a total of $191 million, and we work toward priorities within the regions to be certain that we are doing the proper work and the rehabilitation work needed.
As to capital projects, I will point out to the members that there have been some recent announcements in the province with regard to the northeast sector. There are $53 million worth of projects in the northeast sector of the lower mainland, the Island Highway itself, and there are a number of projects that have been announced in the North and South Peace with regard to capital. We are looking at a total of $77 million within the northern part of the province. These projects are progressing, the work will be starting as soon as tenders are through the process, and I expect that that work and movement of machinery will be happening in the province in the next month.
Again with regard to capital projects, the Transportation Finance Authority is the funding body for capital projects, and I am on that authority as vice-chair. Highways continues to do the work it has always done, and I'm proud of the work that the staff within my ministry does.
I would also like to point out that we talked about many of the traffic safety programs and initiatives, and the fact that we need to heighten public awareness with regard to our driving habits in British Columbia. I will be looking forward to public awareness programs and other programs and initiatives with regard to traffic safety issues. I thank the members for their questions in the estimates. We took some time, and we had some good discussions.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in Committee A, the Ministry of Government Services. In the House today I call committee stage of Bill 5.
FAMILY RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 5; D. Lovick in the chair.
On section 8, section 55.1 (continued).
Hon. J. Pement: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. J. Pement: I'd like to introduce to the House today some 20 grade 6 students from St. Joseph's School in Smithers, and with them is their teacher Mr. Lancaster. I ask the House to bid them welcome.
The Chair: We are on section 55.1, under section 8.
J. Dalton: If I recall correctly, was a question not left with the Attorney General at the end of the morning session?
Interjection.
J. Dalton: I'm sorry, I can't remember what the question was, but I know that the member for Matsqui did raise one, and he will be with us in two seconds.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: While we're waiting for the member to collect his thoughts and recast his question of this morning, I thought I would take the opportunity to introduce the people here with me to help us through some of the technical questions. On my far left is Jill Dempster; on my immediate left, Hanna Bendtsen; and on my right, John Cook.
M. de Jong: I think the question I put to the Attorney General this morning is more properly considered under section 55.92. So I'll restate the question at that point.
Section 8, sections 55.1 and 55.2 approved.
On section 8, section 55.3.
M. de Jong: Sorry, hon. Chair, I was looking at the first page of 55.2. With leave, I do have a question relating to 55.2(2)(a) and (b), which appear on the next page.
The Chair: Proceed.
[ Page 10917 ]
M. de Jong: My question to the Attorney General relates to the implications of the section for existing separation agreements that don't provide a workable division formula. I understand that the purpose of the section is to create a transition from the present state of non-legislation to what this bill and these amendments purport to do. The section speaks of what will occur where there is nothing in the separation agreement or where a division is provided for. My question is: what is the Attorney General's expectation of what would take place, or what the intention of the legislation would be, where an unworkable division formula is included in a separation agreement?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I want to make sure that we are all talking about the same section.
I wonder if the member might turn his attention to subsection (3), rather than subsections (2)(a) and (b). The question was about unworkable agreements. I think that's more properly discussed in subsection (3), which we can do now. What would occur then is that the matter could be referred back to the courts for rectification of the unworkability, if I can put it that way.
M. de Jong: The Attorney General's answer speaks to one other issue that is part and parcel of the entire bill, but certainly also of this section. I wonder if he could give some assurance -- or opinion is perhaps a better word -- that the proposed amendments to the act do not preclude judicial reinterpretation or involvement to any greater extent than now exists.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can give that assurance.
M. de Jong: My question to the Attorney General on section 55.3(4) probably shows my ineptitude. I don't know what it means.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member and I may both be struggling with this. This is territory that I, for one, am not familiar with at all. Section 55.3(3) provides for the designation of pre-retirement survivor benefits. Subsection (4) has that designation apply until the member is no longer a limited member. In other words, he might die or become a recipient rather than a member of the plan. Subsection (4) limits the applicability of subsection (3).
M. de Jong: I think the Attorney General may have inadvertently struck on the answer. He has listed the two ways I could think of that a limited member could cease to be limited member. Maybe with the assistance of his staff, is there any other way a limited member could cease to be a limited member? I guess that's the nub of the question.
[3:00]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I understand that the other way a limited member could no longer be a limited member is if they voluntarily opt to no longer be a limited member.
Section 8, sections 55.3 to 55.7 inclusive approved.
On section 8, section 55.8.
M. de Jong: Can the Attorney General indicate whether or not this legislation, insofar as it deals with extraprovincial plans and pension arrangements, requires anything beyond the level of reciprocal agreements now in place? Or does this fit within that existing framework of reciprocal agreements?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: No further agreements are required. This fits into what now exists.
M. de Jong: Are those the protocols and legislation that are set out within the Family Relations Act, or must we cross-reference with some other protocol?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Only the Family Relations Act.
Section 8, sections 55.8 and 55.9 approved.
On section 8, section 55.91.
M. de Jong: As I read this section again, it struck me that the section suggests some manner of threshold, and it does make reference to the Pension Benefits Standards Act. Is it in that legislation that one finds the threshold that appears to be spoken to in this section?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is yes.
M. de Jong: The purpose of the section is to eliminate unnecessary administration in the case of smaller amounts of pension fund. In my recollection of the Pension Benefits Standards Act, it doesn't quantify an amount. Can we get some indication from the Attorney General where the threshold lies, notwithstanding that the legislation purports to incorporate this second legislation? What is the threshold?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is that the Pension Benefits Standards Act does quantify an amount.
Section 8, section 55.91 approved.
On section 8, section 55.92.
M. de Jong: I think this is where my question from earlier this morning more properly falls. It specifically addresses section 55.92(1)(c), which deals with the Canada Pension Plan. My recollection is that B.C. was one of the only provinces where it was not yet possible for spouses to contract out of the Canada Pension Plan provisions. In the Attorney General's view, will this section be sufficient to allow that to happen without reference to any further changes in the CPP legislation?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is yes, the CPP does allow you to transfer the benefit. This simply confirms existing CPP legislation.
M. de Jong: I saw the Attorney General receive the advice that he did. I may not be stating the question correctly, and the change may have taken place fairly recently, but the understanding I had was that this represents a fairly significant change insofar as division of CPP pension provisions is concerned.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's my understanding that the federal legislation says that you may not waive your right to split the benefit unless provincial legislation enables that. This will enable that.
M. de Jong: So this is the legislation that is required to allow something that couldn't happen in British Columbia previous to the passage of this legislation.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes.
[ Page 10918 ]
Section 8, sections 55.92 to 55.97 inclusive approved.
Sections 9 to 11 inclusive approved.
On section 12.
M. de Jong: I just want to be clear in terms of the housekeeping in this section. Does this require the consent of both parties? Does it require the consent of one party, or can a separation agreement simply be filed by a third party? Theoretically, could it be filed by a third party without the consent of either party?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I was initially confused by the difference between signing and filing. It can be filed by a third party as long as it is signed by the parties it affects.
M. de Jong: I think I understand the Attorney General's point that the agreement, in order to be an agreement, must be signed by both parties. But could it theoretically be filed as an order of the court by family maintenance enforcement, if that were deemed appropriate? Am I making a correct assumption?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The director of the family maintenance enforcement program.... It could only be done if there was authority in that legislation for the director to do so. So there's a double requirement, if you will.
M. de Jong: I should preface my remarks with the observation that I think this is a good section, insofar as there has been great difficulty among spouses who are able to get a signature from a spouse on an agreement but not necessarily a signature on the consent forms that were formerly required and which had to be sworn in front of a commissioner for the taking of affidavits. So the section is a good done. One of the concerns I do have -- and maybe the Attorney General can address this -- is the form of the agreements that are signed. How much power will be vested with the various registries and registry officials to determine when an agreement is in a form sufficient to allow for it to be filed? That will have implication for enforcement proceedings down the road.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The nature of the form would not be vetted by the registry, other than to ensure that it included a provision respecting subsections 2(a) and 2(b), which is required. But it doesn't matter what the....
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Subsections 2(a) and 2(b) on page 10 of the act -- section 12.
In order to be accepted by the registry, the agreement would have to contain the two provisions that are listed in subsection (2).
M. de Jong: The difficulty with that approach is that if there are no children there would be no such provisions in the agreement.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm sorry if I misled the member in doing that quickly. The word "or" fixes that.
M. de Jong: Yes, so it does.
C. Serwa: I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
C. Serwa: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce a group of approximately 45 to 50 students from the Kelowna Christian school in Kelowna. They are accompanied by a group of parents and their teachers, Mrs. Shari Laurie and Mrs. Sylvia Gibbs. Would the House please make them welcome.
Sections 12 to 18 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.
Bill 5, Family Relations Amendment Act, 1994, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I call adjourned second reading debate on Bill 33. The member for West Vancouver-Capilano adjourned the debate.
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
(continued)
J. Dalton: I'd almost forgotten that I had adjourned that debate. I thank you, hon. Speaker and the Attorney General, for reminding me. It's a good thing I was here.
This bill, as the Attorney General pointed out, is an omnibus bill, because it does touch upon several statutes under his jurisdiction. The one that I would like to comment on specifically is the first act. Of course, when we get into committee, we will deal with this in more substance.
The Correction Act is causing a lot of stir in the public these days, and there is an inquiry at this stage. The setting up of this separate office to deal with concerns and complaints within the corrections branch is perhaps part of a much larger solution that we should all be searching for. Obviously, I cannot comment specifically on the section at this second reading stage -- heaven forbid. But we will certainly have to get into some more detailed questioning and discussion at committee stage as to how this so-called independent office is going to function within the corrections system. I have to wonder about the independence. That's just something that I'm flagging for the Attorney General, and we will certainly raise that.
The provision dealing with the cancellation of the enumeration for this year is certainly a cost-saver. I thank the Attorney General for the snapshot preview that I and other members of the caucus were given on this. I understand that the province is looking at an $8 million saving. There is no need to have a regular enumeration of this nature in this day and age, when clearly the updated voters list is an ongoing process -- and there are various ways to do that. The opposition is pleased to see that the $8 million saving is being generated. I suppose the opposition might like to see that that $8 million finds its way into an opposition riding or two, but perhaps that's for another day.
[3:15]
[ Page 10919 ]
The other amendments, as far as I'm concerned, don't cause me any concern. I note that the last amendment deals with the Supreme Court Act, but that's a cosmetic thing. Again, we may have some questions to raise at committee stage.
Those are my comments as far as second reading of Bill 33 is concerned, hon. Speaker.
M. de Jong: My impression is that one deals with the bill in its general format in second reading. I find that somewhat difficult on a bill of this sort, so I will restrict my comments to a couple of the sections -- the first one being section 4, which deals with the Election Act. I will say at the outset that I think we have come to a point in our history where these general or door-to-door enumerations may no longer be practicable. With that in mind, I think it behooves us to move ahead and take advantage of the technology that exists to accomplish these things in other ways.
I will just draw on my own fairly recent experience. I know it's something that officials of Elections B.C. were interested in and were looking at. I would encourage the Attorney General, within whose purview this is being debated, to encourage those people to pursue some of the things that were done in the recent by-elections. Enumerations took place in malls, for example, those great gathering places of the late twentieth century, because that, quite frankly, is where the majority of the people seem to be gathering. It is accessible to them, and they have no reservations about approaching and asking whether they are on the voters list. After all, what this is all about is bringing these services to the people. I think my discussions with those folks in the malls revealed that it was an entirely successful exercise.
Besides the money that we undoubtedly will save as a province, I speak strongly in favour of the sorts of initiatives that will ensure that greater numbers of people are registered to vote and get out to vote. There is a requisite level of activity that goes on. These sorts of initiatives should take place at other times of the year, and not just once an election writ is dropped. Keep uppermost in people's minds the franchise that they hold. They hold it 365 days of the year. Yes, they only need one day to exercise that franchise, but they could be reminded. We have a transient society now. Making this change is a positive step, but recognize that we can serve people in other ways, and it doesn't rely exclusively on new technology. Just by being where the people are in 1994 can assist us in this regard.
Elections B.C. has also taken advantage of technology in terms of making voters lists available to candidates. That also is a positive step, and I'm certain that will continue.
The only other comment that I would make with respect to Bill 33 relates to section 11, the provision that will allow masters to render decisions. It's a commonsense provision. I'm somewhat surprised, actually, that it gave rise to the need for legislation. I will make a general comment, as an aside, that any provision that this government can introduce to promote and expand the work of the masters will be viewed positively, at least by this member. It represents a tremendous achievement in terms of making justice more accessible. The fact that there are masters sitting and able to sit in a greater number of communities just means that the dispensation of justice takes place that much quicker. I won't belabour the debate.
G. Wilson: Often the bills that come in that are miscellaneous statutes amendments are among the most interesting and the ones that need to be looked at and reviewed with the greatest care. As we're only entitled to talk to principles in second reading, let me say that we cannot in principle support this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act for several reasons.
One is that this generally calls for the enumeration that would be conducted in this year to be cancelled. Members of this House will know that on a number of occasions I've raised some of the objections that have been raised by various constituencies, such as that the voters lists are currently not accurate, that abuses are currently taking place as a result of people voting who should not be eligible to vote, and that there is a difficulty verifying that people who are on the list are indeed the people who are casting their ballot. The voters lists are the very fundamental fibre with which our democracy is woven, and it's critically important that we have every opportunity to maintain the review, upgrading, updating and verification of that list wherever possible.
Quite clearly, we are moving into an era when there are greater conditions put forward with respect to amending methods by which elections can take place, how ballots can be cast, how we can expedite the movement towards the universal ballot and the opportunity to make sure that accessibility of casting a ballot is seen as being desirable. Yet here we have an opportunity to advance that and actually not only put in place the general enumeration of voters but also do a very basic review of what took place not only in the last provincial election but also in the last municipal round of elections and in the last two by-elections. I think that there needs to be a general review of the voters lists, of who casts ballots and of how those ballots were cast. I know that there is one case now before the courts on that question -- and not without some merit, it would seem -- and obviously we'll leave it to the courts to decide the outcome of that challenge.
It is quite clear that we must not allow -- and we in the Alliance would certainly not allow -- the cancellation of the 1994 general enumeration. The people of British Columbia are very serious about protecting the basis of their democracy, and while we recognize that a next provincial election may in fact not be in the offing for a year or maybe two years, and while we recognize that there may be a caveat in here that suggests that if the electoral officers have sufficient warrant they might decide that they're going to look for an upgrading of those lists prior to the next election, we would have preferred to see that statute apply as it existed prior to the introduction of Bill 33.
The second area is a little more difficult to articulate. It has to be done with care and a certain amount of caution, and again, I raise it as a point of principle. It has to do with the introduction, under section 7 of the bill.... I know that in principle we can't speak to each of the individual sections, but it's hard in a miscellaneous act like this not to make reference to them. This has to do with the proposition with respect to licensing and the impositions of licensing and special conditions under the Motion Picture Act.
I realize that this deals with the very sensitive issue of adult films, which is creating a lot of concern in the communities. There is no one, certainly no one within the Alliance, who would not say that there have to be some standards set with respect to the provision of and the making available of films that are explicit in nature or that perpetrate violence against children or women in some way and therefore might provide, for those who would view them, aspects that would seem to be or would be deemed somewhat undesirable within our society.
This is dangerous ground to start moving on, because it has been the subject of much debate not only in this
[ Page 10920 ]
province's legislature in the past but also in the federal legislature with respect to the Criminal Code and pornography, what constitutes pornography and what constitutes free licence to creatively put together an expression on film with respect to materials. It has to do with state-imposed guidelines that can quite easily be seen to be a restriction of freedom of expression. When we look at what has been provided here -- and we are going to look at this in some detail -- we have to make sure that we make the distinction quite clear. There is some language in here that I think needs to be reviewed with great detail and care, because I'm sure that it is not the intention of this government to introduce within this act some form of state-imposed restriction on freedom of expression in the presentation and making of motion pictures. Whether or not those motion pictures may be defined as adult films under the Motion Picture Act, that "adult film" definition has some subclassifications to it, all of which are very important.
Quite clearly, whenever the state moves toward powers to limit expression and freedom to distribute, we have to be very careful. Nobody wants the heavy hand of government to come in and start to tell people what they can and cannot produce, unless of course they are ones who have crossed a very clear line -- those who would knowingly perpetrate acts of violence and aggression against members of our society. We have to look with a great deal of care at state-imposed censorship of any kind, whether it's with respect to manufacturing, distribution or licensing of the venues providing the activity. It's a two-edged sword, depending on who is making the rules and who is imposing the licence.
In looking at Bill 33, section 11 with respect to amending the Supreme Court Act should be the subject of great debate. As some will know, members of the Alliance are preparing a private member's bill that will address some issues around the appointment, resignation and recall of judges. I won't get into the detailed wording that is here; nevertheless, I think it is important to look at that amendment. While it would appear on the surface to be a relatively minor and limited amendment, there is much more behind it than first meets the eye.
[3:30]
In principle, we have to oppose what is in this bill in light of the series of sections of legislation that it is amending. First, much greater care and attention must be paid to the intention and the effect of cancelling the general enumeration, which is something we would not like to occur and cannot support. Second, we have a very real need for protection with respect to the possibilities of state-imposed censorship in the area of the Motion Picture Act. I hope that in committee stage our fears can be allayed, so that we can continue to promote a sensible, rational approach to governance over those very difficult grey areas with respect to pornography in general and more specifically to adult films. Last, we have some concern about the intention of section 11, the amendments to the Supreme Court Act, and we will have more to say about that in committee stage.
Bill 33 is a very important bill with some very weighty questions that need to have serious consideration and debate at committee stage. Again, we applaud the government for bringing in the legislation in order to get the debate going, especially with respect to the Motion Picture Act, but we need to look at it with a great deal of care.
I appreciate this opportunity to speak to Bill 33. I hope that committee stage will occur at a time when members of the Alliance are able to get in and vigorously participate. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned that, because that might preclude us having an opportunity to do so. I see the Attorney General shaking his head, saying no, he wouldn't dare -- or perhaps he might dare, but he wouldn't.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: As members know, most of the debate so far has been out of order. I think a lot of members are protecting their right, just in case they find themselves doing something else on the day we do committee stage, so I don't have any problem with what has just occurred.
I think the concerns expressed by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast can, in fact, be allayed, and I look forward to having the opportunity to do that during committee stage debate of this bill. With that, hon. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Bill 33, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1994, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 9.
LIMITATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
The House in committee on Bill 9; F. Garden in the chair.
The Chair: The committee will come to order on Bill 9. Shall section 1 pass?
Some Hon. Members: Aye.
The Chair: So ordered.
Interjection.
The Chair: I beg your pardon. I should learn to turn around a bit.
On section 1.
J. Dalton: I didn't intend to sneak up on you. This is a fairly short bill, but I think probably the most controversial section may very well be the first one. So I hope we're not going to let it slide through without at least some discussion.
I did comment during second reading of this bill that the issue addressed in this first amendment deals with allegations of sexual misconduct, which unfortunately, I might say, is almost a growth industry in this society of ours. Of course the allegations are coming at us both in civil court and in criminal proceedings. It seems far too often that these things are coming forward, and no doubt they will continue to do so.
Government at whatever level must address the very important legal and social issues that underlie this type of amendment. In fact, I would suggest that the social implications in this are probably more important to address in the long run than the housekeeping -- if I can put it that way -- limitation provisions that we're addressing right now. However, we do have to raise some concerns about the legal implications that this amendment may invite. I don't want anyone to misunderstand. The official opposition fully recognizes the danger of not properly addressing allegations of social misconduct. However, I'm going to suggest -- and then we can get into some dialogue back and forth -- that perhaps an open-ended limitation period, without some
[ Page 10921 ]
checks and balances.... I do understand, of course, that in the court rules there are checks and balances now. In fact, I think a member of the third party raised the concern in second reading as to whether an action that might be considered in some way to be totally unfounded could still find its way before the civil courts. Well, of course, there are vexatious-action rulings and things of that nature that can preclude an action.
I'm wondering if the Attorney General might not consider that the provision contained within this limitation that any cause of action "based on misconduct of a sexual nature, including, without limitation, sexual assault," and the fact that that action could be brought at any time, does not have built within it some concerns that we should all be addressing. In particular, the concern I am thinking of right now is the possibility of legal actions being brought before the courts many years after the alleged abuse took place. That's not to say, of course, that the allegations would not be properly founded. We know about suppressed memory, and of course, it is well understood why a victim might, for many years, very well suppress the abhorrent things that unfortunately do happen, or at least are alleged to have happened, particularly to people in their tender years, as they are going through childhood and maturing into adulthood. These things do come to light after many years. Has the Attorney General considered the downside and some of the negative implications that might be built into this open-ended amendment?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Let me try this as the start of an answer. If it's not enough, then we can continue the discussion. It seems to me that in matters of both sexual assault and sexual misconduct, given the nature of either the suppressed or repressed memory and given the relationships that often occur between people, which may take many years to resolve, there should not be limitations on people's ability to bring an action. That's what this is designed to do. Someone in their fifties can easily become aware of incidents that occurred to them as minors or young adults. They may get to a position where they feel able to launch an action against another family member perhaps, and it may take that many years to deal with it. The suppressed-memory issue really means that we can't put a certain number of years to this. I don't know how many years the member would suggest. But I think the simple way around the issue is to say that there are no limitation periods at all in this respect.
L. Reid: I would just continue my hon. colleague's point in terms of understanding the necessity for some open-endedness around the limitation process. I respect that. But I think the other part of the discussion has to be in terms of putting in some regulations for therapists who engage in that type of therapy, because I think that's the other side of the equation. Certainly I understand that it doesn't necessarily fall under your mandate, but it has to form part of the discussion. To leave the doors wide open, without some sense that the material we're going to receive in court when these limitation processes are proceeded with may be questionable, is the other side of the discussion.
I will refer to a discussion in yesterday's Vancouver Sun, "Award Highlights Recovered Memory Therapy," where it was found that someone's therapist was not working in the client's best interest. The open-ended limitation process allowed false information to come forward into the court system and to cost the taxpayers and the system a great deal of money. So we opened the doors, and we simply don't have the controls in place. I think that's what my hon. colleague was referring to in terms of the need to ensure that if information does come forward that it is valid, accurate and honest information. I would ask the minister to comment.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's for the courts to decide whether the information is accurate, valid and appropriate, and if so, how much weight should be given to it. All we are doing here is changing the Limitation Act so that there is not a time period in which you must launch a civil action. There is now no longer a time limit, and that's all that's being done here. The reference the member made to an issue that was in the Sun yesterday could happen within the current law, in the same way that it could happen if this bill were to pass. So it's really not an issue for the legislation; that's an issue for the courts.
M. de Jong: I take no issue with the need to relax the limitation requirements that formerly existed for this sort of civil action.
At the time the Attorney General's ministry was drafting this legislation, I wonder if it gave any thought to creating a limitation period that commenced from the date of discovery. The Attorney General will know that that limitation has been imposed within the common law. In these circumstances, it's not necessarily as easy to apply that sort of test, but it seems clear to me.... If we can take a scenario -- and there are no typical scenarios in these sorts of matters -- of an individual who at age 25 or 30 commenced treatment for what that person believed was sexual misconduct by a parent at a much younger age, it strikes me that at that point it's legitimate to expect there to be some limitation period within which they must commence an action. If they believe at age 25 that they have been subjected to sexual abuse previously, it strikes me that if they are seeking treatment for that perceived abuse, it would not be unreasonable to say that within six years of acquiring that insight into one's difficulty, one would then be required to bring the matter before the courts.
[3:45]
The corollary -- and I'm sure that the Attorney General considered this as his ministry was drafting the bill.... There is a prejudice to a defendant in a civil action if witnesses die or evidence disappears. If the person can wait as long as he or she likes, it may be that the one person who could come forward as a witness for a defendant to convince a court, or to bring evidence that the alleged or perceived abuse didn't take place, is no longer there. Without placing artificial constraints on the rights of a person to bring an action, which may be the case at the present time, to leave it open-ended carries with it certain fundamental dangers: that is, the prejudice that could accrue to a defendant and, in certain circumstances, to an innocent defendant. I wonder if the Attorney General can indicate whether some thought has been given to that manner of limitation which I have described as running from the date or time of perception.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Some thought was given to the issue, enough to convince us that it was an unworkable scheme. The difficulty in determining the point at which the suppressed memory is no longer suppressed is obviously.... As a lawyer, the member will know the difficulty that people would have in court trying to prove that kind of issue. After careful thought and discussion, the decision was made that we would opt for the choice of having no limitations. If an action is brought many years later, members would recognize that the ability to prove a case or the ability to seek damages that may have been stronger earlier on in their life would be diminished later on. Witnesses may no longer be
[ Page 10922 ]
available or memories may not be as crisp, and a variety of other issues may lead to a diminished ability to be successful in a particular case. To answer the member's question, we did think about it, and we chose to go in this direction.
During second reading debate on this legislation, there was only one murmur of dissent from members of the opposition about this principle, and that was from the Leader of the Third Party. In general terms, it's safe to say that members seem to support the principle contained here.
M. de Jong: I must confess that I was not present in the House when that initial debate took place, and from my reading of the Blues, the Attorney General is correct when he makes that observation.
My concern is that in attempting to address what is clearly an inequity at the moment, we may be moving too far and in a manner that prejudices the rights of defendants. The Attorney General correctly points out that as time passes the ability of a plaintiff to prove a case and to prove and quantify damages becomes more difficult, although the Attorney General is aware that in civil cases such as this the test is not a particularly onerous one for the plaintiff; it's a balance of probabilities. Similarly, the ability of a defendant to defend against charges of this sort will decrease and become more difficult as time passes.
No one would presume to speak against the need to open up access to the courts for people who have suffered from sexual abuse as young people, or at any point in their lives, but I'm not as convinced -- as the Attorney General and his ministry officials apparently were when they drafted this legislation -- that there could be a codification of a workable limitation framework that takes account of when an individual discovers that they have been the subject of abuse, as opposed to leaving it entirely open-ended. That does cause me some concern, and it's not entirely dealt with by the act or by the retroactive provisions, which we'll deal with later.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Very briefly, it's important -- and the member for Matsqui knows this better than I -- that the whole principle behind limitation is to preserve evidence, to provide a time period in which material needs to be kept to ensure there's due diligence on the part of the plaintiff and simply to provide this time frame beyond which you don't have to worry about the issue anymore.
With sexual assault, there's no preservation of evidence, particularly in terms of suppressed memory. Let me be clear about that. In terms of suppressed memory in particular, there is no question or issue about preservation of the evidence -- which is such an underpinning of limitation legislation -- because the person doesn't know. There's no ability to know. While I understand the member's point, on the balance of issues here I just feel very strongly, as do other members of the House, that the right of an individual to launch an action at some point in their life when they become aware of it is one that should be preserved. I have just one more point on the preservation of evidence: obviously a defendant isn't going to be preserving evidence or documentation about an assault; that doesn't happen.
So the issues that affect limitation legislation don't apply in this particular case. I haven't expressed that as eloquently as I would if I'd taken limitation law at law school, but I think the member knows the point I'm trying to make.
M. de Jong: I do understand what the Attorney General is saying. When we speak of evidence in these matters, we're really speaking of memory and of contemporaries and witnesses who may or may not be available down the road.
I can't help but make the observation that implicit in the Attorney General's last statement seemed to be the observation that when an action is commenced, there's a presumption of an assault. I must confess -- and I know that wasn't the Attorney General's purpose -- that I do tend to look at it from the perspective that the object of the accusation must also be in a position to defend himself.
I've discovered in this place that we don't like to deal with hypotheticals, but I can't help doing it with a statute such as this, where that's really what we're dealing with. I think of a scenario where the object of an accusation deceases, and an action is brought by a complainant or plaintiff against the estate. One can conceive of that or of a terribly infirm individual, poorly equipped to deal with oneself. Is that going to be possible? Does the limitation or the removal of the limitation extend to that degree, where suddenly upon the disappearance of an individual an action will be commenced against the estate? Does the liability extend that far?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Far be it from me to provide legal advice to the lawyer from Matsqui. But you need to have a defendant in order to have an action, and the estate isn't a defendant.
M. de Jong: That's true, but the Attorney General will know that under certain circumstances, an action commenced late in the life of an infirm person doesn't automatically extinguish upon their death in all cases.
I'm presenting scenarios to the Attorney General that may or may not arise, but with an open-ended limitation, some of those issues could arise, and it's why I'm.... I can tell the hon. Attorney General that as a lawyer, my first reaction is: "Great. Get rid of limitation periods. It's one less reason to call the insurer, because we all hate limitation periods." But open-ended limitations do carry some risks, and I think I've made my point about that.
V. Anderson: I want to raise a concern about this particular issue that I have raised before with the hon. minister. The limitation here primarily considers an individual who has caused abuse to a minor and therefore takes responsibility for that action in and of their own right. One of the circumstances that people will look at in this particular instance is when the person who is sexually abused is under the care of the ministry and persons who are agents of the ministry cause the sexual abuse. Does the removal of the limitation apply to those particular individuals who caused the abuse, or to the ministry? Is there a statute where neither the employee nor the ministry is responsible because the individual was an employee of the ministry, and therefore everyone, in a way, goes scot-free if there is guilt involved?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Crown isn't liable in those situations. The individual who is alleged to have committed the act is potentially liable, but not the Crown. The person wasn't committing that alleged act as part of their duties or required work, obviously, so the Crown is not liable in that respect.
V. Anderson: Following that up, though, if we accept that the Crown was not liable with the individual, is the Crown implicated by association, if you like, and required to give information and support to the minor who was under the
[ Page 10923 ]
authority and care of the Crown in that case? Isn't the Crown liable because the person under whose care they were put failed in their jurisdiction?
[4:00]
In another matter, if a construction company provides improper equipment that fails, then the company is at fault, not just the individual who happened to be using the equipment. I want to know how far the responsibility of the Crown goes in this regard.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member raises an issue that I know he's intensely interested in, as I am, but it has nothing to do with the Limitation Act. With all due respect to the member's attempts to raise the other issue, I'm going to have to suggest to the Chair that we're dealing here simply with the Limitation Act, which does not impact at all on that question.
J. Dalton: The member for Matsqui raised the point about the open-ended action, which I also flagged. He also pointed out that a defendant, by implication of a lawsuit.... And this is a reality, of course; there's a sort of unfortunate inference drawn. We've had some discussion about the Limitation Act's legal implications. We've perhaps got off onto tangents about the probably more important societal issues.
Let's come back to the Limitation Act. The Attorney General did point out that suppression of court action for an unlimited time means that evidence and other things could be lost. Now we're trying to open up the door over something that has to be addressed. I also point out to the Attorney General that the Limitation Act has other rationales behind it, such as that the court itself should not be abused in any way -- or at least, limitations should be placed on that. Obviously, limitation terms have that rationale behind them. However, this issue does not necessarily mean that we stick to the status quo. The common-law limitation period, for example, clearly doesn't address issues of this nature.
I add one other thing. There is built into any legal process, whether it be civil or criminal, a cost to society, and that is a monetary cost. I'm not suggesting that we curtail court action to save society money. But the Attorney General must appreciate that costs of litigation are not borne just by the parties; those are costs that all of us bear. I'm just flagging for the attention of the Attorney General that limitation amendments such as this, even though they are probably warranted.... We could be here all day debating the issue, quite frankly, and we'll probably never agree completely on what its full implications are. The test of time will prove that in the long run. But the cost of inviting litigation is one that all society has to be aware of and ultimately has to bear. Perhaps down the road, as this thing proceeds, we'll see over time how it does play out. I just wanted to draw to the committee's attention that other factors are built into this type of limitation.
L. Fox: I have a very brief question. Given the unlimited time frame which now appears to be in the act -- at least, in my understanding it's virtually an unlimited time frame -- what values would be considered in this litigation? Would they be yesterday's values or the values of ten years ago? Or would they be today's values, given that there's a totally new awareness and a broader understanding of what sexual misconduct is today than there was ten years ago? If a case should come to light that is ten years old, would consideration be given by the values of ten years ago as to whether there is a legitimate charge? Or would it be by today's standards in values?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: As I answered another member, this bill doesn't actually deal with that issue. The courts would deal on an evidentiary basis with the issue of what the remedy should be if a case is made successfully, so that issue would apply. And before this legislation passes, the same issue applies in the last year of eligibility to take an action, because it might be some years after the fact and society's values might have changed. That principle isn't changed at all by this. The courts would make a decision based on issues before the court. The law probably changes in that respect as time goes on. How the courts would respond to a 50-year-old event is something that I can't predict, and this legislation doesn't speak to it at all.
L. Fox: I'm trying to have some understanding as to why it wouldn't change. We certainly have a better understanding of sexual misconduct and what is not acceptable today than we had even ten years ago. For instance, a case in point is a case that cost this government a lot of money not too long ago, where an individual was sent a red bikini as a joke, as I understand it, and that ended up causing the government a lot of difficulty and a lot of cost. Ten years ago that issue would have been laughed at by everyone and the article thrown aside, but this year it wasn't. In fact, it probably cost the government $100,000 to resolve that. The concern I have is that all of a sudden we'll have all those bikinis that were sent over the last ten years, and individuals will now look for damages for those actions. Is that not possible in this legislation?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I just need to say that all this amendment does is to allow a matter to get before the court. What the court does with it is for the court to decide. This doesn't change anything other than allowing it to get before the court. What gets before the court? Sexual allegations in respect of a civil remedy and allegations of sexual assault or sexual misconduct. The standards in respect of those issues haven't changed. What was sexual assault in the thirties is sexual assault or sexual misconduct today. It's unlike some other issues where community standards may change. I suspect that's very much less likely to be the case.
Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 9, Limitation Amendment Act, 1994, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call committee on Bill 32.
BC FOREST RENEWAL ACT, 1994
(continued)
The House in committee on Bill 32; F. Garden in the chair.
Section 9 approved.
On section 10.
[ Page 10924 ]
W. Hurd: Section 10 may be one of the most important sections of the bill. What accountability exists with the bill? Limited accountability exists in section 10. I had a series of questions with respect to this particular section, but I was particularly interested in section 10(6), where the business plan will "be laid before the Legislative Assembly by the Minister of Forests" and also "stands referred to the Select Standing Committee with responsibility for forests."
I'm delighted that the Minister of Employment and Investment is here during this section of the debate, because I know he feels strongly that the Public Accounts Committee should meet all year round in British Columbia. I would hope, having been a strong spokesman for the role of that committee, that he would support the need to have the Select Standing Committee on Forests meet all year round to consider the activities of Forest Renewal B.C. on an ongoing basis. My question would be whether the minister intends in this section for the committee to review the expenditures and the activities of Forest Renewal B.C. all year round or only during the sittings of the Legislative Assembly.
Hon. A. Petter: I assume that this is the member's peculiar way of offering the government a tremendous compliment and praise for having built a provision into this section that does ensure accountability to the Legislature and to a standing committee and enables that standing committee to thoroughly review the business plan of Forest Renewal B.C. This is consistent with this government's ongoing commitment to legislative reform, to improving accountability and to ensuring that the public has an opportunity, through the legislative committee process, to scrutinize the activities described in the business plan. I take great pride in this provision. It is forward-thinking. I'm sure the member intended to say, in his rather backhanded way, that he agrees with that.
[4:15]
As for whether the committee wishes to scrutinize year-round or during the session, that's a matter for the committee and the rules of the House to govern, not for this bill. Certainly this bill does provide the committee with ample opportunity to scrutinize the business plan and to provide the public with the full scrutiny that I'm sure the member agrees is desirable in order to ensure that Forest Renewal B.C. is performing the job we all wish it to -- except that member, of course, who is philosophically opposed to Forest Renewal B.C.
Hon. G. Clark: I'd just like to stand and commend the Minister of Forests for this particular section, section 10(6). Just for the record, this says: "The business plan" of the forest renewal agency "must be laid before the Legislative Assembly by the Minister of Forests, as soon as practicable, and then stands referred to the Select Standing Committee with responsibility for forests." This is an innovative clause that gives significant accountability to members of the House -- not the government but members of all parties. This is an important and historic agency that will invest some $400 million in the renewal of our forests, to revitalize our communities, to protect jobs and to pursue environmentally sustainable forest practices. It's a matter for great scrutiny by the House.
When these kinds of tax dollars are spent or invested in industry, it's important that members of this House have a sober review in a committee -- not in debate in the House -- and call witnesses; debate the questions of how things will be handled by the agency; and make sure there's full accountability for this agency, which is broadly supported by industry, labour and environmental groups. Unfortunately, it's not supported by the Liberal Party. Nevertheless, despite their negativity, they will obviously be allowed to participate in this committee and pursue questions along those lines and criticize the broad community of support for this agency.
I think it's worthwhile. It's an innovative idea to send it to a committee. This again demonstrates the government's commitment to legislative committees, which have sat more often in the last two years than in the last 20 on a variety of subjects. This gives institutional responsibility, if you will, to a select standing committee of the House that will be represented by all parties. I'm very proud that the government has chosen this path, and I commend the Minister of Forests for this innovative and forward-thinking section of the bill, which ensures that this not only has broad community support today but that it will continue to have broad community support. We will have debate and dialogue and, hopefully, ultimately the support of all members of the House in this annual review of the business plan by the Select Standing Committee on Forests.
W. Hurd: I believe there was a question for the minister somewhere in there, but it escaped my attention as well.
I think it's important, though, to read into the record again the limitations that exist under the standing orders of this House with respect to standing committees. I'm delighted that I've been joined by my colleague for Delta South, who has been a strong proponent for an expanded role of the Public Accounts Committee in the province. I just want to get it on record that the Select Standing Committee on Forests would only be able to consider the business plan during a session of the Legislature, when it stood, as ordered by the assembly. Or, in the minister's view, would there be an opportunity for the committee to meet outside the limited three-month parameters of the legislative session? That, I think, is an important question, and I hope the minister will indicate that from a philosophical point of view he feels that the Select Standing Committee on Forests could meet on these important issues with respect to Forest Renewal B.C. outside the rather narrow, three-month window afforded to us while the House is sitting.
As this minister and the Minister of Employment and Investment well know, being in opposition during a session of the Legislature carries with it additional responsibilities, which may mean forgoing being involved in the committee if it has to meet for an extended period of time during the session. I think it's important to ask the minister whether he believes that given the fact that this particular Crown corporation will have a budget of around $400 million per fiscal year, the select standing committee under section 10(6) -- although it is subject to the standing orders of the assembly -- should have an opportunity to review the business plan for a longer period than the three-month legislative agenda.
Hon. A. Petter: A number of points were raised by the member's interjection, comments and questions. First of all, let's understand that this is an innovative provision. Again, I hope that somewhere in that discourse of the member I heard his congratulations to the government for having pursued what I think is a significant parliamentary reform in bringing it forward.
Clearly the intention of this section is to provide some prospective review of what the activities of Forest Renewal B.C. would be, analogous to a review through the budget process. Therefore, I would hope that the committee might well want to focus its activities fairly intensely over a short period of time so that it can have a meaningful impact on and
[ Page 10925 ]
input into the way Forest Renewal B.C. carries out its work over the succeeding months of the course of the year.
However, if the member is asking if there is anything in the bill, or in my mind, that's philosophically opposed to a legislative committee continuing its work beyond that, absolutely not. There's nothing in the bill; there's nothing in my mind. It is, of course, within the purview of this House, through the rules of this House, to authorize this committee to meet on a more regular basis. I think it would be desirable to have the committee scrutinize this early on so as to make recommendations that would be useful in the actual conduct of Forest Renewal B.C. for the coming year -- not to engage in a talkfest that will be more illusion than reality, but to actually have an impact on the work of this excellent agency that is Forest Renewal B.C.
W. Hurd: I think it's important at this point to draw comparisons between what the Public Accounts Committee does and what the select standing committee will be doing. Under section 10(6), the Minister of Employment and Investment made reference to subpoenaing, or at least inviting, testimony from officials with Forest Renewal B.C. Would he anticipate a Public Accounts kind of function for the select standing committee with respect to scrutinizing the business plan? Would there be an opportunity for the committee to interview the chair? If so, I think it's really unfortunate that since we're adding another committee that does have an ongoing annual responsibility, the government has not seen fit to deal with both Public Accounts and this committee and recognize the virtues of year-round meetings of these committees. I think that we are adding another role for the select standing committee, which under legislation will be required to meet annually to consider the business plan. I just think it's a little unfortunate that we haven't been able to get a commitment for either Public Accounts or this committee to meet outside the legislative session. I just point that out; I don't necessarily expect that the minister will wish to respond. If not, we can move on to another issue.
Hon. G. Clark: I just want to make a point that the Minister of Forests made, which I think has escaped the member. There is a distinction between Public Accounts and what is proposed here. Public Accounts essentially analyzes, scrutinizes and debates audits of ministries' past performances. It has done it very well, and the auditor general is part of that.
This is different in the sense that this is to review prospectively, as opposed to retrospectively, the business plans for the coming year. Therefore, it's much more analogous to doing estimates in the House, in terms of the budget moving forward, than in Public Accounts. That's the reason that the minister said, I think -- and I totally agree -- that it would be desirable to table the business plan fairly promptly in the session and refer it to this committee to review for substantive comment and have input into the prospective nature of that business plan. It doesn't mean they can't question what's gone on in the past -- of course not.
It certainly doesn't mean that the committee could not sit beyond the House, but it would not be particularly useful to take an annual business plan and spend ten months debating it when it is in fact being implemented by the agency. It's much more preferable that it would come in in advance of the fiscal year. It would then discuss it for a short period of time, interview or cross-examine people involved in the agency and make recommendations to the House, to the minister or to the agency about what they don't like or like about the business plan so that they can take action on it for the rest of the year. That's an important distinction, I think, between the work of the Public Accounts Committee, which is largely retrospective, although it makes recommendations for the future, and the work of select standing committees on other policy areas, which largely deal with prospective changes to policy, as this really does.
W. Hurd: I appreciate that clarification. But under section 10(5), the business plan is defined. I think it's a rather ambitious proposal that the select standing committee is going to be dealing with: "(a) revenue, expenditure and lending proposals, (b) a statement of assets and liabilities, and (c) other information that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may specify." So one would assume, in a perfect world, that there may be an additional responsibility for the select standing committee based on subsection (5)(c). It's open-ended, and obviously the business plan is one aspect of it.
That leads me to a concern of the opposition with respect to the section as a whole, and that is measuring or auditing the forest management responsibilities, or the intensive forestry performance, of this particular Crown corporation. In other words, what are we planting? How many stems per hectare? How are we managing it? What kind of growth yields are we going to get? Obviously this particular section refers only to financial statements, etc. I think that under subsection (5)(c), Mr. Chairman, the government may wish the select standing committee to review that. So I see, potentially, a much broader role for the select standing committee with respect to Forest Renewal B.C. than the minister appears to be acknowledging.
I think it's important to point out that select standing committees do have an important role in this assembly. The opposition has certainly suggested urgently to the government that the Public Accounts Committee be able to meet year-round. I think there's a larger potential role for the Select Standing Committee on Forests to play with respect to this bill, but I hear the minister saying that it's going to be a very narrowly defined role that will only occur when the session is on. There will be limited opportunities for the committee to really get to the nuts and bolts of the decision-making at Forest Renewal B.C., and I find that somewhat regrettable.
I want to ask one additional question about the audit that will be done by the auditor general on an annual basis. Can the minister tell us whether that will be just a financial audit, or will it be the standard value-for-money audits that the auditor general conducts on ministries, the most recent being on the Environment, Lands and Parks ministry? Will he be making assessments on where the Forest Renewal B.C. corporation could be doing a better job, where there might be gaps or difficulties? I think that value-for-money audits are certainly a useful exercise for the opposition. I wonder if he could clarify that for the committee.
Hon. G. Clark: Yes. The clarification I would give would be that the auditor general, obviously, is independent and can do whatever he would like. We've asked him, as opposed to a private auditor, to be the auditor -- or I believe that's the case. I'm looking for confirmation; we'll make sure of that.
[4:30]
In addition to that, you may know -- and your colleague the Finance critic would know better than anybody in the House -- that the auditor general conducts, I believe, about five value-for-money audits at any given time. It takes substantial time and resources, and they rotate through the ministries and agencies. This would clearly qualify for
[ Page 10926 ]
value-for-money audits, and I suspect there would be one, although the auditor general probably wouldn't do one for a few years, until there's some experience that he could in fact audit. But that would be entirely up to the auditor general. This would be completely within the purview of the auditor general to pursue in any fashion that he would choose. Any value-for-money audits, of course, or indeed audits, could potentially be referred to the Public Accounts Committee.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
The opposition member who chairs that committee could certainly call representatives from the forest renewal agency to the Public Accounts Committee for discussion. It's wide open for the auditor general; there's no attempt in the bill to circumscribe his powers in any way.
F. Gingell: I have one matter first. Did I hear the Minister of Employment say that the auditor general has been appointed...?
Interjection.
F. Gingell: Oh, okay.
Section 10(4) doesn't call for the auditor general necessarily, but he does call for an auditor to be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I would like to suggest, if I may, that it's really appropriate for the auditor general to be involved in the process of appointing auditors, because the auditor general is responsible in the end for reporting on the financial statements of the whole government entity. He has to deal with the issue of dealing with auditors of various Crown corporations, but he doesn't have any say or control over their actions. In the normal course of events, the auditor of the senior body has a role in the determination of the auditors, even if it's not their own office, of all of the ongoing subsidiary organizations. I would like to suggest that this is an opportunity to do something which needs to be done in a whole series of acts: give the auditor general an official role in the appointment of auditors.
Hon. A. Petter: Perhaps I can help clarify some of the confusion. I think it was the member opposite who suggested the auditor general, and the Minister of Employment and Investment took his cue from that. In fact, the act specifies an auditor appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, as the member for Delta South correctly notes. It would be appropriate for the agency to have some say in that matter, and I agree with the member that it would be useful if it were an appointment of an auditor who would serve the interests of the auditor general, as well as those of the Legislature and the reporting and accountability responsibilities of the agency.
F. Gingell: I'd like to make one last comment to the minister on that. The auditor represents the interests of the shareholders -- in this case the citizens of British Columbia -- not the agency, and therefore perhaps it is appropriate to have everybody except the agency involved in the appointment.
I have one more subject as we come to section 10(5). I'm hopeful that the world is beginning to change. We've spent a lot of time in the past focusing our examination on the inputs -- how much money we're going to spend; what the financial position is as of a certain day -- and we haven't spent enough time trying to elucidate, to start with, the criteria and goals of what we're trying to accomplish by spending the money and then measuring those criteria on a regular basis against how well we are doing.
You will see, Mr. Chairman, that subsection (c) deals with "other information that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may specify." Perhaps that is the route by which you can bring in the measurement of outputs. Clearly (a) and (b) deal with the measurement of the inputs. You would, Mr. Minister, be breaking new ground if you were to bring in an amendment to this section, before it is finalized, that clearly requires us to begin to look at these issues. I would be most interested in your response.
Hon. A. Petter: I thank the hon. member for his suggestion. I don't think an amendment is necessary to achieve the result he desires. The select standing committee, through its review of the business plan, will be able to raise concerns about deficiencies in the business plan and the way in which the business plan describes those outputs he refers to. Certainly I can give him this undertaking that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will look very seriously at the recommendations of the select standing committee if the business plan is judged by the committee to be deficient in some respect. That can perhaps assist the specification the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council might make under section 5(c). Through the course of the review of the business plan that the select standing committee can undertake under subsection (6), the select standing committee can have a tremendous role in determining the nature of the business plan -- pointing out its deficiencies and eliciting information, through examination of the plan, that doesn't appear on the face of the plan -- and effectively influence the course of the plan. As I say, if that isn't sufficient in and of itself, the select standing committee can also make recommendations -- which certainly this government, which is supportive of this initiative, would take very seriously -- in terms of action that we might take under subsection 5(c). I can't speak for another government that would be, in principle, less supportive of this initiative.
F. Gingell: Subsection (5) calls for the business plan to be submitted annually. Subsection (6) calls for it to be "laid before the Legislative Assembly by the Minister of Forests, as soon as practicable...." Something from earlier seems to tell me that this Crown corporation has a March 31 year-end. I presume that the business plan would probably follow that fiscal year -- although many business plans don't; they keep the records in one thing, and business plans, which tend to be more proactive action plans, are not necessarily tied to the fiscal year.
Recognizing that in the normal course of events this House sits in early March and hopes to be finished by the end of May, would the minister be good enough to consider putting in some definitive date by which this plan must be delivered to the office of the Minister of Forests?
Hon. A. Petter: I think the subsection to which the member was alluding is subsection (9), which specifies that "The fiscal year of Forest Renewal BC is a period of 12 months beginning on April 1 in each year and ending on March 31 in the next year." Clearly the business plan will conform to that fiscal year. If one extrapolates from that subsection and then goes back to the requirement in subsection (6), it is better than a fixed date; it is "as soon as practicable" that the business plan must be laid before the Legislature. I can understand that when one does something new and innovative, members wishing to get on-board, perhaps having made mistakes previously about the
[ Page 10927 ]
principle of the bill, want to try to perfect what is, admittedly, a tremendous step forward in terms of parliamentary accountability.
I really encourage the member to simply sit back and appreciate the fact that there is good faith behind this provision. This government wants it to work. That's why it's here. The business plan will certainly flow consistently with the fiscal year. There is a commitment to lay that before the Legislature "as soon as practicable." There is a commitment for the standing committee to review it. This is new; this is innovative. It's difficult for an opposition that opposes a bill in principle to try to deal with an innovation of this kind. I just encourage the opposition to view this component of the bill in the best possible light, notwithstanding their philosophical opposition to renewing the forests and strengthening the future of forest-based communities in British Columbia.
F. Gingell: I was most concerned about the processes of reporting. Section 10(8) reads: "The financial statement delivered under subsection (7)(b) must be prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles" -- GAAP. That's wonderful, but I do believe that this is the first act that requires this. In the normal course of events, all financial statements by government are required to be drawn up in accordance with instructions laid down by Treasury Board, and Treasury Board is not GAAP. I'm really pleased that this has happened. I'm surprised. We will be dealing with some issues in the financial administration act that have kept the role of Treasury Board in determining the manner in which government financial statements will be prepared. So other than the fact that this is a Crown corporation and therefore perhaps outside the ambit, I'm just wondering if this does signify a complete change in the government's proposal on this subject.
Hon. A. Petter: I thank the member for his comments. I think we've made it clear that the purpose of this agency is to be a partnership agency, to be an agency that doesn't operate on directives from government but operates on a partnership basis with government and other stakeholders. Therefore we have provided for a measure of autonomy and independence that I think the member has recognized and which certainly is appropriate in an agency of this kind. I thank the member for that recognition. I know it's difficult to give that kind of recognition, given the strong philosophical opposition of the Liberal Party to this initiative. But be that as it may, I appreciate that recognition in this context.
[F. Garden in the chair.]
W. Hurd: I was fascinated to hear what I thought was a commitment from the Minister of Employment and Investment that in fact there would be a value-for-money audit done annually on the activities of Forest Renewal B.C. I commend him for that because, of course, as he and as the minister know, a value-for-money audit certainly ranges far wider than the figures and generally accepted accounting principles. It gets us into an assessment of whether the forestry goals of the corporation -- the growth yields, the planning activities, the forestry activities which in themselves can be subject to an audit as well -- are being met by the corporation. I would assume that if indeed a value-for-money audit were to be done on an annual basis, we would have assurance that of the money being spent annually, a certain percentage could go to a dedicated percentage of the annual allowable harvest, for example, or could go to increasing the annual allowable harvest over the life cycle of the resource.
With that, the opposition has proposed a couple of amendments to this section which stand in my name on the order paper, and I think it would be important to make note of them now:
[Section 10(4) by adding after the words "and the costs of the audit must be paid by Forest Renewal B.C.," the following: "The reforestation and silvicultural obligations contracted by the Forest Renewal Board, must be measured annually by a verifiable, independent audits in the field, and must be conducted under terms of reference set out in any Forest Practices Act adopted by the Legislative Assembly."]
I suppose I could move a second amendment under section 10(7), to expedite the process.
The Chair: We'll deal with one first, and then we'll deal with the second amendment.
On the amendment.
W. Hurd: It's important to acknowledge that the rationale for this amendment lies in the discussion document -- the forest renewal plan -- which was provided in the package along with the bill.
[4:45]
The Chair: What is your point of order, Government House Leader?
Hon. G. Clark: My understanding is that this amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill, therefore I believe it would be out of order. I would ask the Chair to consult with the Clerks and see whether that is the case.
The Chair: Thank you for that point. I am going to allow the member to continue, and then I will make the ruling.
W. Hurd: As I was saying, the rationale for this amendment lies in the government's forest renewal plan, which was published along with the bill in the package that was presented to us. I refer to a liner note that says: "How much can we harvest in the future?" It says:
"If we continue with current management practices and methods, harvest levels that could be sustained in the long run could be 15 to 30 percent below current levels.
"The only way we can reverse that trend is to invest more heavily now in renewing our forests. Some analysts suggest that it will only be possible to reverse, with a delay of several decades, part of the drop. Others believe that by taking appropriate steps now, future harvest levels can be higher than current levels, and short-term declines can largely be avoided." And here is the relevant point: "Either way, the forest renewal plan will offset the anticipated reduction in harvest and employment levels in the years ahead through enhanced investment approaches, as the following graph indicates."
The graph is a growth-yield analysis entitled "The Impact on Harvest Levels of Enhanced Investment Approaches." This speaks of the need for two auditing processes: one that deals with the expenditures and the business plan, and one that deals with the goals being met from a forestry standpoint.
I'm disappointed that nowhere in this section, which is the accountability section of the bill, is reference made to specific goals of growth-yield over a period of time. In terms of accountability, it's important for the corporation not only to give us the financial performance of the Crown corporation, but also to give us an accounting of its
[ Page 10928 ]
silvicultural and intensive forest management performance. We can measure levels of investment on the forest land base, and we can determine what the long-term growth-yields would be. I would say that the select standing committee will find it very difficult, if not impossible, to measure the effectiveness of the Crown corporation if it doesn't have access to its forest management goals, responsibilities and contracts that are entered into.
I think there is a critical need for this amendment, and I would move it now.
The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. I've looked at the amendment and discussed it with the Clerks. It's my ruling that the amendment imposes a charge on the public treasury, which is the sole prerogative of the Crown, and therefore I'm ruling the amendment out of order.
W. Hurd: I appreciate the ruling. I think the principle, though, with respect to this section stands: that the select standing committee will not have the ability to measure the forest management responsibilities or the forest management successes of the Crown corporation. It will not be able to look at those fundamental figures, and I think that's somewhat unfortunate.
I draw some consolation from the fact that the Minister of Employment and Investment has suggested that a value-for-money audit could be done, and hopefully the auditor general or some other auditor appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council would be able to assess whether those forest management commitments are being met and the Crown is getting value for money spent strictly on forest management responsibilities. It's an example of where the actual forest renewal plan which was presented varies widely from what we see in the bill under this section. It does talk about growth yields, declining harvests and mitigating the effects of those declining harvests and the loss of employment. It's unfortunate that we can't introduce an amendment that would require that type of accountability.
The opposition has a further amendment.
[Section 10(7), by adding the following: "(c) A report on direct forest and manufacturing jobs lost as a result of environment and land use decisions which reduce the annual allowable harvest on the forest land base, must be tabled annually in the B.C. Legislature."]
The way this plan was sold to the people of the province was on the basis that it would protect jobs and the working forest in the province. We think there should be some sort of annual accounting for the effects of declining annual allowable harvest and declining employment. Again, given the narrow auditing and monitoring parameters of this particular section as it currently stands, it will be impossible to measure those kinds of effects or gauge whether the commitments the government made on forest employment when it announced this particular bill -- which, I might add, are contained in the forest renewal plan -- can in some way be measured or audited by not only the Legislative Assembly but also by the select standing committee. I move that amendment now.
Hon. A. Petter: Point of order. This is clearly beyond the scope of not only this section but the whole act. What the member's asking for is that Forest Renewal B.C. engage in an auditing process of job impacts by decisions that have absolutely nothing to do with the activities of Forest Renewal B.C. -- namely, the activities of land use and other agencies. For that reason I would ask you to rule this amendment out of order.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. Your point is well taken. This amendment is beyond the scope of section 10, which deals with financial administration and not value-for-money audits. The amendment is out of order.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
G. Wilson: With respect to section 10, the minister will know, by way of preference, that the Alliance takes issue with the creation of yet another Crown corporation. We do think that what Forest Renewal B.C. is attempting to accomplish is certainly laudable, and we congratulate the government for taking some steps in that direction. We question the technical system that is put in place with respect to the Crown corporation. Can the minister tell us why it is that under section 10(2) there seems to be such a great deal of control placed in the hands of the Minister of Forests? If the intention is to try building this arm's-length relationship between this Crown corporation and cabinet, and to try putting the business plan and the select standing committee before the legislative process, why is the Minister of Forests so heavily charged here?
Hon. A. Petter: I very much appreciate the question. As I discussed earlier, I think that we're trying to achieve a measure of independence for this partnership agency, but there is obviously a balance that has to be struck -- one that I think the member can appreciate -- between that need for independence and the need for accountability. In our system of government, as the member knows, that accountability must flow to the Legislature on a daily basis through government and ministerial responsibility. In addition to the direct accountability to the legislative committee that we have provided for this agency, it's important that a minister be able to answer in this House for the activities of this agency. I'm sure the member wouldn't want that principle to be sacrificed. For that reason, it's essential that the minister be able to gain access to information on the agency in order to maintain those lines of accountability.
Our parliamentary system is a venerable system, but it's one that at times can impose conflicting demands and requirements upon us as we try to move forward in creative ways. Here we're trying to balance the need for greater independence and partnership with the need to maintain traditional parliamentary accountability -- and with the desire to also provide more direct accountability to the Legislature. This is a balancing act, and I think -- modestly, I may say -- we have done quite a remarkable job in effecting that balance.
G. Wilson: I come back to a valid point that was made by the member for Delta South. It reflects directly on the comment that the minister just made. It has to do with this question of the business plan, the select committee and the annual year-end of this company.
Clearly, from the way that the minister is asserting this thing is going to work, there is going to be a reasonable independence of the board, and the directors are going to have to prepare this business plan, which will be submitted before the Legislative Assembly by the Minister of Forests and then diverted to the select standing committee. Yet it isn't clear to me how that event will occur prior to the commitments of expenditures which will be made necessary through the normal budgetary process that this new Crown corporation will be subjected to. Quite clearly, the select standing committee is a majority committee only. There's no proposition in this Legislative Assembly for minority
[ Page 10929 ]
reports, and therefore there can be no dissenting opinion of any substance or consequence. It is not proposed that this select standing committee will operate like Public Accounts -- which is one of the better committees in this Legislative Assembly -- where, for example, the select standing committee may be chaired by a member of the opposition, which might provide some benefit to this change.
Furthermore, there's nothing to suggest that the select standing committee can be empowered, with respect to the business plan that is being put here, to curtail expenditures prior to their commencement, given that there is going to be some obvious fiscal demands made on April 1 of each year. The vagaries of that process don't give us much comfort, because it sounds like this is going to be a way to pay a lot of lip service -- and give a bit of direction -- through a select standing committee, but still empower the government to work hand in glove with this new Crown corporation.
It may be a laudable situation for this government, and I hear this minister saying that they are committed to this, to that and to something else, but we're creating a Crown corporation here that may be subject to control and direction from other governments of other political stripes that may not have the same ambition and desire as this minister. While this minister may have the right intent and direction, I think it's important we recognize that this process really does little more than act as a deflector from the Minister of Forests, who is quite likely to say, "Send it to the select standing committee," which is really empowered to do nothing except read the report and make a recommendation -- and only a majority recommendation at that.
Hon. A. Petter: I'm aware that it's up to members of the opposition to insist that things never go far enough, but the point to recognize here is that it's true that we have not gone so far as to say that it is now up to the Legislature to administer this program. Government must still administer and, through agencies of this kind, they can do so in a way that involves partnership and independence. We have not gone so far as to say that the Legislature now assumes that role directly. What we have done, I think, is go a remarkable distance in saying that the Legislature is the appropriate forum to scrutinize those expenditures and the business plan and to provide advice in advance of that business plan being implemented.
I know the member is concerned that perhaps those with less good will than this government will impede that from happening, but I hope that won't be the case. One can never provide ironclad guarantees. But I think the combination of processes is a tremendous step forward -- the establishment of a fiscal year in combination with the requirement to table the business plan as soon as practicable, to refer that plan automatically, not through any discretion of the government, to a select standing committee at which opposition members will be able to raise a full range of questions and inquire into the goings-on of this agency, and then to have a report back to the Legislature.
[5:00]
I would suggest to the member that we test that and see how it works. I think it can be made to work in a way that will, hopefully, shine a tremendous light on this agency and that will invite scrutiny of a kind that perhaps has not been previously shown. Because of the nature of this agency, it's altogether appropriate that that happen, and through that very process the precedent that will be established and the appeal of that process will speak much louder than any words in legislation can as to the validity and necessity of governments to adhere to that process in the future.
Excuse me for advocating a common-law type of approach to this, but I think that's how our parliamentary system does work best. These are steps forward, and we should take some satisfaction in that they are meaningful steps and not try to define them unduly. Now let's make them work. Let's tread in those steps and make them work.
G. Wilson: I want to stick on this question of accountability with respect to financial administration. Quite clearly, the minister is misguided in what he's saying, or perhaps is looking at the world through rose-coloured or forest-coloured glasses.
The problem is that when the Legislative Assembly has a statement of assets and liabilities in front of it.... We have seen, through materials that have come to Public Accounts through the auditor general's review of various ministries, what happens when bureaucracies get established and make expenditures, perhaps well-intended ones, that lead us into a series of direct commitments for provincial capital that are not well spent in terms of a direct review of the return one gets for the dollars invested. They may, in fact, fully meet the terms and objectives of that particular ministry. This Crown corporation may fully meet the objective of employment. It might create increased employment. It may very well be able to provide the kind of silviculture production and the other kinds of things that it's intended to, but the cost per person-hour of job created or the cost associated per hectare of land renewed under this process may be well above what might have happened if, for example, we had moved to a land use secretariat model and were able to allow, through regulation, the private sector to engage in exactly the same kind of program -- but not run by a Crown corporation that's likely to have long-term liabilities on the books, which government is going to ultimately be responsible for.
Could the minister tell us if there is any proposition here that would allow the government to put the brakes on this expenditure? When the business plan is sitting there and we're looking at committed liabilities that this Crown corporation has to meet because it has a contractual and legal responsibility to meet them, where is there a proposition for us to make a 90-degree turn? How do we then change the operation if the select standing committee makes a recommendation to do so? That's question number one.
Question number two is: what's to stop our having a parallel system of administration with respect to the Ministry of Forests, which is still going to be empowered with a certain degree of the management of the forest system, and a duplication of the kinds of assessments that may be done through Forest Renewal B.C.? I don't see any proposition here to say that that duplication isn't going to occur, or that when the liabilities are incurred we're not ultimately going to have to carry the cost of them without having any way to try to redirect the way the corporation is running.
Hon. A. Petter: The member raises a number of points. I think it's worth noting that through the legislative and estimates processes that take place in this Legislature, we scrutinize on a regular basis expenditures that are well in excess of these kinds of expenditures. Members have often said that with respect to agencies that are arm's-length from government, one of the liabilities or downsides is that they take away from that scrutiny. What's happening here is that the same opportunity for scrutiny is being secured through this instrument of a legislative committee.
If you think about it, my ministry's budget, for example, or the budgets of other ministries -- such as the budget of
[ Page 10930 ]
the Ministry of Health, which is well in excess of this -- are scrutinized very effectively, I would argue, through the estimates process of this Legislative Assembly. What's provided here is an analogous process to scrutinize the activities of this agency. For members who have on occasion lamented that some agencies are not amenable to such scrutiny, I think this is a step forward. I might say that other agencies are in many cases subject to such scrutiny because the funds are provided by government. But in this case we have provided this particular mechanism to achieve that goal. For that reason, and I think placed in that context, it is a tremendous step forward.
The other issue -- of the many the member raised -- has to do with what controls government can exercise should Forest Renewal B.C. engage in commitments or liabilities that may be detrimental. I would like to say, first of all, that I'm confident that those partners who participate in this agency are as concerned as the member is, if not more so, and certainly are as concerned as this government is, in ensuring that this agency does not incur untoward liabilities and that it does operate in a fiscally sound way. So there will be discipline exercised through that partnership.
There are also instruments.... We could go back to section 4, although it would be out of order for me to do so. But if you were to look back at section 4, you would find the ability of the government to issue directives to the agency to curtail its activities and provide it with direction. So there are checks and balances built into the legislation, some of which we have discussed previously.
G. Wilson: I recognize that the minister answered two of the three questions. I really do believe with all sincerity that he is dreaming in technicolor if he believes that this new Crown corporation is not going to create long-term liability that the taxpayers of British Columbia are ultimately going to be responsible for. If that's the case, I would be the first, in a review some years down the road, to take my hat off to this minister and say, "Well done," because it will be a first in Canada, to my knowledge. I don't know of any other Crown corporation that would be able to operate in such a fiscally sound manner.
The third question, which the minister didn't respond to, is a legitimate question under this section, because it has to do with the whole financial administration of decisions taken with respect to forest renewal. To what extent are the activities paid for and accounted for under the business plan, as set forth in this particular section of the bill, going to remove activities currently paid for and directed by the Ministry of Forests?
If it doesn't remove any of those, then quite clearly it would seem to me that we have a duplicate system of management. The Ministry of Forests currently is engaged in the very same kinds of activities that we would expect to see this corporation engage in -- albeit not as effectively as it might, because of staff restrictions and so on. What assurance does the minister provide us that there is some proposition in this financial administration that says we're not actually going to have duplicate services within the Ministry of Forests?
Hon. A. Petter: I'm mindful of the fact that we may be straying perilously close to some of the broader policy debate that we had on other sections and indeed in second reading in dealing with this. The whole purpose of this agency is to take advantage of the enhanced value represented by our forest resource and to use that enhanced value to create jobs and new opportunities to improve the forest base, in a way that the current regimes of regulation and private investment in this province have not succeeded in achieving. The whole purpose is for these expenditures to be incremental, not to be duplicative in any way. There is, in my view, no unnecessary duplication.
The activities the member refers to, if he's referring to the regulatory activities of the Crown, will continue. These activities go beyond what is required by regulation, to include activities that are consistent with an investment program, not a regulatory program -- an investment program that will entail expenditures beyond those minimal requirements required by regulation. While those minimal requirements may be satisfactory -- and this government is determined to make them satisfactory, to address certain basic issues of environmental protection -- they do not go so far as to ensure the kind of renewal of our forests and forest economy and the creation of value-added jobs envisaged by this initiative.
I hesitate to go further, because we have had a fairly lengthy debate about this particular issue. I simply want to reiterate that the position of this government is that this initiative is to be complementary to the initiatives currently undertaken by the Ministry of Forests and other government agencies but not to be duplicative. Clearly there will be linkage and cooperation. The agency itself will be small. It will draw on the resources of other agencies, both public and private sector. But it is not in any way intended to, nor will it, act in a way that will duplicate or undermine the activities currently undertaken by government.
G. Wilson: Fair enough. With my last question on this section I'll yield. The minister and I are going to disagree on the creation of this Crown corporation. I still believe it to be the wrong way to go; that's another issue. That's been a consistent position of members of the Alliance from the beginning, unlike members of the opposition who find my remarks amusing, and I'm not quite sure why. Our position consistently from the beginning has been that the creation of a Crown corporation is not the right proposition. We voted against it in principle on those grounds -- although we do believe what's intended here is certainly laudable.
Under the select standing committee reference, I would move an amendment, except that I would not be in order in this debate. Given the uniqueness of the select standing committee in terms of this particular Crown corporation and this new responsibility that such a select standing committee would be given, would the minister agree that it would be worthwhile for that select standing committee to have two other features: first, that it would sit all year round, not only when this Legislature is in session; and secondly, that it be chaired by a member from the opposition parties?
Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the fact that the member's philosophical opposition to the creation of a Crown corporation has not prevented him from urging that that Crown corporation be located in his constituency. That remarkable degree of flexibility is recognized by myself and probably by others in the House.
Perhaps the member wasn't privy to it, but we had an extensive discussion earlier with respect to the other issues regarding the operation of the select standing committee. I indicated at that time that the purpose of reviewing the business plan is to engage in a prospective review that one would hope could be done in a fairly expeditious way so as to have a real influence on the activities of the agency. However, I also said that philosophically I have no opposition to the notion -- if the select standing committee
[ Page 10931 ]
wished to, and the House agreed -- that it sit for a longer period of time and scrutinize expenditures over time. The matter of chairing that committee is beyond the purview of this bill and is a matter for this House to resolve.
The idea here is to provide a real opportunity for all members of the Legislature -- through the institution of this Legislature, not of this bill -- to scrutinize the activities through the business plan. If it's deemed by the Legislature that that's best done over a longer compass of time or through a different committee structure, then I have no difficulty with that suggestion.
G. Wilson: That was going to be my last comment, except for the shot that the minister took. Let me only say that one does not necessarily want a boil, either, but if you have a choice as to what part of the anatomy it will appear on, one should take the opportunity to make that case.
The Chair: One is tempted to say that that lowered the level, but I won't, member.
F. Gingell: I would like to take us back to the subject that we were discussing when all of a sudden we went off. We were dealing with the issue of the proposed amendment. I would like to suggest to the minister that there are some very clear intentions with this bill. They are clearly stated in the bill's title: BC Forest Renewal Act. I would like to suggest to you that another word that describes it is "restoration." This bill deals with things that we thoroughly support: the restoration of the forests. As you well know, we keep saying it, but you like to stand up and make these little grandstands.
[5:15]
We believe in the restoration of the environment, and we believe in the restoration of the economy. We just don't think that you're going about it in the right fashion; there are better ways of doing this. Both of these amendments deal with the issues of what is in the report, deal with the important things, the things that matter. The fact that....
The Chair: Member, I'm dreadfully sorry to interrupt, but I'm struggling a little bit. We have defeated an amendment, and at the moment there is no amendment on the floor; at least it was ruled out of order. As you know, member, that ruling is not debatable. I would caution you to please show me where we are that is in order in the discussion of this bill.
F. Gingell: Mr. Chairman, I would in no way dream of questioning your ruling in any way, but I am dealing with the issue of accountability. I am trying to say that accountability only works if we try to measure the right things. I suggest to you that the right thing to measure at this point isn't the amount of money that is spent; the right thing to measure is what you've accomplished. That's what this bill is all about. It talks about restoring and renewing the forest, restoring and renewing the environment, and restoring and renewing the economy.
The Chair: Hon. member, I'm sorry, would you take your seat for a moment. I'm going to explain why I think we are out of order.
We are on section 10 of the bill, on financial administration. Discussions about what ought to be in the bill and what ought to be considered properly belong to the discussion on second reading, namely, the principle of the bill. Section 10 is very clearly about financial administration; it is about nothing other than financial administration. Your comments must be germane to that subject heading. Given that caution, I'd ask the member to proceed.
F. Gingell: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I'd like to draw your attention to subsection (5)(c), which deals with "other information that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may specify." I'd like to, if I may, draw your attention to subsection (6). A business plan is not something that necessarily deals with dollars; it deals with what you're trying to accomplish. A business plan is meaningless unless it clearly sets out your goals and your criteria.
This particular discussion that we were on earlier -- and we're now coming back to -- is one in which I'm trying to suggest to the minister that we should talk about some of those things under subparagraph (5)(c) and subsection (6). Without measuring those things, we have no way of determining whether the work that's being done by this new Crown corporation is in fact renewing the forest, the environment and the economy.
Just because some of the things that may happen that affect the number of jobs, for instance, are not within the control of this ministry, it is still important information for the public to have. Of course, if it deals with the issues of how many jobs were gained by this and how many jobs were lost because of conversion of forest land to parkland or other set-asides, it would clearly allow this Crown corporation to be more accountable and would produce much more useful statistics for the people of B.C. to recognize the things that are being accomplished with these resources.
The Chair: I'm going to allow the minister to respond -- with some hesitation, because, as I suggest, we are perilously close to being quite out of order.
Hon. A. Petter: Let me stay, hopefully not too perilously, just on the side of the line.
While we're talking about being perilous, it strikes me from the introductory comments that the Liberal opposition is like that perilous acrobat, balancing what they say with what they do. What they say is that they support the principles of this bill, and what they do is that they vote against the bill in principle. So I understand that the opposition is in a very perilous position generally on this bill, and I'll try to be sensitive to that fact so they don't become even more perilous on this section.
I don't disagree with the member at all that in reviewing the business plan of the agency, the standing committee will want to make sure that the proposed expenditures are effective in achieving the purposes that are set out: namely, creating jobs, making investments that will enhance the forest resource and putting dollars into environmental restoration. I think that's altogether appropriate. I believe that the business plan will invite that kind of criticism and inquiry, and I anticipate that that kind of criticism and inquiry will take place on the part of the select standing committee.
I must say, however, that that is very different from the amendment that was quite correctly ruled out of order by the Chair, which was to provide audited advice on consequences that are not the product of the agency but of decisions made by other agencies. That may provide useful background information to a business plan, but they are not the responsibility of this agency. So in terms of evaluating the value of investments and the value and advisability of programs, there is no disagreement from me. That is exactly what will and should occur.
In terms of trying to use that as a pretext to have this agency do value-for-money audits on other activities of government for some political posturing or other purpose that the members may have, that is wholly inappropriate and
[ Page 10932 ]
does get on the wrong side of that perilous line that the Chair has drawn.
W. Hurd: Certainly the opposition has been in considerable peril reading the forest renewal plan document, which contains a lot of information that is more than offset by the scant information in the bill. The forest renewal plan document refers to the forest renewal plan. Can the minister tell us, under subsection (6), whether the business plan is the same as the forest renewal plan?
Hon. A. Petter: No, the business plan is not the same as the forest renewal plan. The forest renewal plan is the plan that this government, in partnership with others, has brought forward to renew our forests. It is the plan that has given rise to this legislation. Each business plan will be a component of that overall plan, but they are not the same as the plan.
W. Hurd: I'm sure that answer makes sense to some members of this assembly; it makes no sense to me.
The minister indicated in the forest renewal plan document that half the investments will go to specific things. They'll go towards improving reforestation and the tending of forests and increasing the lands available for planting new trees, and they will go into silviculture research and development. Can the minister assure us, when the business plan and the record of expenditures are presented, that half of the total annual expenditures will go towards those initiatives? We have no such guarantee under the legislation that's before us. All we have is the vague promises of the government in this document. And all we have during the course of this debate is assurances from the minister that the so-called commitments made in this document will in some way be reflected in the business plan that is presented annually to the Select Standing Committee on Forests. Given the fact that we have this apparent wide gap between what is contained in this plan and what is contained in the bill, can the minister at least give us the assurance that the commitments made in the plan will be reflected in the business plan that is submitted to the select standing committee?
Hon. A. Petter: We had this discussion at an earlier stage of the bill. I'm at a loss to remember which section it was exactly, but we had a very extensive discussion about the fact that the government had indicated, through its announcement of the plan in cooperation with the partners who helped to produce it, that it was our immediate intention that the proportions of investment be as indicated. We also wanted to ensure that under the legislation there was flexibility over time, because conditions will change. The immediate needs -- environmental restoration, for example -- will become satisfied over time, hopefully, and will no longer be there. There is going to be a need to accommodate change as well, but it's certainly the intention that in the initial years, the business plan will reflect, in general, those proportions of investment. That is the answer I gave previously when this member, I think it was, raised this very point.
I know the member is groping to raise points. Given his philosophical opposition to the bill, he is continuing to pick away. I would really appreciate it if he would try to pick away at some new pieces that he hasn't already picked at and had satisfactory answers to previously in the debate.
W. Hurd: Certainly this section talks about auditing and monitoring the activities of Forest Renewal B.C., and I think that the member for Delta South was correct when he pointed out that a business plan, by comparison, is almost a statement of philosophy as much as it is a financial document.
With respect to Forest Renewal B.C., the accompanying document points out that increases in silviculture investments have been made in recent years, but more is required if we are to offset the projected decline in harvest and job levels. My question with respect to section 10(6), then, is: does the minister anticipate that the business plan will in fact contain these projected declines in harvest and job levels, or is this just something that appears for the purpose of publicity in the plan but will not be reflected in the annual business plan presented to the select standing committee?
Hon. A. Petter: The business plan will speak to the activities of the agency, which are to enhance the environmental values of the forest, to enhance the productivity of forest lands and to enhance employment in the forest sector through those investments and through enhanced value-added opportunities. That's what the business plan will speak to. In doing so, it may well satisfy other goals articulated by government. That is all to the good. I'm confident that it will do so, but the business plan will speak to the activities of Forest Renewal B.C.
Hon. Chair, to explain why I will not continue to answer this line of questioning, I want to simply say that in this section of the bill we are debating the elements that allow for scrutiny of the business plan, not the substance of the business plan. We debated the substance of the agency and its mandate in earlier sections. That will form the substance of the business plan. What we're now talking about are opportunities that will exist and how to maximize those opportunities for financial accountability and scrutiny of the business plan and the agency in the various ways provided. I'd really remind the member, and ask the Chair to remind the member, that that's what this section is about. We had an opportunity at an earlier stage -- and the member took full advantage of it -- to debate the functions of the agency that will be reflected in the business plan.
The Chair: The minister's point is well taken.
W. Hurd: I appreciate the advice of the minister on this, but the only accountability that exists in the bill is really in section 10. It's the only opportunity there is to scrutinize the activities of this particular Crown corporation on an annual basis. What I hear the minister saying is that the commitments made in the forest renewal plan document, on which I suspect many people based their support for the bill, will not be audited and monitored in any way. In fact, under section 10, we'll only be scrutinizing the financial commitments "in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles," which is the only statement of financial accountability in the entire bill. It's unfortunate, because clearly a major series of commitments were made by this government in this document, and there is no way that that performance can be properly audited and monitored under section 10. That is the point that has to be raised. It's the reason that the opposition has moved a series of amendments to this bill.
[5:30]
I have one additional amendment to move under this particular section which stands in my name on the order paper.
[Section 10(7), by adding the following: "(d) A report on any new direct jobs created by Forest Renewal B.C. in
[ Page 10933 ]
silviculture, and the costs of maintaining those jobs, must be tabled annually in the B.C. Legislature."]
This speaks to the concerns raised by the silvicultural industry that in fact they will see their employment replaced with subsidized employment due to jobs lost by the International Woodworkers of America. In fact, we could end up in a situation where we'd be spending far more to sustain silvicultural jobs under Forest Renewal B.C. than would private industry. I would move that amendment standing in my name.
The Chair: I thank the member for his amendment. I must remind him that it is out of order for precisely the same reasons adduced and enunciated regarding the earlier amendment, subparagraph (c).
May I also take this opportunity to suggest to members that they might want to review standing order 84 and the explanatory notes provided by Mr. MacMinn on page 132 of MacMinn's Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia. They might also like to review Beauchesne, sixth edition, citations 698 and 699. I'm sure if members did so, we would discover we had less struggle with amendments that are called into question in terms of whether they are in order.
W. Hurd: I think it's important, nevertheless, to move amendments, even if they are ruled out of order, because it clearly speaks to the gaps in this accountability section of the bill. As I pointed out in my earlier remarks, this is the only section in which we can scrutinize the ongoing activities of this particular Crown corporation. So it's important in reviewing these 11 different so-called subsections dealing with accountability.
We have no way of measuring the annual reforestation responsibilities. We have no way of looking at growth yield, or what those investments will yield in the form of timber supply in the years ahead. We have no way of assessing the impact of these investments on the annual allowable harvest. We have no way of determining under this section what jobs might be created or lost. That may be accountability under the terms of this act, but it really doesn't speak too well about the long-term commitments and how difficult it's going to be for the select standing committee to make any realistic assessments of how this Crown agency is performing. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is.
I would hope that the minister would realize that this section, which does deal with accountability, is deficient. It could use a lot more work. Section 10(5)(c), as the member for Delta South correctly pointed out, affords the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council with the opportunity to convey any additional information with respect to the business plan to the select standing committee. He should use that opportunity along with the commitment from the Minister of Employment and Investment for a value-for-money audit to be done on the activities of this Crown corporation. As meagre as that may be, it will at least be marginally sufficient in terms of assessing this second level of performance, which goes beyond a set of financial statements.
Hon. A. Petter: The member is as wrong about this matter as he and his party were wrong to vote against this bill in principle and indicate their opposition to this program to renew B.C.'s forests and enhance investment. I've already indicated in answers to previous questions that the select standing committee will be able to scrutinize the investment program from all the points of view that concern whether those investments are well-founded. The work of the select standing committee will, I'm sure, help to inform the agency as to what should be included in the business plan and what additional information should be provided. I gave the further assurance to the member for Delta South that I and this government would look attentively to the report and the advice of the select standing committee as to what requirements might be provided, if necessary, through section 10(5)(c). So all of those points have been addressed. There is more than ample opportunity for scrutiny.
This is, as the member well knows, a tremendous step forward not only for this province but for this Legislature. For this member to try to belittle that step forward and to hide, to his shame, his and his party's philosophical opposition to getting on with the job of renewing our forests, creating jobs and moving forward to a healthier and stronger province and economy in the future is, in my view, shameful and regrettable.
W. Hurd: Again referring to section 10, which is the only section of accountability, it's very unfortunate that the government has chosen an almost bait-and-switch approach to dealing with accountability. They have published the forest renewal plan, which contains lofty statements of accountability, charts which will not be available to the select standing committee on growth-yields, identifying cubic metres, jobs lost and a whole range of ambitious initiatives, none of which will be audited or be capable of being audited and measured under section 10 of this bill. I can discern no possible way that those reports could be commissioned by the select standing committee. There is no possible way of measuring whether a dollar invested on the land base here will result in a projected harvest there.
Interjection.
W. Hurd: Through his catcalls across the House the minister assures me that the opposition is wrong on that assessment. I hope I am.
Any government that would produce a document like this and then bring in a bill like this.... The bill is a fraction of the size of the index of this document. Any government that would do that is clearly not interested in accountability under section 10. All we have at this point is a vague promise from the Minister of Employment and Investment, before he vacated the House, that a value-for-money audit will be conducted annually. Rest assured that the opposition will be underlining that comment by the minister and proceeding with it at such time as the assembly does get a chance to deal with this business plan, which we find is shrinking as the debate continues.
Section 10 approved.
On section 11.
W. Hurd: I have a few questions with respect to section 11. One issue that was raised by my colleague for Delta South is the potential borrowing capacity of the Crown corporation. One assumes that it will be dealing strictly with money advanced from the consolidated revenue fund on an annual basis and it will not have the ability to incur liabilities during any fiscal year or over a longer period of time than the five-year projection of revenue for the establishment of this Crown corporation.
Hon. A. Petter: I indicated previously that this agency is not intended to be one that incurs liabilities. It's an agency that is to engage in investment strategy, drawing upon the
[ Page 10934 ]
funds provided to it through the incremental stumpage, and the agency is to have a program of expenditures that will ensure that those expenditures are sustainable and do achieve the desired results over both upturns and downturns in the cycle.
Having said that, I move the amendment to section 11 standing in my name on the order paper.
[Section 11, in the proposed subsection (3) by deleting "but before May 31, 1994".]
On the amendment.
Hon. A. Petter: The amendment clarifies the original intent of the government that the revenues flowing to Forest Renewal B.C. be price-sensitive. When prices are high, revenues may well exceed expenditures; and conversely, when prices are low, revenues may drop to near zero. The intent is to manage the revenue and expenditure flows so there is a level of investment that can be sustained over a full price cycle -- as I just indicated to the member. However, in trying to define "incremental," the current wording may have inadvertently fixed prices at current levels for the purpose of the estimate of agency revenues. This is because price changes are built into rates of royalty or stumpage.
The amendment therefore will allow the revenue flows to the agency to rise and fall with the price, as was intended. In other words, the stumpage and royalty rates are sensitive to price; they will fluctuate up and down. The intention is for those fluctuating rates, and the difference between those fluctuating rates and the previous rates, to govern the revenue flow to the agency. The current wording might not have achieved that result; the amendment does.
G. Wilson: This is an important amendment and one we can support -- not that we like the proposition as a whole, but at least you can try to change it a bit. The minister must have had some kind of projections done on this. Some kind of modelling must have been done that would give some indication with respect to past years' revenue and the cyclical nature of the industry. Could the minister tell us what cost is likely to be associated with this with respect to a projected downturn that may result for one or two years? Is it going to create a differential in cost to the government in this program, as opposed to what's being suggested in the balance of section 11 with respect to the 20 percent?
Hon. A. Petter: Yes. I'm trying to make sure that I ascertain the member's meaning. I'll take my best shot at it. The stumpage formula, which is not part of this bill -- but this bill refers to it and to the adjustment -- was calculated, based on a number of assumptions, to produce, over an up-and-down cycle, what we estimate will be an average stumpage revenue net to the agency of about $380 million a year. That will fluctuate; it's impossible to predict in a given year, but the intention is that the agency will not dip into any other funds, such as general revenue, or borrow in order to satisfy that. Rather, the agency's obligation is to structure a program of payments that will ensure that it has surpluses to draw down upon during downward periods.
The agency will be assisted in that regard, because the first year will be start-up year, where it is anticipated that the agency will not have a full program of expenditure in place. It will be able to achieve some reserves that will enable it to structure a program that will be sustainable over the course of time. The overall projections, based on our best estimate of average prices, are that the funds into the agency will be somewhat less than $400 million per year, that the way the agency is funded will allow it to build up reserves and, as a result, that the agency will never be in a position where its funding will drop below what it has in reserves, even during downturns, so that it can maintain a steady and consistent flow of revenues.
G. Wilson: Does that refer strictly to stumpage, or does it also include Crown-established royalties?
Hon. A. Petter: The answer is that there has been an increase in both stumpage and royalty rates, and both of those are referenced and flow through to this agency.
F. Gingell: Do I understand the circumstance to be that the government has in effect said that the amount of royalties and stumpage we receive now, at this level, will continue to flow to the general revenue fund; we're going to take the next $500 million above the current status and give 80 percent of that to Forest Renewal B.C. and 20 percent will go into general revenue; and if there is any additional amount over that $500 million -- because lumber prices and fibre values continue to go up -- that would then flow into general revenue?
[5:45]
Hon. A. Petter: Let me try to describe the situation as best I can. What the government intends to do through this section is not what the member described. Through this section, we have said that an increase in stumpage and royalties has occurred as of May 1. It is our estimate that on an average basis that increase will produce a gross amount of something less than $600 million. During a high part of the cycle, it will be higher; during a lower part of the cycle, it will be lower. So no fixed amount is earmarked; that is simply an estimate.
In addition, through this section, we have said -- and I don't want to stray too far from the amendment, but I think it is relevant -- that a component of that will go back into general revenue in order to offset the loss to general revenue of a reduction in the corporate income tax as a result of the fact that companies will be able to deduct the increased stumpage. And an additional $50 million will flow to general revenue to cover incremental expenditures that this government has committed to expending on forest-related matters through other initiatives represented in the budget. Beyond that, any additional gain as a result of that stumpage increase will flow into Forest Renewal B.C. and will provide Forest Renewal B.C. with additional sources of revenue, recognizing that that revenue stream may diminish when the cycle is low. At the present time we are aided by the fact that prices are probably higher in the cycle; therefore Forest Renewal B.C. will be able to accumulate funds. As I mentioned in my previous answer, we are also aided by the fact that this will be a start-up period and Forest Renewal B.C. can accumulate funds for that reason.
The intention is that the funding will go up and down to Forest Renewal B.C., subject only to the two deductions that I have mentioned: one to offset corporate income tax calculated on a percentage basis, and one to make possible some additional investments that are represented in the budget of my ministry and some other ministry budgets dedicated to additional forest investments that it was agreed should be funded out of the stumpage and royalty increase.
F. Gingell: I appreciate the issue of the 20 percent, which is roughly equal to the provincial share of the changes in corporate taxes. Of course, the provincial government won't be getting those corporate tax revenues if there are losses
[ Page 10935 ]
carried forward. In effect, you will be helping the general revenue in picking up those so-called corporate tax revenues earlier than you may have otherwise done.
Is there any question in the mind of minister that the federal government will allow these additional stumpage and royalty rates as deductions for the purposes of calculating federal corporate income tax?
Hon. A. Petter: The practice of the federal government is to allow such deductions. It is generally recognized that there is an increase in the value of the resource and that this government, as representative of the public and the owner of the resource, is capturing what industry agrees is a reasonable additional increment because of that increase in value. It would be punitive if the federal government were to change its policy for some reason, given that all that this government has done through this initiative is capture a public value for a public purpose, which is the purpose of the stumpage and royalty system.
So I would urge the member opposite, who has much closer connections to the federal government than I, to ensure that his friends in the Liberal Party in Ottawa don't stick it to this province yet again through the kind of suggestion that seems to have come to his mind. I certainly hope that isn't the case. It has been the federal government's policy that where the Crown collects a reasonable return, as this government is doing on behalf of the Crown in this program, that is a deductible expense. For that reason, I would urge the member to exercise his influence, through his party, to his friends in Ottawa to ensure that they don't take any further punitive action against British Columbia.
The member is quite right in identifying this issue. The fact is that the cost to industry is not $600 million, nor is it $600 million less the provincial corporate income tax; it is probably $600 million less the provincial corporate income tax of $120 million -- and these are very rough numbers -- less a federal corporate income tax of about $150 million. That brings the actual cost to industry to within the range of $300 million. That's altogether reasonable, because the value of the resource has increased, and therefore that value should flow to the people of British Columbia through the royalty and stumpage system.
I certainly hope the member isn't suggesting that the federal government should use this as an opportunity to pick on the people of British Columbia again, because this government will fight it tooth and nail, no matter what that party and his friends in Ottawa may say.
The Chair: May I just remind all members on both sides that we are dealing with the amendment, which amounts to the deletion of some six words.
F. Gingell: Well, well, well. What an exhibition by a minister who has a lot more influence in representing the interests of British Columbians than I do, I'm sure. I do point out that all of us should be very sensible and not take cheap political shots, like the minister continually does. I mean, he acts like a child on occasions -- a naughty boy.
Let's recognize that when we believed that crude oil prices were going to continue to go through the roof, great exercises went on between the Alberta government and the federal government as to means of trying to track these revenues. Let's be sure that we don't get shortchanged by Ottawa. I would just caution you that it's good to get these things sorted out.
That does bring me to the other subject that I wanted to deal with in the issues of section 11. Perhaps it is more appropriate after the amendment has been dealt with, although maybe it isn't. In the mid-1970s we all believed that the price of crude oil would continue to go up. I remember seeing federal and Alberta government projections that talked of $70 a barrel. Now we're at $17 a barrel. Those $70-a-barrel numbers were not inflation-adjusted, so perhaps we're really talking about $7 -- and what can go up can come down.
Section 11 deals with the manner in which this terribly important program is going to be funded. Has the minister given thought to what alternative funding may be appropriate if fibre prices don't make this feasible?
Hon. A. Petter: The member makes an excellent point. Obviously, predicting future prices is an exercise that one must be very cautious and prudent about. I believe that there is good reason to believe -- and certainly I think most analysts agree -- that because of market conditions, these new prices are here to stay. That's doesn't mean there won't be up-and-down cycles. There will, but there is a new structure.
The point that the member makes, however, is a valid one. I must say that the stumpage and royalty structure that has been put in place recognizes that if prices start to drop, it means the funds will not be available for this agency. The answer to the member's question is no, additional sources of funding have not been identified. The whole philosophy behind this initiative is that the value of the resource should go back to be reinvested in the resource. Our shared assumption is that the value will be there. But nothing in this world is certain. We will have to monitor it closely to ensure that that is the case. If not, obviously adjustments would have to be made.
With some attention to the clock, perhaps it would be an appropriate time to move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
J. Dalton: May I have leave to introduce a guest?
Leave granted.
J. Dalton: It's unfortunate that this guest arrived a little late for debate on the Forest Renewal Act, because he happens to be my brother. He is in the forest industry, and I know that he is passionately interested in this topic. I would ask the House to welcome my brother, John, to the precinct.
Hon. A. Petter moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.
[ Page 10936 ]
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 2:59 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SPORTS AND COMMONWEALTH GAMES
(continued)
On vote 39: minister's office, $350,717 (continued).
K. Jones: It's nice to be back in the estimates process and maybe get them out of our way. I think we'd both be happy to be free to take care of all the other things on our plate.
[3:00]
We'll start where we stopped a week ago, which was in one of your favourite areas: sports. Could the minister indicate to us why it was decided to separate sports and recreation?
Hon. R. Blencoe: It was a decision by the Premier that recreation planning, particularly at the municipal level, could be well served for a time by having a minister responsible for recreation. It also brings to the table two ministers with two budgets and two perspectives for maximizing sport and recreation opportunities, and it allows greater focus, I think, on some of the issues that the recreation community wishes to address.
K. Jones: It makes good sense to have two ministers and two budgets. Does the minister indicate by that that he has increased the amount of funds for sports compared to what it was last year? And since he was Minister of Recreation last year, has there been an increase to this year's recreation budget as a result of having two budgets and two ministers?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I couldn't, and obviously wouldn't want to, answer for my good colleague the minister responsible for recreation.
K. Jones: Why not? She's already had her estimates.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't know about her budget. In terms of the sport budget, if you want to get into details of numbers, we can do that. This budget is very much affected by the Commonwealth Games reduction grant and also by the Kamloops Games reduction grant. When you actually compare apples to apples, in terms of what we fund this year and what we funded last year, and you take out the grant reductions that were applied because those programs have come to an end -- particularly those multisport games -- I think we're virtually at 100 percent of last year in terms of sport funding. I know the sport community is extremely pleased with that, because they expect some cuts every year because of the tight constraints and the difficulties we face. So we have managed to maintain our sport programming and our contributions.
As a matter of fact, the budgets of two provincial sport organizations have gone up in excess of $100,000 because of grants. Two years in a row we have managed to increase our contributions to the provincial sport organizations which, as you know, are the heart and soul of sports in British Columbia. We are doing well in terms of sport funding. Obviously we could always do with more, and we still need to pay attention to some areas. Like my 17 colleagues in cabinet, I do my best at budget time to advocate at the table for funding. That's the process; you know how it works.
K. Jones: Could you explain how the additional provincial sport organization funding has been allocated? I get the impression from the sport organizations that they don't feel that they really got any increase. Could you give us details on how that was getting to them, aside from buildings?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The staff may want to get me the actual breakdown of the various PSOs. The member may not have been briefed on this by staff, but last year I introduced what was called the Discovery program. When I took over as Sports minister, it came to my attention very quickly that there was no system, process or plan for allocating resources to the provincial sport organizations. The system was really one where if you lobbied and advocated hard, or if your budget was at a certain level, somehow or other you would have it increased by 3 or 4 percent. There was no real analysis of what the sport organizations were delivering to the people of British Columbia.
In consultation with the provincial sport organizations, we introduced the Discovery program and have detailed parameters that have to be met. Last year in particular, all sport organizations went through an intensive interview system whereby they had to meet certain criteria: the number of participants in the sport; what was being done at the community level; their coaching track record; and one major factor, what they were doing to raise funds for themselves. Some provincial sport organizations are extremely good at raising money; they are not always relying on government resources.
We did a systematic review and put in place a fair and objective system that applied to all provincial sport organizations. We did extensive interviewing and reviewing. They all knew what was coming. My understanding is that Sport B.C. is extremely pleased. This year and last some provincial sport organizations had reductions based on an objective analysis of what they were delivering and not delivering. They knew where they had to make up, as well as where the problems were.
The majority of sport organizations were given increases. Even those who got reductions, when asked about what we've done, say that at long last we have a system that's fair. It's not through the back door, who you know or how, that you get your grant. It's objective and administered by good staff who know the system.
I meet regularly with Sport B.C. While we recognize that refinements need to be made, in general there is consensus that the process we have established is acceptable.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us which organizations did not get increases this year?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't think I have the total breakdown of the provincial sport organizations here. We'll have to get that for you. I can provide you with the list of all 70-plus PSOs and their allocations for this year and last, together with the increases and the reductions.
K. Jones: Thanks to the minister for offering to provide this information. That'll be within a few days?
[ Page 10937 ]
Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, I'll get it to you as soon as I can.
K. Jones: What programs have been put in place that will help the various sports agencies to move toward a more gender-equitable operation? Has the minister taken any lead role in gender equity?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, we have taken exceptional leadership in this area. We have an equity-in-gender policy in place, and all sport organizations.... As a matter of fact, part of the Discovery program was that they had to meet certain criteria for gender equity and opportunities for women and young girls in sport.
When I first came to this division, we gave about $77,000 in funding to Promotion Plus. It is run by Bobbie Steen, a highly respected woman in sport, and it is an organization totally dedicated to promoting equity in sport. I've upped their budget to $100,000 a year so that they can really advocate for women and young girls in sport. So we have a very active program, and all staff are well versed and know of the policy.
There are challenges. There are traditional sports out there where change is a little harder to come by than in others. We are pursuing it, and I believe we're having great success. The document and the detail.... I don't know if we have the actual gender policy paper here, but I'm quite prepared to supply you with information on that. I also recommend you talk to Bobbie Steen at Promotion Plus, who works with us virtually on a daily basis.
K. Jones: I have talked with Bobbie Steen and am very impressed with the work both she and her husband have done in the world of sports in British Columbia. They've done a tremendous job all around.
I'd like to ask the minister if he could define what he means by "gender equity in sports."
Hon. R. Blencoe: How long do we have? Let me just give you my perspective on it. My staff may want to send me a note or two in terms of some of the technical issues.
Not unlike the member, when I was a young person I was extremely active in sport. I went to a school where, unbeknownst to me, the boys did most of the sports, were given most of the choices, were given most of the opportunities and, quite frankly, most of the praise. The team sports were predominantly male. There were certain sports that girls could play, but there were low expectations.
I think we're saying that, like all other walks of life, there is little or nothing that women can't do and that they should have equal access to all sports. They should have equal access to funding organizations, to coaching opportunities, to achieving excellence and to opportunities from the sandlot to the Olympic podium. That is our objective, and that's what we're pursuing. We've had some successes, but there is still some way to go. It's basically a policy of ensuring, encouraging and promoting equal opportunities to participate in sports.
Many times, hon. member.... I don't know if you're aware, but I see it all the time. I have three boys who are very active in sports, so I not only watch them, but I also visit many venues for sports. I still see in many sports a tendency for the boys to be out there doing it. The girls, in some respects, will sit out certain things. There are some attitudes that still have to change. The bottom line is equality and equal opportunity. Quite frankly, I think we've seen the results of that in the Silken Laumanns, who have come to impress us and make us all very proud. We can do a lot more.
I don't know if the member is aware that I brought Silken Laumann to be the Sport Ambassador for Youth. Of course, one of the things she talks about is equity and gender issues. She's very persuasive and has talked to me about it a number of times. She's doing a good job, particularly in the schools, of being a role model in the areas that we think are important.
K. Jones: In the area of gender equity, does the minister have a definite vehicle to bring about the changes? What sort of direct action is being taken, and in which particular sport is it being taken? Is it gender equity on the female side only or is it also on the male side? There are two sides to this: there are sports that are totally women-oriented and sports that are almost totally male-oriented.
Hon. R. Blencoe: The major mechanisms for us in terms of organizations.... I just mentioned Promotion Plus. Of course, we are funding organizations devoted to opportunities for the disabled as well, but we have our own policies in place, as I already mentioned.
The evidence is still there that participation rates for boys and men are substantially higher than for girls and women. However, I don't want to give the impression that all our efforts are concentrating on ensuring that women and girls have greater opportunities and equal access. The overall objective is to ensure that every British Columbian -- young, old, men, women, aboriginal, disabled -- has opportunities to participate at whatever level they wish to participate, whether it's at the recreational level, at the semi-professional level or all the way to the Olympic podium. We believe that sport is inherently good for self-esteem and social values. It's also an incredible motivator for health reasons.
[3:15]
All the evidence is there; I make the case to my colleague the Minister of Health over and over that the best prevention system in the province is our sport and recreation system. We need to utilize it in a more effective way. We're starting to do that, but there are still lots of things to do. I've covered a number of areas, and I don't want to give the perception that it's all or nothing. Generally, our bottom line and our major mandate is to improve the access and participation of all British Columbians. We're doing that, and we're going to have new ways of doing so in the future.
K. Jones: Could the minister define what the government is expecting to get for the $100,000 that's been given to Promotion Plus? You mentioned it but didn't describe what role it was playing, how it was supposed to achieve its mandate or how you are measuring value for money.
Hon. R. Blencoe: First, Bobbie Steen has achieved an international reputation for her approaches to education and learning, and for showing how to remove systemic barriers for women and girls in sport. One of her key objectives -- which she does extremely effectively, as does her whole organization -- is to work with provincial sport organizations to show them that often, unbeknownst to them, there are barriers. I can't think of an example off the top of my head, but many organizations think, "Oh, we're totally open" and then take a look at what they're doing on a daily basis and find that there may very well be considerable barriers to access and to opportunities.
Promotion Plus is also very proactive in getting more women into coaching and coaching education programs. I don't think it's a secret that if you can have women doing the
[ Page 10938 ]
educating in sports, that encourages other girls and women to stay in sport and participate. Promotion Plus meets those two particular objectives extremely well, and we support them in those endeavours.
K. Jones: To go back to my first question, how do you measure the effectiveness of the programs? What method of accountability do you have in place with regard to this particular program? You might also answer the question with regard to effectiveness and accountability in terms of general sports organization funding.
Hon. R. Blencoe: In terms of accountability, we have a staff person with us today, sitting in the gallery: Mr. Chris Cowland, an accountant, is responsible for analyzing budgets, making recommendations and making sure we're getting value for money. He's heavily involved in the Discovery program, analyzes the financial information and is an important component in the issue you're talking about; it's a position that's reasonably new to the division. As we do more, we are ensuring rightly that there is full accountability of taxpayers' money.
One of the reasons we introduced the Discovery program and greater financial accountability for the figures of PSOs is to give greater assurance to those who are paying the bill -- the taxpayers -- that they are getting good value for money.
As for the accountability of Promotion Plus, I think the proof is the numbers. You see more and more women participating and more women coaches in the system. There is greater achievement by women in sport, which is demonstrated by their attendance at conferences and by their leadership. Women are taking positions of importance in the sporting community at all levels. The co-chair of the minister's advisory council is Janna Taylor, who is head of parks and recreation in Port Coquitlam. You can see the effects of the efforts of people like Bobbie Steen and others.
Sometimes it's hard to measure. I suppose we could add up how many more women and girls are participating. I don't know if we've got those numbers, but I think there is a general sense of increase. Obviously we have deliverables. There's a contract with Promotion Plus and they lay out what they're going to do for us. I gave you the two main areas in particular that are a challenge to examine: the coaching community and the PSOs. Generally success is measured by who is coming through the system and who is achieving coaching and leadership positions.
K. Jones: I think the minister is fully aware of the very strong underrepresentation of women in the technical areas of decision-making and high-level coaching positions. I think that's a very serious problem, and I don't see it being changed very quickly with the programs you've set up. At the present time, there doesn't seem to be anything from the ministry in the promotion of sports that puts an emphasis on equal opportunities for all genders. There isn't a gearing-up of training programs or encouragement of executives to bring women into their senior management levels and onto their administrative boards. There doesn't appear to be nearly adequate representation in these organizations of women or of persons who are disabled or who have ethnic or aboriginal backgrounds.
Do you have a program this year to make a change and a major bootstrapping of this situation to bring that equalization? It may not be equal at this point. We realize that it may take a bit of time to do it, but there should be some very positive steps being taken in your mandate to correct this situation.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I disagree with the member. We're not talking about just one year; we're talking about a multitude of years in terms of a shift in attitudes, which I think we're having an impact on. I can assure you that through the funding process we take a look at their policies in terms of women and girls in sports and in coaching programs. The weighting system or point system that is applied in terms to these issues is quite substantial.
On the other hand, I must admit that there are times when I get impatient with many of these issues. Real, effective change has to come because the organizations themselves believe it's inherently right and it's a good thing to do. That's what Promotion Plus believes in: it doesn't take 2-by-4s to people; it convinces them that there are things that can be done and that it's inherently right for women and girls to have greater opportunities and greater access. In the results in the years ahead, we'll see that this approach is.... Well, it is having an impact already. Sometimes these things are very hard to measure, but I can assure you that it's a very high priority for this ministry. We will be, and are, putting in specific measurable outputs that PSOs will have to demonstrate in order to receive grants. They know it; it's there. If they don't perform, they will see the results.
K. Jones: Mr. Minister, you call creating results putting out $100,000 of a $39,000 community programs budget and a total budget of $84 million. That seems like a pittance for what you claim is a very important area. You've stated one program. Is the ministry doing anything else?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Through everything we do in all our workings with sport organizations, we pursue the objectives of equality and gender equity in sport. It's very much on our minds. These kinds of issues aren't always resolved by money. It takes policies in place to convince those in charge that they have to shift.
In terms of the various games we pursue -- the Commonwealth Games and others -- we look at the issues they have and how they deal with these issues. That is a matter of policy in this division.
K. Jones: The minister indicated that this is a multi-year program. Could the minister tell us when this multi-year program that he's talking about started?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Are you referring to the new funding program for the provincial sport organizations?
K. Jones: The equality program.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Promotion Plus has certainly been here for the two years I've been.... I'll get you the exact date, but it's at least since 1990 in various forms. The key point is that on taking over, I dramatically increased their budget from $77,000 to $100,000. Again, it's not just the program for Promotion Plus, but every program we fund. We look at every program to check the policy on gender equity and on gender equity in sport.
[3:30]
K. Jones: The minister states that he dramatically increased the budget. If you check the costs of a clerk with benefits, that's probably the increase he has contributed to this program. He has had responsibility for this for over two years -- as the previous minister responsible for sports related to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and now sport has become his responsibility in the area of Government
[ Page 10939 ]
Services. Yet all we've done is add one clerk position to a major program facility. Is that showing leadership?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm surprised at the member's attitude. He knows very well that the programs and policies we have in place for gender equity are efficient, effective and are having an impact. In terms of the programs and the funding we provide for Promotion Plus, I can assure you that they are delivering for us. Obviously we could do with more money. This budget, like many others, took substantial reductions. The key point is that I maintain sport funding at last year's level. It is my intent to try to achieve that. If we had more money, the opposition would wish to spend, spend, spend. Go ahead, but this government is responsible.
We are asking sport organizations to come up with support for themselves and to give us a hand. Quite frankly, it's working. Sport B.C. is actively looking at ways of doing this so that they don't have to rely totally on government funding. We will continue with this.
We will have to be far more innovative and creative with the dollars we're applying. That's why we've applied the criteria to look at how dollars are utilized by PSOs, what they're delivering and what we are getting in return. This has been very effective and will continue.
K. Jones: We have to realize that the real benefits of this area aren't being taken to the greatest advantage. They haven't been sold well enough to cabinet and to Treasury Board to identify the need for additional funding. The minister stated at the beginning of his preamble, and again today, that this is one of the greatest methods of preventive social action, yet he can't convince his cabinet colleagues to put additional funding into this area.
We've got great gobs of money, money by the billions going into social services, health care and into the Attorney General ministry. What do we get for this? We get a status quo budget, adding maybe a clerk to one equity program. We haven't done anything to improve opportunities for young people, or to help them find alternatives to serious family difficulties or interrelationship problems in school or in playgrounds that bring about many of today's social ills.
The minister should have no trouble in championing lots of funding for these needs. This is an area where there is great potential for growth and for people to do something positive and effective. People's attitudes change by their participation in sports, their health is better and they relate with others effectively because of a relationship through sports. These are positives and they should be sold as positives. I see a situation here where we, once again, have almost no budget to serve a need where there could be so much growth. There really needs to be reallocation of that funding from acute care treatment into preventive treatment, and this is one area that really needs it.
L. Fox: I'm pleased to discuss this part of the minister's estimates. As I came into the room late, are we on the sport and recreation part of his portfolio?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Recreation is another ministry.
L. Fox: Sorry about that. It seems that the more we change, the more we stay the same.
I listened with great interest to the discussion about programs around equity in sports. Being an individual who has been involved in competitive sports through the major part of my life, I concur somewhat with the official opposition critic on the role that sport can play in an individual's development -- both female and male. I've seen evidence of that in my own and my friends' experiences.
I want to say that female participation in sport is nothing new. While I think it's a worthwhile objective to recognize that we have to have equality of opportunity, the money we put into that has to be somewhat need-driven. In my experience with minor hockey, figure-skating, ringette, basketball and football organizations, none of them could have succeeded without the significant involvement of women in the organizational structure. The men didn't do the organizing in any of them; it was the women who did the organizing, and, in many cases, they also did some coaching if they had the ability. We've seen that commitment of mothers in all levels of sport throughout the province.
In terms of this program, I have to ask: how is it driven? What do we mean by equity in sports? Is it equal opportunity? Are we talking about giving ringette, which is primarily a sport for teenage girls, equal access to sport dollars versus minor hockey? Is that what we're talking about in equality? Or are we talking about athletics or sports in track and field? What is this program? From my experience, I've always seen more involvement in sport organizations by females than I have by males. I'd like to have some understanding of what this equality in sport really means.
Hon. R. Blencoe: The member sounds as if he's more familiar with the more traditional sports, particularly hockey, which has predominantly been a male sport; and often the mothers have made the hot dogs, and girls haven't participated. What we're saying is that women don't necessarily have to do just the organizing or the things they're expected to do -- the auxiliary kind of role. They can get out on the ice and play on the team, or get out and actually kick a ball on the field or whatever. Those are the kinds of attitudes we're trying to ensure don't continue. Our Discovery program means that we treat all organizations equally. If there are barriers to women and girls participating in a particular sport -- age limits, or girls can't necessarily participate in that sport, or they can't get there for a particular time, or whatever -- then we ensure that those barriers are worked on and removed. From what happened with my family in various organizations, I know that very often girls are not given the same opportunities. Certain sports are the domain of boys or men. Who would have thought, for instance, some years ago -- ten years ago -- that women would be playing rugby in a very active way and that we would have many woman rugby teams. I presume that ten or 15 years ago -- maybe not so long ago -- people would have looked at that quite strangely. Today we don't; we accept it.
L. Fox: I think that's what I was talking about: being need-driven, in terms of how the program is funded. The minister talked about hockey. In the ranks of semi-professional hockey we now have a female goaltender who, in fact, played last year in an NHL exhibition game. That evolution has been driven by the interest of a particular individual. In fact, I coached minor hockey in the mid-eighties, and I had two young ladies, 12 years old, play on my hockey team. It wasn't that we went out and said: "We're going to include girls on the hockey team." We had interest in the community from those two young girls who wanted to play hockey, so we accommodated them. It was need-driven. That's what I'm trying to get out of the minister in terms of equality in sport. Are we talking about trying to develop programs -- specific programs -- to enhance, as the
[ Page 10940 ]
minister suggested, women's rugby? Or are we talking about accommodating programs based on input received from different segments of the province and different segments of people? How is that working? That's where my interest lies.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, we work with the provincial sport organizations. We work with the needs that they believe they require. It is needs-driven. I also have to say that there are examples where girls or women have broken through, but only because they've got over so many obstacles and barriers and managed to survive the onslaught. We're trying to ensure that there aren't barriers and that it's not made difficult for women and girls to participate as easily and as often as men and boys. We're working with the sport organizations to ensure that happens.
L. Fox: Just one more follow-up. I'm trying to clarify in my own mind with my own experience where the barriers are. For instance, if the minister is talking about hockey and making it so more girls can play in minor hockey systems, then I understand. The other side of the coin is: if we're talking about developing a girls' minor hockey system -- good stuff. We have problems on both sides of that. My son wanted to play ringette instead of hockey. Of course, being a semi-pro hockey player myself, I had a lot of problems with that. But he wasn't able to play ringette because it was considered a girls' sport. We have problems on both sides of the spectrum, and we should understand that. There are many cases where young boys are denied the opportunity to compete in a sport for various reasons, and they're good reasons. I wouldn't take issue with them, but we shouldn't lose sight of that.
[3:45]
From my perspective on individual sport, I think we have to concentrate -- if we're going to achieve more female top-quality athletes -- on the coaching area. There is a lot less access to professional coaching for female sports than there is for male sports. What kind of initiatives are we taking through the sport programs to improve the female coaching staff?
Hon. R. Blencoe: We fund women in coaching programs in order for women to get to various levels of the national coaching standards. It's done through funding various sport organizations. Of course, one of the criteria for funding is that they promote and ensure opportunities for women to participate and to get the skills they require. We also tie it into our funding program for the provincial sport organizations when we analyze what they require for their grant. There are 58 points they have to go through. We look at what programs they're putting in place, in terms of girls in sports, and at how they are ensuring greater opportunities for women in coaching and those sorts of things.
For instance, we have, through the society, ensured that we are doing some special training for women coaches who have been appointed to the Commonwealth Games. It's a great opportunity during the Commonwealth Games, and that is an ongoing program. Wherever we can, we are pursuing those opportunities for women and girls in sport.
L. Fox: I just want to follow up on what the minister suggested. It seems to me that you're telling me that you're running a coaching clinic during the Commonwealth Games so that you can access some of the expertise there. Is that what you're talking about?
Hon. R. Blencoe: You referred to the Commonwealth Games. As I said earlier, we're funding opportunities for women to achieve exposure at the Commonwealth Games in terms of coaching. There's a program that we and the society are working on.
We also, of course, have role models in this province. We work with people like Kathy Shields, who coaches UVic basketball. They are heavily involved in advising government on various ways through our various Promotion Plus programs. Those who have achieved success, particularly women, are giving us advice and are providing extremely good role models in the sporting system.
We're always looking for other opportunities. I'm the first to admit that if we had more resources, we could do it. But I think we're doing extremely well in many areas that need attention.
L. Fox: I have a couple of other questions. Although they're separate questions, I'll try to put them together to accommodate the official critic.
First, an issue that was discussed earlier by the critic and the minister was the fact that there should be more money spent through Sport B.C. The minister's response was that they were getting good value for their dollars and that Sport B.C. had been supportive in finding other sources of funding. It's a very delicate balance. I agree that you could give organizations too much money. In doing that you weaken the structure because they end up doing less PR and less organization in terms of raising money, and to some degree they lose energy because they don't have to work hard to achieve the end result. So I agree with the minister, but it is a very narrow balance. The cuts of two years ago were very significant and perhaps tipped that balance somewhat -- and not necessarily in the interest of sport. So I caution the minister on that issue.
The other issue I want to talk about is with regard to rural British Columbia. I'd like to solicit the minister's support through this discussion today. At present -- the minister may or may not be aware, but I'm sure his ministry is -- there are many sport activities throughout British Columbia which derive a large part of their funding from casinos. There are many parts of the province that, because of their 50-kilometre distance from a casino, cannot participate. The Gaming Commission is presently reviewing that particular issue.
I'll give the minister some examples so he understands the significance. Prince George draws probably 15 percent to 20 percent of the casino business from outside that 50-kilometre limit, yet none of the individual communities or sports initiatives outside that limit can be part of that particular reward process. There are many initiatives not only in my home community of Vanderhoof, but also in other parts of my riding that are suffering financially because they're not able to access those funds. I am sending two letters to the Gaming Commission on behalf of two groups outside that 50-kilometre distance. My argument is that they should, at least once a month or twice a year or so -- because 20 percent of those dollars are coming from outside -- be able to access those dollars. I would request that, should that issue come to cabinet, this minister recognize the importance to rural sport and support it.
Hon. R. Blencoe: We've shifted gears a little bit, but I will give the member as much of an answer as I can at this point. The member is correct. Through my ministry, I've been given the mandate and the responsibility to review all gaming regulations, policies and funding -- the kind of issue you're talking about, hon. member. We're also looking at issues of casinos and VLTs. One of the major issues, and one that I
[ Page 10941 ]
hear you on, is that there are about 6,000 non-profit charities -- many of them sport organizations -- that rely on gaming revenue. About $184 million a year goes to non-profit societies. They access it through the numerous bingos and the 18 casinos we have in the province. They are obviously very protective of revenue and quite rightly so. The challenge we face as we look at the various issues before us in terms of gaming is that if -- and I say if; I want to make that quite clear -- there are expansions, we have to ensure as much as possible that the very important revenue sources for the non-profit sector -- the charities and sport groups.... Well, they make the case for protection. I'm very cognizant of that, and that is certainly very much a part of our deliberations. The points you make are well taken. As you can imagine, when you review gaming policy and everything associated with it, there are 1,001 issues to look at, and that's a very important one.
What you're really saying, if I understand you correctly, is that there should be a kind of community chest at the regional level so that revenues could be shared with those who are contributing but not getting the benefit. Many organizations don't favour that kind of approach; they like the current approach whereby they participate at a charity event or casino and get direct benefit by participating.
But those are valid points, and there's always room for improvement in terms of sharing opportunities and, of course results: the revenue. It's part of our mandate to do that. So your points are well taken, and I will add them to our discussions.
L. Fox: Just to follow up briefly and clarify, I'm not advocating a community chest. I well understand the difficulties in that. What I'm advocating is that a case be made for rural British Columbia. I understand the significance of having a very narrow 50-kilometre limit in the lower mainland, where you have a number of communities close together. The problem is in rural British Columbia.
Prince George is a good example, because 20 percent of its commerce comes from outside Prince George. That takes business from the rural communities -- the very communities that are trying to provide funding for sport through other mechanisms. I think an argument can be made that, in round numbers, 20 percent of the revenues that go to charities should be allocated to communities outside the 50-kilometre area. That's the argument I'm trying to make in letters to the Gaming Commission. I'm looking for the minister to support it in principle, which I think he does, and that's good enough for me at this point.
K. Jones: Just a clarification, hon. minister, while we're on that subject. My understanding is that the 50-kilometre limit is for bingo operations, not casinos. Could you tell us where the casinos are outside the lower mainland?
Hon. R. Blencoe: If we're going to get into details about licensing and concentric circles and Christaller's theory of geography in Prince George, I think we'll have to have the staff here to relate that. Ann Ehrcke is head of the gaming project. If you give me a time when you would like to go to that topic, we will make sure staff are here. I don't want to have staff waiting; they have important work to do.
K. Jones: I really asked whether the minister knew where the casinos are in northern British Columbia. Is he aware of casino locations in northern British Columbia and which cities they're in?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Prince George, Quesnel, Williams Lake, Terrace....
K. Jones: Okay. There are bingos in these cities, and I think the member may be actually relating to the bingo situation.
L. Fox: No, I'm not.
K. Jones: Aren't you? I know that there's a serious problem in Kitimat and Terrace. Kitimat, as a smaller community, is not able to draw enough people to their bingos to get sufficient funds for their community. A lot of their people go up to the bigger-pot bingos at Terrace. They're not allowed to participate in the Terrace one because they're just over that 50-kilometre limit. Perhaps that's a similar type of situation you could deal with.
[4:00]
We won't dwell on that, recognizing that the minister would prefer to have additional staff here to support him in that area. We'll continue with the area of sports, which we had originally started with before we got distracted. It seems that we are going to have a lot of this occurring from time to time. Did the minister wish to respond...?
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
Hon. R. Blencoe: We had a list from you last time.
K. Jones: Yes, and we're still continuing with that.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Are we still continuing? What is your intention, hon. member?
K. Jones: It's to stay with sports right at the moment.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Fine. I just want to make sure that we've got people available for you.
K. Jones: In the area of sports, I'd like to ask the minister what strategies or partnerships the government is undertaking to make sports more accessible to persons with disabilities.
Hon. R. Blencoe: This is an area that we do give considerable resources to. We fund the council for the disabled to the tune of $65,000. We fund school sports organizations with $108,000, in which they have a component for trying to help and advocate for the disabled in sport. It's not all they do, but part of their mandate is to ensure that there are opportunities for the disabled.
We fund the Aboriginal Sport Association -- Alex Nelson's organization, which he chairs -- with $110,000, and there's a component there to ensure access for the disabled. We are funding provincial sport organizations this year to the tune of $5.124 million. Of that, we gave $55,000 to the Special Olympics; $53,000 to Blind Sports; $35,000 to Cerebral Palsy Sports; $65,000 to Wheelchair Sports; $11,000 to Disabled Skiers; $20,000 to Deaf Sports; and a small grant of $2,000 to Amputee Sports.
I think we're doing considerable funding for the disabled. Also, I should mention that we fund the B.C. Games for the Physically Disabled to the tune of between $30,000 and $40,000. I'll get the exact figure for you.
K. Jones: It's good to see that kind of support for people who have various disabilities. I'd like to find out what strategies have been put in place to include the disabled in
[ Page 10942 ]
the decision-making processes of the various sports organizations and with regard to your own sports organization in your ministry.
Hon. R. Blencoe: We have a policy on that. It's on paper, and I'm pleased to circulate that to you, along with the paper on equity policy. The provincial sport organizations are expected to follow it; it's also part of the Discovery program. When we take a look at and go through what they're doing, it's very much a factor in the funding parameters.
I also have to say that I think we're driving some pretty progressive and innovative agendas. Sometimes some of our organizations can't adapt to the changes as quickly as we'd like. All of them are well meaning in what they're doing, and we sometimes have to give them a little longer to change. We're working with them on that; that's why we fund Promotion Plus and like organizations to give advice and help, and to make it easier for them when sometimes it seems very hard.
K. Jones: Mr. Minister, how many disabled persons are on your sports staff?
Hon. R. Blencoe: We don't have any staff who are disabled, but there are disabled people on various bodies and advisory groups. I forgot to mention that through our insistence and our agreement with the Commonwealth Games Society, we will have the greatest participation and integration of disabled athletes in the history of the Commonwealth Games. It's quite a feather in our cap for British Columbia and for Canada, and we're getting world recognition for our insistence. We actually wrote it in and insisted on it, and laid out the criteria for participation.
K. Jones: We have to thank the champions of women's equality and disabled organizations, who have really pushed governments to take the steps that are now being taken. I don't think a lot of these things were initiated by government per se, but they were really pushed by very hard-working, dedicated people in the community who said: "Government, it's about time you got involved in this process and backed all our efforts." We need to congratulate the people who really spearheaded this, and the NGOs, and the individuals who got out there and overcame a disability or disadvantage, whether it be women's equality or being disabled or aboriginal. It's those people who literally booted the backside of government to make the changes that are now coming about. We can't say that the ministry had that much of a lead in it, can we? I think, being fair....
Hon. R. Blencoe: A very innovative minister...
K. Jones: Yes, a very innovative minister.
Hon. R. Blencoe: ...with a very good staff.
K. Jones: With a lot of support from the community to point out the direction.
I'd like to go into the areas of community sports, community activities, the games and all that. Could the minister elaborate on what he sees as the major benefits from the various games -- the Winter Games, Summer Games, Seniors' Games, the Northern B.C. Winter Games, the B.C. Games for the Physically Disabled -- that occur in our communities? How do they really give value to the community? I know I'm giving you a platform from which to give us a speech, but I think it's important that the details of the factors are made available to the public.
Hon. R. Blencoe: In British Columbia we have five multisport games, of which the B.C. Summer and Winter Games are the flagships, which are probably most recognized as B.C. government games. The hon. member has attended nearly every one since he became a member -- at least I think he has. Where will I start?
K. Jones: You're tongue-tied today.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I know.
I want to resist the temptation to give you a speech, but these homegrown, local games that we run and operate are based on volunteerism. They are great sporting events, but they are also great community events involving communities coming together to show that they can put on quite remarkable events such as the B.C. Summer and Winter Games. There is no expectation of breaking every record there is to break. They are predominantly an opportunity for people of all ages to shine in some form or another by winning, participating or competing. They are often the first step for young athletes who wish to reach the podium, and that's where they start and get that opportunity.
When 1,700 or 2,000 people get together in a Winter or Summer Games for three or four days, there is an incredible atmosphere of what British Columbia is all about: a sense of sharing and participating and of the community coming together because of the thousands of volunteers who come together to put it on. In many ways, the games are not only a sporting event but a community development event as well, particularly for smaller communities. Every time I go to games in smaller communities I'm overwhelmed by what they have done and put in. The enthusiasm level is far higher there than in a large city like Victoria or Vancouver. I go back to communities where they had the games ten or 15 years ago, and they're still talking about them.
It also gives communities the opportunity to display what they do best, because BCTV are our sponsors, particularly for the Summer and Winter Games. If Port Alberni is going through some difficult economic times, they are able to look into the TV lens and tell British Columbia that they are still proud people, that they will do okay and that they will get that community going. They can say: "Look, we can host; we have our problems, but we are very proud." That's very much a part of it. They get to display what they do best -- that is, sharing, hosting, volunteering and helping young people attain their goals at whatever level they want during that summer or winter.
I think they are really remarkable events. We participate in and fund the Northern B.C. Winter Games, but they have a separate body that is a very active, determined and independent organization which feels strongly about the Northern Winter Games. We fund the Games for the Physically Disabled -- I know the member has attended them -- and we'll be doing that again this summer. We also fund the Seniors' Games and will continue to do that. We're very proud of these games in terms of community events, community development ventures and an opportunity for participants -- thousands of them -- to get whatever they want out of it. For many, it is often the start of a career in their chosen sport.
K. Jones: The minister did a very fine job of covering those areas, but I think there was one area he did miss out. At the finale of the Summer Games, Port Alberni, which had
[ Page 10943 ]
been going through economic difficulties, came over with a water bomber and created a perfect rainbow on television to close off the opening ceremonies. I don't think anybody in a big city could ever do anything like that.
Hon. R. Blencoe: We tried to take credit, but it didn't work.
K. Jones: It's really a tremendous feeling to be there with the people during these games and see the impact they have on the communities. In Smithers last winter, they had real participation. Half the community was involved as volunteers, and then the other half came on in the afternoon shift. Believe me, everybody in that community was involved. Every shopkeeper, every person in the school, and every student was down there volunteering. It was an outstanding experience to participate in. To be a guest around there.... Well, you can't be a guest in any of these places. You really get involved because everybody else is involved.
[4:15]
I think one of the things the minister left out was the recognition of the two groups that played a very major role in making these possible. One is the executive director Roger Skillings, who has done an outstanding job in leadership and has provided the communities with an ability to lead themselves, but was always there to give them the assistance and guidance that helped carry them -- with no previous experience, in most cases -- through a very complex operation that the games entail: the logistics of flying in some 3,000 people from all over the province, and arranging for their accommodation, all of the activities and venues.
The other people who need to be recognized, I think, are those who sit on the board that administers the games.
An Hon. Member: They will all be asking for a raise.
K. Jones: Believe me, they probably deserve it. The board certainly doesn't get any. If they got a doubling, they'd probably still end up with the same amount.
As far as the team that Roger Skillings has with him, I think the province is certainly getting their money's worth. They worked hard all year round to put these facilities together, and they promote sports in the communities as well. I think we have very effective participation through the games programs.
I think that we'll now proceed from Sports over to a new area. I'd just like to quickly look at human resources and your ministry's contracts. At the start, could the minister give us an indication of the amount of contracted personnel he has in the ministry and how many FTEs are on staff?
Actually, I'll just take a minute here to thank the minister for the access that he's made available to staff, particularly Dr. Lee Southern, who has given me a good briefing of the role that Sports has played in the ministry, both previously and presently, as we have made the transition from one ministry to the other.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Approved funding in 1994-95 in the Ministry of Government Services is for 938 FTEs. In terms of the contracts, I'm not quite sure what you meant. Could you clarify exactly what you want in terms of contracts?
K. Jones: What we're asking for is the number of contracted-out positions and the areas they are contracted in.
Hon. R. Blencoe: We have no contracted-out positions, hon. member; as you know, the Korbin report changed all that. We have fee-for-service contracts. When issues arise for a ministry -- which does happen -- and someone is needed to do a special project, we do a fee-for-service contract. I don't know if we have exact numbers of these at this time. I suspect we don't have those exact details, but I will take it on advisement and see if we can give you some numbers on fee-for-service. Would that be helpful?
K. Jones: Yes. Could you tell us what projects you're using fee-for-service contracts for, and how many people are involved?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Rather than give you rough estimates, I will try to get the exact number of fee-for-service contracts. I think we do a tally on a monthly basis, and we'll get that to you.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us a brief outline of what his human resources department does within the ministry?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The program objectives of this branch -- and I'll just go through them for the hon. member -- are to provide advice to support informal human resource decisions and actions by management; communicate corporate direction and fair and equitable human resource practices; and to coordinate ministry information for human resource planning and recording.
Much of the work of the division is staffing, recruitment, training and development on which we run sessions and workshops, classification reviews, and advice and consultation. Much of the work is in labour relations to ensure that we follow the right practices and procedures of various contracts. We are very active in promoting effective employee relations; we have joint union-management committees to ensure consultation and partnership with the union. Advising management and employees is a main role of this division.
The human resources branch is also responsible for -- and does a good job of -- communicating new directions, practices and approaches in human resource management. We have sessions in skills development for managers and employees in these areas. We are responsible, of course, for interpreting and carrying out the directives of PSERC and other new agreements that come before us. We develop reporting systems for auditing functions and give consultations and workshops to various other bodies of government. Generally, hon. member, the human resources branch is responsible for ensuring that we have good labour-management relations and a happy workforce that does due diligence on behalf of the people of British Columbia. I think we do it very effectively.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us an indication of the budget allocation for PSERC? I presume it comes totally out of the corporate services summary that we have in the subvotes.
Hon. R. Blencoe: This is not PSERC; I have little to do with PSERC. They have their own budget. If you have PSERC questions, you would obviously direct those to the ministry.
The estimated budget for 1994-95 for the human resources division of the Ministry of Government Services is $977,323 -- a reduction of about 12 percent over last year.
[ Page 10944 ]
K. Jones: Has the minister evaluated the role of this human resources department with regard to the changes that PSERC has now brought forward, and is there a possibility that there might be a duplication of services within the two activities of PSERC and the human resources department of your ministry?
Hon. R. Blencoe: No. If you have some evidence of that, please pass it on to me. As the delegated authority, we are responsible for carrying out PSERC's directions and agreements. We delegate and ensure that those mandates are put in place. Predominantly, we run the human resources section.
This is a very important component of this ministry specifically because of government service. We're a ministry that primarily delivers services to the people of British Columbia. We're on the line all the time in terms of the various services we provide. It's essential that our staff -- our good staff -- are well trained and versed in relations and understanding, and in providing good value to the public. To do all this, good human relations are needed, as well as a workforce that feels part of a team and part of a government service in serving the citizens of British Columbia. That's an ingredient of the work of this department and why we have a number of training programs, as well as sessions and management programs, to offer the kinds of opportunities we need to ensure that citizens not only get good value for their dollar but get good public service delivery.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us how many staff members are in the human resources area? Is there an equity program, and how many staff are involved?
Hon. R. Blencoe: There are 12 FTEs in the human resources branch. One staff person is assigned specifically to employment equity initiatives.
K. Jones: With regard to the equity program, could the minister tell us how he determines the various factors required to assess a need for corrective action in the equity alignment of the ministry with regard to those 938 FTEs?
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm sorry. Could you rephrase your question? I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.
K. Jones: I'll be happy to rephrase it. You have 938 FTEs. You have an equity program with one staff person doing the work. That work requires, I presume, some method of measuring the various factors that determine a need for changes to the hiring process. You need to assess, I believe, the basis of measurement of your present staff in order to know where to make changes. Could you tell us what method you are using to make that evaluation?
[4:30]
Hon. R. Blencoe: As far as I know, there are no surveys authorized or conducted by the Ministry of Government Services. My understanding -- and I'm not particularly well versed in the work -- is that PSERC has initiated and participated in a survey, which we participated in, as I believe all ministries did. I'm not sure what else you want, hon. member. If you wish to address that survey, your comments are probably better directed to the Minister of Finance, who was responsible for that activity.
K. Jones: You have one staff person who evidently has a job to do. What job are they involved in if they weren't involved in doing a survey?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Obviously, within our own ministry we are promoting and enhancing. Each branch director is responsible for the delivery of various programs, such as sexual harassment prevention training for ministry executives and directors. We presented a workshop on aboriginal cultures to employees throughout the ministry. We've had awareness sessions on removing barriers. Postings, for instance, are written up and are sometimes not very fair or give a certain perspective. Particularly, the branch directors are given the responsibility of ensuring that equity issues are a very important part of their everyday operation.
K. Jones: Has the minister an idea of how many aboriginals, disabled persons, members of ethnic groups and women are in his ministry?
Hon. R. Blencoe: No, we don't keep those kinds of numbers. We make an effort to encourage them, but we don't have those kinds of numbers. There are no set targets, but we are working to ensure equal access to those various groups in areas that have not always been given equal opportunity. Again, you may wish to address that question to the Minister of Finance in terms of the survey. There may be something there that may be useful to you.
K. Jones: The former minister's director of air services was fully aware of how many women were in the ministry and in that particular branch of the ministry. When it came to job postings for pilots, she was able to explain why she put out female-only pilot postings. Surely there must be some measurement within the ministry. Maybe the minister hasn't been made aware of that at the present time, but somebody in your ministry knows, I think.
Hon. R. Blencoe: On the issue of Government Air, my understanding -- I think this was before my time; tell me if I stand corrected -- is that the human rights branch gave an exemption to the process that was entered into in terms of an area where all pilots were male. The human rights branch believed there was an exemption, and there was a requirement to break through some of that. I believe that was done; I don't know all the details of that. The member probably knows more about it than I do.
If the member wants the numbers.... I'm not sure. Does the member want the total number of women of the 938 in the ministry? We don't keep those kinds of statistics -- I mean, we don't have that at our fingertips. We're not into certain types of numbers or obtaining certain levels. But I can surely break it down and provide that information to you, hon. member, if that would be useful for you.
K. Jones: We're basically trying to do as most companies did quite a while back. There was some direction in past years in your ministry that in order to establish an equity program, you have to establish the base that you're working with. I think that's what we're talking about. The only way you can do that is by canvassing; I understood that PSERC had done that canvassing. That should have been reported to the minister, and I'm asking the minister to give us the details of the report that was done by PSERC so that we could have some idea of what direction the ministry is going in with its hiring process.
[ Page 10945 ]
The hiring process with regard to Government Air was a gross insult to women, in that it created two positions and -- just to correct the minister -- there was already one woman pilot on staff when those job postings were put forward. The two postings were posted with lowered requirements for air time -- both overall flight time and flight experience with the particular aircraft that Government Air operates -- substantially reducing them by almost one-third. Believe me, a lot of women pilots out there were totally insulted by the government creating this lowered standard. Fortunately, the quality of pilot that's available out there -- both male and female -- was quite sufficient to be able to find fully qualified pilots for those two positions. The Government Air service hired two people who met the previous across-the-board standard, not the lowered women's standard. That was insulting to women in the way it was posted, saying that they had to have a lower standard for female pilots to be able to get access to Government Air. They hired two women pilots who are very well qualified and meet the same standards as stated in any previous pilot posting -- male or female.
We're trying to have you give us the details of the process by which you are undertaking to bring equity into the Government Services hiring process.
Hon. R. Blencoe: It's a bit of a moot point. You know what has happened to Government Air in terms of the budget process, so I won't get into that.
K. Jones: You will later.
Hon. R. Blencoe: You can ask away, hon. member. But in the fullness of time, the process will unfold in terms of what we announce with Government Air.
I disagree with you about standards of training. I can assure you that the government of British Columbia would not put people who utilize Government Air in jeopardy. It has a fine track record in terms of safety, etc. So if you're insinuating that people who have been flying for Government Air haven't had the proper training or have lower standards.... I'm surprised that you would accuse those good public employees of that. You will have to live with that accusation. As far as I'm concerned, hon. member, those who fly for Government Air have all the qualifications, whether male or female. If you feel the women didn't have training, you will have to live with that, hon. member. That's your statement; I don't believe it's accurate.
K. Jones: If the minister had been paying attention to what I said, he probably wouldn't have made that last statement. What I said was that they had hired two pilots to meet those lowered qualifications, but those two pilots had the full qualifications of all the other postings. There was no less-qualified person hired. I'm quite happy to live with the statement I made, hon. minister. I think the women were insulted by the job posting, and that was the point I was trying to make.
We've canvassed the human resources area sufficiently for today. I'm sure there are a few other items that could be covered, but I don't think we'll carry those further. We'll go to Enquiry B.C. now. Could the minister tell us the status of Enquiry B.C. at the present time?
Hon. R. Blencoe: It continues to deliver excellent services to the people of British Columbia. We have just completed a tender process, and the project was awarded to the current operators. That's Robertson Rozenhart Inc. of Vancouver, who do the work for the people in British Columbia. We budget for that.
K. Jones: The minister says that he's just tendered; that's right. The previous three-year contract has just expired. I see from his statement that the tender was awarded to the previous operating entity. Could the minister tell us if there was an increase or a decrease in costs for that new contract, and what was the amount?
Hon. R. Blencoe: We drove a hard bargain and represented the taxpayers well in getting a reduction of 13 percent, resulting in a $235,000 reduction in the contract over the previous year.
K. Jones: Is the minister saying that the current year's contract was $235,000?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Sorry. I'll give you the details. In 1993-94, $1,873,037 was the basic $1.8 million. This year, 1994-95, we achieved a contract for $1.637 million, which is a 13 percent reduction in contract, amounting to $235,000.
K. Jones: I'm glad the minister had a chance to make that correction, because it makes a substantial difference. I was thinking that the minister was really doing wonders by dropping a $1.8 million project down to $235,000. If you could do that in other ministries, I'm sure you'd become Premier overnight, because I think that's really what this Premier needs right now to survive.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Order!
The Chair: I think you should go on with your questions.
K. Jones: Could the minister indicate the number of complaints received and what auditing process he uses to evaluate the service that Enquiry B.C. is supposed to provide?
[4:45]
Hon. R. Blencoe: I can give you the total number of calls. In 1993-94 we had 550,000 calls to Enquiry B.C. We estimate 750,000 calls for 1994-95 -- the calls haven't been made yet -- which is an increase of over 36 percent. Because we're doing so many things for the people of British Columbia, people want to know about it.
K. Jones: Is the minister projecting the increase because he's planning to initiate 1-900 lines in addition to the 1-800 lines?
Hon. R. Blencoe: We are making available to the people of British Columbia more information and more initiatives in key critical areas. Also, in the blue pages, I'm told, there are more....
The reference to Enquiry B.C. is much wider now in terms of locations. More people know about it because it is listed in telephone directories. We're promoting it more. The number is around and about; consequently, we anticipate more calls. But predominately, the result is because of great legislation and initiatives that we're putting forward, which people want information about. That's the key area.
D. Schreck: I always appreciate the opportunity to congratulate the minister on the performance of Enquiry B.C.
[ Page 10946 ]
In an earlier set of estimates, the member for West Vancouver-Capilano spent about ten minutes asking the minister for various phone numbers in the ministry. Perhaps I could advise that opposition members may find it very useful to use Enquiry B.C. In my constituency I circulate a newsletter called "Helping People Help Themselves," which points out how useful it is to use Enquiry B.C. People can solve many problems for themselves without ever contacting their member's office or writing a letter of complaint, simply by picking up the telephone and talking to those extremely helpful and useful people at Enquiry B.C.
I want to congratulate the minister on that excellent service. Keep it up. It certainly makes my life a whole lot more pleasant, and it's easier to solve problems for my constituents.
K. Jones: So much for that paid political announcement.
A. Warnke: The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock utilizes it as well.
K. Jones: Yes, the member for Surrey-Cloverdale also has wonderful staff who are quite happy to promote Enquiry B.C., especially to people who are bringing great concerns about the way government is operating. They want to talk to somebody directly. We give them a direct line to the ministry and to the minister, and hopefully that service is getting through. I understand that quite often they just get an information person, and they don't get the person they'd really like to speak to. I think Enquiry B.C. is certainly meeting some of the needs of our province.
I am concerned about the cost. Does the cost include only the service or does it include the cost of the long-distance calls through the 1-800 line?
Hon. R. Blencoe: We buy the entire service for the figure I gave you, hon. member; it's all included.
K. Jones: Does that mean you have a fixed-rate contract with B.C. Telephone, or some other telephone supplier, that will give you a guaranteed budget? Is that an approximate tendering, or is the company that's providing the service taking the loss on any overusage of the telephone service?
Hon. R. Blencoe: It's called "information systems"; that's jargon for telephone. You have to use the latest thing, hon. member -- get with it.
K. Jones: Why wouldn't you get the highway in here, too?
Hon. R. Blencoe: We're working on that. The highway has been there a while; we just have to make sure it goes places.
B.C. Systems provides the information systems and the telephone system, and $435,000 is budgeted for the operating cost of telephones.
K. Jones: So the $435,000 that B.C. Systems charges for the services is in addition to the contract? The minister says that's included in the contract. That's an affirmative statement by the minister nodding his head. Let it be recorded.
Has the minister looked at any way of reducing that cost? Has any assessment been made? Has there been any attempt to go to an outside supplier of the services rather than through B.C. Systems Corporation?
Hon. R. Blencoe: There is a reduction in this area this year. Last year restated costs for B.C. Systems were $450,000, and this year we are estimating $435,000, a decrease of $15,000. I am told that this is the most efficient way of providing cost-efficient information systems to Enquiry B.C. Of course, we also provide the government telephone directory system, and the B.C. Tel blue pages come out of that budget, so I think it's good value for the thousands of calls we get.
K. Jones: Has the minister actually had the contractor determine what would be the best or lowest cost? Or has this cost been provided by the government through B.C. Systems Corporation and then just plunked into the budget for the contractor?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm sure the member is aware that B.C. Systems is the provider of all telephone services to government. Within this allocation of $435,000, my understanding is that we get computer services as well for Enquiry B.C., which would be an additional cost if we didn't do that. So we get the telephone services, plus B.C. Systems computer services as well. We use B.C. Systems for telephones, basically because they provide them to all government, and that's the current policy at this time.
K. Jones: Going back to my previous question: does the government contract with B.C. Systems for telephone and computer services? Is the cost then plunked into the contract that the contractor makes? Or is there a separate charge for this and for the actual services being rendered by Robertson Rozenhart Inc.?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Actually, you're making a point that I'm going to make. It is a chargeback, and this $435,000 charge is not part of the overall budget. The pure Enquiry B.C. contract for '93-94 will be $1.344 million; for this year it will be $1.129 million. If you take off the charge made by B.C. Systems, that is an addition to the total funding for Enquiry B.C. For '94-95 the actual budget of the contractor, Robertson Rozenhart Inc., is $1.129 million, minus a 16 percent reduction, but then we add $435,000 to the overall cost of Enquiry B.C. for B.C. Systems and their computer services.
K. Jones: Now we get the real figures. Since the ministry then contracts for the telecommunications services -- $435,000 this year; $450,000 last year -- has there been any tendering of that service outside of B.C. Systems? Has that service been open to public tender?
Hon. R. Blencoe: No.
K. Jones: Why not?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Because we have a very efficient corporation called B.C. Systems Corporation, which every year provides a dividend to us -- I think $3 million this year. They are very entrepreneurial. They provide services to government, including computer services. They provide a telephone system to government, and currently the policy is that they provide those services to government. They are our agency of record for computer services and telephones, and we have not gone to a tender process for that.
K. Jones: I realize that B.C. Systems is providing the regular services for general government telecommunications, both telephone and data, and computer services as
[ Page 10947 ]
well, but this is a special contracted service. This is not a ministerial responsibility for providing communications among the various government offices. This is an outside service provided to the public, the taxpayers, and it should be provided at the very lowest possible cost.
[5:00]
The only way you can do that is to recognize that B.C. Systems Corporation's charges are often higher than the outside contractor can provide. There have been many indications of this coming from the telecommunications community. Why has the minister not tendered this so that we could get the least cost service from the milieu of people prepared to provide that service?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't want to beat this one to death, but the hon. member should also recognize -- and he may not -- that B.C. Systems is also the bank of data information for government. Consequently, it makes a heck of a lot of sense for them to be a partner with Enquiry B.C. and provide those services, because they can provide the information that citizens require. It's there -- on-line -- at the touch of a button; Enquiry B.C. partners with them. We couldn't even start to replicate that in the private sector, and, quite frankly, I wouldn't want the private sector to have certain kinds of information. I think we are guardians of information through the government auspices. There are some very good reasons why we, with B.C. Systems' data bank of information connected to Enquiry B.C., do it that way.
K. Jones: I am not suggesting that access to the data banks of government should be provided to outside companies -- not in the least. I believe we are talking about the major part of this cost which you indicated to me, although we tossed in a computer-servicing cost. Perhaps you may be able to definitively identify how much computer services is of that total. The rest of it is strictly a telecommunications linkage to provide information from X house to Y office, and that does not provide any access to data or any confidential material. That's what we're asking about. Could you define how much of the $435,000 in this year's budget is exclusively going to computer services and how much is going to the telecommunications network facilities?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I can't do that, but I suspect we're getting more than our value in terms of B.C. Systems providing that service to the people of the province. They are very interested in partnering with Enquiry B.C. to ensure that citizens get the right data and the right information. I could attempt to break that down for you, but, quite frankly, I suspect we're getting incredible value in terms of the time, effort and staff required to service the data bank that we access through Enquiry B.C. I'll take that on notice and see if we can break it down in the computer. Is it the computer breakdown of the numbers you want?
K. Jones: The minister is probably placing too much confidence in his relationship with B.C. Systems Corporation. I think he should seriously look at challenging that relationship, particularly in the provision of certain services. If he is going to be a guardian of the taxpayers' trust and in the interest of keeping down the cost of government, a serious look at the cost of this service is warranted. After this session of estimates, the minister will probably have a serious look at this area. He may find another cost saving, which will make money available for sports programs that need to provide more preventive programming.
With regard to Enquiry B.C., could the minister tell us how the inquiry process occurs? How does the call get into the network?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I don't want to treat your question lightly, but there are phone calls and staff take the calls. We have statistics on the top ten questions, and we have the statistics on.... Actually, hon. member, I'd be very pleased to provide this: Enquiry B.C., April '94, just as an example of the kinds of things they're doing. I'll give you a copy; we may even have one right here. It tells you what kinds of calls they're getting. I'm just getting you an example.
In April, consumer issues were first with 972 calls; motor vehicles, 913 calls; corporate and personal registry, 851 calls; oh, oh -- fourth were calls to MLAs' offices, 817; income assistance questions, 688; residential tenancy, 639; court services, 611; employment standards, 524; vital statistics, 522; government agents, 452; consumer operations, 446; AirCare, 431 -- I won't make any comments on that one.
During the month of April, 350 clients were surveyed on their responses. I'll give you some of this information. Are you a government/private sector/public sector employer or private citizen? How often have you used our service? Have you recommended our service to others? Do you use our service mainly for -- and there's a list of issues. Have you ever received a wrong referral? The response was that 12 percent believed they had received a wrong referral once in a while, which is actually quite remarkable with all the calls that come in. How do you rate the service you have received? Between 75 and 76 percent of people think it's "excellent," and all the rest think it's "good." There are all sorts of training and staffing programs for people to obviously....
I tell you, hon. member, that we are very high on ensuring that this service is number one, because it is the first port of call for many citizens. That's where they go, and that's the first reference point they have for government. If they don't get good service or good treatment or someone interested in their inquiry, they can get turned off very quickly. That's a major issue. We have staff available that understand and speak several languages -- a key criteria in a multicultural province.
Let me give you some sample questions. Then I'm sure we'll want to move on to other important issues of the day. The top ten questions in April are fascinating stuff. Where can I get information about the property transfer tax? Where do I call regarding a wrongful dismissal? Is there a place to order a new CareCard? Where do I call about problems with my landlord? Is there any assistance for starting a small business? Who do I call about a tree-planting job this summer? Where can I find the AirCare hotline phone number? Who do I call about tobacco tax? Can you put me through to the public trustee? Could you look up the name of a government employee?
Many of the questions we get are not earth-shattering. As an MLA, hon. member, you get these calls. To the constituent and to the member, they are a number one issue; they want them dealt with. These are very important questions, and we deal with them. In my understanding, only 12 percent of people who inquire believe that once in a while they've had the wrong referral, which I think is remarkable.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us how many WCB calls were received in April?
Hon. R. Blencoe: We have all the information today: WCB employers' adviser, four inquiries; WCB workers' adviser, seven inquiries; Workers' Compensation Board, 148
[ Page 10948 ]
inquiries; Workers' Compensation Board freedom of information, zero; Workers' Compensation Review Board, 77 inquiries. There were 2,256 inquiries in April for the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour.
K. Jones: How many inquiries to the Government Services ministry?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Oh, I'm glad you asked.
K. Jones: Just one further one. It appears that not one of the top ten made the Government Services list.
Hon. R. Blencoe: This is a very efficient ministry; people know what we're doing, and they don't have to inquire. However, I have to say that in April, 1994, there were 1,662 calls of inquiry, of which Enquiry B.C. itself was the highest, with 384. That means that Enquiry B.C. handled those questions themselves and didn't have to refer them to another ministry.
The protocol branch got 142 inquiries. I presume everyone has heard that Her Majesty is coming this summer, and everybody wants to know when she's going to be here and what she's going to be doing. The public gaming branch, of course, received 109 inquiries; I think you can guess why. Freedom of information and privacy, 131 inquiries; air services, 14; archives and records services, 71. Those are the kinds of numbers.
K. Jones: The hon. minister said that he would be making that available to us. Is that correct?
I would like to advise the minister that he should not be overly enthusiastic about 12 percent wrong referrals. He may want to utilize an independent surveying company such as Tel-Cel, which provides the telephone company's independent surveying as required by the CRTC. They are operating in the 98 to 99 percent area with regard to accuracy of directory services. The common standard across the country is that if it's anything below 96 percent, you're in real trouble, and the CRTC would be down your neck.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I think we can move on. But let me say that I wasn't referencing a 12 percent error factor; I was referencing 12 percent of those surveyed who felt they may have received an incorrect number, but they weren't sure. When asked specifically if they had received an incorrect number, no one responded. But 12 percent thought they may have got one. So they do a great job.
[5:15]
K. Jones: I think we've canvassed Enquiry B.C. sufficiently, and I think the minister is exasperated with it, by the tone of his voice.
We'll move on to a special projects office that operates out of the minister's office -- the environmental assessment office. Could the minister actually give us details of what that amounts to?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Before we do that, hon. Chair, I'm very pleased to provide a piece of information to the member. I don't know how you do that in committee, but I can make available to him the organization funding summary for 1993-94. It lists all the various components: athlete assistance, Team B.C. and coaching. I don't have the 1994-95 numbers, but I'll get them to you as soon as I can. That gives you an indication of the funding for various components, hon. member.
As for the environmental assessment project, I'm sure the member is aware that any details about legislation or future policy would be referred to the Minister of Environment. This project was placed in this ministry by the Premier after the Environmental Assessment Act was not completed in the House last year. As the member knows, a substantial review process has been undertaken. It was felt by government and by the Premier that, while this objective review took place, the most objective ministry in government was Government Services, with no particular axe to grind in terms of where we were going with legislation. If consultation was to be seen as pure and the ministry was to be seen as representing all interests, it was felt that it shouldn't be placed in Environment, for example. For the work-up to bring back the new legislation, the project was placed in this ministry under John Allan.
I'll quickly go through the objectives of the project. I have staff here who can give me details if required. The program objective is to develop and implement a new Environmental Assessment Act, which will promote sustainability by protecting the environment and fostering a sound economy and social well-being. It provides for the thorough, timely and integrated assessment of the effects of major projects and activities and prevents or mitigates adverse effects, and provides for an open, accountable and timely assessment process. For further details on those program objectives, you may wish to take them up with the Minister of Environment.
One of the reasons it was put in this ministry is that it was across all government and across a number of agencies. We work with all ministries, CORE, the Business Council of B.C., the B.C. Environmental Network, the West Coast Environmental Law Association, the UBCM, the B.C. Federation of Labour, the Vancouver Board of Trade, aboriginal groups and the federal Environmental Assessment Review Office -- to name a few.
The work of the project was extensive, in the form of putting out ideas in newsletters to 2,000 or 3,000 recipients. Feedback was received about future legislation. The staff worked on draft environmental assessment legislation and regulations, and held stakeholder meetings and interministry meetings. The intent is for an environment assessment act to be passed in this session of the House. Of course, I can't go into details about that.
Basically the project is to review the piece of legislation that was in the House last session and to come up with changes, do extensive objective consultation with as many people as possible and then, from this ministry, work with all the ministries -- in particular the Ministry of Environment, which will be responsible for the legislation -- to bring that legislation forward.
I have been remiss. I have not introduced Les Foster here. He is the executive director of the environmental assessment project, and he knows far more about this project than I do.
K. Jones: I welcome this; with him here the minister will be able to answer the next question. How much was allocated to this project?
Hon. R. Blencoe: All ministries are paying for this, except Health, which is providing staff in secondment. I believe Mr. Foster is one of those secondments. The total budget for this, which is recovered within government, is $786,000 for 1994-95.
K. Jones: Could the hon. minister tell us how much was allocated in last year's budget?
[ Page 10949 ]
Hon. R. Blencoe: It was $461,000.
K. Jones: Does the minister see this project ending within the 1994-95 fiscal year?
Hon. R. Blencoe: By the end of this fiscal year, the staff that have been working on this, of which there are seven, will be going back or disbanding. Those who were seconded will go back to their respective ministries. The project ends.
K. Jones: That's seven FTEs for the operation of this project. Is that correct or is that including part-time?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, the seven FTEs are full-time, hon. Chair.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us exactly what work was done in developing this project, other than making contact with all these people? Why did it take seven people a year or more to put together modifications to a piece of legislation?
The Chair: Hon. members, matters involving legislation are out of order here; I remind you all of that point. It's up to the minister, but it does prolong things if we get too entangled in pieces of legislation, upcoming or otherwise.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I've already made it clear that we will not and should not get into the details of legislation. This should be done with the Minister of Environment. I know the opposition's modus operandi; I was there.
The member was asking about the work of the seven FTEs. There was an extensive review of concerns and expressions regarding the former act, further consultations and development of regulations and timelines. A multitude of diverse groups want to meet and talk on this issue. It's my understanding that it took considerable time for this to take place.
Hon. Chair, I will be guided by your wisdom on this issue. I'm trying to be as fair as I can, but it will be problematic if we go too far on the policy of future legislation.
K. Jones: This must be the most expensive piece of legislation we've ever put through this House, in that this review of the previous legislation is costing us over $1.2 million. That's an unbelievable expense just to get a piece of legislation processed. Could you explain the justification of that type of expenditure within your ministry?
Hon. R. Blencoe: First, the project is within my ministry, but the recoveries are cross-government. I make that quite clear. All government agencies feel that this is a very important project, and that the job should be done properly in terms of environmental assessment. It is top priority for the citizens of British Columbia to have good legislation. You know that: if your party doesn't, then so be it. We wanted to do the job properly. It has been done properly, and the legislation reflects that.
You should also know that the staff are working on a business plan and various things that have to be done. Recommendations have to be made after the legislation is in. If the project goes, obviously things have to continue. They are making recommendations on guidelines and development issues. It's a very technical, difficult and complex issue. To do the job effectively, we have put together a top-notch project, and the legislation will reflect that.
K. Jones: I'm rather aghast by this figure. I believe it was a much more complex project that was undertaken last year, the Korbin commission, which looked at all aspects of government operations -- staffing, FTE loads and contract loads. It looked at the benefits and salaries of employees right from the bottom through to senior management. It gave us an eight-book series of recommendations and reports. To my recollection -- and I'm a little hazy on this -- it came in at about $1.2 million. Where is the report the Legislature is to receive that will justify all the background work that's gone into this? It should be a multibooklet report to be equivalent to the Korbin commission's efforts. Certainly the public deserves to know what information the ministry received in this project. There must be tremendous amounts of data and information that the public would find useful.
Hon. R. Blencoe: My understanding from staff is that much of the information you're asking for has been sent to your offices. Much of the information we've collected or the things we've learned or the processes that we've put in place has been shared with you and has been put out in a package to MLAs as a backgrounder for the legislation. I should add that I don't think anybody has been negative to the process other than the official opposition. Jerry Lampert has been on board, labour -- everyone. Mr. Lampert congratulated the process in terms of coming up with this process and the legislation.
Interjection.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Well, I don't want to get into that, hon. member. It would appear that the only negative influence in British Columbia is the Liberal Party.
K. Jones: I think the minister is pointing that out from past experience, knowing what the official opposition's role is. From all his negative reports when he was in opposition, I'm sure he speaks with great justification, and I take it as an honour and a privilege to be considered that effective or negative, as he sees it. I think we are doing a very good job, hon. minister, and I thank you for your congratulations.
I don't know what time we're due to adjourn, but I don't wish to start on a new area for just a few moments. So I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:30 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]