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, JUNE 14, 1994
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 16, Number 12
[ Page 11875 ]
The House met at 2:06 p.m.
F. Gingell: Members of the House will remember that three weeks ago, or a little less, I rose in the House and spoke about the death of Tom Goode, a previous Member of Parliament and mayor of Delta. I would like to ask members to join me in welcoming two people who are in the gallery today: his widow, Anna Welling, and his daughter, Caroline Welling, an intern in our research department.
G. Janssen: It gives me great pleasure, on behalf of the member for Parksville-Qualicum, to introduce constituents of his and neighbours and friends of mine: the mother of the former leader of the New Democratic Party, Dolly Skelly, who is accompanied by another good friend, Barb Barrett. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.
U. Dosanjh: I would like to ask the House to bear with me. A group of nine individuals, whom I want to introduce today, from the Chinese Language Education Advancement Coalition of British Columbia were in the precincts some time ago. They are: Dr. Philip Yung, chair of the coalition; Mr. Mason Loh, vice-chair; Dr. David Yip, secretary; Mr. Richard Lee, secretary; Mrs. Virginia Grasby, treasurer; Mr. Sydney Chu, executive member; and Ms. Yukiko Shiroki, executive member. There are also two members of the media: Winnie Kit Yip, a reporter from Ming Pao Newspapers Ltd., and Travena Lee, an editor and reporter with Canadian Chinese Radio. Would the House please make them welcome.
UTILITIES COMMISSION REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FROM B.C. HYDRO
W. Hurd: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Can the minister explain to the House why B.C. Hydro has declined a request for information which was presented to it by the staff of the B.C. Utilities Commission at the recently completed hearings in Vancouver?
Hon. A. Edwards: I'll take the question on notice.
The Speaker: The question is taken on notice. Another question, hon. member?
W. Hurd: I have a new question for the Minister of Health, who is the government's point man for the timely release of information to the B.C. Utilities Commission. I have a transcript of testimony from June 2 which details the power purchase agreement between Alcan and B.C. Hydro, which Hydro has refused to release details of after specific requests issued by the Utilities Commission. This minister had a lot to say about the timely release of information. Why won't he stand today in the House and advise us why B.C. Hydro is stonewalling a request from the B.C. Utilities Commission in these important hearings?
Hon. P. Ramsey: That question was taken on notice. We'll be getting back to the opposition with that information.
The Speaker: The member has a third and final question?
W. Hurd: I have a question to the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro. Will he at least stand in the House and commit to ordering B.C. Hydro to release all information to the B.C. Utilities Commission? After his government castigated the federal government and others, will he at least order Hydro to meet that minimal commitment to the B.C. Utilities Commission?
Hon. G. Clark: I know not of what the member speaks, and I will take the question on notice.
RATIFICATION PROCEDURE FOR LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENTS
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Yesterday the province signed an agreement with the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en which would provide for claim negotiations to start next year. The treaty negotiation process requires that each of the parties to a land claim negotiation have in place a ratification procedure. Would the minister advise this House what procedure the province has adopted to ratify land claim settlements?
Hon. J. Cashore: The province's ratification procedure involves the six stages of the process being completed. Prior to the sixth stage -- the settlement agreement in principle -- the ratification of that agreement in principle would be presented to the cabinet and the House.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
J. Weisgerber: Do I understand the minister to say that the province has decided that the ratification procedure for British Columbia will be in the Legislature and at the cabinet table, and not by way of any ratification by British Columbians on these important questions?
Hon. J. Cashore: The fact is that yesterday was the day that a litigation was ended. The parties agreed that it is better to negotiate than to litigate. We recognize that that is in the interests of all first nations and British Columbians, and that process was put in place in that historic agreement yesterday.
The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.
J. Weisgerber: We'll find out a year from now whether or not we're going to litigate or negotiate. But let me hope that the province is successful in those negotiations.
Given that first nations will adopt a process that will allow for all eligible band members to vote on the acceptance of any settlement, will the province commit to give non-aboriginal British Columbians in the territories affected the same opportunity to vote on the details of land claim settlements?
Hon. J. Cashore: One of the fundamental points in the process is that there needs to be mutual respect with regard to the basic position of each of the parties in the tripartite process. That means the process that first nations governments would establish would be the appropriate process for them. The process that we would establish would be the appropriate process for British Columbians. If the member were to take his argument to the logical conclusion, it would mean that there would be referenda on the part of all three parties, which could involve people in other parts of Canada voting on an agreement made in British Columbia. I don't think any person in British Columbia would want that to happen.
[ Page 11876 ]
HOSPITAL WAIT-LISTS
L. Reid: My question is to the Minister of Health. During the last election, the Premier of this province promised to eliminate waiting lists. Today we have a three-year waiting list for joint-replacement surgery in the Health minister's own riding. If indeed this health care system is not in chaos -- as this dogmatic minister would have us believe -- will the minister stand up and justify how he can keep British Columbians waiting for three years?
[2:15]
Hon. P. Ramsey: The surgeons in Prince George who deal with joint-replacement surgery -- and the hospital provides that service, as do other hospitals -- are working hard to make sure they provide the high-quality health services that British Columbians deserve in going through the transition that we need in the health care system. Over the last two years, contrary to the member's information, wait-lists for surgery at Prince George Regional Hospital have actually decreased.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
L. Reid: Again my question is to the Minister of Health. I have the wait-lists from the Ministry of Health, and I can tell you today that there are 75 people in your riding waiting for hip-and knee-replacement surgery. The majority of those people travel by ambulance to receive that service because surgeons are not available in Prince George. How can you justify that as an appropriate way to treat constituents in this province?
Hon. P. Ramsey: I recognize that any wait-list is distressing to the person waiting for elective surgery. I recognize the reality of that in people's lives. Those who need emergency surgery, as the hon. member knows, move to the head of the list. That is appropriate, too. We have a system in this province where we say very clearly that access to medical services should be based on need, not ability to pay. That's the system that we're working to preserve and, indeed, improve in this province.
The Speaker: A final supplemental, hon. member.
L. Reid: Again my question is to the Minister of Health. There are ten operating rooms at Prince George Regional Hospital; five are open. How can you justify that to the 75 people currently sitting on the wait-list as an appropriate service delivery model?
Hon. P. Ramsey: Prince George Regional Hospital and other hospitals in the province have taken, I think, innovative measures in the last few years to make sure that more surgery is done on an out-patient basis rather than an in-patient basis. That has happened in Prince George, and it is happening around the province. The result has been not a decrease in surgeries in Prince George, hon. member, but an increase in surgeries performed over the last two years. That has resulted not in an increase in waiting lists but a decrease. I believe that hospitals can accept the challenge and move on with providing high-quality care in this province.
U.S. DRAWDOWN OF LAKE KOOCANUSA
D. Jarvis: We are finally getting to the truth. The Americans are drawing water out of Lake Koocanusa in the Kootenays to flush the fish habitat down the Columbia River. This is in direct contravention of the Columbia River Treaty, by which water can be siphoned off B.C. lakes. What has the Minister of Energy done to stop this water theft from the Kootenays?
Hon. A. Edwards: The demands that have been put on the Bonneville Power Administration in the U.S. to make some moves for fish preservation have created some disagreements between those of us who depend on those rivers. Certainly nothing so far has been done, as far as we know, that is contrary to the Columbia River Treaty. In fact, the levels of the river are managed by the Boundary Waters Treaty. We have certainly made and continue to make representations to ensure, as closely as we can, that the values put on Lake Koocanusa, which are considerable, are recognized. But so far the Americans have been able to do what they have done under the treaties we have.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
D. Jarvis: I think the minister is wrong. She has once again flushed the Kootenays down the river. This is the third year in a row that we have brought this before the House. Last year the former NDP MP from the Kootenays pleaded for this government to give him some help. We know what happened to his political career: his NDP friends sacrificed him. What is the minister going to do to protect tourism revenue in the Kootenays area?
Hon. A. Edwards: I don't have any fancy phrases to throw back to the handle wigglers. Nevertheless, I can say very clearly that this government has asked for an electrical systems operation review...
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members, please.
Hon. A. Edwards: ...by B.C. Hydro. That review will be complete and handed in to the ministry by the end of June. We will look at measures that we can take to ensure that as much as possible we are using our rivers for the particular purposes that we choose, and those will be purposes that are chosen by people throughout the province.
The Speaker: Does the member have a final supplemental?
THREAT OF WILLISTON LAKE DRAWDOWN
D. Jarvis: Speaking of good lakes and bad government, Williston Lake in northern B.C. is in the same boat. Our need for energy is threatening the operations....
An Hon. Member: The lake is in the boat?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members. The hon. member is attempting to place his question.
Interjections.
D. Jarvis: They're obviously not really concerned about what's happening in the north of B.C.; that's for sure.
The Speaker: The question, hon. member.
[ Page 11877 ]
D. Jarvis: As I was trying to say, our need for energy is threatening the operation of two mills in the Mackenzie area. Mackenzie is totally dependent upon high water levels for continued operations. I ask this minister what she is doing to ensure that there will be enough water and power in B.C. so as to not draw out Williston Lake, and to preserve the Mackenzie forestry industry.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. A. Edwards: Certainly we are well aware of these problems, and we have had a number of meetings about them. The electrical systems operation review, ESOR, continues to have some meetings, and a report will be in at the end of this month so that we can take a very intelligent and balanced view of what we should be doing with our resources and where the best value is.
POSSIBLE LABOUR ACTION BY NDP CONSTITUENCY ASSISTANTS
G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Labour. The Alliance has learned that there is yet another group of unionized workers who are poised to strike against an unscrupulous employer. [Laughter.] Can the minister tell us if his ministry has had any representation from the union representing the constituency assistants of the New Democratic Party in this province?
Hon. D. Miller: No.
The Speaker: The hon. member has a supplemental question.
G. Wilson: I have a supplementary question which is in a more serious vein, perhaps, in light of the fact that there are unionized workers who are represented by the ministry -- and this minister, in fact -- who work for him. Could the minister tell us whether or not he believes there would be a conflict of interest in any mediation services that would be provided by this minister's ministry with respect to the provision of those services?
Hon. D. Miller: It's an interesting question, actually, and it's one I had briefly pondered myself.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: Actually, the member refers to overtime, and I'd be happy to debate the issue of the Liberal opposition's support of vast amounts of overtime being worked when people are unemployed in this province.
But to get back to the question, I can only say that, like every member, if I am of the opinion that I am in a potential conflict -- and if any other members had that opinion, I would hope they would draw it to my attention -- I would certainly avail myself of the opportunities we have to test those issues through the commissioner.
The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.
G. Farrell-Collins: I ask unanimous leave of the House to move a motion under section 8 of the Inquiry Act, referring to the matter of criminal activity of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society and other groups with regard to their dealings with the New Democratic Party and with regard to payments or contributions...
The Speaker: Order, please, hon. member.
G. Farrell-Collins: ...for campaign and other political purposes.
The Speaker: Order, hon. member.
The Government House Leader on a point of order.
Hon. G. Clark: This matter is sub judice. Charges have been laid, a plea has been entered, sentencing has not yet transpired, and obviously any appeal procedure has not been pursued. The members opposite have had several years to raise this question, of course. They're obviously not happy with the special prosecutor's results and are attempting to play politics with the question. They certainly had the opportunity for a couple of years to raise this question; they chose not to do so. To attempt to do so today while the matter is still before the courts clearly is a breach.
The Speaker: Before listening to any further points of order, the Chair should remind hon. members that when it comes to matters outside of the normal order of business, motions such as that by the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove are properly placed by the government.
The members will recall that we had a similar situation just a week or so ago, where we did set a precedent. We allowed a debate on a matter that I'm sure most of you will recall. I warned members that it would not be acceptable in the future.
G. Farrell-Collins: I would be glad to withdraw my motion and hand it to the Government House Leader within 30 seconds, if he'd like to move the motion himself.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
That is not a valid point of order, hon. member.
Hon. G. Clark: I remind members that somewhere around 5:08, I think, we'll adjourn for approximately two and a half to three hours. I call Committee of Supply in Section A, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs estimates, and in the House the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour estimates.
[2:30]
The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SKILLS, TRAINING AND LABOUR
On vote 49: minister's office, $372,200.
S. Hammell: I'd like leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
S. Hammell: I'd like to introduce a group of grades 6 and 7 students from Kirkbridge Elementary School in Surrey. They're from one of our newly built schools in our ever-bustling community. They are accompanied by their
[ Page 11878 ]
teacher, Mr. McCallum, and some parents. Would the House please make them welcome.
The Chair: I thank the member, and I also thank the minister for allowing that brief interruption.
Hon. D. Miller: I'll make some opening comments. I'll try not to take too much of the members' time, but it is a pleasure to introduce the budget estimates for this new Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour.
I should start, first of all, by introducing some of the staff who are here to assist me. To my immediate right is Tom Austin, director of post-secondary finance and student assistance, and to his right is Kelly Speck, ADM of skills development. Behind me is Jim Crone, ADM of management services, and behind him is Mr. Claude Heywood, the Deputy Minister of Labour, who is familiar to most members, I think.
This is the first full year for the new ministry. It has been a busy eight months, and I really want to commend the work done by my staff, in conjunction with other ministries, to put the Skills Now package together -- which we have announced and which I'll touch on in my opening remarks. It's been a tremendous effort on the part of staff, first of all, to bring together two ministries -- the old Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services and the Ministry of Advanced Education. Those members familiar with government know that it's no mean feat to restructure a ministry, to extricate yourself from programs that have been sent over to other ministries and, at the same time, to work on a significant, new initiative in the field of skills training.
Believe me, contrary to some erroneous impressions about the work of employees in the public service, I can tell you that they put in extremely long hours, and they were really committed to developing this program, which I think is going to be a significant success in this province. There are growing pains, in order to achieve that. As I say, it's very difficult, and some of that work is ongoing, specifically with the extrication of the program that deals with the training of people on social assistance. That is still being worked on between my ministry and the Ministry of Social Services. By this fall we hope to have that extrication process completed and to get on with the new programs we've identified.
I think it's important to note that the ministry was essentially brought together as a result of two important meetings that took place in the province. First of all, the Premier's summit on the economy in 1992 at Pearson College brought together British Columbia leaders from the labour movement, the business community, the education community, the municipalities, if you like, and academia, on the question of how we approach the important issues in our economy.
One of the significant things that came out of that summit was the notion of sectoral accords. I'm very pleased that the government moved on that in a concrete way, through the forest renewal program. We now see a partnership -- and partnership is a theme I'll keep using, because it's important in the work we're doing -- on the economic level between people in the forest sector and the elements I talked about, such as business leaders, labour leaders and community leaders, to put a program in place that recognizes that we're going through a significant adjustment but says that we all have a role to play. We're not going to just sit on our hands and let this happen, with all the casualties and trauma that creates; we're going to take a very active role in this partnership concept. We've done that now by providing a significant amount of money that can be employed to assist people through this period of change. Most importantly, we've said to working people in this province that we want them to be part of the changes taking place, not to be the casualties of change. This certainly gives some level of confidence that that will be the case.
The second summit took place the following year and, in the same way, brought together leaders from across British Columbia to talk about the issue of training. We use the term "skills training." That has a connotation that I think is important, because in many ways it deals with the more practical kinds of training that we can offer our citizens and that are useful both to them as individuals and to the economy of this province. Out of that summit -- and I say this with some pride -- came the formation of the new Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour, with the specific mandate, and indeed an order from the Premier, to act on the issues identified at the Premier's summit held at the B.C. Institute of Technology. Therefore we have a program that I think is of some significance to this province, and it will perhaps establish a different kind of culture, in the way we look at the issues of skills training right through all our systems, whether it's K to 12, colleges, universities or whatever.
When you consider the number of people served by our educational institutes in this province, it's amazing that almost 170,000 British Columbians were served by colleges and universities last year. That's a very high number. As well, the skills development programs serve an additional 117,000. So we are really touching the lives of a very large number of British Columbians through the programs we offer, and it's important that we do the job right.
I needn't take too much time to talk about the importance of the labour side of the ministry and the role that plays in offering services through the Labour Relations Board to assist parties in making the free collective bargaining system work.
This ministry is also responsible for pension legislation, and there has been change there. Through new legislation we are now requiring pension plans to pass the solvency test so that we have that kind of protection in place for individuals who are members of pension plans. They will have the security of knowing that they will in fact receive the benefits they think they are entitled to at the time they retire. That's been a challenge for employers and unions -- one that I think they are successfully grappling with.
In speaking to the issue of the changes that have taken place in our economy and the steps we are taking to try to deal with that, the Skills Now package is a vital and integral part of that change. It's a message that needs to be stated more and more by all British Columbians in leadership positions. It has almost become trite to suggest that the world has changed and that our industries are no longer the same ones that existed 20 years ago. But it so fundamentally true that I continue to say this at every opportunity: our primary resource industries -- which allowed this province to develop to the state it is in now -- have fundamentally changed. For whatever the product is, the global competitiveness is tougher. Twenty years ago we could sell our lumber. We didn't even have to go out sell it; people came to our doors and said they would buy it. There was no sophisticated marketing involved in running forest products companies in those days, whether it was lumber or pulp. People simply beat a path to our door. They bought it and they paid top dollar for it, because we had, and continue to have, the best quality in the world. But the world has changed, and with the rise of production capacity in other parts of the world at a cheaper rate, those heady days of the
[ Page 11879 ]
fifties, sixties and seventies stopped. We have entered a new era. I think it is a much more sophisticated era that will develop a stronger economy over the longer term.
As technology has fundamentally altered the workplace, we have seen a kind of downsizing. The forest industry is an appropriate example. I use it quite a bit, because it illustrates my point in the most dramatic fashion. We have seen a dramatic decline in the number of jobs in the primary end of that industry, but there has been growth in the more sophisticated jobs that go along with the forest sector. Whether that's in land management or some of the technical jobs that exist now in the manufacturing industry, we have seen that kind of shift. We have seen a massive investment in technology and new equipment and processes in the workplace that have, in the main, tended to replace labour with capital. The jobless recovery is not just a challenge for British Columbia, it's a challenge for the industrialized nations of the world. But it struck here with particular vengeance, given our extreme reliance on primary resource production.
As much as we invested in the technology, we have not, in the main, made the investments in human capital that are a necessary corollary of the investments in hardware. Skills Now is an attempt to do that. Through a variety of programs it's an attempt to provide individuals in our society with better opportunities -- and certainly they need those opportunities. In terms of that, I have run through some elements of the program that deal with students in high school, particularly those students who don't go on to post-secondary education -- to college or university. They all too often come out of high school without some kind of basic skill level that will allow them to make choices about what they might want to do, whether they want to go on to post-secondary at some future point or go into the workforce. So part of our programming is aimed at addressing that deficiency.
There's an old saying that there's nothing new under the sun. Having put together this program -- still dealing with the K-to-12 system -- I'm actually delighted now to go out and talk to people in the high schools around the province who have been working on these ideas for some time. In that sense, I think this skills initiative is an idea that's simply there to match public demand. Whether I go to Kitimat or some of the other high schools in this province, I see teachers, educators, administrators, and members of the community, the business community and the labour community, working together to promote the concept that we've outlined here -- to give those kinds of choices to those students in high school who, as I say, at this point primarily don't belong.
Again, I'm pleased to see.... It's amazing. Sometimes we offer programs that are designed to teach in a practical way and include the opportunity for work experience and hands-on learning -- not strictly the academic, theoretical learning with the student in the seat and work on the blackboard, but programs that actually put the student's hands on the theory in practical ways. In my view, they allow for students who ordinarily would not take the academic courses -- they're turned off; they don't feel they have the capability; they've never done well in math or science. "Oh no, I can't take that." And they actually are learning these math and science skills at a much higher level than they ordinarily might. Therefore they do have more flexibility in terms of their career choices.
[2:45]
I should say that I have been very careful not to suggest that what we're doing is ultimately a panacea for some of the broader issues with respect to unemployment and the jobless recovery I talked about earlier. We think it can help -- in fact it can help considerably. We think it's important now and in the future. But it is not, nor should anyone suggest that it is, an immediate panacea.
The critics are the ones who say.... The simplest criticism is: "Train people for what?" Implicit in that is the notion that we shouldn't even bother to train people. I know that all members of this House would reject that, even though there may not be an absolute guarantee that there's a job at the end of every single training opportunity, whether it's in the high schools, colleges or wherever. I don't think anyone would subscribe to the notion that we should simply stop training, or that the workforce is not an integral part of the economy.
So we're moving to increase in a significant way the number of spaces available for students who want to go on to post-secondary training in this province -- 8,100 spaces. No doubt we'll get into that with some of the questions. Again, we'll get into a breakdown. Some of those spaces are at the university and college levels and some are through the community skill centres that are part of the program. Those centres provide an opportunity for working people to upgrade their skills, not necessarily to wait for the trauma to happen or for unemployment to hit before they decide to go and try to upgrade. They try to encourage employers and employees to take those opportunities now, so they really have a much better ability to adapt to change when change occurs -- so they're part of change, not casualties of change.
Our institutes and colleges are as good as you'll find anywhere in this world. We're pleased to announce the awarding of autonomous degree-granting status to four of the community colleges and two of the institutes: the B.C. Institute of Technology and the Emily Carr College of Art and Design. We think that's going to pay dividends in terms of the kind of people they're going to turn out. It will pay dividends for individuals, as I say, and for the economy.
I'm delighted that -- I think this claim is true; I haven't really checked it out -- this fall British Columbia is opening the first new university in Canada. I don't know whether any of my staff have an answer to that, or how long it has been since a new university has opened in this country. But I think all British Columbians should take a great deal of pride in the fact that this province is opening the doors of a brand-new university whose central campus is located in Prince George. I see the member for Prince George-Mount Robson, who was an integral part of ensuring that that dream, that vision, was made into a reality that will open its doors this fall to FTEs -- to students. I hate to use the terminology, you know, but you sort of get into the jargon. There could be 1,500 students in Prince George this fall taking courses at this brand-new university. It's attracting top-notch professors from around the country, and in my view, it will change the face of the community of Prince George.
I was in Prince George last Monday. I couldn't believe it; I thought I was back in the boom of the sixties. There's a community that is just thriving and bustling. There's construction taking place -- a new university and a new prison, I think; a new corrections facility. There's more action taking place in that town than I've seen in the 30 years that I've been driving down Highway 16 and making it my stop at the end of a long drive from Prince Rupert. I'm just astounded. I commend both members on the government side who are from Prince George. I say that they have been as successful as any MLAs in this House in ensuring that they represent their constituencies and get the things happening that can make that kind of growth I'm talking about happen. I was very pleased to spend the day in Prince George and
[ Page 11880 ]
talk to a number of people in the community. It's a brand-new university, and all British Columbians are going to be proud when we open those doors this fall.
Our universities have been rated objectively. One study was in Maclean's. I don't know, but I guess the problem with taking a magazine rating for a university is that next year it might not be good. How objective can magazines be?
That reminds me of a story. I met the former Premier, Mr. Vander Zalm, in Prince Rupert once, and it happened to be sunny that day -- as it frequently is in Prince Rupert, contrary to popular opinion and the BCTV weather show. In any event, Mr. Vander Zalm saw me and came over, and he said: "Well, I brought the sunshine." And I said: "Well, Bill, I've got to tell you that as a politician, if you want to claim credit for the sunshine, then you have to take responsibility for the rain, too." I don't think he ever bragged about bringing good weather again. He didn't say a word; I got him.
But I do think that....
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Is this a filibuster?
Hon. D. Miller: The Attorney General is asking me if I am filibustering my own estimates. By no means, hon. Chair. I think it's important in my opening remarks that preface these estimates to talk about our institutions, because again, I as a British Columbian take a great deal of pride in them. Having been the minister for eight or nine months, I don't claim that I've built all this. I'm just simply stating that we as British Columbians should all take some pride in the public institutions that we have, whether they're our colleges or universities. I think they're doing a first-class job. I think we have done a good job in terms of the funding that we have maintained to our public institutions -- and, in fact, that we have increased.
At a recent conference of the College-Institute Educators' Association, I was struck to hear a report from their representative from Alberta. I'll tell you that it was bad news. I'm starting to get letters now from students in Alberta, saying: "This government has totally disrupted my opportunity to get an education. Can I come to B.C.?" This individual simply bore out what many of us suspect, which is that the Reform agenda being carried out in Alberta is causing complete chaos and havoc in their education system. Unlike others who have gone down that road, we in British Columbia have not chosen to do that. There's a marked contrast between the 20 to 30 percent cuts we're seeing in post-secondary education in Alberta -- the Reform agenda -- and the 3.4 percent increase that we see here in British Columbia in this budget for post-secondary institutions. I think people are starting to realize that as much as it's not a perfect world -- you know, you could always do with more -- we are indeed fortunate in British Columbia, and I think we're on the right budget track in terms of how we've made those commitments to the post-secondary system and to health care and education.
We've also maintained, I think, a reasonable level of capital spending at our post-secondary institutions. Again, I want to say that this ministry has been outstanding in delivering what's contained in the capital budgets year after year, and we'll do that again this year, although there's been a slight reduction in the amount available. I'm sure the members opposite who continue to preach fiscal prudence will fully support the reductions that have been made in the amounts available for capital construction this year. I don't expect to hear one plea from members of the opposition for additional capital construction in the post-secondary system. I certainly will be amazed if I do hear that, because it will be directly contradictory to everything they have ever said in this House on a political basis and indeed directly contradictory to what their leader is out saying to the rest of British Columbians.
So, hon. Chair, I suppose that will probably shorten.... Maybe this little time I'm taking now at the front end of estimates will allow that debate to be relatively short. I'm so pleased with the programs we have this year that I could continue probably for too long. But given the desire of some members of the opposition to actually get up and ask a few questions or maybe make a few statements, I think I'll leave it at that for now and look forward to an informed debate on my estimates.
The Chair: I now recognize the member for Richmond East. I hope she will note that I didn't even ask whether vote 49 will pass.
L. Reid: So noted, hon. Chair, and I thank you most sincerely.
I too would like to welcome the individuals to the chamber today. I am looking forward to a glorious debate about post-secondary education in this province. I think we stand a wonderful chance of creating some very fine and unique opportunities in terms of how we will deliver the service and, I trust, how we will put the focus on the student in receipt of post-secondary services, if you will.
I want very much to be involved in a debate that has some substance to it. I'm not looking just to crunching the numbers with the minister this afternoon. I want to know what the substance is behind those numbers. I want to know how the debate needs to come together so that not just myself, and not just members of the official opposition, but every single student in this province can have some sense of where this ministry is headed.
Certainly I welcome the minister's cooperative spirit. I too intend to participate in a jovial fashion in this debate. I want very much to have the message be positive for students in this province, and I can assure the minister that it has not always been the case. I don't believe that post-secondary institutions in B.C. have always been focused on the student. I do not think I would receive any disagreement from any member of this chamber or from most students in this province. They have felt put upon by the hoops they must move through and the system they must learn to understand simply to have access to the services they wish to access, and that has not been in their best interest. I think oftentimes the system has frustrated them more than assisted them. Certainly I welcomed the minister's comments when he touched on how we want to make the system useful and productive for students in this province.
There are a number of key issues I want to touch on this afternoon in debate, and I want not only us legislators but also the majority of British Columbians to have a better understanding of who we intend these programs to serve and who we are looking at when we talk about post-secondary programs. Are we going to touch on university programs and the universality around that, or are we going to try to broaden the base and see if we can touch on what constitutes an education, training or learning situation of any sort? In the next number of years we will have a better sense of supply and demand in the post-secondary education system, and I certainly tie in all the comments the minister made about what constitutes post-secondary. He touched on the Skills Now initiative and a number of other programs that are in place as a result of this government's initiative. I
[ Page 11881 ]
want to know how those puzzle pieces fit together to create the bigger picture. That is where I am headed in this debate this afternoon.
The minister touched on the changing nature of work: what we will be able to say we do for a living in the next number of years -- and I certainly don't want to pull politicians out of that discussion -- and how young people, people with a number of years of working experience and people who are considering some kind of career change evaluate what they do. How do they advise their children about the kinds of career opportunities that will be available for them? As a teacher who has taught in this province for a number of years, I can assure you that that is a pressing question for young people. It used to be a fairly common debate around the dinner tables in this province. "What are you going to do when you grow up?" was always the tenor of the discussion. Where we are headed is simply: "What are we going to do for four or five career changes in our lifetime?" That impacts dramatically on this ministry. This ministry is incredibly important. It has the ability to be a leaping-off point not only for those kinds of dinner-table discussions but also for future initiatives. I support the notion -- and research will stand behind me -- that the majority of British Columbians will have the opportunity to participate in four or five different career choices. Some people may be propelled into four or five career choices against their will, and the minister and I will come back to discussions of retraining programs and the WCB as we proceed through this debate.
For those individuals who are not able to continue in a career choice, a career-ending event in their life propels them to look at what viable possibilities exist for their lifestyle, their family and the income they have grown accustomed to. All of those questions come to rest squarely on the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour, because they are the kinds of questions that families will pose around the dinner table. Those are the kinds of questions asked when people start revamping their lifestyle and thinking about what kinds of dollars they will need to continue to enjoy the things that they have come to see as part of their lives. Those questions may seem somewhat removed from this debate, but that is the focus of this debate. If you look at the philosophy of post-secondary education, it's no longer about earning a living; it's about learning a living. You need to learn a myriad of new skills to stay abreast of the challenges and demands that will be placed upon you -- not just as a learner, but as a worker. As a teacher I understand that, and I believe that we have attempted to do that in the public school system in British Columbia. It's what we need to do in terms of tying those events together.
[3:00]
I appreciate the minister's comments about transition between high school and other opportunities. Whether those other opportunities happen to be what happens in the first year after someone leaves a high school setting or whether it is a college, Open Learning Agency or apprenticeship program, tying those programs together and attempting to make it look like a seamless post-secondary system has to be the objective for anyone truly interested in servicing students in this province. We must make it accessible; hopefully, we make it useful. We must ensure that it's always relevant. A number of individuals in all kinds of advanced education opportunities don't believe that there is relevancy in their program. That's the issue, and a lot of what the minister said in trying to tie it to where people are is useful. People will support initiatives and, hopefully, will advocate for particular initiatives if they believe they are relevant.
I want to spend a few minutes this afternoon talking about the changing nature of work, because I have a very strong interest in what kind of economic climate we're creating, and whether or not we're building a strong base of research and development in this province. Do I see that as being linked to this ministry? I most definitely do, because what we're attempting to create through advanced education opportunities are new ways of thinking, new ways of looking at issues. Do we want people who are innovative, who are creative, who are prepared to step beyond what we see as traditional opportunities today and create something new? Are we prepared to look at entrepreneurial spirit as something that can be nurtured in the school system, something that can be taught and demonstrated in post-secondary situations? I think yes; we definitely have to do that. Through this ministry, we're not necessarily creating individuals who will go to work for someone else. That is the essence of my comment on the changing nature of work.
I trust that through this ministry's programs, we will create individuals who will go to work for themselves, who will create new business opportunities, who will do some glorious things in terms of employing others, creating employment, providing people with some niche where they can apply their skill set. Over the next five to ten years, I don't think it's going to be the employer employing X number of employees. If I can borrow the minister's comment, I think we're moving very much to the partnership model. I don't believe you will see the hierarchical model around post-secondary education. You won't see the boss and then everybody falling in underneath. Hopefully, you will see partnerships where there's some recognition that a brain trust is very important, where people will come to work to generate new ideas and find ways to take the concept from the lab bench to the marketplace. That is what I want to see in a post-secondary system.
I think it's absolutely critical for us to understand that to be the launching point. That's where we need to get to, but we're not there yet. We certainly will have debates on the cost of bricks and mortar in this province. It's not the answer. It's no longer valid to have a system that looks at institutions, that generates additional bricks and mortar. To me, it has to be a system that looks at how we generate and value ideas and how we take those ideas to the marketplace, because we are interested in being a competitive society. Hopefully, we want to employ some of the finest graduates in this province. All of you know -- whether it's doctors, engineers, technicians -- that those kinds of folks are leaving this province to seek employment, typically in other countries.
We have created a tremendous system here. We have invested vast numbers of dollars in the training of those individuals. It seems to me that we need to address more fully whether or not we are creating opportunities for people to practise their craft in British Columbia, no matter what the craft. We have to ensure that those kinds of programs are in place.
That brings us to the next part of the discussion. What kinds of educational opportunities do we want to offer? Where do we want to take this discussion? When the minister talks about partnership, that speaks very strongly to me. I want very much to see a project-oriented approach to post-secondary education. I don't wish to see the student treated as some kind of serf in a medieval exercise. That typically is what happens today. A number of educational institutions fabricate some kind of endurance exercise: if you can survive all the hoops you need to get through, they will tap you on the head at the end of X number of years -- two years, three years or four years -- and give you a piece of
[ Page 11882 ]
paper. It shouldn't just be an endurance exercise; it should be something that allows you to craft your ideas, your opinions, your thoughts, and apply them.
Gone are the days when you could just have a philosophical education, if ever that was possible. There has to be some ability to apply that kind of skill -- some new skill set around innovation -- and take it with you when you leave an institution. It's not wrapped up in a little piece of paper. It's how you present; it's how you interact, hopefully, with your environment.
I'm sure the minister knows that I have a strong interest in how we apply technology. That, to me, will focus some of this debate, because I'm very interested in having individuals who are looking at ways to apply themselves in job situations have some sense of reality.
I come back to my earlier comment about relevance. If it's not relevant, it will not be accepted by learners. Even the use of "student...." We tend to see students as folks between age five and the early twenties. We need to see learners getting some sense of what it is to be continuously educated, and we need to build that into the system. The WCB is a fine example of individuals who are 40 or 50 years of age who have to learn new skills to provide them with an income. Retraining for a number of those individuals is extremely difficult. We want people to be educated for independence, and that's where I'm headed with this debate this afternoon. I'm hoping that the discussions we have over the next day or so look very much at what it is to be considered an independent operator, if you will -- someone who can take a particular set of skills and apply it and generate some dollars.
I know the minister has a strong sense that people should be out there paying taxes. The tax base is the only thing that allows government to continue. We all believe there are certain services that governments should provide. The only revenue we have at the present time is the tax base. Do we want people investing in their future? Do we want them to be creating a livelihood that will allow them to fully participate in society? I believe we do.
When I talk about access, I talk strongly about co-op programs. I want to see businesses and universities partnered. I would love to see every elementary school in this province partnered with a business. I don't think we should wait until people are 17, 18 or 19 years of age and somehow thrust them into a cooperative program; we want it right through the system. My comment about seeing a seamless system.... I think we want to see the system tied to businesses, because it's a partnership. It has to be integrated into the process.
I don't think anyone is ever too young to be encouraged to have some entrepreneurial spirit. I've had some glorious days at the Science Council seeing four- and five- and six-year olds bringing their inventions to the table, as I'm sure the minister has in different forums around this province. Those folks have no fear of failure at that age. They are convinced that their idea will go to market and that they will be a business person.
That is the message we want to send throughout this entire debate: you can have an idea, and you can actually do something with it. We don't tend to instil that sense when people are in colleges and institutes in this province. If we can finally move beyond the smokestack approach to colleges and institutes, where you have 15 or 20 of them operating unilaterally, and try to integrate some of that thinking, that would receive the absolute support of the official opposition. It's time to allow people to move more freely between all of those entities.
I want to spend a few minutes this afternoon talking about structures and about the minister's comments earlier about whether or not we'll ask him to spend more money on bricks and mortar. No, we are going to....
Interjection.
L. Reid: I know; he's tremendously relieved by that.
I want to talk about credit banking. I want everyone in this province to have some understanding of how reassuring it is to a student to be able to move freely between institutions. We have a lot of artificial barriers right now -- i.e., if you didn't take your last years at this institution, you can't take the next two years here; this course isn't common to X institution. We're forever asking students to start over. When we think about how much we currently subsidize that educational program, we can't do that. We are simply paying for the same product many, many times over. It doesn't make sense; it's not a good use of the dollar. And it doesn't make the process any more relevant for students. We definitely need a system that's responsive and flexible and that has some lifelong rationale to it. That is what will determine whether or not British Columbia remains competitive; that is what I want to see.
I think the finest thing this province has going for it is its education system. The product of this education system will be whether or not people are flexible and responsive and have new ideas that they want to take to the marketplace, because the reality is that the dollars will follow the ideas. I want those kinds of dollars to stay in British Columbia. Right now I think we give away a lot of what this province has invested in. We may give it away in the form of a person who has been educated in this province for four or five years, but we still give it away. We simply don't value people enough; we don't create the climate so that they want to stay here, practise their craft and bring their idea to market here.
This brings me to the issue that, hopefully, ties the three previous points together. That's the issue of funding and whether or not we're going to get a better handle on who pays for education in this province -- whether it's a public delivery system, whether it's enhanced by a private system or whether it's not enhanced by a private system. The issue is: who pays, and how much? I will not stand today and tell you that the official opposition supports a tuition-free situation. I strongly support a system where students in this province participate in the funding of their education. It begs the bigger question: what's the breakdown? What are we looking at in terms of what the public pays, if you will, and what the student continues to pay? Certainly, as I'm sure everyone is aware, current student participation is somewhere between 14 and 18 percent. We're looking at 20 percent being put forward by the student and the public at large picking up the remaining 80 percent.
I'm not anticipating making any policy statements that advocate a change in that breakdown. Giving people a clear understanding of what it costs in this day and age to receive a post-secondary education -- again, no matter the type; no matter the variation on that theme -- is useful. It makes for a healthy understanding of the fact that education is not free -- just as health care in this province is not free. I can tell you -- to share an anecdote not half as amusing as the one about Bill Vander Zalm, but one about my travels in this province as Health critic -- that the majority of persons in this province believe that health care is free.
[3:15]
We cannot allow that same sentiment to continue to take root in advanced education. You may not pay directly for a service, but certainly a great percentage of your tax dollar
[ Page 11883 ]
goes to those kinds of services. I for one would see nothing wrong with having the actual cost of a post-secondary program -- whatever the program; whether it's a university program, an institute program, or an Open Learning Agency program -- listed at the front of every single university, college and institute calendar. That, to me, would go some distance down the road in terms of people valuing that program and, hopefully, making some better choices around the program that they choose.
We tend -- to use the minister's phrase -- to look at how many full-time-equivalents we enrol in institutions. I'm not thinking that that's a terribly progressive assessment of how well we're doing in education. We should be looking at the product. What is the outcome from those institutions? Let's measure that. Let's report back on that. We haven't done that particularly well over time. I think if we build the process so that everybody has a sense of where we've been and what we hope to achieve.... I have a strong sense that if we want to manage something particularly well, we have to be in a position to measure it. We haven't done that particularly well in post-secondary education -- and, again, no matter which program. I don't speak specifically of universities, colleges or institutes. We haven't measured the outcome from any of those learning vehicles particularly well, and that's an issue for this minister. We certainly tend to go for the red flags. We look at students who haven't paid back their loans. We look at those kind of issues.
I very much want to see this minister in the next year or two look at how many students successfully complete programs and to figure that kind of thinking into how we fund institutions. Perhaps we fund institutions based on how many students they actually graduate and have finish a program, as opposed to how many students actually start a program. I think we have to create some incentives in the system for institutions -- and, again, no matter what institution -- to focus on the student. We give the money.... All of you who have stood in a bank lineup for 46 days know that oftentimes students trying to receive service from an institution feel exactly that way. They feel that their needs are not being met and that they're not being recognized as the recipient of a service; they're simply put through an assembly line. That's not appropriate. If we want them to be innovative and creative, and if we want to respect their individuality, we have to ensure that we put something in place that values who they are. Pushing them through the process doesn't do it. Just funding who they are when they begin doesn't do it. We should have some sense of how many students in this province actually finish a program and some sense of where they go after that.
The documentation today looks at the kinds of skills students need to be gainfully employed and to be considered a recipient of a rounded education. We don't do anything with that information. We know what we think people need to prepare them for the next century, and we know what we think they need for the next five to ten years. But we don't incorporate that into the funding of institutions, and I think it's time we did that. I don't think it's radical science, but I truly think we need to look at the outcomes from all those institutions and decide how we're best going to proceed. We're at the stage where we're looking at learning for the post-industrial age. We always get off on a tangent about that. What does that really mean? I think we need to move beyond that. We need to say yes, we required certain skills to bring us to the point we have now reached -- fabulous -- and it's time to move on.
I have touched on capacity, under the guise of access, if you will. What can each institution conceivably be expected to deliver? Again, if we tie it to outcome -- what we're intending to produce and what products we want -- I think we'll have a better sense of capacity and a better sense of how people can look to those institutions for the services that can be offered. Almost in concentric circles, we may have a group of students on campus every single day, enrolled in a program; we may have students in the next circle who come and utilize the resources and technologies that are there, such as videoconferencing or teleconferencing programs; and we may have students who use other systems in the community. Yet they're all part of the package. It has to be seen as a package.
I very much want to applaud the initiatives the minister has taken in some of the skills centres around the province, particularly in Prince George. I think that's a focus for the community. Now that it has the opportunity to be tied to the University of Northern British Columbia -- and hopefully it will have the ability at some point to generate some clear sense of where we're headed -- it makes perfect sense.
I don't intend to get bogged down in arguments or discussion about whether or not this province can afford another freestanding university. We have to look at what we're trying to achieve and put in place in the framework so that people can receive the services. The service will be individualized, if we're doing a good job and if we're interested in measuring the outcome. We should look to that before we ever again look to just the bricks-and-mortar discussion.
I have some understanding of the comments the minister made about asking for dollars for bricks and mortar. Frankly, all the money in the world is truly not the answer. I'm sure the minister will want to hear this comment, so to restate my point: all the money in the world is not the answer. If we continue to deliver education as we have in the past, we will be missing the boat. It's not about delivering something to a static market; it's about inviting people to participate in the process.
I very much want to make a comment on something entitled "High Skills or Low Wages" taken from a May 1993 journal. I think it ties into the framework I've been trying to build in the last few minutes, and I want this to form part of the discussion over the next number of days. I made mention of the post-industrial economy, but I think we are well beyond that. We need to talk about what a new economy looks like, and I want to enter this into the record, if I might.
There is a request for an introduction. If I allow it, may I continue?
Interjection.
L. Reid: Thank you.
The Chair: I thank the member for yielding and recognize the member for Cariboo North.
F. Garden: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
F. Garden: I appreciate the member allowing me this, and I thank her very much. I have a group of 28 students who have travelled over 700 kilometres to get here from Bouchie Lake Elementary School -- the best elementary school in our area. They are grade 7 students who are accompanied by adults Sandy Oxenbury, Luvanna Erixon, Lorraine Sanford, Maureen Bettcher and Mairlen Sloan. I didn't mean to say that the teacher was not an adult, but the teacher gets special
[ Page 11884 ]
mention: Mr. Winthrope. Let's make them welcome to the Legislature. They're a great group.
L. Reid: I want to quote from this article of May 1993 titled "High Skills or Low Wages." I think it focuses the introductory comments I have attempted to make this afternoon:
"In the new economy, that old industrial model is being replaced by a rapid move towards customization of goods and services and the decentralization of work. Today, new products can be developed in a fraction of the time it took in the old industrial economy; services and products are custom-built to order; quality is dramatically improving; and costs are being driven down through the use of new technologies such as computer systems, robotics, and measurement systems.
"In the new economy, workers are on the front line interacting with customers, and workers on the factory floor are empowered to make decisions. This is the only way customized goods and services can be created quickly, with the highest quality, at the lowest cost, and with maximum flexibility."
In terms of measuring who leaves an institution, this article is making the point that they must possess these kinds of skills. It is supported in Canadian research and in skills and training documents that have come forward from this ministry.
In the new economy, strategic resources no longer just come out of the ground. The strategic resources are ideas and information that come out of our minds. That, I hope, will be the focus of the debate in the next number of days. Students in other industrialized countries are learning math, sciences and critical judgment skills that are more relevant to today's economy. The greatest certainty about the new economy is the pace of change. Young people in school today can reasonably expect to have four or five careers. Skill needs will constantly change. Therefore education must become a lifelong pursuit -- not just an institutional experience early in one's life.
Education, training and retraining must become as much an ongoing experience in our lives as exercise and vacations, which I thought that was an interesting twist. It's something we look forward to and something we plan for. Most of us have at least a yearly vacation. If people were to look at retraining and training in that same vein -- something that was just a given built into how you live your life -- it would make a tremendous difference in the kinds of programs this ministry will provide and the kinds of programs that all learners demand from the system. More than just making the economy more responsive, students in this province must make their institutions more responsive to what they believe they need to know. I would suggest that they are far more skilled at determining what they need to know than is a lot of the curriculum that we simply set before them and ask them to give back to us in some other form.
If we talk about Olympics of the Mind, in an elementary example, we send young people from all over this province to be creative. We ask them to be flexible decision-makers and to come back to the table with a solution. We are asking people to be solution-providers. I don't know about you folks, but I don't know the last time I saw that kind of language in a university calendar. We are asking people to be creative and be solution-providers, and I trust we will begin to see that in university calendars in this country. That is the kind of thinking we need to bring to the table.
I would very much like to begin today's dialogue with a discussion of the minister's office. I certainly enjoyed the opportunity to make opening remarks, hon. minister, and I trust we can continue to use that as a launching point over the next number of hours of debate. So if I might, hon. Chair: vote 49, the minister's office. I want some sense from the minister of the kinds of programs and communication tools he may wish to put in place to indicate to parents and learners the range of ideas and programs that are available. What kinds of communication devices does his ministry have in mind?
The Chair: With the member's permission, before I go directly to the minister, I believe there are some others who may also want to make opening statements. I'm going to take that approach, if I may, and recognize the member for Prince George-Mount Robson.
L. Boone: It's with pleasure that I rise today and bring congratulations to the minister and the ministry for obvious reasons. I want to do a little bit of preening here, because we have in our midst, close to my constituency, the jewel of the north: the University of Northern British Columbia. It's something that we can all take pride in. UNBC is the first new university to be opened in Canada in over 25 years, and it's something that we are very proud of.
UNBC did not come about just because government happened to decide one day that it would put a university there; this came about after tremendous lobbying from constituents right across the north. We had people from the Queen Charlottes, Kitimat, North Peace and Fort Nelson down to Williams Lake. They actually put their money on the line. They put $5 down to sign up and become a member of a society that lobbied government and put forward their position that we not only needed but deserved a university in northern British Columbia. We have that university because this government had the foresight and the strength of mind to realize that roads flow north and south, and people can travel upwards and attend university in the northern half of this province.
[3:30]
When the University of Northern British Columbia officially opens with a visit from Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth on August 17, we will be seeing a university with some enthusiasm, that is actually taking some chances and is trying some innovative things. We will see the opportunity for staff and faculty to come in and try something new.
You know, when this was first suggested, there were people who said: "It will never fly; you will never be able to get qualified faculty to come to Prince George." Well, guess what. We have some of the finest faculty not only in Canada but in North America, and they have come because they're enthusiastic and want a chance to participate in a new university.
We had members of my own caucus, hon. Chair -- surely not you -- who said to me: "You won't have enough students to fill a university in Prince George." We said: "Nonsense. Of course we will." We have a waiting list now; we have 3,000 applications. As the minister says, we are going to have close to 1,500 students participating when classes start in September. Those students are coming from the north, but a lot of them are coming from the southern half of the province, because of the uniqueness of some of the programs there and because they want the opportunity to participate in a new university. I can certainly relate to that, as I attended Simon Fraser University as a charter student. I went there because I wanted to go to a new university; I wanted to be in on the ground floor.
I want to congratulate the minister and the former minister for having the tenacity to hold on despite pressures from the rest of the province to give in, take money out of that area and put it elsewhere. That funding was kept and
[ Page 11885 ]
held whole through some pressure from various people to move those dollars out of there. Those dollars have remained there, and we are seeing a university that is, as I said, the jewel of the north. UNBC is a turning point for Prince George and for the north, and we're going to see some tremendous things come about as a result.
I just wanted to make that comment before I handed this over. There will be some other items, because I think there are some exciting things happening in this ministry right now with the Skills Now initiative. I'm pretty excited about what's taking place -- not just in my community but throughout this province. I look forward to hearing the minister respond to the questions that are asked of him in his ever-easy, just-a-working-man way that he does so well.
Hon. D. Miller: I am indeed pleased that the members who have spoken thus far seem quite happy -- recognizing that nothing is perfect -- at the efforts being made by the government to improve our delivery of educational opportunities to people such as those we see in the gallery, the students who are watching this debate. Perhaps it might be interesting for them to see what we legislators have to say about education. In fact, it would be nice to get a dialogue going sometime.
Nonetheless, the issue is communications. I believe the question asked something like: what capability or whatever do I have in my office with respect to communications. The communications budget is contained in vote 50. I'm going to argue at the outset, and I would hope all members would agree, that we have the latitude in estimates debate to discuss any aspect of the ministry -- providing, of course, that as we come to the end of the debate, it's understood that we have canvassed both votes and, as I think I insisted in some earlier debate on a bill, that I not be compelled to come back and rediscuss or redebate issues that have been canvassed already. I don't want to put any limit there, but as the minister, clearly I don't want to be repeating myself over and over.
We have a budget for communications in the ministry. It's $1.6 million, I think, or something like that. I think it's an important area, and I want to say that as much as we're going to advertise, out of necessity, the range of new programs under the skills initiative, I think all of us have a bit of a challenge. Although the programs may be there, and although there may be agreement among educators or people in the business community, and indeed even among the opposition on occasion, I'm not convinced that the information is going to get down to the level where I think it's needed, without a commitment -- not for a professional public relations program, but by business leaders, union leaders and public leaders in all walks of life -- to start talking about this in the communities and in the schools.
I talked earlier about the choices we offer young people. By the way, I want to say that I'm a bit uneasy when I hear the opposition talking about business partnerships in elementary schools. Quite frankly, my view is that because we accepted the notion long ago that the state has responsibility for the public education system, those earlier grades in our system should be confined, if you like -- not exclusively, but confined -- to the kinds of basic education that I think we need to equip every student with, such as the ability to read and do those numerical calculations that are important. In other words, we need to give the basics, the groundwork. When I say that, I don't ever want to be misinterpreted as saying it's being limited, because I think the basics can be freedom of expression and the ability to recognize that, as much as we are all different in our society, we are all people of this world and should have a common understanding -- those kinds of basics that are fundamental to an informed populace.
I would not like to see them overburdened with some notion of business at that young age. Nor do I think everybody wants to be or should be an entrepreneur. The issue is one of some choice -- that, given a skill level, people have the opportunity to make choices. Clearly there are many people in our society -- I was one for most of my working life, and who knows what may happen after this period is over? -- who freely choose to be employees. There's no disrespect or anything else. We need employees as well.
I also am quite concerned at what I think is almost a trendy kind of approach to the economy in this province, and that is to suggest that somehow a "new economy" has replaced the old economy. I was remarking to one of my staff that I must have had my eyes closed when I crossed the demarcation line, because I can't quite figure out when it all happened. I'm not convinced that there's anything new necessarily. I think there's been change. We talked about change. We talked about technology and trade issues -- international competitiveness -- really being the drivers. But our history is full of change, right from the time we moved from an agrarian to an industrial economy. The issue is one of adapting to change.
I also argue very strongly that part of what I characterize as the trendiness is to suggest that we should abandon an industrial base to our economy. I can think of no quicker way to hasten this province to its economic demise than to abandon the notion of having a strong industrial base. It may be a different industrial base; it may not be the same one we had 30 years ago -- fair enough. But to abandon the notion of an industrial base is to put us at the whim of -- what? -- with respect to change internationally. We have an industrial base in this province. In its primary stage it's built on the primary production of resources. The challenge is to move to the secondary and tertiary stages and to whatever other refinements and value we can get. If we ever abandon an industrial base, I think.... In fact, several papers have been written about the result of hollowing out the industrial base.
I'm straying. We will have a communications budget. We will attempt to inform people about new programs. But there's a challenge for all of us to do a better job.
L. Reid: I will take a few moments to comment on the minister's comment. But where I want to begin.... Certainly the question I posed to you was about communication vehicles, if you will, to extend that thinking a little.
Perhaps the question is more around how we encourage people to value different types of education. Let me explain my point to you by way of an anecdote. I had a German family visit me in my office; they had recently arrived in British Columbia from Germany. They were coming to see me as the critic for Skills and Training, if you will. They certainly lived in my riding. Their interest in coming was to see if I could encourage their son to do what they wished him to do. Their son wanted very much to be a doctor. They wanted him to be a craftsman, because it was more valued in the community from which they had come.
My thinking around that entire issue is that we have tended to be somewhat hierarchical in post-secondary education; we've tended to rank first, second and third choices. We have graduates -- and I'll speak of the high school graduation I attended on Friday evening in my riding at Matthew McNair Senior Secondary -- and students, as I'm sure all MLAs do, who truly believe the only way to measure
[ Page 11886 ]
success is by whether they're university bound. I want very much to have the minister comment in terms of how we value an entire range of educational opportunity, how we convey the message that we want them to participate in all kinds of different avenues. I certainly respect the minister's comment about choice. That's exactly my point. How do we ensure that they understand that the choices are greater than what we have believed them to be up to this point?
Hon. D. Miller: I tried to address this question in a way, but let me be more specific. I think the member is right with respect to.... I talked about attitude. I said that as much as we may have a communications budget, there are challenges for all of us. I have spoken previously in this House about surveys that we do, for example, of apprentices, of certified tradespeople in this province. We say: "Who guided you? Who suggested that you might take this kind of training?" One in 20 say a high school counsellor or another trades-person. In other words, I don't think they're being given the information. That's a gross oversimplification, in that we also haven't done much on the opportunity side.
I'll use an example -- and here we have some representative students in our gallery. The British Columbia Institute of Technology did a survey of both the students and their parents. I think it was about the pivotal years between junior secondary and senior secondary. They said to the students: "Where do you think you're going to go in terms of your future education?" Eighty-five percent of the students said university. They then went to those students' parents, and they said: "Where do you think your son or daughter will go in terms of their future education?" Amazingly enough, 85 percent of the parents also said university. There's the attitude that exists.
We then go to the reality. About 30 percent of students who graduate from high school -- and we have a dropout rate that is too high in this province -- go on to either college or university. In other words, the vast majority, about 70 percent, come out of high school and try to find work in this very, very tough job market. To me, there appears to be -- and it's been conveyed to me in anecdotal terms -- a bit of an attitude issue. In other words, the attitude suggests this: an academic education at the university level is the ultimate goal, and almost everything else is second best. People like myself, for example, who went to work in an industrial plant and became a tradesperson, somehow don't have the status of someone who might go through university and become a doctor or even a lawyer, for that matter -- although they have their own problems.
[3:45]
So when I talk about the challenge that we have, you can advertise as much as you want, but you first of all need to have people going into the schools and saying to students at a reasonable age, in terms of future career paths, that we value everybody's contribution in this society. I don't care what they are -- a doctor, lawyer or university professor. I don't see that they have any higher status than anybody else. All of us have a contribution to make in our own way, and there is no status associated with that.
Second, we need to say that there are some career choices now that are better than going to university on an academic program. These areas, which we're going to be promoting, are in the technological areas, in career technology. The kinds of programs, whether they're at BCIT or at community colleges around this province, that give those students the education and training that allow them to go out into the workplace, find a job -- most often a job, quite frankly, that pays better than average.... I know that the tradespeople I used to work with who are employed are making reasonable wages, and that's certainly part of life.
So as to how you do that, I have been doing it in my own debates and discussions that I have had around the province. I'm challenging others to do it, and I think educators, administrators and business leaders are starting to pick up that challenge. I think it's something that you have to work on over and over again, and just keep at.
L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments. For the record, it was not my intention to unsettle him earlier about business partnerships in elementary schools but to make precisely the point he has just made. I want young people of all ages in this province to be exposed to a whole range of educational opportunities. I think we have to expose them to those opportunities when they're very young, because if we go back to that point later on in a high school counselling situation and make that part of their reasoning and understanding, we have missed 12 very fine and productive years. So that was the point.
About the minister's comment about not wanting everyone in this province to be an entrepreneur, in my view we want everyone in this province to be a thinker, a fine decision-maker and a solution-provider. That is how we tend to define today what it is to be an entrepreneur. I don't think it's a nasty, evil word, hon. minister. Yes, we do want people to be responsive, reflexive and flexible thinkers. So for the record, I'm standing firmly behind my comment about partnering elementary schools.
Interjection.
L. Reid: I can't.
I want the minister to understand the background to that comment. It's not about churning out identical folks because we partner them with some kind of business. It's about exposing them to new thoughts, new ideas and, hopefully, different jobs and careers that they may have an opportunity to look at in more detail. And as for the minister's comment about the industrial economy and that somehow I treated it as a trendy exercise, the reality is that we are shifting gears in society, and we have done so. It's time to address new demands that the system has and those that individuals will place upon it. So again, that is not a negative comment. It is simply a statement of reality that we have moved along, certainly in terms of people's views of what is viable for their own education and careers. So to set the record straight, I look upon both of those as being very positive.
It seems that today we have a number of university graduates entering the B.C. Institute of Technology, for example, who already have a university degree. They believe they need some application for their skills and some practical knowledge that will help them apply what they have learned in a different setting. My question in terms of the bigger perspective is whether or not we can afford to put that kind of subsidy into those same bodies. Certainly, speaking to the president of BCIT, approximately 30 percent of people who enrol in BCIT today come in with a university degree. That's not to say that that's negative or positive, but simply to say that at that point, we are indeed looking at five, six or seven years of an 80 percent subsidy, if you will, on post-secondary education. If that is indeed the trend -- and certainly that percentage has grown over the last five to ten years -- how are we going to finance that?
Hon. D. Miller: I have, obviously, talked at length to the head of BCIT about that. I agree to the extent that every
[ Page 11887 ]
system needs to seek efficiencies. I think that if, for example, there are people currently in university who are only there because they are undecided about what they want to do, and we can.... I see that the leader of the Progressive Democratic Alliance shakes his head. It's probably less true today than it was 20 years ago, when I was young.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: Yes.
We should seek them, but I don't think you can do it in a coercive way. My view is that you've got to identify the opportunities that might be there with any particular education, whether it be academic or technical. Indeed, BCIT is not the only institute that accepts people who have already received, let's say, a diploma from a university. Capilano College has an outstanding program that Asian business management.... I can't remember the exact name of the course. Nonetheless, it takes those people who have acquired a basic degree and adds value to that degree, in this case through a program of language and business skills that would be applicable in some of the Asia-Pacific countries. There are probably lots of other examples out there as well, which I can't give off the top of my head -- and some that make sense.
So I don't know that you want to have a system so rigid that it says you can't go to UBC and then expect to go to BCIT. I think you have to look at some combinations that might make sense, certainly keep your eye on any efficiencies that can be gained and allow better access to the system as a whole through that.
G. Wilson: I'd seek leave to ask the House to make welcome 35 grade 7 students....
The Chair: To carry out the formality, I'll just ask if leave will be granted.
Leave granted.
G. Wilson: I'm really tempted to make a comment, but I'm not going to, because.... I can take the high road on this one.
I'm sure the 35 grade 7 students from Oceanview Junior Secondary School in Powell River who have been listening to this debate about higher education are all en route to some form of post-secondary education. I would like the House to make them welcome, along with their teacher Michelle Silverton.
L. Reid: To come back to the minister's comments about rigidity, it's not about institutions accepting individuals who already have a university degree; it's what kinds of structures are going to be in place to acknowledge and receive that trend. He's absolutely right that it is happening; I concur with the minister's comments. There are a lot more individuals today who are going for the value-added degree, if you will, that the minister has mentioned. If that indeed is the trend....
Again, I come back to the minister's comment about the 15 to 30 percent of individuals in this province who do go to university. What I'm trying to address today is: what is the 70 percent solution? What happens to the other 70 percent? If we're going to put the resources into the same 30 percent.... And I'm not saying it's negative; I certainly agree with what the minister has said about value-added, about people taking academic training and needing to attach some kind of skill set to it. I acknowledge that it's there; I'm not asking the minister to somehow suggest it isn't. I'm simply saying that because that's the trend, where do we go from here? I come back to the minister's comment that we still are not addressing the other 70 percent who aren't going to university.
Hon. D. Miller: To be more accurate, the statistic is that within three years of graduating from high school, they've not gone on to any post-secondary training whatsoever.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: It's a shade different. You've referred to university. I think that may be a natural slip that a lot of us make. I think it goes back to some of the things I said earlier about the kind of attitude that exists. Maybe I used this in the House previously, but I'll use again the example of the technology courses that are now being implemented at the high school level. I use technology as an example, but there are other examples that can be used. Forestry is one, where we're starting to see in some districts, because of the drive of individuals.... In the case of Vanderhoof, the people in the Ministry of Forests office and the school district have developed in-school programs in forestry, which presumably would allow students with those courses to then get credits at, say, Northwest Community College -- or CNC, for that matter -- to move into a technical diploma-granting course at the community college level. In the case of Kitimat, those courses will allow the students to move into a diploma program at Northwest Community College. They can then take that -- because it is articulated or laddered, or whatever they want to call it -- into the university where, with those kinds of courses and that background, they could pursue an applied degree. Or one could exit the program at some point into an apprenticeship. Or, in theory at least, one could go into, let's say, the college level, having acquired a trades qualification certificate. In other words, there are no limits. Let's get rid of this notion of limits: that you go there or you go here, and people simply never meet. There should be the flexibility that allows individuals to pursue those opportunities.
Lots of employment can be gained by acquiring technical diplomas at the community college level. I was struck recently by the weekend edition of the Province, if I'm not mistaken. It's nice to see that people are finally starting to advertise for tradespeople in this province. But do you know where the advertisements are? They're no longer in those rows and rows of classified ads, saying they need a certified millwright for this, that and the other; they're in those great big ads where they're looking for executives to run things. Guess what: they also have great big ads saying they need an instrument mechanic. That gives you some indication that where those skills are in demand, they're quite highly valued. Clearly, employers don't put the resources into those kinds of ads unless the employees are going to get decent wages. I hope I've answered your question.
L. Reid: The minister made some mention that I had slipped when I said university education. In fact, that was the question. When we talked about BCIT, my question was about folks entering British Columbia Institute of Technology with a university degree. Your earlier comment was that that accounted for roughly 30 percent. My question was about the other 70 percent. In fact, the minister touched on a number of other opportunities that are available, and I thank him for his comments.
[4:00]
[ Page 11888 ]
To come back to funding for a moment, someone who has a university degree will now have a bachelor's degree in technology from the B.C. Institute of Technology. The trend is that the percentage of students going for both degrees is growing. I'm confident that I'm not leading the minister astray here: that is the trend. I'm wondering -- and I'm hoping the minister will address this -- how that trend will be accommodated within the ministry. That's not to take away from all the very fine examples the minister has just given -- I support those. But the group of students that will soon have two degrees is only going to get larger. What does the ministry have in mind for that group of students?
Hon. D. Miller: I'm not quite certain I follow the question. We're making more opportunities available. There are some fairly rigorous standards for students trying to get into university. They may wind up in university in their third year, having taken two years at a community college. You don't always assume that a graduate from a university started in that particular university. So the system has a fair amount of flexibility. It's not absolutely perfect, but it's not bad in terms of people being able to take some courses at the college level and move to another college or on to university. People will pursue educational opportunities that exist, and it's not my job to say you can't or shouldn't; it's to offer those kinds of choices.
Let's use just post-secondary, excluding university, as an example. Currently, in terms of the working population, we're between 30 and 40 percent for those who have acquired some skills at a post-secondary institution overall, and the demand forecast for a very short time in the future is that that will have to get up to between 50 and 60 percent -- in fact, closer to 60 percent. So you want to encourage people; you want to provide opportunities on the access side, which we're doing -- 8,000 new spaces -- and you want to have relevancy in terms of the kinds of programs we're talking about, particularly at the college level, where diplomas or, in some cases, with the advent of degree-granting status, degrees will provide the individual with the enhanced opportunity to actually go out and find a job.
Just before I close, I should say that I also feel very strongly that you should not try to focus your entire education system. In other words, the education system should not be a simple cookie-cutter for the needs of industry -- or the economy, for that matter. You get into that more seriously in terms of the university level and the fact that they're research institutes. We spend a fair amount of money, and others spend a fair amount of money, doing what some people might describe as tinkering, where you don't always see the obvious outcome. That's the pure research that I think is required. If you want to go back to everybody's agreement that there's been a technological revolution, a lot of it came from the pure research that some people, both here and in other jurisdictions, probably complained we spent money on. So you need to do that too. Don't ever lose sight of that kind of goal.
[J. Beattie in the chair.]
L. Reid: If I can beg the minister's indulgence, because perhaps I am not making this question as clear as I might, if we acknowledge that the trend is that people having one degree are back in something like BCIT for the simple reason that they can't be employed with the one degree and are now realizing they need the second degree, my question is about the level of subsidy that the taxpayer is now being asked, willingly or otherwise, to subsidize person X for. It may be four, five or six years, as opposed to what was prevously a four-year contribution. Certainly the stats are very clear: over the last ten to 15 years, people leaving university with a four-year degree were employable. There were lots of opportunities for them to apply that skill set. Certainly your point about the system being demand-driven is well taken. Now they are realizing that one degree won't provide them with opportunities, earning potential or whatever they would like.
Because that is the trend, because that is where we are headed -- and certainly it's not unique to British Columbia -- I simply would like some framework in terms of how the ministry intends to look at that problem in the long term. I certainly support the notion that it's not a short-term problem. I think the trend will just become larger; so it's a long-term problem, it's broadly based, and it is basically about investing dollars in students. How many degrees are reasonable, if I can condense the argument to that extent? I have no interest in being rigid about this, no interest in reducing opportunities for people, but because they will demand new opportunities, how is your ministry going to respond?
The Chair: The minister responds to the second degree?
Hon. D. Miller: I'm glad I'm not getting the third degree, Mr. Chairman.
I thought I answered the question. A couple of answers back I tried to say that, first of all, you shouldn't automatically assume that because someone may graduate from university with a bachelor's degree and then go on to community college -- we used the Capilano College example -- the first degree wasn't a necessary prerequisite or that it didn't make a lot of sense. I think the statistical argument can be misleading. One assumes -- I know the simple argument -- that because 30 percent of students coming into BCIT have a bachelor's degree, therefore we're doing something wrong. You've got to watch that argument; you can get trapped in that argument. It may be that we're doing some things right. We don't impair individuals in our society.
In a stirring story by that great tax writer in the Vancouver Sun, I noticed your leader talked about the.... What did he talk about? How did he define liberalism? I wish somebody had that quote for me. I was kind of intrigued. It was a definition I'd never seen before. I was almost tempted to go to the library and get F.R. Scott's poem about Mackenzie King. I might do that yet. But for those who are familiar with that work, I think it's a classic definition of liberalism. It varies considerably from the one I read in the Sun. He managed to use the word "individual" three times in a row, and I suppose, whether it makes sense or not, it sends the message out.
But I'm here to say that we don't restrict individuals in our society. We don't say that if you've gone to university and acquired a degree, you can't then go on and get a second or a third one, or you can't go to community college and add value to that degree through a specific program. We don't restrict people, and we're not going to. We need to ensure that the programs offered are relevant. That's clearly the issue with respect to the issues I talked about at the high school level and, I think, at the college level. They have to be relevant. It's not always easy. I spoke not that long ago about a college that is currently trying to make some adjustments in course offerings and has got an adverse reaction from the cancellation of one program -- even though the programs they're hoping to replace that one with are more relevant
[ Page 11889 ]
and provide greater opportunities for people to find employment, for example. We don't direct the universities. I think it would be a big mistake for me as the minister in my ministry to say to universities: "We're going to clear everything you offer." I would think that would be the kind of interference that would bring howls of rage from academia, and rightly so.
So we don't restrict. We're looking at the issue of relevance, and clearly we're working with the colleges to offer courses that are relevant. But at the end of the day, if 20 percent of the people -- if that's the statistic; or indeed, if it's higher -- it may be that it's quite appropriate.... That's why I said about two or three answers ago that you really have to have a closer analysis of those situations before you draw broad conclusions.
L. Reid: I'm not asking this ministry to restrict anyone. I can appreciate that we are not on the same wavelength on this question.
Rather than belabour it, let's see if we can address the problem from an accountability perspective and think of student X who is leaving grade 12 and wonders about X number of resources, if you will, going to a particular student -- i.e., they've been to university, they've been to an institute, they're moving into a college program. That's been the issue, I'm sure, for every single MLA in the province. They've had families and students come to them saying that they're not able to achieve a place or find access to some kind of post-secondary institution. I'm looking for the minister's response to that question. I can tell you, as I'm sure most members can, that it's not an assumption; it's reality. There are a lot of resources going to a certain number of students, and there are a lot of students who believe they're being underserved by the system. They see someone receiving two or three degrees when they're unable to enroll. How is your ministry going to address the trend? Whether you call it value-added or choices or options.... I don't disagree with any of that. I am simply asking for some recognition of the new reality. We will see many people acquire two or three degrees. How is your ministry positioned to respond to that?
Hon. D. Miller: With respect, I don't think there is a massive trend toward people acquiring two degrees. I don't have the figures, but I'll go out on a limb and say that.
Let me deal with two issues here. One is economics. After having now come down with our third budget, and after having increased funding for education in every single budget, from the K-to-12 system to the post-secondary system, it is a bit galling to have those consistent cries from the opposition benches across the way. They like to have things both ways. "Cut your budget" -- that's what we hear; that's what they go out and tell the public. It's like walking both sides of the street. I have never thought in this life that you should be able to have it both ways. That's number one.
Now let's deal with number two, the education aspect. If we are promoting the concept of lifelong learning, and rightly so, and if we're promoting the concept that given the kind of change that we expect, you shouldn't now.... Let's talk about practical education, about technical.... It seems to me that we should be encouraging people to pursue a number of degrees, certifications, diplomas. We should not promote the notion that once you've got one of something, that's it, because it's directly contrary to what the hon. critic was talking about a few moments ago. I talked about someone with a trades qualification being able to go to a college and get a technical diploma and then being able to go on from there and get a degree. It's an oversimplification to draw a conclusion based on some statistical evidence. That's all I was trying to say in all of the answers I've tried to give you on that question: don't do that, because you're following down the wrong path.
[4:15]
Finally, I'm quite proud as the minister to say that we have targeted 8,100 new spaces in our institutions. That's a significant target. What were they last year? Last year we had some 2,600. That is a significant increase in available spaces and in opportunities for British Columbia students. And it's not just for students but for people who may come out of the workforce, although they all end up being students. We've tried to deal with the real demand that exists in our society. We've provided increased budgets. I said in my opening remarks that there's a 3.4 percent general increase in grants to our institutions. Another amount of money is available in innovation. Those are significant accomplishments.
I get a little hot, I suppose, but it does seem to me to beg the question. On the one hand, if you're in opposition, you can argue about the shortage of spaces or about what we're doing to meet the demand, and on the other hand, you can blithely have the freedom to go out and make political speeches over and over again that say that the simple solution to all our problems is to cut government spending. The real challenge is the intelligent balance of public demand and public need -- in this case, in the education system -- with the ability to raise the kind of money that's required. That balance is always open to some criticism -- and fair enough, I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be. But when I see two diametrically opposed and quite contradictory criticisms, then I have no choice but to try to respond.
L. Reid: It will absolutely flummox the minister, but I don't think we fundamentally disagree on that point. We're not addressing the question, and I am not going to belabour it. I will simply ask, in terms of my earlier comments about productivity and the focus on the student, whether or not we're focusing enough on the product we hope to deliver. Has your ministry -- and I'm sure they have -- had discussions about accountability? How do you measure the success of institutions in terms of ongoing funding? I appreciate your comments about increasing spaces and the budget. What are you measuring in terms of those additional dollars and additional spaces?
Hon. D. Miller: Accountability really suggests the ability to measure outputs. I talked about that in some other subject recently. In that sense, one must first determine the outputs that you would like. Some objective measures -- for example, some of the survey work we're doing with students who have graduated from an institution -- suggest a fairly high level of satisfaction with both the education they received and their ability to find employment roughly in the field of their choice. There are some ongoing discussions and debates about the issue of accountability, mostly at the university level and less so at the college level, where it's fairly clear that we see more flexibility and more training directed at specific employment.
I'll go back and say that sometimes it's a difficult issue to measure, but on balance I think we're doing a reasonable job in our institutions. Any discussions I've had with people at the board and president level indicate an acute awareness of the need, given the budget issues they all face at their particular institutions, to deliver an educational product that makes sense for the students and, in a lot of ways, for the regions they operate in.
[ Page 11890 ]
L. Stephens: I have a couple of questions to ask, but first I'd like to make a comment on the minister's question about what the Liberals would do for funding. I will share the same answer with you that I did yesterday with the Minister of Education by making a couple of suggestions. One is that educational institutions be exempt from the fair-wage policy. Second is that perhaps the $53 million used to establish a shell company in the Kootenays could have been better spent on some of these seats that the minister is talking about, as well as in the elementary schools. So it's choices and priorities on how money is spent that we're talking about.
Aside from that, I was very interested to hear your discussions about relevancy in education. I have to agree that it is a concern we have to face now with our K-to-12 system and in the colleges and universities system. I hope the changes to the programs you were discussing earlier reflect that relevancy.
The 8,100 seats that you were just talking about.... I think the universities tend to deliver cheap seats as opposed to others that are a bit more expensive. I'd like to know what direction the minister would like to see the universities in particular take, in regard to relevancy in the kinds of seats and programs they offer to deal with the new technologies and the jobs we need in this world -- if the minister could give us some indication on that.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Hon. D. Miller: Indeed, life is about choices. It's pretty clear that the Liberal Party's choice is to say working people in this province should not be given the opportunity for fair wages. That's been borne out.
I'll get into some statistics here; I think it may be useful. I delivered them in this House previously, and I'll take the opportunity to do it again, because I think it's important. The member draws an erroneous conclusion. She says: "Get rid of the fair wage, and somehow we can do a better job in the education system." It's a leap that I'm not prepared to make. Let's look at the facts and the recent information that comes out from the Ministry of Education with respect to the $1 billion in capital expenditures that have been undertaken by this government in the K-to-12 system -- $1 billion, a proud record. We compared the pre-tender estimate on the total number of those projects with the final cost of those projects with fair wages in place, and the final cost of those projects was lower than the pre-tender amount.
So the member's arguments have no basis in fact and have only a basis in ideology -- narrow, restrictive ideology -- that says working people are not entitled to a fair wage. We had that debate. The member didn't join it during the debate on the Fair Wage Act, which is a real pity. I pointed out that it's pretty clear to British Columbians what the choices are with respect to the two dominant parties -- at this point, at any rate -- although I think the Reform Party is overshadowing the Liberal Party recently. In his previous role as mayor of Vancouver, the leader of the Liberal Party did two things. I believe there were two motions passed at that first meeting of council when he took his chair as mayor of Vancouver, and they were in this order: (1) scrap Vancouver's fair-wage policy; and (2) give a raise to the mayor and council. That's the kind of thing we will get out of the Liberal Party should they ever, unfortunately, become the government of this province.
There are some pretty exciting concepts being worked on. I have been at colleges, for example, where a relationship has been established between business.... I was at the University College of the Cariboo and they described some of the work they have been doing. Some sectors of the forest industry have been using the college as a resource to solve some of the technical problems that have arisen in the industry. The college has been very successful in using some of their departments to come up with the solutions to some of these technical problems. Back out in the industry, that technology then becomes available to others. There is a good relationship building there. I can tell you that they are very excited about the prospects of becoming a degree-granting institution in their own right, accelerating those opportunities and looking at expanding into technology areas. In their words: "We want to be the BCIT of the Cariboo." That feeling is there in other community colleges as well, and not just the degree-granting institutions.
I have had a couple of meetings at the University of British Columbia, and I have another one coming up with Dean Clark Binkley, dean of the faculty of forestry. British Columbia is in a perfect position to expand the faculty of forestry. There's a notion afoot for a centre of excellence in forestry in Canada -- one school that would concentrate on areas that complement where we want to go on an industrial basis. If you can term it that way, it would look at a school of value-added -- a faculty designed to look at issues of marketing and issues of wood quality and its uses, which is an integral issue with respect to the expansion of value-added manufacturing; and to look at machinery and equipment design.
A lot of that work is taking place. It's not generally known, and I suppose in many respects it's difficult to make that kind of information generally known. It's not information that's generally picked up in the popular press. I'm not complaining about that; I'm simply stating the obvious. There's some very good work taking place at the college and university level that relates directly to the way we want to go in terms of our economy. I think of this skills package, Skills Now, and that increased expenditure. We're increasing government spending because we think of it as an investment in the people of this province, and we think that investment in the people of this province strengthens our ability to adapt, change and grow in terms of our economy.
[4:30]
All I was trying to point out in my previous comments was that, faced with some of these complex issues -- and I understand politics -- it doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense that I should simply acquiesce to any Liberal member who happens to get up and ask, "How much are we doing with the lack of spaces," and at the same time leave you the luxury of going outside and making speeches that the solution to the problems in this province is to cut government spending. I'm telling you that we've increased government spending in the post-secondary system -- we've increased it. I know it's not my position here to ask questions -- and I've got to tell you that even when I ask questions of Liberals, I very seldom get answers -- but my question back to the member is: are you in favour of the $200 million we've committed to post-secondary education and training -- $200 million extra over the next two years?
L. Stephens: I think it's clear that we need to focus on our educational system -- K to 12, colleges and universities. Again I will go back to making choices and how the money is spent. That's what we're talking about. Again I will say that the fair-wage policy -- or the fixed-wage policy, as we refer to the fair-wage policy -- of this government clearly doesn't care about students. In one school in my constituency of Langley, the fixed-wage policy added $1 million to its construction. Although this government likes to talk about spending, it's clear from a number of this government's
[ Page 11891 ]
policies and legislation that they only care about their union friends. There is much evidence to support this.
The other question I have for the minister has to do with the colleges. If the minister has it, I would like to know the amount of money the colleges spend on remedial studies to enable students coming into the college system to succeed in that system. I have heard from a number of instructors in the college system that they're required to spend a substantial amount of money to bring the students' reading and math skills up to enable them to utilize the programs. Again, I wonder if we're spending money twice in order to give students the skills they may need to succeed in the post-secondary arena -- understanding that a lot of the students who come to the colleges are not high school graduates and have come through the adult education system. If the minister has some thoughts on the remedial money that is spent in the college system, I'd appreciate hearing them.
The Chair: Before I recognize the minister, I'm just going to advise members on both sides of the House that there is no longer such a thing as a fair-wage policy. Rather, we have legislation, Bill 37, that has gone through all stages. Legislation is not a fit subject for estimates, and therefore I would suggest that that debate and discussion is out of order. From this point forward, I would tell either side of the House that we won't entertain those discussions.
Before I recognize the minister, I will recognize the Minister of Agriculture, who, I understand, wishes to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I thank the House for its indulgence. I have two introductions. First of all, with us in the gallery are Mr. Grenier and his class from the University of Victoria's ESL program. I'd like to make that introduction on behalf of the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head.
It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House the students who are visiting here from Naghtaneqed Elementary School, which is in the Nemaiah Valley in the Chilcotin, in the shadow of the beautiful new Ts'yl-os Park. They're here with their teacher, Steve Johnson. The students are Rubina Dhami, James Lulua Jr., Charlene William, Waylon Lulua, Nicky Setah, Lois William and Cecelia Setah. Please make them welcome.
Hon. D. Miller: Let me try to explain, if it's possible for these Liberals here, that there's actually a relationship between the state of the economy and people's ability to seek a broader education. I don't know where she's been all her life, but this member figures that the solution to our economy is to drive wages down to the level where people can't make a living -- indeed, to the point where parents can't help their son or daughter achieve a post-secondary education. Where do you think they'd...? Do you think they get the money to pay for a university education by working at McDonald's?
L. Reid: They will be, with....
Hon. D. Miller: Is that the Liberal solution -- $6-an-hour jobs? Guess what would happen: we'd have to spend even more taxpayers' dollars.
L. Reid: That's what they'll be working for.
Hon. D. Miller: We're not talking about facts; we're talking about ideology. It's clear that we understand.... I don't really want to get into a big ideological debate, but I'm quite happy to do it. It's quite clear that this member's and the Liberals' solution is to drive wages in this province down to the lowest point possible, and that's their recipe for success. We reject that. I've read the facts.
I commend the member, if she has such a strong interest in the fair-wage issue.... First of all, I wonder why she never participated in any of the debate -- not once. I say to her: go back and read Hansard. Neither did many of the other Liberal members, quite frankly. And at the end of the day they supported it; they voted in favour. So why are we getting this nonsense?
I think one other statistic is important. It's pretty tough these days to finance a post-secondary education; it's extremely difficult. This province generally has been quite good in providing assistance to students. It's a tough area for students. Some of them come out with very large debt loads. I announced today, as the minister, that we've added an additional $2 million to student financial assistance. It's not going to solve everybody's problems. There are still lots of students who will find it a tough burden to acquire a post-secondary education, whether at a college or at a university. I have a lot of feeling for students in that position. I think we're doing better than other parts of Canada are, and I'm pleased about that.
I'm dismayed at the federal position. They have not adjusted the minimum amounts available for almost a decade. For ten years the federal amount stood at $105. The policy that drove that was that they would provide 100 percent of that student's assessed need, but they didn't move that figure for ten years. So what happened? B.C. filled the vacuum, so the ratio is now about 40 percent B.C. and 60 percent federal. When they finally increased the maximums, they came out with a new policy that said that it had to be 60-40. In provinces that don't have our ability to increase it, that federal Liberal....
Maybe these provincial Liberals might want to do something about it -- maybe even write a letter or two to their colleagues and friends in Ottawa and stand up for the students in this province instead of complaining about people making a decent wage. That federal Liberal approach to student financial assistance -- those big-L Liberals and their comrades and friends in Ottawa -- has resulted in a student financial assistance program from the federal level that makes it worse for students with higher needs. If you want to do something constructive, try to convince your federal colleagues -- those men and women, those MPs, those good people from B.C. -- that they should actually try to do something for students in this province. But I don't think they will. They'll go on complaining about the fact that a working person might actually have the opportunity to make a decent wage under this government.
The Reformers asked me a few weeks ago why have we had such a high default rate on student loans. Indeed, it has gone up. I've got some statistics here; I can look them up. Suffice it to say, it's gone up, and it's gone up generally because of students' inability to find employment in these very tough times to pay those down.
An Hon. Member: Jobs are up.
Hon. D. Miller: They are up -- jobs are up.
Let me digress and talk about the economy of this province. Let me talk about the fact that in May of this year 56,000 jobs were created in Canada, and 30,000 of them were
[ Page 11892 ]
created right here in British Columbia. If you look at total job creation over a year under this administration, it has been the best in Canada.
W. Hurd: So why can't they pay their loans?
Hon. D. Miller: The member for Surrey-White Rock asks about their loans. Let's go back to the issue that I talked about earlier. You weren't here, hon. member; you were probably glued to your television set.
W. Hurd: Oh, I was.
Hon. D. Miller: That's right.
We're in a little better position here in British Columbia than in some other parts of Canada, and indeed, other industrialized nations. I think the last StatsCan report with respect to Victoria's unemployment rate had it down as low as 7 percent. That doesn't count, in my view, for the hidden unemployed; nonetheless, on a statistical basis, assuming that it applies across Canada, we're in a slightly advantageous position. What we have not been able to do successfully, either with the previous Tory federal government or with the current Liberal government in Ottawa, is convince them to stop the dump on British Columbia. We can't even convince David Anderson, the MP for this area. What's happened out here with Royal Roads? We've seen it once again. The federal Liberals have simply said: "We're out of it. You pick it up. You start paying for it." Much to my dismay, the federal Reform Party agrees with them.
We have an unacceptably high unemployment rate in our industrialized nations, and it's not just plaguing North America and Canada, but it's really taking its toll with respect to western Europe. There have been G-7 summits; the federal Liberals and Minister Axworthy were down there, and they haven't come back with solutions as to how they can address that on a national basis. Instead, the federal Minister of Finance, Paul Martin, and Minister Axworthy, the Human Resources Development minister, are proposing to simply cut the funds available for unemployment insurance. They say they're going to make the biggest saving that Paul Martin, the federal Finance minister, hopes to achieve by cutting benefits to unemployed people in this country. In other words, it's a blame-the-victim approach -- unlike the approach we've taken in this ministry and government in British Columbia. That is to say that, under Skills Now, we don't think the victim is responsible; we think there's some fundamental work that needs to be done with respect to opportunities for training. I don't want to go through the whole range of programs, but looking at refocusing and at the opportunities at the high school level.... There are 8,000 new spaces in our college system. These are new opportunities.
I'd be happy to talk about any one of those specific programs, but please spare me the ideological arguments of the Liberals opposite. It seems to me that that big, black cloud of the federal Liberal government in this country hanging over their heads would tend to mute these wild questions we're getting. But I guess not. If they've got any more, I'd be happy to try and answer them.
W. Hurd: I'm pleased to join the estimates debate for the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour. I was doing my best to follow this dialogue in my office, and when the minister got to the item about choices, that certainly motivated me to enter the chamber.
I note that before this minister assumed his post, post-secondary education had its own ministry in the province. It wasn't wrapped up with about four or five different portfolios. I suspect that we're going to see post-secondary education get short shrift in this province under this government.
But I have a specific question about choices again. The choice that I'd like to talk about is the matching-grants program of the University of British Columbia. I recall that the previous minister didn't do much during his time in office. He did bring in a bill that would have required the funds from strikes to be returned to the government. That was his major contribution to post-secondary education. One other thing that he did as well was bail out of the commitment to the University of British Columbia and the matching-grants program.
[4:45]
There they were at this gifted institution.... I might add that I'm an alumnus of the institution myself, and I have certainly heard from many of my fellow alumni about the decision of this government to bail out of the previous government's commitment to the matching-grants program. I believe that the university raised some $80 million to $90 million. One of the last acts of the previous minister was to cut the contribution down to, I believe, $10 million. Again, that was a choice, which the minister talked about. At the time, I think he was lamenting the lack of financing available for capital expansion when we were trying to attack the deficit.
I would ask the minister what the future of the matching-grants program is in this province, given the fact that his government made a choice to shortchange that program, which had thousands, even millions, of dollars in direct contributions from employers and companies in this province. First of all, how does he as a minister feel about the commitment to reduce the amount in the matching-grants program by 80 percent? Will he make a commitment in this set of estimates to revisit that shortsighted decision, which we all agree was a negative choice in British Columbia?
Hon. D. Miller: I want to make a few remarks. I'm a bit puzzled. I'm not quite sure about the member's question. So I may seek some clarification at the end.
In my opening remarks I talked about the partnership that this government promoted, and was very pleased to see develop, in the forest sector. The forest renewal plan that came out of that said that for the first time, we're not going to simply say that communities and working people are going to be the victims of change; we're going to have a vehicle so that they will not be victims, but part of change. A major element of the forest renewal plan is the money that's specifically earmarked for training, retraining and upgrading of existing forest workers. We intend to be very active in this ministry in working with people on the forest renewal plan to put those training programs in communities and to make those opportunities available for working people who have been affected by change in this province.
I was absolutely flummoxed.... That's not a word I use often or that anybody uses very often. I was absolutely astounded, blown away, incredulous and befuddled to hear the member for Surrey-White Rock, the Forests critic for the Liberal caucus in this province, oppose that. He opposed that money being available to train working people in this province. Shame! Or do they simply follow the lead...? Do the federal Liberals phone you people and tell you what to say? Cut UI. Cut support to working people. Cut training programs. Is that how it works? Maybe they need to clarify that.
[ Page 11893 ]
I said at the outset of these remarks that given the contradictory position of the Liberal caucus -- when they run outside this chamber, they say "Cut the budget," but when they're in here, they say "Spend more money" -- I was sure I wouldn't get any questions on capital. I was assured by the critic that no Liberal would dare to stand and ask this government to increase capital spending, not after the range of outrageous speeches that we heard in this chamber from Liberal members, who say: "Cut your spending."
Indeed, the member just stood in his place and attacked me and attacked the government because we said that we can't have an open-ended matching program. Who in their right mind...? It was the former Socreds who designed that one. They said, "Whatever you raise privately, we'll match dollar for dollar," but without setting a limit on what the government contribution would be.
W. Hurd: You only have to pay half.
Hon. D. Miller: Oh, I see. Maybe that's the new math. The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock says that we only have to pay half. Half of what, hon. member? Hon. Chair, I can't believe that I'm getting these kinds of questions from the Liberals.
My predecessor did cap the matching funds. Guess what. It was the right thing to do. After all, we have a responsibility to spend the taxpayers' money with the most wisdom we can summon. Unlike the Liberals, we did not keep an open-ended program that would have compelled this government to contribute capital no matter what the cost.
What we have brought in, though, is a new matching program under the Skills Now initiative. It's a new matching program, with $6 million, that is available for universities and colleges to upgrade their equipment. When we look at the kinds of technological courses we need to offer in this province and when we look at BCIT, which, in some cases, has outdated equipment.... We have provided an additional $6 million that the business community will be more than happy to match. For the first time, we're going to get some of the kind of equipment.... Not the first time -- I exaggerated and I apologize. We are going to provide an opportunity to upgrade the kind of equipment that's available at the college and university level, which is absolutely necessary for the kinds of changes we're making to the courses that will be offered, particularly at the college level.
Did we cap an open-ended program that would have compelled us to spend who knows what? The answer is yes. Given the speeches that have been made by the Liberal caucus, again -- and I'll use all those adjectives that I used earlier -- I'm puzzled as to why the member would get up and ask that kind of question.
W. Hurd: The only part of that answer I understood was the part about being flummoxed and confused. I must confess, I remain confused on this side of the House.
I asked a simple question about the matching-grants program at UBC, and the minister raised the forest renewal program. I can only assume that he longs for those old days in the Ministry of Forests. That must be it. He needs to go back and defend his record as the Minister of Forests. We have him running around the province saying that he ran a sympathetic administration. It was a sympathetic administration. That's what they said. All we're asking is for him to be sympathetic to students in the province. He was sympathetic then. Why isn't he sympathetic to the students of the province now?
It's important to talk about this matching-grants program at the University of British Columbia. It's important for the minister to understand that there were private sector commitments that didn't involve the expenditure of taxpayers' money. I realize that the government doesn't know the different between taxpayers' money and any other kind of money, but this was money that was available from the private sector. Surely the minister has to understand the implications and the effects of that shortsighted choice the government made.
I'm involved, of course, in a riding that's desperate to get a university in the Fraser Valley. I talked to the society that's trying to raise money for this vital project in the Fraser Valley. They went out and talked to business leaders about a matching-grants program. You know what some of them said to the society? They said: "Look what happened at the University of British Columbia. Look what the government did to that matching-grants program. Why would we donate money to a program where the government may come along...?" The minister calls it capping. I call it kneecapping; I call it a guillotine. That's what it was about. Despite the government capitulating and bailing out on that commitment, it's interesting to note that many of the donors from the private sector continued through with some of their investments and donations. They put good citizenship, I suppose, ahead of the government's short-term decision.
Does the minister not understand that that ill-fated decision by his predecessor will make it difficult for other institutions to enact any sort of meaningful matching-grants program because the government may come along and decide they're going to cap it? "It's open-ended. We match dollar for dollar with the private sector, but it's not a good deal for the taxpayers of the province even though 50 percent of it is being paid by money that doesn't belong to the taxpayers of the province." How can the minister stand in his estimates and say that decision was a farsighted one? He talks about being flummoxed and confused. I can tell you that the people in the Fraser Valley are flummoxed and confused. I've talked to Dr. Binkley. When I was in my office, I heard the minister talking about having a meeting with Dr. Binkley. I just know that when he meets that dean of the faculty of forestry at UBC he will have a good explanation of why his government bailed out on the matching-grants program. I hope that he advises Dr. Binkley about the decision the government has taken and why they had to cap it. I just know he will raise that when he has the meeting with Dr. Binkley.
Again in this set of estimates, I have to express the frustration expressed by my colleague from Langley about the choices the government makes with post-secondary education. While I'm on my feet, I want to raise a specific question about Simon Fraser University, another institution that's going through difficult times meeting its commitments to post-secondary education. The minister will know that they have land available on Burnaby Mountain, for which they have sought an expression of interest in possibly putting some housing on it -- again, to provide private sector investment into post-secondary education. I know the government doesn't like private sector money. It's not clean, I guess; I don't know what the problem is. But I understand that the NDP or government MLAs from Burnaby have opposed that. They have opposed the university's ability to raise funds from sources other than the taxpayer. So I just pose the question -- and again it gets back to the choices we talked about earlier: what does this government have against private sector investment and donations to public post-secondary education in this province?
[ Page 11894 ]
The Chair: I have detected some high-sticking and some cross-checking but, happily, no spearing thus far. Therefore, minister....
Hon. D. Miller: I'll try to give some brief answers here, and then, I think, given the time, deal with the issue of the House.
First of all, I want to say that I'm absolutely.... Give me a word. Here is a member of this House, whose party wishes and in fact thinks that they will be the government after the next election, proposing that the government offer matching programs -- in other words, dollar for dollar, wherever the source of the other dollar; a dollar of government money in exchange for a dollar, presumably, of private money, with no limit. I can't believe the absolute foolhardiness of promoting such a program. In other words, "We will open the treasury to...." -- whatever.
[5:00]
Let me give you another figure that belies the rhetoric we just heard from the member. The University of British Columbia has just completed the most successful fund-raising initiative ever, I think, of any university in Canada. I attended the World of Opportunity windup fundraising dinner. The Leader of the Opposition was there. Maybe he was still the mayor; I can't remember. But he was there; I was there. I spoke; he spoke. And guess what: the University of British Columbia had raised in excess of $100 million from the private sector. This member actually went to UBC; he says it's his alma mater. I didn't go to UBC, but I was out there and they raised over a hundred million bucks. You don't know what you're talking about. This is a bit much. I think we're getting sidetracked. These Liberal members are leading me down a path I don't want to go down, so I'm going to say now that I'm done.
Interjections.
Hon. D. Miller: I'm not going to do that anymore. Instead, I will briefly respond to the member by saying that with respect to housing it is not under my ministry. University housing issues are separate. I understand there are some zoning issues with respect to the city of Burnaby. I don't get involved in issues that I am not required to, and therefore I would suggest the member might want to go to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
An Hon. Member: They just finished.
Hon. D. Miller: They have just finished, unfortunately. The city of Burnaby, perhaps. The responsibility for that issue does not rest with me, and I know we don't want to take the time of other members in dealing with those issues.
Given the hour, the appropriate motion is that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
The Speaker tabled the annual report of the conflict-of-interest-commissioner for 1993-94.
Hon. D. Miller: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 8:15 p.m.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 5:02 p.m.
The House resumed at 8:29 p.m.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Before we begin, I might say that I think the Canucks did well tonight, and like everyone in this House, I am proud of their great accomplishment. [Applause.] You can be sure that there isn't a single British Columbian watching this channel tonight; they're watching another one.
[8:30]
In 60 minutes, at 9:30 this evening, we will call the estimates of Government Services in Section A. Members should be on notice that that will begin then. In the House, I call second reading of Bill 48.
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
Hon. C. Gabelmann: As I mentioned in first reading, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1994, contains amendments to 12 statutes. In the ordinary course of events, I don't think we would have significant debate during second reading of a miscellaneous bill. But I thought it might be useful if I were to just outline the motivation for each of the changes during this stage, and then when we get to committee stage at a later date, members will have had an opportunity to assess my comments on the purposes of the various amendments. Although it's not up to me to say what members might want to say in response during second reading, I think that in the ordinary course of events, there wouldn't be a prolonged debate on principle. I will try to give our motivations as quickly as I can.
In the first of the amendments, the capital program of the B.C. Buildings Corporation for 1994-95 and beyond is based on a long-term, regional space-planning program approved by Treasury Board in August 1992, and that's now more than half-completed. In addition to the planning program, BCBC is committed to the completion of the specific program-driven needs of its ministry clients.
BCBC's 1994-95 capital program includes the initiation of a strategic space plan for the provincial capital, known as the Victoria accord, which makes good economic sense and will serve the best interests of provincial taxpayers. Victoria currently has the lowest occupancy vacancy rate in North America, at 2.9 percent, thus occupancy charges are escalating. The Victoria accord recommends that over the next seven to ten years, significant new office space be built in Victoria on provincial land that is currently underutilized or showing returns of less than 1 percent. Increased capital spending anticipated by the implementation of the Victoria accord, other regional space plans and ministry-initiated projects will require the corporation to borrow the necessary funds to undertake construction. BCBC anticipates that it will reach its statutory borrowing limit during the 1994-95 fiscal year.
The British Columbia Transit Act is amended to provide an opportunity for the mayors of the city of Langley and the district of Langley, as well as the mayors of the districts of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows, to be appointed to the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission.
[ Page 11895 ]
Amendments to the Farming and Fishing Industries Development Act will improve the ability of industry development councils to collect and administer producer levies for the benefit of the industry. The amendments will also enable government to use these councils as a vehicle to deliver industry-managed development programs that are gradually replacing assistance programs, which were previously administered directly by government.
These amendments provide that industry development councils are corporations and have independent legal capacity. They expand the range of persons to which councils can grant funds for industry development work. They authorize councils to conduct audits of persons who are required to collect and remit levies, and they authorize those persons to enter business premises to inspect records. Finally, they authorize the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to appoint representatives of other ministries as council members when the commodity in question is relevant to that ministry.
Amendments are made to the Ferry Corporation Act to clarify existing language to allow for more effective delegation of power to individuals employed by the British Columbia Ferry Corporation. Another amendment will allow the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations to appoint an external auditor in accordance with the Financial Administration Act. The B.C. Ferry Corporation has already established a process following the guidelines established by the comptroller general of the province, and it followed these guidelines in its selection of an external auditor in 1987 and 1992. In addition, organized reporting mechanisms are established that go beyond the statutory requirements generally associated with fiscal accountability.
Finally, amendments are made due to the infrequent but serious infractions by some individuals which put at risk the safety and security of themselves, other travellers and ferry employees. The safety, security and comfort of passengers and employees using the ferry system will be improved through new regulation-making powers in the act. These new powers allow the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations regarding the direction, control and conduct of passengers on ferries and corporate properties.
Amendments to the Health Authorities Act authorize the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour to appoint a commissioner to make recommendations regarding the labour relations implications of funding and organizational changes now being made as a result of the Health Authorities Act. The new act creates a more community-based health care system, which will have an impact on employees, their unions, and the structures and bargaining units in the health care system. Once appointed, the commissioner would have a broad mandate to consult with unions, employers and employees. In conducting his or her duties, the commissioner will be required to take into consideration a variety of factors, including the new employment relationships created by the act, the need to promote health care delivery integration, the desirability of moving toward provincial consistency for health care workers, and historical trade union representation. The commissioner will report his or her recommendations to cabinet only after undertaking thorough inquiries and consultation. At that time cabinet has the authority to implement the commissioner's recommendation by regulation.
The Hospital Insurance Act is amended to authorize the Minister of Health to expropriate land for the purposes of building and maintaining a health facility in accordance with the standard requirements of the Expropriation Act.
Section 15 of this bill amends section 6(2)(c) of the Industrial Development Incentive Act to increase the funding cap of the industrial incentive fund by $11 million, from $235 million to $246 million. This amendment is required at this time to provide the legislative authority for the Minister of Employment and Investment to make loans and investments authorized by individual-project order-in-council approvals, in support of provincial industry and economic development initiatives. The $11 million increase will accommodate budgeted 1994-95 carryover project commitments of $6 million and $5 million for projects recommended by the Job Protection Commission.
The Motor Carrier Act provides for an appeal process when applications for motor carrier licences are turned down. In 1993 the Cabinet Appeals Abolition Act eliminated the need for cabinet to hear appeals, giving that responsibility in the case of motor carrier appeals to an expanded Motor Carrier Commission. Due to concerns that the Motor Carrier Commission also hears the initial licence applications, an amendment to the Motor Carrier Act establishes a reconsideration panel of the commission, whose only function is to hear appeals. Members of this panel will be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and will be prohibited from hearing initial applications to the commission.
This bill also amends schedule B of the Park Act to effect an exchange of land between land held by Western Forest Products Ltd. within Cape Scott Park and provincial parkland at the boundary of the park. Presently, Western Forest Products Ltd. owns 75.05 hectares of land within Cape Scott Park on the northwest coast of Vancouver Island. This area has significant recreational value. It includes lakefront at Eric Lake, which provides exceptional wilderness camping opportunities -- usually in the mud in the summer, I might say. As well, hikers travel through this area en route to the popular beaches of Nels Bight and Cape Scott on the west coast.
Western Forest Products Ltd. has indicated that they are planning to log the area unless a land exchange is agreed upon. Efforts to encourage Western Forest Products Ltd. to donate the land to the park were unsuccessful. This land exchange is the most viable way to ensure that a clearcut does not become part of Cape Scott Park. This exchange results in a net gain to the park of approximately 11.5 hectares. The public value of the Western Forest Products Ltd. land surrounding Eric Lake is considered to be greater than the parkland proposed for trade.
B.C. Parks undertook consultation with local community groups and outdoor recreation groups. Outdoor recreation groups such as the Federation of Mountain Clubs support the exchange; so does the MLA. Careful consultation was also undertaken with the Kwakiutl District Council. The Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks has received a letter expressing support for the land exchange, provided that it does not prejudice treaty negotiations, and has been advised that it will not do so.
This amendment reflects this government's continued commitment to creating an effective and responsible framework for the management of the natural environment of British Columbia.
General amendments to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act are targeted primarily at reducing costs and promoting efficiency in petroleum and natural gas resource administration. These amendments will provide the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources with a streamlined means of collecting royalties on oil and gas production through third parties and will provide additional protection
[ Page 11896 ]
for Crown resources. For example, the amendment to the definition of a test hole will prevent the unauthorized production of a resource, whether because of a misunderstanding or other reasons, when operators are prospecting.
These amendments will provide for the recognition of experimental applications of petroleum technology. Appropriately, the government will have the discretion to influence activity by considering regulatory relief or data confidentiality, for example, based on the technical content of an application. This will ultimately benefit both industry and the province of British Columbia. Once proclaimed, these amendments will provide ministry staff with clear rules to regulate specific areas of the petroleum industry that had previously led to regulatory confusion and misinterpretation of the act.
An amendment to the Science and Technology Fund Act will allow the return of any money recovered or repaid for any activity originally funded through the science and technology fund to be deposited in the fund. This change reflects the original intent of the fund, which was to provide an ever-increasing funding source to facilitate long-term science and technology planning and investment.
Amendments to the Wildlife Act contain important measures that will improve the administration and operation of the activities of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks throughout the province. The importance of the modifications to the Wildlife Act is twofold. First, the act is amended in order to eliminate ambiguity. Presently, the act creates an offence for those who do not carry a licence, as well as for those who do not possess a licence. These sections will be amended so that they are consistent in the use of the phrase "hold a licence." This will make the necessary distinction between a person who has a licence and is not carrying it, and a person who does not possess a licence at all. This is important for ensuring fair enforcement of relevant offences, and for the appropriate application of voluntary fines and penalties.
Second, the Wildlife Act is amended to enable the director of the wildlife branch of the Ministry of Environment to cancel or refuse to reissue a hunting licence or permit to a person who has not paid fines for offences under the Firearm Act. Such offences include the failure to exercise care for the safety of other persons or property, in section 4, and having a loaded firearm in a vehicle, in section 12. Presently, the director can only cancel or refuse to reissue a hunting licence or permit for unpaid fines for wildlife offences.
Hon. Speaker, I'm sorry to have taken so long in outlining the content of these sections, which as I said at the outset I think would best be debated at committee stage. With that, I move second reading.
J. Dalton: I guess it's appropriate that we deal with a rather.... I was going to say a ragtag bill, but that's not true, of course. But after our long supper break we can ease into the evening. I thank the Attorney General for the overview, and of course at committee stage we'll get into some of these amendments to various acts in more detail.
I suppose the only ones that might make this government feel a bit uncomfortable, of course -- at least from my perspective -- are the amendments to the Motor Carrier Act. As all members of the House know, this has become a bit of a sensitive topic these days. Again, we'll get into some more detailed discussion of the rationale behind this when we hit committee stage.
The Park Act, I guess, is a significant amendment for the Attorney General, as it certainly affects a territory that he knows well.
With that, hon. Speaker, I will leave other members to comment on specific areas that I'm sure they have some interest in.
J. Weisgerber: As is the custom with a miscellaneous statutes amendment act, I think all discussion on the various sections is really best left to third reading. I'll simply come back to this in committee stage and look at some of these interesting amendments.
[8:45]
L. Reid: I'm certainly pleased to join in second reading debate of Bill 48. I will address my comments specifically to the Health Authorities Act section and the section which relates to the Science and Technology Fund Act, on page 11 of the bill.
There are a number of issues which have been raised by municipalities in this province about the creation of regional health boards and health councils. Whether or not these sections address any of the issues is yet to be determined. The hon. Leader of the Third Party suggested that many of these issues will be considered in more detail in third reading. I certainly respect that.
My comments today refer specifically to the fact that I do not believe that the majority of questions around the creation of regional health boards and regional health councils have been answered at all in this process, and to the fact that this New Democrat government has been in this process for a year and a half. I have some serious reservations about legislation -- and certainly enabling legislation -- which would allow some of these issues to be eased into without sufficient scrutiny by members of the public. They are in no way reassured that this government has a plan, has an understanding of implementation or is in a position to take this issue forward, and I would suggest that certain aspects of these sections under the Health Authorities Act are indeed incredibly significant. They are sections that I would advise all members of the House and all British Columbians to keep close tabs on.
There are issues on ownership of health facilities that have not been addressed by this minister -- by either minister, frankly. There are issues about employer rights that have not been addressed by these amendments under the Health Authorities Act. There are issues that relate to the employer at a bargaining table. Indeed, who will that be under the regional health framework and the health councils? That has not been addressed. These amendments allow this government to move more quickly to that goal, and yet the goal is not well understood to date. That causes me some concern.
I'm not convinced that this adds to the exercise. I think we're going to experience increasing patronage as a result of creating more boards in regions. I'm not convinced that this government has gone any further down the road in terms of measuring productivity and outcomes. I, for one, truly support the notion that if you can't measure health care delivery, you probably can't manage it. These amendments don't allow us to believe that we're getting any closer to managing the health care system. They don't add to the exercise. Certainly there are some real issues around the uncertainty. Do these sections in Bill 48 add anything? I'm not convinced they do.
The Speaker: Hon. member, the Chair might suggest that if you're going to canvass the specifics under the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1994, you may prefer to do it in committee. We should be speaking on the principle of the bill or perhaps on the concept of the
[ Page 11897 ]
amendments to statutes. It's difficult for the Chair to see the way in which you are speaking on the principle of the bill if you're dealing with the contents of the sections. I'm sure you appreciate the problem.
L. Reid: Hon. Speaker, I certainly appreciate your concern. However, it's difficult to speak to the principles of a miscellaneous statutes amendment act.
The Speaker: That's quite correct, and that's why I suggested you might best approach it in committee. The debate you're entering into now would be quite appropriate in committee, but it's difficult in second reading.... I think other speakers have perhaps recognized this, and because of that problem they haven't attempted to carry on the debate.
L. Reid: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I will not speak for 30 minutes on this section. But I believe that one of the opportunities we have during second reading debate is to flag issues of concern, and I certainly intend to continue.
With regard to health sector labour relations, a section makes the point that there will be regulations to implement the recommendations in the report. I believe that allows for tremendous power to be brought forward in the regulations, and I have some concerns about that. What we see in Bill 48 is simply enabling legislation. I think it enables a great deal, without allowing members of the Legislature an opportunity to properly scrutinize the issues. I'm convinced, hon. members, that this issue must be addressed in some detail this evening.
I have some concerns regarding the amendment to the Hospital Insurance Act to allow for the acquisition of hospitals and health facilities. We've had some concerns about public trustees in the past, and not just in the area of health. We have certainly had those issues around the Ministry of Education and around other public buildings. Some consideration must be brought to bear on that in this debate this evening.
I have some concerns about the powers of this act. I appreciate that the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1994, is broad, far-reaching -- all of those. We must be clear in second reading debate that a lot of latitude is allowed for. A number of these statutes, I think, bear intense scrutiny in committee stage.
I'm bringing these issues forward tonight as an opportunity to have all members of the House -- certainly all British Columbians -- be aware that the health aspect of this bill is the one to watch as we proceed into the debate on Health estimates and the continued examination of health legislation. This legislation will allow a lot of what has been said by this minister to go forward; I think that's a concern and certainly a consideration.
R. Chisholm: I'll only rise for a minute. There are some areas of this bill that I'm very interested in, especially the Farming and Fishing Industries Development Act, and I intend to canvass it and the Wildlife Act in committee quite extensively. I just want the minister to note that some of the problem seems to be overgoverning and too many government officials on committees and commissions, and that is what that particular portion of the act is talking about. So in committee stage I shall address these problems, and hopefully we'll come up with appropriate solutions and answers.
G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I listened carefully to the ruling you gave with respect to the principle of this bill -- about not wishing to entertain section-by-section discussion and saying that's more appropriate in committee stage. While I certainly respect your ruling, to a large extent it puts at considerable disadvantage an opposition faced with a miscellaneous statutes act that, with respect to some of its sections, has profound significance.
Hon. Speaker, I can tell you that members of the Alliance will vote against Bill 48. It's unfortunate, because there are so many components or matters in it that we believe in principle are of little or no consequence and simply are indeed housekeeping.
Then there are other sections of this bill that, in principle.... For example, in the Health Authorities Act, it provides the government with particular powers for the appointment of a commissioner, and specifically exempts the Labour Relations Board from having exclusive jurisdiction with respect to determining matters such as, and in particular, what constitutes bargaining units -- a major infringement upon traditional collective bargaining rights in the province. It does, within its provisions for health unions, exactly what this government intended to do with respect to the teaching profession in this province. Indeed, the language is very similar. I find it interesting that in a miscellaneous statutes act introduced by the Attorney General of this government -- which purports to be so pro-labour and fair in its delivery of legislation with respect to labour and management in this province -- we find a section of this bill that deals with the Health Authorities Act in a manner which is so fundamentally opposite to what we, the public and union members have come to expect from this government. I can tell you that if we deal with the principle of a miscellaneous statutes act.... The Labour Relations Board, the HEU and the BCNU were very surprised by what they saw in here. Nobody thought that under this miscellaneous statutes act we would have the introduction of amendments to the Health Authorities Act that would so profoundly change the manner in which those unionized workers engage in health care delivery, organize themselves and interface with a new employer's council.
When we look at this, we have to recognize that this clearly.... Hon. Speaker, I completely respect your ruling with respect to going to particular sections of this bill, but when we come to committee stage we will be able to show without a shadow of a doubt that this government has stepped over what I believe is a traditional a line of independence between government, labour and management. It allows them to direct the manner in which this new provision of health services will be provided in this province through a very heavy hand of government interference -- even to the degree that it specifically exempts sections from the Labour Relations Board in terms of their exclusivity. We simply cannot support that, because we believe it's intrusive. The principle of government intrusion into the lives of British Columbians is something that I think we have spoken out against before and will continue to speak out against.
Similarly, we have to look at what is intended with respect to the provisional amendments to the Ferry Corporation Act in this particular bill. We recognize that, in principle, government has to find a way by which it can release its Crown corporations to provide the most cost-effective services that those corporations are chartered to provide for the people of British Columbia. We also recognize that employees of those Crown corporations must have a designation that provides them with an opportunity to effectively delegate powers and authority to conduct the business that they are empowered by law to provide for the public.
[ Page 11898 ]
A number of questions are raised by the manner in which the government is moving forward with the Ferry Corporation Act amendment. I say that as an MLA who has a riding that is completely dependent upon ferries. The community of Powell River has been advocating for a long time for a significant change with respect to the primary docking facilities and with respect to the authority and jurisdiction that the B.C. Ferry Corporation has over the highway and land that falls within the general parameters of its capital-improved area. Bill 48 speaks to that in a manner that -- until we get into committee stage -- is perhaps unclear at best, but would appear to indicate a trend in terms of the manner in which the Ferry Corporation is empowered to act.
Recognizing the inappropriateness of a clause-by-clause analysis of this miscellaneous statutes act now, I don't intend to say too much more in second reading. We are opposed to the principle, clearly, in terms of what is provided for. I suggest that often when miscellaneous statutes acts are brought forward and debated in the late hours of the evening, and government purports that this is housekeeping business, there is a lot more to them. They deserve a great deal more scrutiny than perhaps we have seen this one receive.
We will oppose it on the principles that I have suggested. So as not to be repetitive, I would leave further discussion of Bill 48 to my colleague the member for Okanagan East.
J. Tyabji: I think we've seen a very disturbing trend coming out of this government with regard to the way it writes legislation and passes a legislative agenda. In this session we have seen a number of miscellaneous statutes -- and not just in terms of a miscellaneous statutes amendment act through the Attorney General's office -- being amended through a number of different ministries. The Land Title Act is an example. Yesterday we saw the Municipal Amendment Act, 1994, which has a consequential amendment to the Land Title Act, being introduced by the Minister of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services. That was followed by a bill amending the Land Title Act that was introduced by the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. We note that in this bill, under the Ferry Corporation Act amendments, there are what I believe to be changes in definitions and in the structuring of the Ferry Corporation Act that are directly tied to the changes that were introduced by the Minister of Housing, which ended up impacting the Municipal Act. The changes to the Municipal Act will have a direct impact on the Ferry Corporation Act.
[9:00]
That's no way to run a government. We don't run a government by hiding little bits of changes to acts in different bills. We don't put together a bill that has in it everything from a tiny housekeeping change to the British Columbia Buildings Corporation Act -- which you would expect to see there -- to an intrusive change to the Farming and Fishing Industries Development Act, which changes the way the farming and fishing industries can operate their councils. We see that other ministries of government can now sit as appointees to the councils, and that they are now an independent corporation for the purposes of this act. However, they can't do anything or enter into any agreements contrary to the wishes of the minister or without further approval of the minister. It's ironic, actually, because on the one hand, they are increasing their legal entity in terms of providing corporation status, and on the other, they're babysitting them by making sure they can't enter into any agreements without the approval of the minister. That doesn't make any sense. You've got intrusion and you've got Big Sibling looking over the shoulder of the farming and fishing councils.
Speaking against the principle of this, I would speak against the amendments to the Ferry Corporation Act primarily because we don't know what the intent of this is. We know it's supposed to be a housekeeping act. Why is this in this bill? Why is it in here, when clearly these changes should be made to a bill where we can see what the intent of this government is with regard to the Ferry Corporation? We know that the Ministry of Employment and Investment is now really the amalgamation of Crown corporations for the province. We know we have an unprecedented proliferation of Crown corporations. We know that Crown corporations will hide what the government is doing. We have less accountability in Crown corporations. We have all of these Crown corporations sitting in the Ministry of Employment and Investment. We now have them under the definition of non-profit corporation that we passed yesterday, which the Ferry Corporation would qualify as and can now be sold or leased land below market value without publication of what's being done, provided it isn't for private gain, which is directly tied to a Crown corporation and easily done.
When the amendment by the Minister of Housing was passed yesterday, we were told that because there's an affordable housing strategy -- which we haven't seen, and which we've been lamenting the lack of -- it justifies that amendment. So we have that amendment, which is actually an amendment to the Land Title Act, coming in through the ministry. It talks about disposing of our public land below market value. We now have in this one a definition of corporate properties, and then we have a further amendment that allows the cabinet to make regulations with regard to corporate properties.
What does that mean? What kind of regulations are these going to be? This is a dramatic change in property rights. In this session the government is dramatically changing public and private property rights without proper debate of a miscellaneous statutes bill brought in at 9 p.m. after a hockey game. The first thing the Attorney General said when he started his speech was: "No one is going to be watching us tonight." So not only do we have it hidden in a miscellaneous statutes bill, but we have it scheduled so no one will be watching, anyway. Why bother? The press gallery has gone home -- not that they pay attention to the legislative debate, anyway. Talk about lack of accountability! It's most unfortunate.
The Alliance leader has spoken, I think very clearly, against the principle of the Health Authorities Act amendments. Further, having it hidden in this bill is unfortunate. The Minister of Health is here. Why didn't the Minister of Health bring that in? It really should have come in under a Health bill. That deserved to be a stand-alone bill. That's not housekeeping; that's a dramatic restructuring of the health care sector. It's most unfortunate, and that is in line with the breach of trust we've seen from this entire government, with the way they've been conducting themselves with regard to legislation this session.
Speaking against the principle of this bill, it's unfortunate that we don't know some of the amendments to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act when we start to talk about attachment. I haven't had a chance, and we don't have the resources, to contact everyone in that industry, but in the reading of this bill I see that it could be a very contentious section. It's something that, to me, looks as though it could be worthy of a lot of debate.
I know there are many issues -- the next bill we'll be debating is going to raise some of them -- through the
[ Page 11899 ]
Ministry of Finance and through the Attorney General's office where government is intervening in private business; they talk about an administrator suspecting that someone is about to become indebted, and on that basis having the power to act intrusively. I don't know, but maybe the member for Delta South has more comments on this. I got off the phone from talking with somebody today about an act that needs amendment -- and it's the other direction.... He was talking about the fact that the only avenue open to private individuals or corporations these days, or to people who are just barely making it in small and medium-sized businesses, when they have intrusive government coming in and conducting audits, making assessments and putting liens against their businesses because of taxes assessed, is litigation. Well, they don't have the money for litigation. They can't possibly compete with the government on that level. The government has all kinds of resources because the government is using public money to litigate. So there's an endless source of public money to litigate, but there's not that much protection for people in the private sector when we have an administrator suspecting and then, on that basis, taking action.
I would speak very strongly against Bill 48 because I think it's a sham. I think it's unfortunate. The people of this province deserve better than this. When we're amending the Land Title Act, we deserve one package of amendments called the Land Title Amendment Act, and that's what we would debate. At that point, the government could tell us what they're planning to do.
I want to know who else is going to be sitting on those agricultural councils. My guess is that it's going to be someone from the Ministry of Environment, for the purposes of the Environmental Assessment Act. It's an environmental protection act that's being debated even though it hasn't been introduced. It's being debated in some of the municipal halls right now. My guess is that on those councils will be someone appointed from the Ministry of Environment and someone from the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, and that the person appointed through the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs is going to be for the purposes of the aboriginal fish strategy, which will be further intrusion.
But we don't know, because it didn't come in in a separate bill. We don't know what the regulations are. We don't know what the government is planning to do, we don't have the time or resources to possibly canvass these things, and there's no mandate for most of this. That's what bothers me. A lot of the things we've seen in this session are coming in quietly, and we're being encouraged in second reading to be quiet: "We'll move into committee stage and we can debate it then." At that point it's all too late, anyway, because we know that the opposition has a minority vote.
These things were not promised to the people of this province. On the contrary, in many cases they were promised that the government wouldn't do this. Instead of not doing it, they bring it in very quietly, in about five or six different bills, with these little amendments. By the time you string them together and see them implemented, it's too late. That's unfortunate. I really think that this government promised they wouldn't do what they're doing now. We've had calls from people, who have followed the proceedings of the Legislature for the last ten or 15 years, saying that they have never seen so many tiny pieces hidden in different bills, where things are being cut and allocated to different ministers so they can be brought in with different justifications.
Yesterday we heard the Minister of Housing talk about something that is tied to this. We stood up in debate and said it doesn't matter that this minister is saying her justification for the Municipal Amendment Act, 1994, is that she wants to pursue a housing strategy; the fact is that once you amend an act, anybody can make use of those amendments. It doesn't say it's for the purpose of affordable housing. On the contrary, they went out of their way to make sure that the definitions couldn't be tied to anything like that. That's not only unfortunate but also regrettable. It's the kind of thing that I think is going to come home to roost for this government. Notwithstanding how quietly we introduce amendments, once they become law, people will feel their impacts. Then they will feel betrayed, and they will look back and ask what happened. It happens all the time now. People phone and ask: "How did this become law? I don't remember reading anything in the newspaper about it." We say that we will send them a copy of Hansard. They read it and say: "Well, the government promised they wouldn't do that." What can you do when you're in opposition? You can only provide them with the record of debate and then act on their behalf by sending letters, following up, harassing the ministers about it and hoping you can get something done.
It will take a while for us to feel the impact of a lot of things in this bill. There are intrusive changes in the bill. There are changes we can't even understand, because there are no regulations in place and there are changes directly tied to at least half a dozen other pieces of legislation. That, to me, is a dishonest way of conducting government.
F. Gingell: One of the principles this government has spoken strongly in favour of is accountability. I would just like to quickly deal with two things the Attorney General might consider making amendments to. If we have true accountability, it isn't complete until the whole loop has been completed. I am really pleased that this bill requires the Ferry Corporation to report on the manner in which it is fulfilling its mandate and that we're trying to measure that. But that loop will not be complete unless the report is not only filed with the minister but also tabled in the House. I'd like to make a suggestion, which the Attorney General might consider during committee stage on this bill, that the report called for under section 11 be tabled.
I'd also like to suggest that accountability requires the auditor general to play a role, together with the provincial government, in the complete reporting on the finances of all Crown corporations. Obviously the auditor general can't do all the work, but it is appropriate that the auditor general be involved in the appointment of the auditor. This bill will change the appointment of an auditor for B.C. Ferries from one made by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to one made by the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations. I would like to suggest that the Attorney General consider adding, after the words "the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations," something like the words "on the advice of the auditor general," and then I'm sure that kind of amendment would....
The Speaker: Hon. member, I've been attempting to allow you a little latitude, but clearly your debate is out of order. You are getting into the details of a miscellaneous statutes amendment bill. You should be speaking on the principle, not the detail you're into now.
F. Gingell: I was trying to speak to the principle of accountability, on the basis that that principle is not fulfilled until reports are tabled with the House, with the representatives of the people; and that accountability also requires a good-housekeeping seal of approval, and that is better done if the auditor general plays some role in that appointment.
[ Page 11900 ]
I've made those points, and I appreciate this opportunity to do so.
G. Farrell-Collins: I too want to make a few statements on Bill 48. I believe that most members of this House -- many of us are here for our first parliament, but our third session now -- are aware of exactly what miscellaneous statutes amendment acts are. They're generally an attempt to put small pieces of legislation all together into one bill and have them dealt with in a more cohesive fashion. I think we're all equally aware that though they are little bits brought in from various pieces of legislation, they're very often very significant changes. This miscellaneous statutes amendment act is no different.
I don't think it puts the opposition at any disadvantage to see them packaged all together as one, but there are certainly things that.... Every time a miscellaneous statutes amendment act is tabled in this House, there is laughter from the opposition benches as we anticipate going through it with a fine-tooth comb, pulling out all the various nasty things the government's trying to do in a quiet fashion. So in some ways, I would argue that the words "miscellaneous statutes amendment act" tend to flag government changes and anticipated changes, and we tend to look at them just that much more closely.
[9:15]
But we're not the only ones who look at legislation. It's not just the opposition who wonders what's going on in Victoria. It's also people out there in the field who have responsibilities -- in this case, in health, in parks, in the Ferry Corporation, and others -- who need a signal sent to them that there's something here they should be looking at. Most people don't get paid full-time to do what we do, which is to examine legislation. They have other careers, jobs and responsibilities.
Despite the convenience, I think it's perhaps a poor practice of government to roll everything into a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. It would be more forthright, and better for informing the general public of what the government's intentions are, to title them appropriately, even if they're a string of fairly small bills. If they are small and there is not a whole lot to their committee stage debate, they would pass through the House relatively quickly. But the public would be alerted and they would be given the attention that I think they deserve. This is obviously one of those bills.
When it comes to committee stage, I'll be speaking and questioning the minister more on what's actually taking place with the changes to the Health Authorities Act. As the Labour critic for the opposition, I have some concerns.
The government was very reluctant to bring in provincewide bargaining for the K-to-12 education system -- justifiably reluctant, I think. My understanding and feeling from watching what has gone on here for almost the last three years is that the government has been very loath to bring in provincewide bargaining, having spoken against it quite strongly while in opposition. But I think what's happened over a period of time -- and certainly last spring, when there was a virtual breakdown in the way collective bargaining was working in the K-to-12 education system in B.C. -- is that the government came to the realization that that system had demonstrated itself to be dysfunctional. Despite failing to admit it last year, they did come in this year and decide that it was dysfunctional and that they had to make some changes to it.
While not thrilled to go through that process, I for one felt it was in the best interests of the public and the students of the province to bring in provincewide bargaining and to arrange the collective bargaining somewhat differently. But it wasn't something everybody leapt into eagerly and with big smiles on their faces. I know it was a difficult decision for the government. And it's not something the opposition wanted to see from day one; rather, we came to the realization about it after seeing the system in operation for some time.
However, I think there's a problem when we look at the changes this government is bringing in with the Health Authorities Act, because they are setting up a structure where they are intruding into the collective bargaining system. They're intruding and setting up a regime when that system has not demonstrated itself to be dysfunctional. The government has not demonstrated that the current process for collective bargaining in the health sector is dysfunctional. They have not demonstrated -- and time hasn't demonstrated -- that this system is not working in the same way the education system was not working. We don't see to the same extent the same whipsawing that took place. We don't see the widespread disruption as much -- although there was one strike early in 1992, which caused some concern.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast made quite a scene last evening, when I whispered as quietly as possible in the ear of the member for Matsqui while he was speaking, and made it seem that it was disrupting him. I ask that member for the same courtesy he wished extended to him last evening, while I finish my fairly short....
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps the member for Okanagan East could participate in that courtesy also, hon. Speaker. I would like to continue with my fairly brief comments on Bill 48.
The Speaker: The points are well taken, hon. member. I ask members to respect the member's opportunity to participate in debate. Would the hon. member please proceed.
G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker.
The government -- any government -- has to be very careful when they make decisions that intrude into something as important as the collective bargaining system. The changes to education were demonstrably justified by what's gone on in the last few years. I don't think that's the case in the health sector. I don't think the government has gained the moral authority -- i.e., acting for the benefit and to the advantage of the public interest -- to step in and restructure the bargaining system and the bargaining units despite the wishes of those employees. That's the difference.
We have a Charter of Rights, and while I don't intend to take this bill to the Supreme Court on a Charter challenge, a clause in there fundamentally sums up what rights are like in this country. It states that certain rights are held to be firm except as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. That's a good test for the government to take on this bill and these changes to the Health Authorities Act. I don't think the government has demonstrated the necessity for these changes. They are intruding into the collective bargaining system, without a demonstrable moral justification that there is a problem and that they are acting
[ Page 11901 ]
on behalf of the public interest. So obviously we will be voting against this bill for that and a few other reasons. We'll be debating again in greater detail in committee stage.
I would like to speak to one other area of this bill very briefly, and that deals with the changes to and the appeal process for the Motor Carrier Commission. We were told by the Premier in the corridors of this House some time ago -- in response to a controversy that erupted over what many people saw as the questionable granting of a cab licence to some people with longstanding ties to the government -- that when the Minister of Transportation and Highways took over her duties as minister, she expressed a concern about the changes to the appeal process brought in last year in this House and wanted to see some changes to them. However, upon questioning in this House, she didn't seem to know what changes she wanted. Therefore I question who drafted or was responsible for the changes that are in this act for the Motor Carrier Commission. I would like to see the Minister of Transportation and Highways answer questions on it in committee stage, so that we can find out exactly how it is she came to this process and when she became informed that this process was on its way and legislation was coming. I suspect that the legislation came from a ministry other than that one and that, in fact, she probably had fairly little to do with it, given that she didn't seem to be up to speed on it as little as a week ago.
We intend to canvass that also. I think some of the changes are perhaps positive, but they will require further examination. As a number of my colleagues in the Liberal opposition have stated, there are other questions with regard to this bill. Perhaps they are not as conspiratorial as members of some groups in this House suspect, but we have some concerns which we'll be bringing up further in committee stage.
The Speaker: The minister closes debate.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think it's fair to say that there is no conspiracy here. It's also fair to say that a number of amendments have some significance -- some public policy issues are addressed by way of a miscellaneous statutes bill. There's no attempt to sneak these through. There will be full opportunity in committee stage for members, should they choose, to deal in detail with each of these amendments and to deal directly with the ministers responsible for each of these initiatives.
[9:30]
Hon. Speaker, given that that is the appropriate form for this bill, I would move second reading again.
Motion approved on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 35 |
||
|
Miller |
Gabelmann |
Ramsey |
|
Barlee |
Blencoe |
Lovick |
|
Pullinger |
Janssen |
Evans |
|
Randall |
Beattie |
Farnworth |
|
Conroy |
Doyle |
Sihota |
|
Marzari |
Edwards |
Cashore |
|
Zirnhelt |
Charbonneau |
O'Neill |
|
Garden |
Hagen |
Lortie |
|
Giesbrecht |
Lord |
Streifel |
|
Simpson |
Jackson |
Brewin |
|
Schreck |
Lali |
Hartley |
|
Hammell |
|
Boone |
|
NAYS -- 14 |
||
|
Dalton |
Reid |
Farrell-Collins |
|
Stephens |
Tanner |
Jarvis |
|
Anderson |
Warnke |
Symons |
|
Fox |
Neufeld |
Weisgerber |
|
Tyabji |
|
Wilson |
Bill 48, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 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 would remind members that we had called Committee A for 9:30, so it will be ready to go now. In this House, I would now call second reading of Bill 49.
The Speaker: Hon. members, before we continue, I would like to address a matter that was brought to my attention when someone else was in the chair. I would like to read a brief statement.
This matter occurred yesterday. The member for Okanagan East requested a withdrawal of comments made by the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove during debate on Bill 50. At the time, the Chair indicated to the members that I would like to have an opportunity to review the Blues before making a ruling because I was not in the chair when the remarks were made. I have done so, and the Blues indicate that the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove alleged that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast had deliberately misled the House. This language is unparliamentary, as I'm sure members who were here at the time would appreciate. I would ask the hon. member, in deference to this concern, that he withdraw those remarks.
G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Chair. I certainly had no intention to do so at the time, and I don't now. I would be glad to withdraw those comments, if that's what I said or....
The Speaker: Thank you kindly, hon. member.
ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This too, like the previous bill we debated this evening in the House, is a bill which amends 12 statutes. However, in this case, all 12 statutes being amended are within the responsibility of the Ministry of Attorney General.
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: When it's a fee.
Six statutes are amended to allow court fees to be set by regulation rather than by statute. These statutes are, as members know, the Builders Lien Act, the Creditor Assistance Act, the Evidence Act, the Income Tax Act, the Tugboat Worker Lien Act and the Woodworker Lien Act. All court fees are now being examined to ensure that they more accurately reflect the cost of providing the service. These amendments will ensure consistency between the fees charged for commencing all civil actions in the Supreme Court. Many of these fees have not been increased since 1960 or 1962.
The Land Title Act is amended, due to the following problem. Some development schemes have in the past used a
[ Page 11902 ]
rare form of fee simple tenure coupled with specialized contractual arrangements to create what is, in essence, a subdivision, without the approval of the approving officer. This amendment will prohibit the future use of this type of fee simple tenure for the purpose of circumventing the subdivision approval process.
I want to make some comments about the amendments to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act. The first two amendments will enable wineries, breweries and distilleries to operate a single, on-site, licensed establishment for the sale of liquor by the glass. At present, brew pubs are the only liquor manufacturers permitted to own or operate a licensed establishment. Allowing liquor manufacturers to operate a single licensed establishment at their manufacturing facility provides them with the additional opportunity to feature their products and increase their sales. This opportunity will particularly benefit small businesses such as estate and farm wineries and cottage breweries. Tourism will be enhanced if wineries in the Okanagan Valley offer facilities which add to the promotability and enjoyment of winery tours.
The act does not presently contain express authority for the imposition of terms and conditions on licences issued to liquor manufacturers. At present, terms and conditions are imposed by policy. A second amendment will allow terms and conditions to be imposed on manufacturers by regulation, as is the case with all other classes of licences. This capability is fundamental to the effective regulation of the liquor industry.
A final amendment will enable the Victoria Commonwealth Games Society to enter into corporate sponsorship agreements with liquor manufacturers similar to those allowed for in the Expo 86 Corporation Amendment Act, 1985. This provision is time-limited and only applies until September 18, 1994.
Amendments to the Municipal Act and the Vancouver Charter will streamline the existing ticketing scheme for municipal and regional district bylaw infractions. The amendments will save court time and the time of bylaw enforcement officers. At present, when a person is served with a ticket but fails to appear at the hearing, a time-consuming process must be followed before a justice can determine the matter. The main feature of the proposed amendments is that where a person fails to appear for the hearing, the person is deemed not to have disputed the charge. These amendments are modelled on the violation ticket scheme contained in the Offence Act for offences under provincial statutes and regulations. As in the Offence Act, the proposed amendments contain "saving provisions," which allow a conviction to be set aside where the person was not at fault for failing to appear. The introduction of these amendments follows extensive consultation with municipalities, regional districts, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the city of Vancouver and other interested parties.
The eleventh of the amended bills is the Provincial Court Act. Members will recall that in 1992, as required by the Provincial Court Act, I struck a compensation advisory committee to make recommendations respecting a new judicial compensation process, as the existing process had a number of shortcomings that had caused dissatisfaction on the part of both government and the judiciary. This report on process has served as a basis for amendments to the Provincial Court Act to establish a new, more inclusive and responsive process for determining judicial compensation by, firstly, providing for a five-member judicial compensation committee to be appointed every third year, starting January 1, 1995; and secondly, authorizing the committee to recommend the remuneration, allowances and benefits -- including pensions -- to be provided to Provincial Court judges, subject to the right of the Legislative Assembly to overrule the committee's recommendations.
Finally, an amendment to the Sheriff Act will permit government sheriffs to have continued access to motor vehicle branch data to assist sheriffs with the service of civil court documents, and court bailiffs in the execution of civil execution orders. Currently the motor vehicle branch provides address information upon request to sheriffs to assist in locating an individual to be served with civil court process documents. Sheriffs have had access to this information for decades. The amendments will ensure that vital information currently provided to sheriffs and court bailiffs continues to be provided in the future, notwithstanding the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
Hon. Speaker, I would move second reading.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Deputy Speaker: This is another miscellaneous statutes act. Insofar as the Attorney General has taken a little time in explaining the details, it seems legitimate to expand the margin ever so slightly in response -- albeit this is not a principled bill and therefore we won't have a long debate in second reading.
J. Dalton: Certainly it is similar to Bill 48 in a sense. It's interesting that there are also 12 statutes amended in this, just as there are in Bill 48.
The opposition is going to be flagging two or three of these amendments in particular, and I just want to raise this now in second reading. The Land Title Act amendment is probably the most controversial item in Bill 49, and it will certainly have to be fully canvassed in committee stage. There are concerns, in particular, about recreational property that is either under development or pending development. Many people, both in the development business and in financial institutions, may have commitments that they have either registered or are anticipating. I think they have to be concerned about the implications of this amendment. So I'm just flagging that. We can't deal with the detail here, but as you say, this is not a principled bill -- your words, hon. Speaker, not ours.
I appreciate the amendments to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, in particular. I guess we might call it the Commonwealth Games amendment. I understand that a similar problem happened during Expo 86. Therefore I think that amendment is certainly merited; and, of course, it has a time limit on it.
I'm going to comment on the other amendment briefly, and perhaps give a word of advice to the government. It deals with the amendment to the Provincial Court Act. We know that a judicial compensation committee is being struck, which is probably long overdue. But I'm going to suggest to the government that they might consider, as the opposition has called for, that a similar committee be struck to deal with MLAs' compensation and benefits. It's not appropriate for this House to deal with that item. It's far too close to home and controversial.
Interjection.
J. Dalton: As my colleague from Richmond East whispers in my ear, what happened to the Chuck Connaghan recommendations and report?
[ Page 11903 ]
I would like to see this government seize upon this initiative and perhaps take it one step further. It's long overdue for some independent body to properly and objectively examine compensation that members of this House are not necessarily entitled to.... But I certainly think the item itself should be canvassed.
Other items may very well be commented on by my colleagues, but those are the things I wanted to raise in second reading.
J. Weisgerber: Again, I'm tempted to recognize that this is a miscellaneous statutes bill. However, being, if nothing else, a slow learner, I get the point that some discussion is indeed going to take place in second reading, so one might as well join in.
I too share the concerns around the land titles part of this legislation. I think the changes having to do with undivided interests have caused a fair amount of concern. I'm not sure of the degree to which these have come back to government, but there are a lot of developments I have come to be aware of, since this miscellaneous statutes bill was tabled, that are in fact undivided interests in lands. I hear from people with recreational property on the islands, and I understand that one of the benefits of that undivided interest is to allow recreational property to be developed without having to build roads, gazette roads and do those kinds of things.
[9:45]
The concern I'm hearing from people who have seen and are aware of these changes is the particular effect on those who now own these undivided interests in property. There are questions about the value of those properties and the changes that this legislation may cause to these undivided properties. Some of them are very valuable. Some are secured by a mortgage on another piece of property because of the difficulty in mortgaging these undivided interests. This legislation is one that is causing people a considerable amount of concern around their investments in those properties and around the investment they might have made in other real estate. I think it would behoove us all to answer those questions as quickly as we can.
As with any miscellaneous bill, there are other sections we are more comfortable with, such as the changes to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act. I did want to raise some of the concerns that we've been hearing on section 7 for the Attorney General, and look forward to debating it and getting details in third reading.
J. Tyabji: Not to belabour the point on the Land Title Act, but we also share the concerns of the previous speakers with regard to the undivided interest. We have probably received the same correspondence from people who will be affected by it, so we can deal with that in committee stage.
The changes to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act are commendable; that act needs to be renovated completely. But I think the part of this miscellaneous statutes bill that is most distasteful to Alliance members is the amendments to the Provincial Court Act. I'm actually surprised that hasn't been mentioned so far. We are at a time when our justice system is coming under fire for lack of accountability and for being a closed shop. In fact, tomorrow there will be further hearings of the Jack Cram case in the Vancouver courts. He is alleging corruption within the Law Society, and the reason for that is that we have self-appointed bodies monitoring their own self-interest.
We see with the Judicial Compensation Committee and the changes that are proposed to the Provincial Court Act that the amendments will remove from the Attorney General his appointments to the compensation committee. A Chief Judge, after consulting with the Provincial Court Judges' Association, will be the person appointing two judges, and then, with the Attorney General's two appointments, they will be appointing a chair. Unless one looks at the original act, an interesting amendment isn't seen. The original act is specific, in that none of the members of this committee shall be a barrister. It goes beyond that and is similar to this bill, in that none of them is to be employed by the public service or a Crown corporation. But in this act a barrister could be not only the chair of the committee but also one of the two appointments of the Attorney General and one of the two appointments of the judge.
I find it ironic at a time when there are so many cases before the courts, the Law Society and the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Before all of these self-policing bodies, there are cases. I'm sure they are in front of the Attorney General, because I'm copying him with some of the stuff I'm receiving, and I'm sure if I'm receiving some, he's receiving ten times as much. They say that we cannot have self-policing bodies, especially in the justice system. When we're talking about something like compensation, raises and recommendations for remuneration, one would assume.... As public figures in this body, we were told specifically in the last election: "You shall not determine how much money you will make." That was very clear; that was something most of us ran on. We said that we would seek reform on that. In principle, we do not support the idea that any body, especially a body financed by the public, shall decide how much money it is going to make.
In this government we have already seen that salaries of judges have been increased. Now we see that the very principle of a publicly financed body not being allowed to make recommendations and decisions on its remuneration is being violated. It's interesting. These amendments are not necessary. The way the act currently reads, the Attorney General is the one who has the right to appoint these people, and none of those five shall be barristers or from the court system; none of those five will be someone who could be found in conflict of interest. And that's what it is. These amendments put the Chief Judge, who will be appointing judges, in a direct conflict of interest. That's unfortunate. I don't understand why the Attorney General would change things to go against his own favour.
I'm sure that in his closing remarks the Attorney General will say something to the effect that the recommendations shall be placed before the Legislative Assembly. It says that they could be rejected by resolution, but we know that this would be in the control of the government; the government has the majority of votes. In effect, the committee as it is constituted would be the deciding body. That is something that we cannot support in principle.
Not that there's any hope that it would be supported, but for the purposes of this debate and to see the voting record of the other members, I propose an amendment to second reading. This is a hoist motion: that we substitute the words "six months hence" for "now." I don't wish to speak to that; I just wish us to have a vote on that. I would move that amendment now.
Deputy Speaker: I believe that technically such an amendment is allowed. I don't imagine anybody wishes to speak to the amendment.
Interjection.
[ Page 11904 ]
Deputy Speaker: So much for psychic phenomena. I recognize the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast on the amendment.
On the amendment.
G. Wilson: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I would stand and seek leave to make an introduction, but there's nobody to introduce.
I just wanted to very briefly support the amendment. In doing so, it's unfortunate that with an act such as this, where there are sections that we can strongly endorse.... We strongly urge all members of this Legislative Assembly to support the hoist motion because of the judicial compensation committee structure, which we believe to be against the interests of British Columbians.
[10:00]
Amendment negatived on the following division:
YEAS -- 12 |
||
Tyabji |
Wilson |
Stephens |
Farrell-Collins |
Reid |
Dalton |
Symons |
K. Jones |
Warnke |
Anderson |
Jarvis |
Tanner |
|
NAYS -- 37 |
||
|
Miller |
Gabelmann |
Ramsey |
|
Barlee |
Blencoe |
Pullinger |
|
Janssen |
Evans |
Randall |
|
Beattie |
Farnworth |
Conroy |
|
Doyle |
Sihota |
Marzari |
|
Edwards |
Cashore |
Zirnhelt |
|
Charbonneau |
O'Neill |
Garden |
|
Hagen |
Hammell |
Lortie |
|
Giesbrecht |
Lord |
Streifel |
|
Simpson |
Jackson |
Brewin |
|
Schreck |
Lali |
Boone |
|
Neufeld |
Fox |
Weisgerber |
| Hartley | ||
On the main motion.
G. Farrell-Collins: The member for West Vancouver-Capilano has already stated some objections that the opposition has with regard to the land title portion of this bill. I know that it will probably be canvassed extensively in committee stage, so I won't go any further on that.
I do want to make a few comments with regard to the judicial compensation committee. Having sat on the standing committee that was involved in making recommendations both to this Legislature and to the executive council with regard to compensation for judges and the judiciary as a whole in this province.... I believe the Chair sat on that committee, and the Attorney General presented to that committee. I can say that when I was first appointed to the committee, I thought it was one of the oddest committees I've ever heard of. I didn't give it much consideration until I got there and realized what we were doing. I became more and more uncomfortable as the process went on, since the legislative branch was setting the salaries of the judicial branch, who in many cases rule on the very laws we pass.
It's somewhat philosophical, I suppose, but the principle of a division between the legislative, executive and judicial branches is in place and is fought about in many countries in the world. It's not serious to that extent here. But given the growing lack of faith in the justice system as a whole that we hear about.... Whether it's real or perceived, because of the media attention it gets, is one thing. But certainly that growing sense of concern about the justice system is something that we should all take into consideration.
There are many countries where the judicial, legislative and executive branches are wrapped pretty closely together and rely on each other extensively for favours back and forth. As a matter of principle, I must say that I became very uncomfortable with the process that still exists in this province. I believe that all members of that committee realize that some changes need to be made. Although we were very cautious in our recommendations, we did make some recommendations with regard to the need to change that. There were certainly comments to that effect also in the reports that Chuck Connaghan brought forward.
While I share the concerns that are brought forward by members of this House, a number of whom have spoken already, I realize at the same time that some changes need to be made. We will be looking at the content of the judicial compensation process brought forward by the Attorney General. But I do want members and the public -- those very few people who may be interested -- to be aware that there is a very important reason for doing this. It may not seem relevant today, but no one knows what's going to happen ten or 15 years down the road -- what governments may come along, what they may pass and what the political climate may be in this province. I think it's important that we make every effort to maintain the integrity and independence of the judiciary in any way that we can. Therefore I think changes certainly need to be made.
I also want to mention that the support that our caucus gave for the preceding amendment was not for the reasons brought forward by the mover but rather for the reasons brought forward by the Attorney General critic from our caucus. His concern with the land title portion of the bill was our reason for support of the amendment, not the reasons itemized by the mover of the amendment -- which from what I understood from her comments were about the judicial compensation process. I want to make that clear to the House and for the record. With that I finish my comments.
G. Wilson: For a moment there I was going to say I was delighted that the Liberal opposition followed the leadership we'd provided on this question, but in fact, I see they didn't.
Interjection.
G. Wilson: The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove says not anymore. We'll see how that plays out in the months to come.
The fact is that the process is indeed what's wrong here. The reason we have concern is that if you read the act as it stands now, it is saying in principle that there has to be some form of arm's-length relationship with respect to the appointment of individuals -- who must not be a barrister, a solicitor, a judge of the court, or a person employed in the public service or a Crown corporation -- to this compensation committee. With respect to lawyers being allowed to sit on this committee, quite clearly it amends it to provide specifically for the inclusion of people who are indeed involved -- in fact, it even specifically states that people must be involved in the courts.
It is wrong for members of this House to approve in principle any compensation process for the judiciary that allows the kind of influence this process is clearly going to
[ Page 11905 ]
provide for people who have a vested interest in seeing compensation packages move forward at higher rates. This process clearly provides for that. I'm a little surprised at the comments made by the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove, because I would have thought he was supporting that kind of principle when he supported the amendment.
Notwithstanding that, we have to ask ourselves a very simple question: who in this community of ours in British Columbia is a judge? How are judges selected? What authorities and powers are vested in judges? And how do those judges influence and affect the lives of British Columbians? The bottom line is that judges are lawyers, pure and simple. They're not individuals plucked at birth and taken off to some monastery, where they're given some kind of special puritanical upbringing.
R. Neufeld: Some think they are.
G. Wilson: The member for Peace River North says some think they are -- maybe; I don't know.
But I do know that they're lawyers. They come out of partnerships where there are longstanding relationships, friendships and connections. We have seen quite clearly in British Columbia that there is a need for the justice system to be cleaned up in terms of how those relationships play out in the administration of justice. Clearly, in principle we don't want to be setting in place a process that allows those relationships to be further enhanced, whereby individuals who have a vested interest in seeing remuneration packages go up are provided the opportunity to do so.
Furthermore, it suggests that there is going to be a meaningful role for members in this Legislative Assembly to play in the final setting of remuneration allowances and benefits. It says there will be a structure by which this Legislative Assembly will approve it. But it doesn't provide the mechanism by which that will occur. Furthermore, it provides that it has to happen within 14 days of April 30, which if the House is sitting presumably will provide an opportunity for some committee or process whereby compensation can be approved to take place. But if we disapprove of and don't agree with it, then how do we amend it? Who gets the final say on how that works?
I see the Attorney General is shaking his head. In committee stage we'll get into this in some detail. We have not only canvassed this thoroughly in terms of how it reads now and what the interpretation of it is by some people in the legal profession, but we have also canvassed it as to how some people in the legal profession believe it should work. It's almost as though this was written by the very people who seek to benefit from it. Quite clearly, this puts in place a principle whereby compensation can be provided in a manner that would provide at least the appearance of a conflict of interest -- and I would argue that, in reality, it's a significant conflict of interest -- if not under the statutory regulations on conflict of interest, at least with respect to the public's perception of how this is going to occur.
In speaking to this bill, I want to say that we didn't move that hoist amendment because of a frivolous notion that we should try to prolong debate. I don't intend to prolong it with my remarks tonight. Where there is good stuff in here, we ought to be supporting that. One section of this bill, under the amendments to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, is first-class. We applaud that and support it. We think that we could go further with that kind of amendment to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act. We would like to have that explored in a bill unto itself, to address the whole process of liquor licensing and the opportunities for not only people in the province whose welfare is dependent upon the retailing of liquor -- because I think there are some social problems we need to be concerned with there -- but particularly people who are involved in the brewing, wine and distilling industries, who have some legitimate concerns.
Let me conclude my remarks by saying that we firmly believe that this compensation package should be defeated on a matter of principle. As we move to have this bill go into committee stage, it is our view that on this particular point of principle, all Members of the Legislative Assembly should have their position recorded. That's the reason that we moved to a division on that point. It's a point that the Attorney General is going to have to justify in committee stage. As it reads now, we believe that it is a problem for people, because it simply does not provide an adequate, independent relationship between those who will be independent of both the legislative process and the judicial process...to be able to make a sensible recommendation with respect to compensation for the judiciary.
R. Neufeld: I would like to quickly add my remarks on this bill. I want to talk about section 7, which deals with the Land Title Act. Having been an owner of a recreational property of undivided interests at one time, and having sold that quite a while ago, I can understand the difficulty that some people who presently own property such as that are going to have and the difficulty organizations or individuals are going to have if they have invested a huge amount of money in those types of land agreements.
[10:15]
I also know, from experience, about the types of people who live in those parks. I used to spend a fair amount of my summers with some of those people. I think you will find that many of them are senior citizens who have purchased a piece of property and spend the best part of their summer on it, and they go away in the winter. That's probably the only piece of land they have, and they would have sold their other property to acquire it.
I think it's really an intrusion on property rights. I spoke the other night about this government intruding in people's lives in every way it can. These people bought expensive pieces of property. In the park I was in, the prices went as high as $70,000 for a small piece of property to park a small mobile home or holiday trailer on, or as low as $25,000 or $30,000. Some of those people have fixed those lots up like you wouldn't believe. They are small cities unto themselves. In fact, a lot of them are in the Okanagan, and that's where I owned a piece of property. I feel really badly for those people who have invested that money, and I just cannot believe that this government would do what it appears to be doing. I guess it shouldn't be surprising when you think about the philosophy of the NDP that no one should own any property. Maybe that's the issue.
An Hon. Member: That's not true.
R. Neufeld: The member over there says that that's not true. I don't quite believe that. I've heard the philosophy from your cabinet ministers and from other members. You may say it's not true, but you're in a minority on a side that says it is, hon. member. Your government's philosophy is that no one should own any property, and I guess this is just a step in that direction.
I agree with the part about the judges. We will go into that a bit more when we go into committee on it. I sat on that committee, and I found that there was an awful lot more than met the eye at the start. I know the member for Powell
[ Page 11906 ]
River-Sunshine Coast has some real concerns about this. I hope that we can delve into it a lot more in committee stage and find out what the ramifications of it are.
I want to get it on the record that my caucus and I are very concerned, especially about the Land Title Act part of this bill. For that reason alone, even though we agree with most of the bill, we can't approve it. It's also interesting, I guess, how this government has a way of sneaking one bad little piece of legislation into a bill where the rest of the legislation seems to be fairly good. But they always try to have this little sneaker in there -- under-the-rug stuff, I call it -- and you just can't agree with the bill. So with that, I leave it and wait for the Attorney General's closing remarks.
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I will call on the Attorney General, whose remarks will close debate.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: And I will be brief, hon. Speaker. Ordinarily I wouldn't make comments in second reading -- I would leave that to committee stage -- but I want to pick up on two amendments that members have talked about.
First, I've listened carefully to the comments on the Land Title Act. I have to say to members that there's no political agenda on these amendments. These amendments were designed to pick up on a problem that had been identified with respect to evasions, effectively, of approvals by the approving officer. However, in listening to members and to others who have made comments independent of the House, I think we have to look at that issue and at what we've constructed here in these amendments. I will ask the director of the ministry's land title branch to read Hansard, to pay some attention to it and, prior to committee stage, to see whether we can deal with the legitimate concerns that I hear being expressed.
With respect to the Provincial Court changes, I think there is general agreement that the old procedure didn't work. The House Leader for the official opposition made the point -- effectively, I think -- that the old system was something that most of who us worked with it couldn't live with any longer. I asked Chuck Connaghan to provide recommendations for changes and a way of determining Provincial Court judicial salaries, which is one of the two areas where it's very difficult to set salaries and benefits -- the other being those of the MLAs. Mr. Connaghan and his committee came back with two choices that, as we worked through them, were commonly referred to as 10.A and 10.B. The first recommendation would have set up an independent process for determining remuneration without any reference whatsoever to the Legislature. Even though that was the recommended option, I felt that was wrong. I felt there should not be any part of the provincial budget that was not able to be vetted by this Legislature. This Legislature is the supreme authority.
Subsequent to that decision, in terms of proceeding with this bill, I think the events in Saskatchewan have proven the soundness of that decision. In Saskatchewan they set up a process that was completely independent of the Legislature, and then a commission came in with recommendations for a 20 percent, or thereabouts, salary increase. The government of the day, the Legislature and the people weren't prepared to accept that, so the Attorney General had to bring in a bill to dissolve the commission that had recommended the 20 percent and to make everything they'd done null and void. That kind of procedure is pretty unsettling, at best.
What we did in drafting this legislation was accept the second choice of Mr. Connaghan, given that he gave us two alternatives, which was simply to set up an independent process in which -- yes, it's true -- one lawyer can be appointed by the Chief Judge in consultation with the judges' organization. Theoretically, I guess the Attorney General could appoint more lawyers, and the chair could be a lawyer -- not this Attorney General.
The fact is that judges cannot sit on the compensation advisory committee, so unless one develops a conspiracy theory about lawyers, one can say there is no conflict of interest here. But it was the recommendation of the Connaghan committee, and this Legislature has the final authority. It can amend, by motion, any of the recommendations that have come forward. That preserves the paramountcy of parliament in that respect.
However, in both these issues and others, we can have a more detailed debate in committee stage discussions. With that, hon. Speaker, I move second reading.
Motion approved.
Bill 49, Attorney General 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 second reading of Bill 42.
PETROLEUM CORPORATION REPEAL ACT
Hon. A. Edwards: Hon. Speaker, the Petroleum Corporation Repeal Act is a very simple act. Under Bill 42 all rights, property and assets of the Petroleum Corporation of British Columbia and its subsidiary, as well as all debts, liabilities and obligations, are transferred to and vested in the government.
Any contractual commitments of the Petroleum Corporation and its subsidiary are protected through this transfer and will be honoured by the government. The appointment of directors of the Petroleum Corporation and its subsidiary are terminated under this legislation. With respect to the Petroleum Corporation fund, it is dissolved, and any balance in the fund is transferred to the consolidated revenue fund. The bill also provides for payment of the debts and liabilities transferred to the government out of the consolidated revenue fund.
There are a number of consequential amendments which, for the most part, repeal provisions which refer to the B.C. Petroleum Corporation.
D. Jarvis: First of all, I stand to congratulate the minister for presenting one bill today for second reading that I can go along with: Bill 42. After deregulation, there's little need for this Crown corporation. As everyone knows, they now, in essence, buy from independent producers. So getting rid of a redundant corporation seems like a fair thing to do at this stage, and I can only hope that some other B.C. Crown corporations are done away with, and everyone will be happy. I will support this bill.
R. Neufeld: Maybe I spoke too quickly in the last bill, when I said that there's always something slipped in by this government. I was in error then, because our caucus has no problem with this bill. It's short and simple -- three pages long -- and will not affect any of the operations of government. In fact, this will make them more efficient and
[ Page 11907 ]
make them move in the direction we should be moving in. So with that, we support the minister in her bill.
G. Wilson: This is really just to put the Alliance position on record more than anything else. In principle, any time we're starting to reduce the number of Crown corporations, the better off we're all going to be. I would certainly argue, with respect to the repeal of the Petroleum Corporation, that the minister has taken a step in the right direction. There are some matters with respect to the retirement of liabilities and debts, however, especially on the question of appropriation, that we'd like to explore with the minister in committee stage. There are some problems there, particularly in terms of the fact that there is a provision within this bill to simply pay out of the consolidated revenue fund. It may well be argued that some other liabilities might in fact be better administered elsewhere, and we would be prepared to look at that in some detail when we get into committee stage. We simply put the minister on notice now that we will be asking those questions when we get to committee stage.
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister's remarks will close debate.
Hon. A. Edwards: Such a friendly and pleasant response is indeed to be treasured. I move second reading of Bill 42.
Motion approved.
Bill 42, Petroleum Corporation Repeal Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after day.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 51.
FAMILY MAINTENANCE ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1994
Hon. C. Gabelmann: This legislation amends the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act to make an already effective process even more effective by improving the procedures for enrolling and enforcing maintenance orders. The legislation introduces new enforcement initiatives, yet retains the fundamental principle of fair treatment for both those who receive maintenance and those who pay.
Under the existing legislation only the recipient of a maintenance order may file that order with the director of maintenance enforcement. These amendments will also allow a payer to file the order with the director. For example, the payer may wish to take advantage of the payment-monitoring provisions of the act.
The existing filing process is time-consuming. It can take more than four weeks to have a maintenance order filed with the director for enforcement. The amendments will reduce to about a week the time it takes either party to have a maintenance order filed with the director.
In the past, recipients of maintenance were not able to take any action to enforce maintenance orders on their own without withdrawing from the family maintenance enforcement program. In cases where other matters such as division of property or variation of maintenance were already before the courts, recipients were unable to press for payment of arrears at the same time. These amendments will allow the director, in appropriate cases, to authorize recipients to seek payment on their own without requiring them to leave the program.
The new legislation will allow for the payment of interest on arrears. This change will encourage people to view maintenance as an obligation on the same order as other debts. In the same spirit, the amendments will permit claims to be registered against personal property, such as recreational vehicles and automobiles, for the purpose of enforcing maintenance orders. In the past, claims could only be registered against land.
Some people required to pay maintenance have been able to arrange their affairs in ways that have allowed them to misrepresent their true assets and income. For example, sometimes payers have placed assets or income in the name of a new spouse. New enforcement provisions will enable courts to require such third parties to provide financial information or appear in court. The changes will make it more difficult to use this kind of tactic, thereby ensuring that people who have the means to pay will pay.
[10:30]
Courts have interpreted some provisions of the existing legislation in ways that were not intended or anticipated when the legislation was originally enacted. This has hampered effective enforcement of some maintenance orders. These amendments will remove ambiguities in the language of the act and strengthen enforcement procedures.
I believe these measures will help to ensure that the financial needs of the children of separated and divorced parents are met.
J. Dalton: I'm a bit surprised that the Attorney General was so brief on what I consider to be a fairly significant act. It should be noted that there are 38 sections in this amending act, and some of them are fairly substantial. In my comments on second reading debate, I'm going to flag a few things that I think need to be addressed both at committee stage and perhaps on a more ongoing and long-term basis.
The Attorney General gets many of the same complaints that I and other members of the opposition receive about the maintenance of this statute -- no pun intended. Certainly no one will quarrel, even the people.... I've even talked to fathers who've been sent off to jail, and they don't quarrel with the intent of this statute, but they certainly take issue with some of the processes that are undertaken. I just wish to go on record as saying that we certainly agree with the intent, but I think it's important that we flag some of the concerns that we detect in these amendments and, as I say, some of the longer-term implications of how we enforce and carry out a program as important as the family maintenance enforcement program.
There are significant amendments in this act. One thing, for example, though maybe it's not in the act.... Perhaps the first thing I will say is that we should consider why there are no objectives or purposes stated in the Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act, 1994. This isn't necessarily something we can deal with now or at committee stage, but it's of interest to the House -- or I hope it is -- that when we, for example, look in the 1991-92 family maintenance annual report, we see that it sets out on the first page, under the background section, the objectives of the program. There are four listed there. I won't bother reading those into the record now, but there's nothing in the statute itself and certainly nothing in this amending act that deals with objectives. I think the public would feel more settled if it could look at the first part of the statute and realize right up front what the stated objectives or purposes are. I raise that as something that perhaps should be considered for future amendments.
The concerns that are coming across my desk, as I've already said, do not deal with the intent of the act but more with the process -- the manner in which the program is
[ Page 11908 ]
carried out and the manner in which it's enforced. So we agree with enforcement. I've even talked to people who have unfortunately been sentenced to terms in jail who certainly agree with the intent, though obviously they cannot be happy with the fact that they, for whatever circumstances, had to be incarcerated.
One thing that we will canvass in more detail in committee stage is an interesting amendment of section 42 dealing with harassment of the director or the director's employees. I'm just speculating now, and will certainly deal with this more in committee stage, as to why the Attorney General felt it necessary to bring in an amendment dealing with preventing a person from harassing the director of maintenance enforcement. I suppose that sort of thing does unfortunately occur, but it may be a rather one-sided approach to a problem, because we see that enforcement certainly is carried out and then in the same breath we see that the director may have a one-sided advantage whereby he can get court orders to prevent harassment.
Of course, many times the people who are allegedly harassing are doing so because of the emotional mix. I'm sure all members would agree that when you throw in a mixture of financial problems along with emotional problems, and problems of access to one's children.... I can assure this House that many of the people who have come to me with complaints allege that their access rights have in effect been denied. When you mix up money with emotions, that's the sort of thing that gives rise to complaints about a well-intended but perhaps not always well-carried-out program.
We've covered this in the Attorney General's estimates. There are now over 20,000 people registered with this program, and that's a lot of business to conduct. That's probably the very reason that we need amendments, but we also need proper enforcement. We need to pay attention to the rationale behind it and the methods by which we carry it out.
I submit that the program should strike a balance between those who are under order to pay -- and should certainly do so -- having opportunities to appear before a judge, if that's the environment in which they find themselves, for maintenance orders to be varied -- but not just in the way they appear in the amending act we have before us.... For example, as we will see in committee stage, section 20 of the amending act allows for variance if the debtor's ability to pay has improved. I'm suggesting that that's a rather one-sided approach whereby a variance order could be made to improve -- that is, increase -- the maintenance. Why should we not allow the debtor to appear before a court and have his or her maintenance...? I also appreciate that 97 percent of the debtors in the program are fathers. Just as a side note, by the way, I note that the Attorney General this evening and also in his press releases talks about payers, yet the act talks about debtors. So we're talking about the same thing, but terminology is perhaps sometimes used to soften the blow. They are debtors, so I'm suggesting that we should examine why the debtor should not have the capability to appear in court. We should also have the opportunity for the creditor, or the director of the program, to increase an order, so the debtor would have the same opportunity to decrease it.
I appreciate that maintenance orders are beyond the jurisdiction of this program as such. But again it comes back to a rather difficult mix of emotion and financial problems, and I think that's really at the heart of where some of these difficulties arise. I would also ask why the court could not take into account the debtor's circumstances and all the circumstances. We see, for example, one of the amendments in section 17 -- if members want to take note -- whereby the assets and income of the debtor's spouse can be considered. Well, that's fair enough. So I'm going to suggest: why not the creditor's spouse?
Family circumstances do change. In fact, I have in front of me an interesting article. British Columbia Report isn't necessarily the fount of all wisdom, perhaps, or accuracy, but it does highlight an interesting example, and I wish to make brief reference to this one. The same person who is the subject of this March 14 British Columbia Report article has written a column in "Byline," one of these editorial comments, in the Vancouver Province of April 20.
She's a woman from Port Alberni who has married a man who's on a second marriage. He's run into maintenance problems from his first marriage. Unfortunately, keeping in mind that the husband is now facing a maintenance enforcement order from his previous marriage, the woman and her family have run into financial difficulties. She's asking a fairly straightforward and obvious question: why should her children, the children of the second marriage, be considered less important than her husband's first child? The enforcement is against the husband for the first marriage and that child, yet of course it's having a very serious impact because of the financial problems that the second family has encountered. So I think that's again an example of where things become somewhat one-sided.
We don't live in a perfect world, and I'm not suggesting that these anecdotal examples are necessarily proving a point, but I also don't think they're disproving the point, either. The fact is that there are difficulties with the program, difficulties that even the director himself.... Again referring to the same March 14 article in British Columbia Report, Roy Dungey, the director of the program, is quoted as hoping to see some changes to streamline the program. This is what we're dealing with this evening in second reading. He also goes on to say that no matter how efficient the program becomes, it will always prove to be a large target. That is true. He points out that there are 22,000 cases on file. That translates to 44,000 parents involved in disputes. It's not an easy process to undertake, admittedly, and I think that's probably all the more reason that we have to ensure that the process itself is undertaken objectively, fairly and in the most streamlined manner -- and not just to accelerate the process but to make sure that the program operates efficiently for all concerned.
I have other letters here. I'm not going to read these into the record tonight, because I am sure that we could overdo the point. A lot of people will say that these are only anecdotal. I don't think they necessarily ought to be treated as just anecdotal; I would add that these deal with people and people's problems.
I have just one other example in front of me that I will briefly refer to. This is a woman in West Vancouver who is having difficulties enforcing a maintenance order against her ex-husband. So it is not just men who have come to me with complaints; certainly many women are also on record. It's interesting that when I look at two letters from the family maintenance enforcement program addressed to this woman, there seems to be some difficulty even getting a handle on the arrears that allegedly built up over the years. She first registered with this program about four years ago, if I recall. On February 17 of last year she received a letter from family maintenance stating: "Please confirm whether the arrears are in the sum of $18,330." And then five days later -- and I must say that I'm puzzled by this: "Will you please confirm the arrears amount of $45,510." In five days we've taken a quantum leap from arrears of $18,000 to $45,000. I think something went wrong with the computer
[ Page 11909 ]
system somewhere in the process; something has gone a bit off the rails. That case is still ongoing.
The particular reason that she came to me was that obviously the program was having difficulty collecting the money allegedly owed to her. I have a lot of documentation in my file on that case. I know that the concern and problem that she has raised has not been solved. Again, it's just one of many examples that have been drawn to my attention.
I'll just conclude my remarks in second reading. As I say, we don't quarrel with the intent of the program. Perhaps where any quarrel might be raised is on the tone of the enforcement process. Certainly some people would agree if I were to say that the program sometimes gets a bit heavy-handed in its approach. I am not -- and the Attorney General knows this because I've said the same thing in estimates -- totally convinced that having to resort to incarceration is necessarily the best approach, or perhaps under any circumstance, the approach at all.
[10:45]
That doesn't mean there aren't some people, of course, who defy the process. One of the stated objectives that I referred to earlier is set out in the last annual report that came out from the program. It is "to change the attitudes of both debtors and the general public, so that willing payment of family maintenance becomes the rule, not the exception." I am not so sure that the attitude of debtors will necessarily be changed by coming along and saying: "By the way, the bottom line is that if you don't pay up, you're off to jail." I think that's somewhat heavy-handed. It doesn't happen often, I agree, but it does happen. I know of two or three people who are facing the prospect of incarceration almost on a continual basis.
Another objective, by the way, that is stated in the report is "to place financial responsibility for family maintenance on the debtor rather than on the public." Quite right. It should be the debtor, but the debtor -- as any other person who has financial obligations -- must feel comfortable that the process is fair and objective in its approach.
Those are the comments I wish to go on the record now. Certainly we will be raising some of these in more detail in a clause-by-clause examination at committee stage.
J. Weisgerber: I rise to speak in support of the amendments to Bill 51, the Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act. Indeed, I am convinced that these are important improvements to the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, which was introduced to this Legislature for the first time in 1988. The significant improvements that I see as a result of this amendment are in providing a process for charging interest on arrears. That seems like a businesslike and rather logical and appropriate way of encouraging the people responsible to make payments to keep them current. Indeed, that's one of the improvements, one of the amendments that we support.
We believe also that speeding up the method by which people can enrol in the program is a worthwhile amendment, and I believe the expansion of liens to other than real property will significantly improve the effectiveness of the collection mechanisms. That seems to me to be the main thrust of this legislation. Having identified those, I feel very comfortable in supporting the legislation.
Over the last few years it has come to my attention that one of the shortcomings of the existing legislation is the difficulty that many people -- particularly husbands -- have in getting a lien released when the arrears are brought up to date. The current act has always provided for the program to file a lien against real property, but my experience with the act is that should a payer fall into arrears and a lien be placed, it requires not only that the arrears be brought up to date in order to have the lien removed, but also that the consent of the other spouse be acquired.
Unfortunately, as I'm sure you are aware, these relationships are not always very cordial by the time a family has separated, there is a divorce, and the question of child support and family maintenance has gone to the family maintenance enforcement program. Sometimes husbands, for the most part, are punished by their spouses even though they have had quite a significant record of keeping payments up to date. That existing lien can cause a fair amount of unhappiness, frustration and undue concern for a person who is making their payments on time. In bringing forward amendments to this act, I would have hoped that the Attorney General would have also considered changing that section and taking away the need for the spouse's endorsement to remove a lien on real property. I'm not sure whether the Attorney General was able to follow that through. That was one of the shortcomings in the 1988 act, and it doesn't appear to have been dealt with in these amendments.
The other unfortunate thing about this act is that the changes brought in by the previous Minister of Social Services seem to weaken the effect of the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act by giving greater discretion to mothers, in particular, as to whether or not they want the family maintenance program to pursue payment from their spouse. It seems to me that if a family is receiving assistance from the taxpayers, through the Ministry of Social Services, they should be obligated to allow the Crown to use this program to try and collect maintenance and support payments.
Those are the two shortcomings that I see with the legislation. They are errors of omission, rather than of commission. I'm happy enough with what I see in the legislation. There are two areas in which I think the minister might have gone further when bringing amendments to this act: changing a fundamental shortcoming from 1988 and reversing a decision taken in 1992 by the current government. With that, we will support the legislation and will perhaps pursue some of these issues in greater detail during committee stage.
L. Reid: I would like to stand this evening in support of Bill 51, the Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act, 1994. The reason I'm standing in debate this evening is that it's a simple fact that oftentimes.... I speak specifically of two constituents in my riding who were propelled into the process, when indeed they were not in arrears. For whatever reason -- call it a computer glitch or a communication breakdown -- these two constituents were not defaulting the system. In fact, once the process was underway, I had difficulty, as did they, in bringing that process to a halt. They had done nothing wrong in this process. In fact, they had postdated cheques well in excess of 24 months, in keeping with the family maintenance enforcement program. That material was with the program, and I have brought both cases directly to the Attorney General. My comment focuses on cases where the family maintenance program is not legitimate and there are individuals who are not subject to the constraints of this act -- i.e., they have done nothing wrong. There must be some ability for those British Columbians to look at some checks and balances in the system.
I can tell you the frustration I experienced in not being able to place a phone call and not ever having a phone call returned. I cannot imagine that it's this minister's intention
[ Page 11910 ]
to frustrate constituents when they are indeed behaving in a responsible fashion. They are doing all the things they should be doing as parents in today's society. They are making their payments. They intended to make them, and they will make them. Certainly the postdated cheques were in place.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
In terms of my comment, I fully support the notion that there are parents who are not accepting their responsibility, but I can't imagine that it's this minister's intention to hammer parents who are. Once the process begins -- perhaps the minister can comment in second reading debate -- how best do MLAs or those particular constituents bring that process to a halt? In both cases a lien was put on the property, which was not justified. They were not in arrears. In both cases the lien has yet to be removed.
All we've done is frustrate those individuals who are behaving in a responsible fashion. I have some serious questions around that level of harassment, because that's what it is. At that point those individuals received untold numbers of registered letters and threats of incarceration. In fact, they are behaving in a responsible fashion. So I can't imagine that's the intention, and I would like to hear from the minister during second reading debate what the answer to that is and how best an MLA who wishes to advocate for those individuals brings the process to a halt. The ride was going around, and there was no opportunity for those constituents to get off. The process went on for six or seven months. Even with the Attorney General's intervention, the process continued to have a life of its own.
I can't imagine that this side of the issue is not part of this discussion. Certainly no one in this chamber takes issue with collecting dollars legitimately and ensuring that those dollars are in the hands of children and young people in this province. But when we're allowing people to be beaten by a process that was put in place to assist children in this province, we've not achieved anything. I'm not convinced we want to be frustrating parents in this process, yet that is precisely what has happened. I can't imagine that I'm the only person with constituents in that predicament.
I'm trusting that we can have some kind of improved communication around it -- perhaps a different telephone number or some kind of opportunity to interface directly with a person who has the ability and authority to bring that process to a halt, if indeed it is going off in a direction that's not warranted. As I stated, my office was unsuccessful in bringing that process to a halt. The Attorney General's office was unsuccessful for many months. I hope we can come up with some checks and balances in the system that would allow us to truly believe in this kind of legislation, because it does have legitimate application. When it goes off the rails, how do we bring it back and make sure it only impacts on the people who are behaving in an irresponsible fashion?
J. Tyabji: I rise to join the other opposition members in approving the amendments to the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, and also to say that more amendments are needed.
When speaking to a bill like this, in looking at the bill and amendments the first questions that come up are: what is the purpose of the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act, and how does it serve that purpose? All of us realize that families, family structure, emotions and division of assets -- once you start to get the courts involved -- are very complicated situations. I'm sure the Attorney General knows this. I know that any lawyer will tell you that one of the most difficult and grey areas of law is the area of family maintenance and family relations law. We find family maintenance enforcement is meant to be a safety net for people who don't have the resources to have obligations to them, that they have in law, met by other parties to the family.
What I find to be a difficulty is that we have entered a time when we in British Columbia have the highest divorce rate in the country. To put it this way -- depending on which statistics you look at -- a significant portion of the population will undergo changes in their family. Those obviously are changes in law and will require financial obligations, divisions of assets and a dissolution, basically, of a business relationship, where there have to be some further obligations for the sake of the children. We find in here -- and I think the member for Richmond East made some of the best comments on that -- that although we have a safety net in place in this system for those people who are not meeting their obligations, we do not have one for those who are meeting their obligations but are being registered as, or are being alleged to be, not meeting them.
Whether it's through the courts, an arbitration system or the family maintenance enforcement program, what seems to be consistent in family disputes is that one side's story almost never meshes with the other side's story, and that the more we intervene in that process, the more likely those stories are going to diverge rather than come together. It's interesting, because when you see the program for community court centres that the Attorney General is bringing in that is moving toward arbitration and away from the court model -- of course, family maintenance enforcement has to have some court document or legally recognized document in order to move forward, so therefore we would assume that that has gone through a court system or been registered with the court -- not only is the cost and use of the system going down but the human cost to the family is going down, because arbitration forces people to meet face to face and get those stories to mesh.
[11:00]
I've found, through a number of my constituents, that in family maintenance enforcement when there are divergent stories, you could have a person who may have an obligation -- or who may not -- being registered with family maintenance enforcement and having a heck of a time having their story heard. It's unfortunate that in trying to understand whose story is correct, there has to be an enormous period of investigation. It takes a long time. There's a very high human cost, and there is very little safeguarding in this bill. For example, we see that with the bill, the creditor is the person who can register a debtor. However, with the expansion of the definition of maintenance and the way we look at the bill, at the end of almost every divorce action, both parties could be defined as the creditor or the debtor -- almost always, because there will be some division of assets whereby one party may end up being obliged to make maintenance payments, and the other one may end up having to put in something on the property side. Depending on who goes to family maintenance first, the parties will then be deemed to be a creditor or a debtor. So you could actually have a situation where the person who is registered with family maintenance as the debtor might be someone who is alleged -- it doesn't even have to be proven -- to be behind in maintenance, whereas the other person, who is alleged to be the creditor, is the person who hasn't been forthcoming on some kind of division of property payment. Throughout this bill, and for the purposes of this act, we have two people registered where, just by the label alone, there's almost a
[ Page 11911 ]
presupposition of guilt: one is the creditor, one is the debtor. That's unfortunate, because it perpetuates the antagonism inherent in a family relations case.
Where I think the bill needs to be amended is.... First of all, I would recommend that the terms "creditor" and "debtor" not be used, that there be other terms -- whether they be plaintiff and defendant or something like that. With "debtor" there is a presupposition that the person owes money. There is no way of removing that from this registry unless the person filing the complaint withdraws that complaint. It's unfortunate because -- as I understand it, anyway -- there are some regulations that allow for publication of that person's name. I heard some of the NDP brushing it off, thinking that this isn't a big problem.
In my riding there is a high number of single mothers. There is a high number of single parents, period. But a lot of single mothers who need family maintenance enforcement are experiencing great frustration getting the obligations that they need met through the program. It's kind of ironic, because we're talking about safeguards and they're not getting enough service. At the same time, I have constituents approach me. There was one instance where a young man had made his maintenance payment; he was 50 cents short, or there was some technical detail on the cheque. His ex-wife had gone to family maintenance and had received a garnishee against his paycheque that ended up putting him in the poorhouse for a couple of weeks, and he's scrambling to try to get that money back. Unfortunately, what happens is that the system, in trying very hard to safeguard one side, sometimes leaves the other side completely vulnerable.
In addition to the definitions, the registration and the attachment provisions for the spouse of the creditor or debtor -- and that's a different area -- I think we need to realize that if the purpose of this bill is to be a last avenue of resort, then it should be put in here somehow. It's not. There are no provisions in here for time; there are no provisions for a deregistration process. If the two parties -- or four or six parties, or whatever it is -- have resolved it, haven't had any complaints or haven't used the registry for a while, there should be some way of getting them off the list. There should be some way, when two parties in a family -- whether that's because they have children in common or there is a maintenance obligation -- are managing to get along, that we encourage that. We encourage them to get along. We encourage them not to go to court. We encourage them to go to arbitration. We encourage them not to use family maintenance enforcement.
What happens, in this instance especially, is that emotions are at their height. Many times I've seen cases where people will use whatever tools they have to inflict pain on the other partner. At the end of it all, after this incredibly painful and incredibly costly exercise, there's some contrition: "Well, I just wanted to get your attention, and now we can resolve things." That's unfortunate, since that should have been the first avenue that they pursued. That's not in here -- to try to bring those people face to face and see if we can't get a resolution first. There is nothing in here that says there should be some form of arbitration or that there should be a hearing with both parties, if that's possible.
We're not talking about the deadbeats who take off and can't be found. I'm talking about where there are two people, they're both within a community or the same jurisdiction and can be sat down with an arbitrator from the Attorney General's office. They can meet face to face with that person, and they can sit down and find out what the truth is. That's not in here. In fact, what's in here is a very cumbersome process.
As it is the last avenue of resort, it should have built into it that there are other avenues you can go to first -- and it doesn't. It's an open door, and it needs to be an open door, but it should be one that says: "Don't go through this door unless you've passed through a couple of other ones or you know that those are not an option." Then people can give some testimony to the director that they would go to arbitration, or that they would do this, but that it's not an option, because they tried this and it failed or they tried that and it failed. If we can get the people to sit down and talk, obviously that's the first concern.
When we get to committee stage, the Alliance members do plan to introduce some amendments to this to tie in some of the concerns we have with the changes to families being brought in by the government under the Ministry of Social Services.
There should be more of a role to play for older children -- children who are either 16 years old and therefore they would fall under the.... Well, this government has brought in legislation, in the Infants Act, for children who are below the age of majority; but certainly there are some children who fall within the provisions for this in terms of being within the agreement, but who don't have any legal rights. Although this bill does recognize the opportunity for someone who is a minor to be deemed a creditor to initiate action, it doesn't say if a person who is a minor ends up, as part of the agreement, being part of the negotiations with the director. There should be some avenue for that if this is to meet the needs of all members of the family.
The last point we want to raise with regard to this bill is with respect to the attachment provisions for a new spouse. Here again, we get into some very difficult circumstances where we're dealing, on paper, with some very difficult problems in someone's life. We know that there are cases where someone will claim poverty, yet they are in a marriage situation where poverty is clearly not an issue. However, there are other cases where there can be harassment, through something like family maintenance enforcement or the courts, where someone may be trying to intervene in someone else's life. The attachment provisions for a spouse under this bill could be constituted as that, if not carefully monitored or regulated.
Unfortunately, we don't have any new regulations -- if the Attorney-General is planning to bring them in -- to accompany this bill. At least, I haven't seen any. I hope that in committee stage the Attorney General will entertain some constructive amendments that will be proposed. I would be most interested in hearing his comments with respect to the designation of the parties to the dispute, recognizing that we want to be as non-confrontational as possible and that we want to keep emotional inflammation to a minimum and not put people on their guard before they even come in to talk to the director. The director's job is going to be difficult enough as it is. I look forward to committee stage debate.
V. Anderson: I realize that it is late, so I will not take very long. I rise in support of the general direction of the bill. From my own personal experience, I understand why people have had difficulty prior to this with the existing act, particularly with the way it has been implemented -- or not implemented.
I know that the minister is aware that a great many families have opted out of the act for three basic reasons. One is that it did not provide the service it promised; it only complicated their lives and made them unable to go ahead. There were other ways in which they could do it better. Another was because of the threat.... They did not want to
[ Page 11912 ]
have contact with the spouse they were separated from because they were afraid of the ramifications of that. Therefore they were prepared to not have the money come in -- although they could use it -- because the threats that were there, if contact was made, were just too great. There needs to be some awareness of the danger of bringing people together in a relationship which has personal threats to the lives of members of the family, as against the financial help it gives.
Another suggestion is that one reason for family maintenance is to bring in more money to the government, rather than to enable families to receive money that comes to them because of a just court order. One reality for many people who use family maintenance is that if they happen to be on social assistance, most of the money coming to them is not received by them. Rather, it is a money-raising effort for the government and therefore a disincentive for them to use the system.
I would not like to refer to it, as the hon. member has, as a safety net. I don't think it's a safety net. I think it's a just receiving of funds. Just as any court order is sustained and implemented by the state, this is another court order that is justly given. It is not a safety net, but rather a responsible support system for fulfilling the laws of our country.
One of the relationships is referred to in the act, and I basically agree with it. But I think somewhere along the line the government has to put in a definition of a marriage-like relationship. I think that's important. We have to face up to the fact that we can't have a marriage-like relationship as a definition. I think we need to be honest about what we're talking about and put some kind of legal definition not only in this particular act, but in other acts where a similar definition is being inserted.
I think there needs to be, in any relationship, some kind of commitment which is legally recognized and is recognized by both individuals and the community, and which implies, like marriage, a commitment over an indefinite period of time. That kind of relationship needs to be recognized, not a relationship of persons of the opposite sex that is just overnight, a week, two weeks or a month, with no commitment or definite relationship recognized by them or society as a whole. It's that recognition of an ongoing relationship that somehow needs to be indicated here. That's what a marriage-like relationship is: the ongoing commitment to each other, through thick and thin, recognized by the couple themselves, the others who are part of that relationship and others in the community.
I appreciate that there are options here -- that people may choose to be a part of the system or certain aspects of it -- and it's very important that this be recognized and available. There are some concerns about the heavy-handed manner, if you like, of extending this to the person's work relationships. Though the garnishee provision is important in order to follow up the funding, one of the realities is that there needs to be protection for that person in their job. In other jurisdictions, the experience has been that when that garnishee was put on, the person lost their job, not necessarily by their own decision. They were put in a different light by their employer, and therefore it worked against them individually and against the payments they were able to make.
[11:15]
So there are a variety of concerns. The final one I'd mention is that there needs to be some regular audit or evaluation system to deal with the horror stories that have occurred in the system over and over again for a number of years. It should be demonstrated that there's an appeal system, a complaint system and an evaluation system, so that the public at large can be assured that the program is improving and becoming more effective each week, each month and each year.
L. Stephens: I want to rise tonight to make a very few comments in relation to second reading of Bill 51, the Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act, 1994. I think this amendment bill will certainly go a long way to ensuring that those members of society who need to rely on the court system to get these kinds of orders enforced have viable tools to do that. This bill is one of those tools to enable parents, single parents in particular, to support their children and to enforce the obligations of spouses in a meaningful way and in a timely way as well. One of the difficulties with family maintenance is that it's not been timely, and there have been some serious difficulties with getting needed services to the families.
There are a couple of sections here that I think are particularly appropriate. Sections 7, 8 and 9 in particular are most important, and we will be looking at these more closely in committee stage. I want to say that I congratulate the Attorney General for bringing this amendment forward, and we look forward to discussing it further.
The Speaker: The Attorney General closes debate.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I want to thank all the members for their comments and particularly for their support for these changes. I really believe that these improved mechanisms will assist in helping children to receive their rightful payments.
Prior to going to committee stage, I will review all the comments that were made tonight. There were a number of suggestions that I think merit consideration. The member for Peace River South made two suggestions, the first of which I think I would like to have a close look at. It seemed to me, on the surface, to have some serious merit. He's not here, but I have to say, however, that I'm not going to accept his second suggestion, which is to undo what I think is a very progressive initiative of the former Minister of Social Services. I'll just leave it at that point.
The member for Richmond East made comments about the difficulty of redressing complaints. I would be very happy, though not here tonight, to meet with the member to talk about how that can be addressed. There are mechanisms within the system, particularly for MLAs, which will allow for dealing directly and getting resolution. I must say that in general, the number of problems have gone down dramatically in the last year or so. The number of complaints that MLAs historically have had about family maintenance have been pretty massive, and they're going down dramatically now as we make improvements. These changes will make further improvements, but there are some things we can do privately to assist the member in that respect.
The member for Okanagan East -- I'm sorry she's not here -- was talking about a bill that isn't before the House. She was talking about family law and making suggestions about what I think are appropriate changes in philosophy in respect of resolution of disputes between families. Her suggestions have nothing to do with the family maintenance enforcement program but much to do with family law itself. However, I don't want to trash what she said, even though she wasn't on the topic, because I think her comments have some considerable merit.
The member for Vancouver-Langara talked about the contact between parties. In fact, some of the changes in this bill will enable less contact than might otherwise have been
[ Page 11913 ]
the case. In some situations, unfortunately, that's a very real requirement.
In general, during committee stage I think we will be able to deal with any comments I haven't addressed in these quick, concluding remarks. With that, I thank the members and move second reading.
Motion approved.
Bill 51, Family Maintenance Enforcement 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.
Committee of Supply A, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. C. Gabelmann moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:21 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; G. Brewin in the chair.
The committee met at 2:37 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
(continued)
On vote 46: minister's office, $366,255 (continued).
C. Tanner: Welcome back to all and sundry.
As I recall, I missed the last part of the question period with the minister because I was in the other House. Consequently, a series of questions took place, and there is a chance I will repeat them. If I do, feel free to tell me about it -- not to correct me, but to tell me about it -- and I'll change direction a bit.
When we last spoke, Madam Minister, we talked about the inspection services in the ministry. Specifically, we asked what the ministry does if a complaint is received concerning that area of the ministry. I wonder whether the minister could give us the reasons behind her decision to refuse the request of a number of constituents, in what was the south side of the constituency of Langford, to have their area included in the municipality of Langford. As I understand it, these constituents had the permission of Langford and various members of her ministry. The minister encouraged them at first, but later changed her mind and said they had to stay in the newly constituted municipality of Uplands.
Hon. D. Marzari: Highlands.
C. Tanner: Thank you. I would like to know why the minister changed her mind, because I know that a majority of the residents were in favour of the request. Some of them have been back to the minister's office and apparently are still not satisfied with her decision.
Hon. D. Marzari: As the member will remember, a referendum was held in the Highlands before I became minister. I believe it asked the people if they wanted to incorporate. In that referendum, a particular boundary was drawn around the municipality-to-be, and that boundary did include the area that the member refers to. The land use and servicing in that community all seemed to fall within a logical boundary of the Highlands, which was, in fact, incorporated. Before we went through the final incorporation procedures, I removed the area in question from the incorporation itself for a number of reasons which had to do with basic servicing of that community. When I discussed this, I encouraged View Royal -- that is quite true -- to apply for letters patent to incorporate the area in question into their city boundaries. View Royal assured me that they had the fire protection capacity and a response time that would be most conducive to having that area inside their boundaries.
After I had discussed this with a number of people, particularly in the Highlands, it became apparent that the planned transportation corridor, which will run alongside the main highway there, was going to prove that providing a fire protection service from View Royal was not going to be necessarily more convenient in the long term. In fact, it became quite clear to me that the Highlands area might be the logical area in the long term. It had been promised previously, through the referendum itself, that that community would be best serviced by the Highlands, as it was more contiguous geographically to the Highlands than to View Royal. As a result, I informed View Royal that I had changed my mind on the issue, and I informed the Highlands that they should go ahead and reapply through the legal mechanisms to include the said area in their boundaries once again. Having been reasonably convinced that the Highlands community could service the community better over the long term and could contract with View Royal to provide fire protection to the community in question over the short term, I was reasonably satisfied that the decision was a reasonable compromise.
The decision is not completely final. I've asked the Highlands to consult more completely with this small community of people who are split as to whether they'd like to affiliate with View Royal or with the Highlands. You have consulted with these people as to their relationship with the Highlands. We're talking about a majority of possibly two or three individuals or households that are swinging the balance here. The balance does not seem to be consistent from week to week or month to month.
The final decision has not been made. I am settling into a notion that there should be a compromise, one that not everybody is going to be happy with. The Highlands might be better served. The people in the community might in the long run get better service from the Highlands than from View Royal, even though admittedly there are people in that community who affiliate with and think of themselves as residents of View Royal.
C. Tanner: Thank you, Madam minister, for your comparatively complete answer; it's left a couple of questions hanging. First is the immediate necessity of the residents above the park. If View Royal doesn't take those residents in, will they be compensated for any expenses that they've incurred? I believe that they have incurred some expenses because of the various things they have had to put in place.
[ Page 11914 ]
Hon. D. Marzari: There would be no compensation for that.
C. Tanner: Was the town of View Royal told at the beginning about expenses that they would incur to bring those people into their purview rather than the Highlands? Were they cognizant of those?
Hon. D. Marzari: If we're talking about the costs for restructuring, then there would be compensation to View Royal for the effort that they went through to bring the community into their framework and boundaries. So yes, restructuring assistance is something that we do offer.
[2:45]
C. Tanner: So if the final decision is made, although it doesn't sound like the minister is coming down that way, there will be compensation for the expenses to bring in those people.
Hon. D. Marzari: Yes, we would look at that whether or not the restructuring actually occurred.
C. Tanner: We are talking about a limited number of people -- I think about 30. I have in my hand a petition with 22 names on it. That's a pretty heavy-duty majority. This was done during the events that we just discussed. I also have most of the correspondence between the minister and those 22 people or their spokespeople. I get the very clear impression that the minister and her staff were advising them that, yes, they could do it. Irrespective of the fact that the referendum didn't touch on this specific issue -- it touched more on whether or not the Highlands wanted to do something -- those people have come to me and told me that they're very disappointed in the minister's decision. I understand that some of those people have since been back to see the minister. Could the minister assure me that this decision is not final and that before it is final, she will call in the people who led that group and advise them of the decision before it's published?
Hon. D. Marzari: Yes, I can assure the member that the final decision has not been made. I have spent a great deal of time on this particular issue and have tried to weigh the pros and cons, both short-term and long-term, of what the boundaries might look like. I've looked at the geography of the area. I have looked at previous lists that were brought in, and now this is another petition. The ministry has not done its own canvass in recent months, and that might still be in the cards. As I said, the balance does seem to shift. I have given this a great deal of consideration; the final decision has not been made, and I state that unequivocally. There are still a few steps in the process that I would like to go through to ensure that there is fairness and some equitable treatment -- either way -- of this particular community and that neither the Highlands nor View Royal gets pushed around in all this as we come to some kind of a conclusion. I would be more than pleased to talk to almost anyone prior to a decision being made. In fact, I have done so on a number of occasions, and I would certainly commit to this House that this community of people would be contacted by myself.
C. Tanner: I appreciate the minister's discussion of this subject, and I know that the people who've been talking to me will be very happy to hear her reply, because they have felt, up until a week or so ago, that the decision had been made. I know they'll be getting back to the minister and will give her their opinions.
Since we're on that type of thing, we might as well go to the next one concerning radiant-heating panels, on which the minister has decided there is no obligation on the part of the inspection services or of this ministry. If the minister would like, I can read some fairly difficult letters describing problems people are experiencing because of the decision. It is my contention -- I'm not a lawyer and I don't see any in the room right now -- that there is some culpability on the part of the province, because in the first place they inspected the panels and licensed them. Would the minister like to comment on that?
Hon. D. Marzari: Yes. Ever since this issue arose some months ago and I had a chance to review some of the documentation, it has been my contention -- and remains my contention -- that the provincial government and our standards branch do not bear any liability around this. It's very important, though, that I make clear to this House that I have encouraged those people who asked, who were consumers of this product and who installed in their homes these ceiling panels, which are pieces of plexiglass -- or plastic -- with a narrow border of copper embedded inside which plugs into wires, which then plugs into electricity and heats up.... If there was any insulation on top, it posed a fire threat by burning through the insulation. This caused damage to a number of homes, specifically in Quebec, but I believe we had a number of incidents on Vancouver Island where a number of these products were sold.
It was important, when the ministry issued its withdraw or disconnect orders, that people who had been consumers of these products were enabled by the ministry to contact each other and to prepare their case. It was also important to the ministry that the consumers of this product knew the Canadian Standards Association was the initial entry point for levelling this complaint. It is my contention -- and, I believe, the contention of the Ministry of Housing as well -- that the Canadian Standards Association, which put their seal of approval on this product, is the logical place for the first case to be heard. Consequently the ministry is now monitoring closely what is about to happen and what the consumers with the disconnect orders are about to do.
C. Tanner: I don't think the minister and I should get into a legal discussion as to where the liability is, but there are some fairly obvious questions to be asked in this case. Isn't it assumed that the Canadian Standards Association and their verification of this product automatically make us -- I was going to say a corespondent, but hardly that -- equally liable, since we accept CSA standards and authorized their use in buildings in British Columbia?
Hon. D. Marzari: Our inspection of these panels wasn't an inspection of the panel per se but of where it was connected to the electrical panel that powers the home. That's our mandate; that's our involvement. The Canadian Standards Association is basically responsible for the device itself, and obviously the device was faulty. In retrospect -- and in hindsight we've all got this great vision -- it should have been noted by the CSA that the device, when heated, should have no insulation on top of it. In fact, I gather it was the copper strips inside the plastic that caused the damage when insulation was piled on top. No inspector -- provincial, federal, municipal or otherwise -- is going to go into a home and rip apart a ceiling to see whether or not there is insulation on top of the plastic. I daresay you wouldn't expect that of an inspector. Therefore it would be up to the manufacturer and the Canadian Standards
[ Page 11915 ]
Association to ensure that proper instructions be given and that the device was up to Canadian standards before it went on the market in the first place. For that reason, I believe it's important that British Columbia declare its mandate, its role and its inspector's role, and it should encourage the consumers of the product to take action against the manufacturer and the Canadian Standards Association.
C. Tanner: Could the minister tell us who does electrical inspections of houses? Outside the major municipal areas of British Columbia, who do those inspectors report to?
Hon. D. Marzari: Provincial inspectors do that, and they report through the standards branch of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.
C. Tanner: When the minister talks about insulation that can apparently catch fire through the installation of these panels, isn't that insulation placed there at the behest of government, because we set certain standards for the insulation we require in a house?
Hon. D. Marzari: The Building Code talks about insulation in homes, and the insulation goes in after the panels go in. I'm told this by people who know more about building houses than I do. We don't have insulation inspectors who go around ensuring that insulation has in fact been put in appropriately around and over various appliances. Our electrical inspectors are involved with materials approved by the Canadian Standards Association. When they go out to inspect, they assume that what they're inspecting is going to be certified, authorized and properly accredited by the Canadian Standards Association. That's what they go by, and they report back to us. Their paperwork shows that there was due diligence regarding the actual connection of certified products into these residential wall panels.
C. Tanner: I think the minister meant to say ceiling panels.
There have been some extreme cases -- a couple of them in my constituency and some in constituencies around Victoria -- where people have suffered real hardships. In one instance on Saltspring Island, a man used his house as a home for his mother, himself, his wife and one child, I think, but he also used it as collateral on a loan. He ran a business out of his home, and his home is now no longer insurable because of these panels. Besides not having a home in the winter, he no longer has a business, and he can't afford to do anything about these panels.
I have another case just outside Victoria in which an older person put all her savings and all the pension money she had to spare into a home. She used these panels because she had found in the past that electrical heating created dust for her, and this seemed to solve the problem.
[3:00]
In both those cases, and in others, wouldn't the minister think it reasonable for those people to expect and assume that the insulation of the panels was safe, once the electrical inspector and municipal building inspector had left after doing their inspections to make sure the houses met standards?
Hon. D. Marzari: One would like to think that. One would also like to think that the governmental pocket is deep enough to be able to deal with every grievance that comes our way. For the member's two or three cases, I could cite 250 cases, if I had the files in front of me. Most of those are people who have built their houses in good faith. They have gone out and bought the panels in good faith, and they have installed them appropriately. In fact, I have just been informed that only one installation was improperly connected, so they have proceeded on the assumption that, in fact, they were fine. We also assumed that they were fine; otherwise we wouldn't have had electrical inspectors reporting back that everything was hunky-dory. However, I have 250 cases of people who were told to disconnect. These are not just individuals; we have a major resort here on the Island that has these heating panels installed in a new section if not in the whole resort itself.
Does the member want government to take the responsibility of assuming liability for more than 250 units of housing and hotel accommodation because of a faulty product that was certified by the Canadian Standards Association for years across this country? In Quebec, where many of these units were installed, there were a number of fires. The Quebec experience triggered a closer look by the rest of the country at the certification given by the CSA. In British Columbia, we've been very fortunate to have had only eight houses directly damaged by fire; I don't believe there was harm done to any human being. We were in the position of being able to issue a disconnect order.
However, at this point it becomes a question of assuming liability. With all sympathy and compassion for people who have been forced to disconnect and found themselves without heating supply, I put the member in the position of a government that has to be very careful about what it assumes liability for. In its role and mandate, the Canadian Standards Association has approved a product which has proven, in the last analysis, to be faulty, and not just minimally so, but faulty in such a way that a good percentage of use of this product led to property damage.
C. Tanner: I can't pass the opportunity to remark on a phrase that the minister used that I haven't heard since I was a child, which was a long time before the minister remembers. I haven't heard the expression "hunky-dory" for a long time. I congratulate her; it was one of my favourite expressions, and I'm pleased that somebody else has picked it up. I hope you got it from me. You couldn't possibly have heard it when I did as a child.
Madam Minister, two or three things come to mind in this debate that you and I are having. One is that no, I don't want the government to go out and solve everybody's problems. However, I believe that the people who installed those panels did so in good faith. They also thought that once the government inspection had taken place, the government was saying they were okay. The minister can understand as well as I can that among those 250 cases in British Columbia, and particularly the eight that caught fire, there would be very disappointed people.
Could the minister tell me two or three things? First, is she aware that there is a public meeting of people who suffered with these panels? Does she intend to have any officials from her department attend that meeting and tell the people what the government's point of view is?
Hon. D. Marzari: I should remind the member that not only did we release addresses to an individual who wished to organize such a meeting so that the individual could contact other consumers of the product, but our officials have been to three past meetings of people who have been pulling together an organized response to this issue. If there is a future meeting, I'm sure our officials would be pleased to attend that as well.
[ Page 11916 ]
It's also important for the member to note that I am not fed-bashing when I say that the Canadian Standards Association was hopelessly negligent. I don't wish to engage in a name-calling exercise. However, building standards and building products are becoming very sophisticated. Twenty years ago we had certain elements in the Building Code and since then the Building Code itself has expanded and become much more complex.
The business of liability, therefore, becomes complex. It's very important that we in British Columbia get our house in order. To that end, we've just published a pamphlet called "Options for Renewal." We have circulated that to municipalities, the building trades and throughout the building regulatory system to get back comments about a continuum of subjects ranging from roles, responsibilities and mandates of building inspection all the way through to municipal liability and what we expect when we look to the pockets of government for redress when we think we've been badly done by. That is going to result, I hope, in some progressive legislation for British Columbia in the next year.
I have to remind the member that this government has no intention of taking on, in a hostile way, consumers who thought they were buying a quality product or who installed it in good faith. It's a more complex issue than that, and I'm very concerned about guarding the province from taking on liability. Under the terms of reference of what we think our mandate is and what our electrical inspectors are expected to do, it's important that we protect this government from lawsuits that it does not deserve.
C. Tanner: I wonder whether the minister would comment on the urea-formaldehyde case. The federal government did, in fact, compensate people who had installed urea-formaldehyde in their homes in good faith. It took them about ten years before they came to that decision, and a lot of people suffered in the meantime. Would the minister not see a parallel between that case and this?
Hon. D. Marzari: The CMHC was the federal agency that ended up absorbing liability for that particular product, after having driven the use of that product and having ensured that it was installed in homes. Having a funding arm as well as a building arm under the National Housing Act, the CMHC took the blame.
L. Fox: As I listened to the debate, I was actually quite amazed that the Liberal critic, the member for Saanich North and the Islands, would suggest that the province should start to accept the liability of a manufactured product, because once we open that door, you could never close it. Obviously there would be a legitimate argument if the electrical code didn't provide sufficient wiring to handle the amperage load of those panels, because the provincial code that guides the electricians and the inspectors would be inadequate or faulty, and then, I guess, there would be some liability subject to court action.
We have to support the minister in this particular initiative, because the manufacturer and the distributor should be the first targets for those unfortunate people. Obviously there has to be some responsibility taken by the CSA, but I don't know the process that they went through in order to approve that panel or whether the data supplied to them by the manufacturer was correct. Those questions have to be addressed. You have to have that knowledge before you can start to point fingers at any agency. Obviously the manufacturer has a responsibility, and so does the distributor or the seller of the product.
I just want to say again that I support the minister in maintaining that stance, as unfortunate as it may be for some people in the province -- 250, I understand -- who have actually bought that product. We have seen many products that have come into the marketplace with the CSA-approved stamp on them that turned out to provide less than what they were advertised to do. If we, as a province, accepted liability for the sale of that product or any products, we're opening the door to that kind of liability. That bothers me a great deal.
C. Tanner: I'm pleased to hear that the minor third party and the government are now working hand in glove, and let the member for Prince George-Omineca be assured that he didn't hear me say at any time this afternoon that the province was liable. In fact, if you look over Hansard, I think you'll specifically find that I didn't. But I do have a lot of constituents that are concerned, and I'm trying to do the best job I can for them. In fact, I've given the minister an opportunity to say that the province isn't liable. She should thank me for the opportunity.
Hon. D. Marzari: Thank you, Clive.
C. Tanner: Thank you, but no thanks to him.
Could the minister tell us what the other provinces have done in this case? Has she had any experience as to what help, not necessarily compensation, they might have offered their residents, particularly perhaps in Quebec, where it has apparently been going on longer?
Hon. D. Marzari: The only other province that we have any information about is Quebec, where literally thousands of these panels were sold and installed. So we are obviously dealing with thousands of constituents who have been through a very cold winter and have been impacted by this disconnect order. In Quebec, I believe they are basically having a public inquiry because of the number of people affected, and I'm sure that would involve the CSA and the manufacturer as well as the province of Quebec.
C. Tanner: Just on that very last comment that the minister made is the province of Quebec helping those people put together a class action, or what is the province of Quebec's involvement?
Hon. D. Marzari: It has the apparatus of a public inquiry. I'm sure it has a commissioner who is basically conducting hearings for which all agencies involved would be preparing and presenting their case, and from which, I would assume, there will be a recommendation, if that's the apparatus that's being used. That seems to be what's happening in Quebec at this point.
C. Tanner: Yes, but what is he saying now? I want to know what he's saying.
Hon. D. Marzari: He's informing the minister.
C. Tanner: As far as I'm concerned, I've listened to sufficient information to help my constituents to at least know where to go. Apparently the minister has had her staff assisting them too, and I appreciate that. If there is any information from across the country available, please take that to any of your future meetings. I know there are a lot of people who have been burnt -- that's not a very good description; who have been badly treated -- in this matter,
[ Page 11917 ]
not necessarily by the government but certainly by the manufacturer of those plants.
I'd like to go on now to downtown revitalization. While we had an initial discussion about downtown revitalization, it only pertained to notices. I notice that the minister has improved and has kept her word: when notices come out in any but NDP constituencies, no name of an MLA is associated with them. At least the minister is consistent in that she's not giving credit where credit is due for revitalization projects which are outside NDP constituencies.
[3:15]
However, it is noticeable to me that there's been a great increase in the number of grants in the past four or five months. The reason I've noticed this is because I've always been particularly interested in downtown revitalization. Am I right in assuming that there's been a big increase? Perhaps it is because of the time of the year, but it does seem there are a lot more this year than there were at this time last year.
Hon. D. Marzari: I would like to inform the House that the budget for downtown revitalization hasn't increased substantially, and therefore any increases in the number of allocations would be due to the diligence of Martin Thomas himself, who undoubtedly has managed to partner more, better and bigger projects with the few dollars he has for the program. I'm also informed -- and judging from the letters of approval I've been signing, it certainly appears -- that the number has not increased, although in the last few months a greater number have been approved. These things go through an annual cycle, and pretty much the same number of projects get approved. It might be that we are pulling in larger partnerships, and we're able to keep down the amount of provincial involvement and maximize the amount coming in from merchants and municipal councils. I'd be pleased to provide the member with a list of projects that have been approved over the last year.
C. Tanner: I have the difficulty in this House of sometimes not catching things because I am a little deaf. Did the minister say "haven't been increased" or "have been increased"?
Hon. D. Marzari: I'm informed that the number is about the same.
C. Tanner: This will be the last discussion of this from a slightly different tack. I think the minister and I form a mutual admiration society for the bureaucrat who runs this department. Can the minister inform us whether that department has grown at all in the last year or so, or is it basically one senior bureaucrat with a couple of helpers, so to speak?
Hon. D. Marzari: Neither the staff nor the budget has increased in the past year.
C. Tanner: Moving on a little now to the broader revitalization of areas, could the minister tell me what plans she has in tow and what actions she's taken in the last year or intends to take in the next year as far as regional planning is concerned?
Hon. D. Marzari: One of the major areas of involvement of the ministry in the past six months has been to work with the three major growth areas in the province -- that is, where growth has been well above the provincial average. The provincial average is around 3 percent or 4 percent, and we're looking at areas that range around 5 percent, 9 percent and even 14 percent per year over the last few years. Those three areas are: the Okanagan, basically all the way from Osoyoos north to Vernon; the GVRD, plus the three regional districts up to Hope; and the south Island, basically from Campbell River south to Victoria. These are the three major growth areas of the province at this point, and there are a number of regional districts in each of them.
I think we would find a remarkable consensus for the notion that we have to look at the regional level in dealing with problems associated with growth and environment, water, air shed, transportation and planning for social amenities such as schools and hospitals. With this in mind, I've been working with politicians at both municipal and regional levels, with city administrators and with planners at the civic and regional levels to develop a regional growth management construction for British Columbia. It is one that does not insist that every region is the same, one that operates under the principles that solutions can be developed in the regions themselves, that we can work with the existing politicians at the municipal and regional levels to create a climate of buy-in and a reasonable consensus around the major problems and values which people have. We can work closely with models for resolving the disputes which exist between the municipal and regional levels of government. We can develop, with local consultation and discussion, models for growth management that everyone can live with and that will sustain our communities over the next decades.
It is with this in mind that I am in the process of preparing growth-management legislation, which I hope will be brought before the House in the next session and which will set the framework for each of these regions to develop managed-growth strategies. We'll be giving these regions and growth areas tools to manage their growth. This will be spelled out in legislation or regulation. We'll help communities develop goals for growth, urban perimeters and relationships between their municipal and regional partners. We'll try to promote and develop the resource base that these communities need to deal with those problems which are larger than municipal boundaries.
The regional growth package that I'm bringing forward is not a glitzy one. It does not rely on large commissions and massive public hearing processes, but on good, solid consultation in the communities and good consensus-building between communities and regions. With our current partners -- the UBCM, the regional districts and the municipalities -- I hope we will move British Columbia down a road that will set a precedent and a new technique, shall we say, of working with communities to solve community problems.
C. Tanner: Well, you've opened up a really interesting discussion now. Quite honestly, I'm a little overwhelmed. Is the minster saying, in a nutshell, that she's going to give planning back to the regional districts?
The Chair: Hon. minister, whatever your statement is to the question, this is a matter of future policy.
Hon. D. Marzari: It is a matter of future policy, but I believe I've been asked this question often enough that I can answer it. If the regional districts are ready to have letters patent, that is certainly under consideration. If the regional districts are not ready for that, or do not feel they can handle the full range of planning that was given to them previously, that is also open for discussion. Not all decisions can
[ Page 11918 ]
necessarily be made at the provincial level; many which concern growth must be made at the regional level. It's very important that the provincial government work with the regions to determine what the growth packages and strategies might look like at each regional base in our growth areas.
C. Tanner: I don't think anybody I know who is interested in municipalities or population growth in this province could deny that we need planning. I was disappointed when it was taken away from the regions in 1985 or 1986. They might not have been doing it very well, but I think that was a mistake. I think the minister is correct in theory, and I think we have to face this problem. The population, the politicians and the bureaucrats have to face it. But it opens up a can of worms, particularly where private property is concerned, as illustrated in two court cases recently where private property was impinged upon because of planning processes -- primarily in both those cases because of highways, I think. Without betraying policy decisions, does the minister have some future solution? Have the experts who advise her on this come up with a plan that will solve the problem of the conflict between private property and planning by the region as a whole?
Hon. D. Marzari: No expert is going to come up with the appropriate balance between private property rights, or what citizens deem to be their right by virtue of fact that they own property, versus the so-called public good, where the community as a whole steps in and, for purposes of saving taxpayers' dollars down the road, acquires property, for example in a corridor, or begins to plan a future school or park or hospital site. This is not something experts do, but what politicians end up doing very often. It is a balance that needs to be carefully considered.
Obviously the member wants to discuss the philosophical nature of this debate, but it's important to recognize the balance and the fact that appropriate public planning has to have parameters which respect private property and the individual's right to own and enjoy property -- the home, basically -- and to balance that with the ability of a community to plan down the road for its growth needs -- schools, hospitals and road corridors. That is a subject of section 106 in Bill 25, which is now before the House. As you know, there has been considerable debate to this point. I will leave that question for now and assure the member we'll be dealing with it.
C. Tanner: As I'm sure you know, the minister and I were talking about the conflict -- having been a municipal politician, I suspect you've had the same experience we all have had, including the member for Prince George-Omineca -- between municipal, regional and provincial governments and the individual. Has the minister come up with a solution to resolve the conflicts between municipalities?
Hon. D. Marzari: The specific question the member puts forward has not been a part of the regional debate on regional planning, or where regional planning starts and municipal planning leaves off, or where provincial interests come in and are differentiated from the other two. The specific nature of the question has not been debated in the exercise I'm engaged in now, but the business of developing planning protocols, developing a better and more substantial role for a regional format for planning, and the business of the provincial government establishing its own interests and where it starts and stops and what its bottom line is, is the process in which I'm engaged.
C. Tanner: The minister said not necessarily public hearings. I assume she was saying that if you're not going to go to wide and extensive public hearings.... I think she said something to the effect that she would be talking to people in the field who have an interest, and I assume she means not only municipal politicians and municipal administrators but also people outside of government who perhaps have an interest. How would she accomplish that without asking the public what they want in any municipal area?
[3:30]
Hon. D. Marzari: At this juncture, the plans for the fall, in terms of how far afield we cast our net to pull in opinions, has not yet been determined. But when I said there were no mammoth public hearings or major land use commissions around the subject, it was simply to tell you that very efficiently and with as much goodwill as we could manage within a reasonably small budget, we have thus far contacted many interest groups. We have pulled them around small tables to discuss what and where regional planning has been in this province, what its aspirations have been, where it has failed and how we could do it better, given the fact that people have reasonable goodwill toward beginning to develop solutions for problems that cross municipal lines.
More than just politicians and planners have sat around those tables; citizens' groups have been involved in these discussions as well. Whether we go to larger public hearings and a larger public format will depend on how the business plan unfolds for the fall.
C. Tanner: Did I understand the minister to say that she anticipated legislation to be ready for the next session of the Legislature?
Hon. D. Marzari: I'm hoping we will have a package put together for the next legislative session that can be called the Growth Management Act.
C. Tanner: During the previous Municipal Affairs minister's occupation of that office, I twice had occasion to ask whether I could personally talk to the person in his ministry -- and it's currently in your ministry -- with expertise in the field of, let us say, associating the two municipalities. I was unable to do so without the minister being present, and I found that a little incomprehensible.
I assume that other MLAs, like me, want to help their communities, and they have to have some expertise to be able to discuss the subject intelligently. I hope the minister would not follow the example of her predecessor but would make that bureaucrat available to me, if I want that.
Hon. D. Marzari: I would do that.
C. Tanner: Good on you.
L. Fox: I want to ask a few questions on how the ministry has moved forward in cooperation with the Islands Trust on the policy direction which falls into the discussions you're having on land use. Could the minister update us on that process?
Hon. D. Marzari: The southern Gulf Islands are under more intense development pressure than possibly any other area of the province, if you consider where the islands have been, in terms of a small jewel in the centre of the sea
[ Page 11919 ]
between Victoria and Vancouver, and what they have expected for themselves over the last 25 years since the Trust was established. When we look at the islands and the pressures on them right now, we can really admire the work of the Islands Trust, its elected representatives and staff. What it has tried to accomplish and maintain over the past 25 years is quite remarkable. As we look around North America, it is probably unique among any forms of governance.
C. Tanner: The world.
Hon. D. Marzari: Probably the world.
I have nothing but admiration for those diligent souls who put their names forward to run as elected representatives, and nothing but admiration and respect for those people who sit on the advisory planning councils and committees of those islands, and for the Islands Trust itself.
The Islands Trust has recently come forward to me with a policy document, which basically does a review and takes an overview of where they've been and what they hope for themselves in the next decade. I have signed that off to them and said: "Get on with the job." There are some amendments to the Trust in Bill 25 which basically make life easier for them and try to help them do their tasks more efficiently and more effectively and will help inform future official community plans that are coming through the Trust to me. Their provincial bylaw approval -- that is, a sign-off by the minister -- will continue, but we are trying to make life somewhat easier for them.
It's obvious, however, that over the next number of years -- and the Trust has been asking for this -- we have to take a closer look at the governance itself and at how this fragile creature called the Trust can deal with the development demands that are being made on it on a day-to-day basis. It's enough to break a fragile creature, and I believe it's very important that we strengthen its mandate and its representation to allow it to be able to deal with some of the harder decisions that are coming down the line. It's no longer dealing with one single-family development on a 2.5 acre parcel of land. It's now dealing with mammoth developments which may or may not be appropriate for the southern Gulf Islands. They have to be dealt with in a more comprehensive way, and I believe it's part of the mandate of this government and certainly of the Islands Trust to take a close look at how we can strengthen its capacity to develop a stronger framework for decision-making over the next number of years.
As it stands for this year's legislative agenda and as it stands for the Islands Trust, where it is now, I believe it is our job and the job of government to support them and help them deliver what they do, which is keep their official community plans current and up to date, and give them the tools they need to do the job of land use and quality of life on the islands.
L. Fox: Well, I recognize and probably agree with 99 percent of what the minister says. The Islands Trust does indeed cover a very fragile but very complex group of islands. It is very obvious from the letters I get from different islands that there's a varying degree of values. They appear to differ almost from island to island, and I don't envy any government which tries to put a planning process over a group of different identities that all have different values in terms of development, and in terms of land use particularly.
So I'm pleased to hear the minister suggest that one of the things we have to look at is the governance model for the Islands Trust. One thing that I read into many of the presentations I've received is the desire to get out of the traditional process -- albeit well-intended and certainly a good process, when put in place. They want to see that modified in the not too distant future so that each island can have more autonomy in the process. That appears to be fairly apparent. I just want to get confirmation that that was what the minister meant when she talked about form of governance.
Hon. D. Marzari: Yes, I think the member and I are on a similar wavelength. I think it's the same wavelength that the Trust itself is on. For example, Saltspring Island has been looking at the possibility, without telling any secrets, of municipal status to deal with the pressures that it has and to work toward an official community plan that will make sense and bring a number of people into the decision-making, which will take away from the one-on-one that often occurs.
C. Tanner: I thank the member for Prince George-Omineca, who is from the middle of this great province, for bringing up something that's on the coast in a piece of my constituency. I was going to talk about it anyway, but this seems like an appropriate time to ask two or three questions.
First, the minister understands that we have a very basic problem in the Gulf Islands, particularly in the southern Gulf Islands. To illustrate, we have 8,500 people on Saltspring and 124 people on South Pender, and each has two representatives. There is something terribly out of whack as growth has become more and more apparent. That basic question of representation is absolutely vital to the Gulf Islands as a whole and to the individual islands. The member is absolutely correct. Each island is very individualistic in its nature, its quality of life, its land use perceptions and in what they see for the future.
The minister mentioned the Saltspring experience. They had a very thorough airing of various models of municipalities they wanted to use. I think there were five plans, and they came up with one that is sitting out there waiting for some action to be taken on it.
At the same time, the Pender Island people initiated a request to the minister -- if it wasn't to the minister, then it was certainly to the Trust and maybe through them to the minister -- to look at a model with the same financial help from the province that was given to Saltspring. My understanding is that they haven't heard back from either the minister or the Trust yet as to whether they can do it and whether there will be some funding to help them.
Hon. D. Marzari: The application from the Pender Island people hasn't come to my attention. I will look for it and will get back to them with a response as soon as I see their request.
C. Tanner: I know they will look forward to it. This request came from a group of citizens. About 250 people got together and made a very serious request. They need a little funding to help them, and I think the same request was made by Saltspring.
Did I understand the minister to say that she has actually signed the policy paper? If so, is she cognizant of the one or two items in that policy paper which are probably in conflict with federal law?
Hon. D. Marzari: If the document that the Trust came forward with is in contravention of federal law, I would be
[ Page 11920 ]
interested in looking at it. Obviously federal law takes supremacy, and therefore those elements of the Islands Trust policy would have to take a back seat.
[3:45]
The document itself, however, is not a set of regulations, nor is it a law or a piece of legislation that tells the Trust how to run itself. It's basically a codified set of values around which the Islands Trust would like to behave and to move forward with. To that end, I have encouraged them to pursue it. I'm assuming that it will help them and act as a guideline as they do the official community plans they are in the process of reviewing on a regular basis. So it is a set of guidelines and a philosophical statement of values which tries to bind together 13 islands and their very individual needs to give them a sense of commonality. To that end, I think it's a remarkable document.
C. Tanner: It is a remarkable document for the simple reason that they went through incredible heartache to write it. It had certain elements of the islands completely upset and in turmoil for six or eight months. I was very pleased with what they came up with for a final document, generally speaking, but there are a couple of items that I suspect will be -- even if it's a philosophical document -- in contravention of federal law. Did the minister say that she had signed off on that document and that it had been returned to the Islands Trust?
Hon. D. Marzari: Yes, I did that only last week. I regret that I couldn't actually visit with the Islands Trust to discuss it with them when they had their meeting last week, but I sent it with goodwill.
C. Tanner: Is it the minister's intention to bring in legislation in the next year. I know we're again talking about policy in the future, but she and I have talked in the past about legislation regarding the governance of the Gulf Islands. Is that in the works?
Hon. D. Marzari: I have to remind the member that the issues themselves have not been properly examined. No, I would not say that -- even though it is future policy and I should be saying that we shouldn't be discussing it, particularly in the estimates. It is a remarkably friendly estimates, and I am enjoying them, hon. Chair.
I do believe that it's important to state unequivocally right now that there will not be another form of governance for the Islands Trust in the next year; rather, there is going to be an initiation of how we even begin to approach the question with the Islands Trust. If it took a document that brings together a common statement of values with the Trust so long to be born, you can imagine that the governance of the Trust itself will take a considerable amount of time. It's important that we do this right and that there is buy-in as we go along.
C. Tanner: I'd like to move on to assessment now. Could the minister inform this committee how many assessment revisions were called for this year?
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
Hon. D. Marzari: I don't have that number with me today, but I will ensure that the member receives the statistics on the number of appeals before the court of revision and before the Assessment Appeal Board.
C. Tanner: Could the minister tell us whether she's familiar with a process that puts the assessment -- in some respects, and it just so happens in this case to be in Galiano -- in conflict with a community plan? There the assessment is saying a forested lot could be used for housing; consequently, it is valued higher than it is in actual fact. Could the minister comment on that? It is a problem of horrendous proportions on Galiano, but it could affect 21 percent of Vancouver Island.
Hon. D. Marzari: This is one of the reasons there are difficulties, especially on the islands. The fact of the matter is that when there is a huge real estate demand for vacant land, and where there is a market that can be established, especially on the southern Gulf Islands, land that had previously remained in forestry use is going to get used up and is going to be deemed more valuable by the Assessment Authority of B.C., whose job it is to give proper market assessment of land. That is its job; it's as simple as that. In fact, in doing its job, the Assessment Authority is going to be measuring the value of land irrespective of what its zoning may be, and so consequently many communities on the south Island and on the islands find themselves in the situation where the zoning becomes less important than the assessed value of the property -- I mean, the assessed value becomes higher than the zoning would suggest; I'm sorry, I confused the two there.
C. Tanner: It is confusing, Mr. Chairman. It's confusing for the people who own that land and, I suspect, for the companies that lease the land. It's particularly confusing for the people who've been on that land for some time and suddenly find themselves in a situation where their community plan says it's going to be managed forest, and the assessor says: "No, you could cut down those trees and build houses, consequently that's what we're going to assess you on."
That's the conflict, and that's the question I'm asking the minister to address. How is she, in her capacity as Minister of Municipal Affairs with the responsibility for the Assessment Authority, going to resolve that conflict between what the community says it wants and what the assessment says you've got to pay for it?
Hon. D. Marzari: The Assessment Authority is driven by market value. When people are prepared to sell their land for a certain amount, whether they be forest owners or otherwise, that land will be sold for what is called -- and I don't like to use the phrase in estimates -- highest and best use. That is part and parcel of this debate on property rates. In the process of that land being assessed at a higher rate than people are comfortable with, or that people find even affordable, is one of the consequences of this growth demand.
At this present time the individual who's concerned has the recourse of going to the court of revision or to the Assessment Appeal Board. Those are basically the mechanisms we have in place to protect people's interests and to protect the value of life that people may have for their community. That is part and parcel of the business of doing managed growth and of trying to translate community values into community structure. That is the nature of what managed growth legislation should begin to address.
C. Tanner: I think the minister is struggling with the same problem I have, but I don't think she's getting as close to it as
[ Page 11921 ]
I've had to be, because many of my constituents are affected by it.
What, of course, brought this on was the MacMillan Bloedel legal case on Galiano. What has happened on Galiano is that much of the property has been sold off in lots, and some of it has been cleared. That has motivated the price on the lots that haven't been cleared or haven't been sold. People, who for years and years have lived on a piece of property surrounded by trees, now find they're surrounded by property that's worth 500 times the value it was before, and that is unfair. They've been to the court of revision and had no help there. I think they're going to go to the Assessment Appeal Board, but I suspect they're not going to get any help there. It seems to me that there is a policy decision to be made here by the minister, or at least by her government, to protect those people who in good faith have lived there for years and have done nothing to their property. Their neighbours have sold off and in many cases have cleared it and sold the lumber. They're still living in the middle of a forest, and they've still got the same house. Nothing has changed except that other people have affected their style of living. That is patently unfair.
Hon. D. Marzari: It's a debate that we could carry on endlessly. In your neighbourhood, in my neighbourhood, in everyone's neighbourhood that happens to be urban or in one of the three major urban growth areas of this province, we are all facing the same reality -- that is, our neighbourhoods are probably densifying and our assessments are going up on a year-to-year basis because somebody is prepared to pay more for the house next door. Our house is therefore worth more, and there may be redevelopment going on at the same time.
Many municipalities have adopted tree bylaws to try to protect the green in their communities. The legislation for the Vancouver Charter was introduced in this House five years ago to protect trees in Vancouver. One of the most controversial issues that hit Vancouver in the last five years was the tree bylaw and the preservation of the green.
Quality of life and values around community life are definitely things which have to be reflected in bylaws. Market assessments don't necessarily respect bylaws. As a reflection of the real estate market in our community, market assessments are not driven by the assessment authority; rather, the assessment authority reflects those market values. That's a lesson I'm learning as we go through this process. How do we address it? We have to address it by looking at, strengthening and focussing on what our community values are; by ensuring that we have zoning bylaws that reflect those community values; by ensuring that we have an electoral form of governance that carries those values forward, creating a public readiness to pay for those values where it's necessary. That's part and parcel of what we do when we're involved with planning land use.
C. Tanner: Perhaps the most common discussion I have in my constituency revolves around assessments. The Galiano experience and the MacMillan Bloedel legal case make it worse. The results of that case on Galiano are going to affect 21 percent of the privately owned forest land on the island. What is a problem now in a small community of Galiano is going to be a huge problem on this island very shortly. My criticism of the system is not that we're using market value; I don't know what else you could use. That is one basis of value that many areas use, and it has worked reasonably successfully except when it's in conflict with a community plan.
Let me give the minister an example from another constituency. In the constituency of Prince George-Omineca, and in others like it, the fee that resort owners pay for the lease of the land to give their recreational facility a basis has gone up from 3.5 percent of assessed value to 5 percent and higher of assessed value. While the assessed value has stayed the same, the percentages have gone out of sight. Consequently, fees are increased from $1,700 to $8,000. That wasn't the intention.
Since we're basing other decisions on the assessed value, it's time to look at the premise that we're using now. It's time to reassess the way we make those assessments and whether or not adjustments need to be made.
Hon. D. Marzari: I find myself defending fair market value assessments here. I'm aware of this challenge; I've been working with the operators of fish camps and small resorts who are paying what appear to be outrageous fee amounts as percentages of their assessed value. There are some cases where what we're looking at is a high market demand for sites that they do business on for condo developments. That's what's happening: the assessed value is reflected in real estate property values in the regions that they are operating their businesses in. It is not a crisis of what the fair market value is. If we leave the principle of assessing at fair market value, we'll be back to the early 1960s, when everybody got anything they wanted. It was only in the early 1970s that we brought in a fair market value basis for assessment. That is not the issue here; the issue here is what percentage of the assessed value those fees should be.
[4:00]
We can't complain about assessed values in our neighbourhoods when we pay our taxes. We have to look at the mill rate that the municipal council might be charging us against those assessed values. So it's not the assessments per se; it's the charges we levy against those assessments that we have to be challenged on in Crown lands, in provincial policy and at the civic level. Let's not go out and tear down the concept of fair market value assessment. Rather, it's our job, I believe, as fair governors and fair government, to ensure that fees levied against the assessment, or mill rates taken off the assessment, are fair and just.
C. Tanner: I'm not arguing with fair market value, Madam Minister; I'm arguing about things that are contiguous to fair market value, where in some cases the same government has authority in two situations. Where the municipality is setting the assessment, there are certain limitations as to what the minister can do. But where one department of her government -- the Assessment Authority -- is assessing a recreational property, and another department of her government is saying they have to pay a recreational fee, a percentage, for that land, that's where we're in conflict.
I'm not talking about coastal situations; I'm primarily talking about inland situations, on lakes and rivers, where fees go up not because people want to buy these properties but because the whole assessment is going up. People are being penalized, quite frankly -- I don't know any other way to describe it. That's the one situation.
The other situation, such as on Galiano and eventually on the Island, is where the assessment, because we're going for market value, is in conflict with the community plan. People are doing things within the community plan that are beneficial to the community and paying a price for doing them. And that's what's wrong; that's the decision that this minister's got to make within the next year in order to find some resolution to the problems.
[ Page 11922 ]
Hon. D. Marzari: It would be very hard to put some kind of major legislative connection between the community plan and what an assessment should look like. I don't know how that could possibly be managed. It certainly hasn't been attempted in the past.
Rather, as government should do for good public policy, we are using principles of good planning to codify and help communities codify what their official community plans are based on their values, and to then attempt to use zoning and other tools at our disposal as government to try to actualize community values and plans. We stabilize -- that's what we very often do in government. We stabilize and offer menus of tools to help communities stabilize, and we bring into play the various mechanisms required to ensure that they can maintain a healthy, affordable and safe community. But to try to link assessments with an official community plan isn't in the cards.
L. Fox: As I think the minister recognizes, this subject could be debated for a long time. I have a couple of observations to make from my experience in municipal council. While the minister's quite correct in that the assessments are only the formula used to collect the dollar value, I think she'll also recognize that the assessments, particularly in a larger community or regional district in the more rural parts of the province, tend to cause a shift in taxes collected within that community. All of a sudden a demand goes up in a particular part of the community.
Vancouver has experienced, and is still experiencing, this situation. Each year, the market value goes up in certain areas of the city, while in other areas it drops. I think there was a small community -- Fernie, if I remember correctly from my days on the UBCM -- that had a very similar experience with a newly built portion of the community and an older portion. All of a sudden the assessments in one area went up substantially and dropped on the other. What that did -- and the effect is the same in all communities -- is shift the dollar from one taxpayer to another. Under the act, the community has to levy one residential tax rate, so it doesn't have the flexibility to look after those shifts. Consequently, the assessment does mean a lot to the taxpayer in terms of what he or she may have to pay out of pocket. It can't be controlled by the agency that lays the tax rate, because that shift is uncontrollable under today's legislation.
I suggest examining a couple of areas. If I were ever fortunate to be in government, my personal wish would be to remove the school tax from the property tax payer and look at other forms of collecting that tax that more fairly reflect the ability to pay. I don't believe the assessment of a home reflects the ability to pay, in terms of dollars. That would be my number one wish.
After that, my number two wish would be to give the municipalities the authority to create tax zones so that they could have variable tax rates that would more evenly deal with the shifts in taxes and keep the tax on a fairer basis. Perhaps I'll just sit down and let the minister comment on this.
Hon. D. Marzari: I won't comment on the member's dreams, except to say that in the last few years we have developed systems to average out or to cap assessments or tax rates in the city of Vancouver -- and other areas of the province that chose to cash in on the capping. They were legitimized last year. I believe the averaging clause was in last year's municipal legislation. These are basically stabilizers and do not deviate from the principle of market value assessment. They try to give municipalities some kind of break so that they can average out, within classifications, what the rates would look like.
Differential tax or mill rates or geographic boundaries located around particular sections of the community are always controversial. We now have nine classifications for tax in the province of British Columbia; I'm sure there weren't nine 20 years ago. I would think the tax system has become more responsive to the fact that there are huge differences between communities and huge differences within classes in communities.
The legislation we introduced last year certainly tried to address that by taking some pressure off large urban areas, most notably where there was a massive differential between residential property values from one side of the city to the other.
L. Fox: I recognize there has been some change with respect to the number of categories, as well as to some emergent situations which cropped up and created the need for capping. I think the original was a one-year-only or a three-year-only -- I forget the legislation right now. At the time, I was on the other side of the fence trying to get government to deal with the situation from the perspective of the UBCM, so I understand all those changes. If we're ever going to give citizens the opportunity to retain their homes in rising market value areas, we're going to have to look at substantial modification of the existing system or removal of some of the liabilities from the homeowner. My preference would be to remove school taxes from the residential taxpayer, because the share that goes into education is by far the largest liability the homeowner faces when he or she goes to pay tax notices.
There are senior citizens living in their little houses in areas where highrises have been developed all around them, and they are being forced out because they can't afford to pay their taxes. We have to look at modification of the system. I think that is what the member for Saanich North and the Islands is trying to point out: that system has to be modified somehow so that those individuals can retain their homes.
I would really like to see the Assessment Authority take a role. I know they can't make a policy issue such as removing taxes, but they certainly could play a key role, in an advisory capacity to the minister, on how the system might be modified.
Hon. D. Marzari: I have just asked the Assessment Authority to set up an advisory function. They have always advised the minister, but I've asked them to advise me on how they'd like to see their legislation changed. I constantly ask them for policy advice.
I have to reiterate, however, that you're not going to adopt a new system of taxation or assessment which is going to revolve around the age of the population. You can't modify an assessment based on whether there's a senior citizen living in a small house surrounded by highrises.
L. Fox: It has nothing to do with age.
Hon. D. Marzari: All right. That was the example you used, and my answer is that senior citizens in British Columbia have this wonderful but rarely used opportunity to defer their taxes. They don't even have to be seniors; they can be 60 years old. It basically amounts to a low-interest loan taken against their house, if they choose to go that route. They can defer tax on an assessment, or on a tax rate which is increasing but which would be recouped down the line,
[ Page 11923 ]
either by themselves or by those who inherit their homes, and paid off out of the proceeds of the home. It is quite a remarkable program, and it has always surprised me that more people don't take advantage of it.
I think that many seniors don't like the idea of having a lien against their home. It's like taking another mortgage in their old age, and they are reluctant to pass on to their children what they consider to be a debt. By the same token, these homes have reached values of $600,000 and $700,000 for a small bungalow, particularly in Vancouver, where there is a market that seems to have run completely amok in many respects. Concerning the seniors deferring their taxes on those homes, one could hardly think there would be a serious problem with the payment of those taxes down the road, either by the senior who wants to cash in on the program or from the people who inherit the homes. It is an interesting debate as to what we can do with that deferral program to make it more attractive to seniors. It is a legitimate program that is something we can do, and it has been offered through successive governments over the last number of years.
[4:15]
I'm not sure how we can modify or stabilize the system further, or what we can do beyond averaging taxes inside the various assessment classes. Anything that deviates from the business of doing fair market assessment gets us into some very murky waters. Down the road, it takes us back to a system nobody could live with 20 years ago, when there was a byzantine system of assessments, and nobody could live appropriately with them. It was impossible for any municipality to come up with a half-decent roll and a half-decent mill rate under the old system.
L. Fox: First of all, let me clarify that I used the situation of a senior citizen to point out that the assessment bears no relationship at all to the ability to pay. I should also point out that I didn't like the tax deferral program when it was brought forward.
I didn't believe in it, knowing as many seniors as I do, knowing the philosophy they live by and also knowing the fact that nobody can say: "I'm 60 years old today, and I'm going to live to 80. Therefore I'll end up leaving a debt to my family or I'll end up with a net credit."
Those kinds of unknowns are out there, along with the fact that there's pride in ownership. They want the satisfaction of knowing that the home is theirs. There isn't a bank loan on it, a lien against it or whatever the case may be. They have that quality of life. All they want is to live out their years in a home that they spent their lifetime building.
The member for Skeena mentioned something about Vanderhoof versus Victoria. Well, there's a phenomenon going on in this province that he may not have felt yet up in Terrace. But I would bet he has, because I've seen it in Vanderhoof. In fact, I met two people on Saturday who sold their home in Victoria and purchased one in Vanderhoof to retire there, because they could no longer afford to live in this community.
So property assessments are actually driving seniors out of a climate they prefer into the rural parts of the province. That's a real phenomenon that's happening. I don't expect the minister to comment on that, because I know it's very desirable to live in the community of Vanderhoof -- almost as desirable as it is to live in the city of Victoria.
Interjection.
C. Tanner: I heard the minister say "more so." She's pretty confused if she thinks anything is better than living here -- even if she lives in Point Grey.
I have three more major questions, and then it will be a perfect time to wrap it up, unless the other members have anything to say.
I have a letter from the city of White Rock asking what the government is doing about liability premiums. It points out that the premium paid by the city of White Rock last year was 42 percent higher than the year before. This is a problem that many municipalities are having. I think they're looking for the minister to give them the same relief that the city of Vancouver enjoys. Would the minister comment?
Hon. D. Marzari: I won't comment at great length. "Options for Renewal," the paper I've circulated to all municipalities, is basically looking for municipal input concerning what we can live with, what we want to do and where we want to draw lines around liability. Everyone wants the Vancouver deal, which is no liability, but that isn't realistic. I've been working with the B.C. Municipal Insurance Association and with mayors and municipalities throughout the province. It is a huge issue for everyone, and it's something we have to develop a policy on. We're working on it. The first step, however, is to work with the whole gamut of liability. This involves examining how cities build and inspect themselves, what they build and how they go about business. Consequently, I'm waiting for the returns on "Options for Renewal." I hope we'll be coming up with the appropriate paper and that it will be addressed in legislation or regulation by next year.
C. Tanner: Would the minister comment on Rossland's quiet revolution -- its attempt to have participatory democracy? They've had, I think, seven referendums, and four have come through. I found it particularly interesting that three of them concern the mayor's salary. Does the minister have any comment on this experiment they're conducting in Rossland?
Hon. D. Marzari: I believe the ministry advocated some caution as they approached their revolution. What Rossland is doing is an interesting experiment with local democracy. It certainly falls well within the parameters of what the legislation allows, so I have no difficulty with what they're doing. I rather enjoyed reading about it and talking to Rossland about its unique way of approaching bylaws and gleaning support for capital investment.
C. Tanner: The minister said that it is within the Municipal Act. I got the distinct impression when I talked to people in Rossland that it wasn't within the act, but everybody was turning a blind eye to it. Would it be better if we didn't discuss this further in this House, Madam Minister? Are they in fact breaking the law, or are they just stretching it a little?
Hon. D. Marzari: They're not breaking the law.
C. Tanner: This past year a referendum on incorporation of the two municipalities was passed in Matsqui-Abbotsford. Could the minister tell us how much money has been allocated through that incorporation of the two municipalities?
Hon. D. Marzari: I'd be pleased to give the member a detailed breakdown of the amalgamation process. The budget that Matsqui-Abbotsford has submitted to me in the last week amounts to more than $3 million for this amalgamation to this point. I attended a meeting with them a few months ago and offered them $700,000 plus a restructure amount, which I will forward to the member. Amalgamation or restructure is not a cheap prospect. However, down the road we assume there will be economies of scale and efficiencies in public administration which will make this merger mutually beneficial. It will be running itself more efficiently on a financial basis. There seems to be genuine goodwill between the two municipalities, and they have entered this agreement with a tremendous amount of, I would say, amicability. In terms of amalgamations, one could not wish for a more successful and more well-thought-through exercise than the one we've seen in Matsqui and Abbotsford -- touch wood.
[ Page 11924 ]
C. Tanner: I assume the $700,000 was to implement the decision that had been made. There are two things I'd like to know. I would like to know what money was invested by the province on the way through, what formula you're using and whether it's available to other municipalities or groups of municipalities. Most importantly of all, when the province pays $700,000, irrespective of the benefits to the municipalities, what does the minister see as benefits to the province and the citizens as a whole?
Hon. D. Marzari: It's the purpose, I believe, of provincial government to try to ensure that there's an efficient and well-run administration happening at the civic government level.
More importantly, when municipalities speak up and say they want to do something that is more efficient down the line, I believe it behooves us in our restructure division and our planning division to say: "Yes, if it looks like in fact it is going to save everybody a lot of time and money and is going to be a better planning mechanism for everybody down the line." Then we go ahead and support it wherever we can.
The ministry does not exert a tremendous amount of judgment over this, because our aim is to service municipalities' requests. When restructure proposals come before us, I don't believe this ministry turns down very many. If the criteria are met, if people are approaching the exercise with reasonable goodwill and if there is a solid reason to move toward a restructure, this ministry aims to please. That's in fact what we have done over the years. One of the reasons this ministry has such a good working relationship with municipalities throughout the province is that it really does, I believe, reflect municipal desires.
C. Tanner: I think the minster missed the point I'm trying to make. I can see the obvious benefit to Matsqui of this particular amalgamation, if you believe in bringing things together to make them work more efficiently. The benefit to the two municipalities is obvious. What benefit does the minister see not just to the municipalities but also to the three million-odd people in the province?
Hon. D. Marzari: I'll answer both questions. First, I will forward a financial breakdown to you.
Second, it's a better planning mechanism. What the province can see in restructuring -- which doesn't happen every day, as you know -- is that there is a better chance of looking at the whole regional district. This particular amalgamation includes the whole lower basin of the GVRD up to Hope. If we look at fewer jurisdictions, we're going to have a better planning mechanism down the road.
No amalgamation in this government will be a forced amalgamation. They will come about as a result of requests from the constituencies involved. The three regional districts in the upper reaches of the valley are also looking at the possibility of amalgamation, which the ministry is encouraging.
C. Tanner: I appreciate that it's an unusual occurrence. I agree with the minister that it makes for better planning; I would like to see it happen in more areas of the province. However, I'm not sure that you can rely on the citizenry within those constituencies to make the decision themselves. They sometimes need some help. The minister is admitting to helping them -- finding financing to do the studies, if nothing else.
How does the minister budget for an unforeseen circumstance like the request for an amalgamation? I can't find anything in the budget that says that this is the money we're going to use if we get another request tomorrow.
Hon. D. Marzari: This was a subcomponent of the old revenue-sharing program, which applied to municipalities when they had restructuring requirements that involved amalgamation or an extension of boundaries. That was all part and parcel of the old revenue-sharing program. Under the new Bill 20, in the new program we'll be maintaining these functions in the work plan on a year-to-year basis.
C. Tanner: The minister left me; I'm behind. I thought we repealed that legislation and replaced it with new legislation, and I don't recall anywhere in the new legislation where you have the ability to budget for future amalgamation. Have I missed something here?
[4:30]
Hon. D. Marzari: It will be a program inside the ministry, as it always has been, which will come out of the component of the funding for conditional grants, not unconditional.
C. Tanner: If the enlightenment of mergers suddenly hit the Victoria area, we could wipe out two-thirds of these ridiculous municipalities around here and make them....
Hon. D. Marzari: That's not a merger then, is it?
C. Tanner: That's a murder, in some respects.
But how would the minister deal with it if you had an important request from the Vancouver or Victoria area for help in doing this? I still don't see anywhere in the budget where you could deal with it.
Hon. D. Marzari: It's all part of budgeting a work plan a year in advance, which is generally the way these things line up. You can see the requests that are coming down the line, and you work toward them. This ministry, as much as if not more than most other ministries, is involved with the acquisition and compilation of long lists of servicing for municipalities.
Similarly, we do the same thing for municipalities' planning needs. We keep lists, and the municipalities approach us to meet various planning criteria. That's how we deliver our planning grants. This would just be part of the study and planning program, if we were to receive a mammoth request from Victoria to take over the peninsula.
[ Page 11925 ]
C. Tanner: Last year the revenue supplement programs were $136.9 million. The revenue supplement programs for 1994-95 are $136.9 million. The conditional grant programs in '93-94 were $164 million. This year they're $113 million. Where did you find the $800,000 for Abbotsford-Matsqui this year, and what will you do if the same thing happens next year? I'm sorry, Madam Minister, it's still not clear to me where you're finding the money either for Matsqui or for something in the future.
Hon. D. Marzari: When you're developing a work plan for what you might be doing next year or the year after, you generally just put your budget together. The Matsqui-Abbotsford budget process was well underway two years ago. Developing the restructuring and the move toward the referendum probably took quite a lot of study time and a number of study dollars. I won't say how much money has been set aside for the amalgamation itself; the request is for $3 million, so obviously there's some negotiation still to be had. It's just simply a question of taking what's available in the conditional grants section of the old budget, or in whatever replaces it under Bill 20, and making sure that we have the municipalities that need help lined up and that we try to meet their requirements with the money that's available. It's much the same as buying books for Christmastime. It involves setting aside a certain amount of dollars so that you can do your business, not that the hon. member is in the book business anymore.
R. Neufeld: The member for Saanich North and the Islands asked a question earlier about benefits of amalgamation, and I don't think there was a good answer given there. I agree with amalgamation and with what's happening in Matsqui and Abbotsford. In the long run, as the minister stated, that will be beneficial to those two areas. But if the ministry has to contribute anywhere from $700,000 to $3 million from general revenue, it's a burden on the rest of British Columbia. If it is going to benefit Matsqui and Abbotsford, why wouldn't a tax ratio come into place at some future time so that those people who live in those two communities and are going to benefit will pay that $3 million back? It's a lot easier to ask a ministry for $3 million if you know it's just given to you as a grant than to ask for $3 million knowing that two years down the road the tax rate is going to increase on the homes to pay for that amalgamation over a long period of time. This may reduce the request for massive amounts of money that may or may not be required. I know people in Prince George.... For example, how do they benefit? They contribute to the main tax pool that your money comes from.
Hon. D. Marzari: There are apparently two sets of rules, one for amalgamations and one for restructures. We generally don't do amalgamations. This is the first and only one, in fact. The rule book on amalgamations isn't necessarily completely written, and I think the member makes a reasonable point about doing some cost-sharing on the costs of amalgamation. Around restructure, there is a benefit in the last analysis to the provincial government in planning for roads and in terms of a number of other costs, which, in fact, we save down the road when we give restructure grants. Our restructure grants are more generous than the amalgamation grants, generally speaking, but the assumption is that down the road we are saving the benefits of planning and services.
C. Tanner: This is the last major question I have for the minister. It concerns the British Columbia infrastructure program and grants from the federal government. By my estimation, we are spending $53.8 million; I think that's the allocation that's coming, and there are matching grants within the ministry. It appears to me as if the minister has moved funds from other programs to get the balancing funds to get the federal grant. Is that true?
Hon. D. Marzari: The question doesn't fall lightly. It's a very serious one, because I'm sure there are many provinces across the country that would attempt to do just that. However, the nature of the federal requirement for our participation in the federal infrastructure program requires that we (a) meet our commitment for previous years, and (b) come up with the dollars. It's been clearly stipulated that it has to be new money to cash in on the 33-33-33 program and has to be structured in such a way that there has to be the regular program as well, so that the federal government must be satisfied completely that we are running a regular program, 50-50 between provincial and municipal, as well as cashing in on the 33-cent dollars the federal program avails us with.
That is our case. Our budget reflects that. The moneys that will be coming on stream -- I hope in the near future -- to make sure we have a regular program as well as the federal infrastructure dollars that are already there, are all testimony to the fact that our books are in order in this province and that our infrastructure program is well and away. We were the first, and I think our program will be the best in the country, because we bargained the hardest; I think we did very well with it.
I'm glad the member brought forward his concern, but I'm also glad to report that we have the dollars; they are new dollars to match the federal and municipal dollars. We will be running a regular program, as well as meeting our commitments from previous years.
C. Tanner: The way they adjudicate their books, it's not always easy to read them -- or whatever else they're doing to the books besides cooking them. Is it easy to assume the province has found new money to the tune of $136 million?
Hon. D. Marzari: The $136 million is not all in this year's budget. The federal infrastructure program is $675 million overall, 85 percent of which will go toward hard services, but that is over more than two years, as we roll out these various programs.
C. Tanner: Let me give due notice to the minister right now that, while I can't understand where you're getting it from this time, next year it won't let up. I want to see the figures more clearly written out next year, and I'll be looking for that.
There is another question in here. In the amount of money allocated under this program, 10 to 15 percent is unallocated. It's available for grants at community levels. Could the minister tell me how those grants are administered and by whom?
Hon. D. Marzari: That elusive 15 percent is going to be decided on by the Ministry of Employment and Investment, so that question is probably best directed during the estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Investment. It will not come under the hard services that the infrastructure program we're dealing with here does.
[ Page 11926 ]
C. Tanner: So those funds don't appear in the minister's budget, then, they appear in the budget of the Ministry of Employment and Investment.
Hon. D. Marzari: Because these arrangements have been made recently, through conversations and negotiation with the federal government, you'll find the dollars for that 15 percent in this budget over the next couple of years. But the responsibility and authority for that 15 percent has been handed to Employment and Investment. So how it gets spent will largely be handled through that other ministry, but we're holding the bucks.
C. Tanner: Madam Chairman, that's a fairly unusual arrangement, and I'm really astounded that this minister let 15 percent of that budget go. I know she dealt hard when she sat on Treasury Board and didn't let money get out of her hands. I am doubly suspicious now. I suspect the minister has some say in how that money is spent, and she's avoiding my question. I want to know who makes the decisions on those allocated funds. Would the minister tell me, please?
Hon. D. Marzari: On the hard services that comprise the 85 percent of this budget for the federal-provincial infrastructure program, it will be the lists that have been drawn up by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. The decisions will be based on the longstanding lists and the applications that have come through the door since the program was announced. These will be based on time-honoured formulae and criteria, and you will see that no community will remain untouched by this program. I have a strong belief that this program is probably one of the best programs we've ever worked on with the UBCM.
[4:45]
C. Tanner: And the federal government.
Hon. D. Marzari: And the federal government -- with our lists; we were just looking for the money.
The 15 percent which was sawed off early on in the discussions, and the terms of reference, which have been decided more or less in the last few weeks, those projects will not necessarily be hard-service projects. However, they will involve the consent and involvement of the municipalities from which these projects come. There will most definitely be local municipal involvement in these projects, and their 33 cents will still be counted on for this 15 percent. The decision-making around that 15 percent will not be vested in this ministry; it will be vested in the Ministry of Employment and Investment. It is not unusual for ministries to hold money for different programs -- homeowner's grant, for example, is in Finance. We held health and police equalization grants until this year when we took the money and said: "Here, take it. We'll make it more rational; you handle it." There is always a process of quid pro quo going on between ministries in terms of the funds being held and the decisions being made by other ministers. I will let the member know that this minister and this ministry will not be silent on the issue of the 15 percent.
C. Tanner: One, are applications received under B.C. 21 for that 15 percent? Two, is there a committee that allocates the funds? Three, do the minister or any of her ministry officials sit on that committee?
Hon. D. Marzari: The lead minister involved here is Employment and Investment, and he will be making some announcements on this process within the near future -- I would hope within the next few weeks -- so that people can get their applications in and there can be some rationalizing of what's there. I believe a number of applications are in already, and they are quite substantial in terms of dollar value. Our ministry officials do sit on the overall umbrella agency, which is looking at the overall allocation of dollars through the whole program. We are on the technical committee.
C. Tanner: Final question. Are there any politicians sitting on that committee, or is it only bureaucrats?
Hon. D. Marzari: The announcement will be made within the next few weeks.
Vote 46 approved.
Vote 47: ministry operations, $52,872,745 -- approved.
Vote 48: local government grants, $304,500,000 -- approved.
Hon. D. Marzari: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 4:49 p.m.
The committee met at 9:38 p.m.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
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: Hon. minister, I'd like to ask you a few questions with regard to where we left off. We were talking about air ambulance facilities. You were agreeing with the member for Prince George-Omineca that Government Air could move the air ambulance service operations over to the Ministry of Health, which would be a way of resolving the problem being brought to your attention by the employees of Government Air. Could you elaborate further on that?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm reluctant to get into an area that is the purview of the Minister of Health. But just as a courtesy to you and to my critic from the Reform Party, because there is so much interconnection between Government Air and one of our clients in terms of our planes with air ambulance.... Your questions regarding the direction of the Ministry of Health and what aircraft or private sector services he might require should be addressed to the minister. He has the issue under advisement.
All I can suggest in terms of a proposal I have seen, which I know has gone to the Minister of Health, is that the BCGEU has made a proposal for air ambulance. That's about as far as I can take it. The Minister of Health has to deal with that issue. I'm sure you or your critic can address that to the minister when his estimates are finished.
[ Page 11927 ]
K. Jones: The minister is responsible for the aircraft involved with air ambulance; I think that's fairly obvious.
Hon. R. Blencoe: The ones we have.
K. Jones: The minister is responsible for existing jets -- the Cessna 550s -- of which three are used for air ambulance purposes and the other two for passenger purposes. Has the minister looked into the efficiency of their use in the air ambulance operation?
Hon. R. Blencoe: That was part of the extensive Treasury Board review. Again, Health was a client of Government Air -- let's put it that way. We had three planes at their disposal for utilization as air ambulance. I'm sure you know that 60 percent of air ambulance, in terms of the aircraft utilized, were private sector aircraft. We made three planes available.
We have made a clear decision to get out of Government Air, which means all our aircraft will be going. What happens with air ambulance, in terms of the remaining 40 percent carried by our three planes, is up to the Minister of Health. There is a proposal from the pilots, but I can't say any more about that. The Minister of Health is aware that Government Air has gone. Our planes are no longer available, because they are going to be sold. We are getting out of the business with Government Air; we made a decision. Quite clearly, the public does not accept this kind of travel for executive, cabinet or government members. We tried diligently since we took office to try and make it work in various ways, but the decision at budget time, following the Treasury Board review, which was a component of the decision of getting out of government air services.....
We will be disposing of all assets, including the three planes for which time currently is bought by air ambulance of the Ministry of Health. Further discussion of this issue is really not for me to pursue. You should take it up with the Minister of Health when his estimates are up.
The Chair: The member for Prince George-Omineca.
K. Jones: Am I not going to be allowed to continue?
The Chair: He caught the Chair's eye. You can continue when you catch the Chair's eye.
L. Fox: I want to get around to the issue of disposal of the assets. One of the things I'm being told is that the market value of those planes may not be at its best. The demand for those aircraft is not at a high level at present, and while it's my understanding that notice has been given that these planes will be up for sale, there hasn't been a lot of interest shown at this point. Is that correct?
Hon. R. Blencoe: We have had more than 50 inquiries about the aircraft. Even without a proposal for sale going out yet, we are getting them. We have had independent appraisals done of all the assets, including planes, hangar and stock. We are basing our expectations on this. I'm told there will be an ad this weekend for a number of components of the assets. There has been considerable interest in the planes and in the hangar as well. There's considerable interest in the space there, and we'll pursue it.
[9:45]
L. Fox: The hangar was the subject of my next question. I'm pleased to hear that there's considerable interest in the aircraft, because if there's a good market, the opportunity to achieve a good dollar is certainly a lot better. It seems rather strange, however, that probably not even a year after the announcement, the ministry is going to close out government air services. They entered into a ten-year agreement, as I understand it, to lease a hangar at $900,000 a year. The minister suggests that there's interest in that. Does he think it's going to be possible to alleviate that total cost of $900,000 a year to the government, or is there going to be an ongoing liability to this ministry?
Hon. R. Blencoe: It's our intention to eliminate ongoing liability. The decision to build goes back to the fall of 1991. At that time, we inherited numerous studies and reports by engineers and BCBC about options and the best way to go. A number of options were looked at, such as building our own, owning our own and whether or not to lease from the private sector. This is an FBO. The issues that existed for the old hangar were safety, cost factors and improving it for air ambulances -- and to protect the air ambulance service that was there. To answer you very quickly, we can sublease, and we intend to get the best we can for the asset.
If we could have had a crystal ball in terms of when we came here in 1991, what we experienced and tried to do and where we ended up in 1994 in terms of our decision, yes, you sometimes wish you had one. We tried diligently in a number of ways to make Government Air more effective and more efficient: to save money by CRT, PEP are now utilizing it; we expanded the air ambulance service; and we cut ministerial travel by nearly 70 percent. Still, when push came to shove, with the costs -- and indeed, the public mood, quite frankly, for that kind of government service -- we just decided that its time had come based on review, analysis and statistics. How much longer do you continue, and when do you get out? We made a decision that we're going to get out, and we think we're going to get a fair return. And there's a lot of interest. We can sublease the hangar, and we are looking at all options for that. The hangar is part of the ad this weekend.
The Chair: Just one more question, hon. member, and then I'll return to the real critic.
L. Fox: If I'm to understand the minister correctly, it would appear that cabinet travel is going to be curtailed somewhat.
Hon. R. Blencoe: No, we're still travelling.
L. Fox: Obviously there's going to be a need, because there aren't scheduled flights in all regions of the province that will accommodate cabinet travel in a timely fashion. What is the proposal for replacing that? Are you going to have an annual contract with a prescribed carrier, or is it going to be on a day-to-day charter? How does the ministry expect to handle that demand?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Excellent question, hon. member. We fully expect to travel in a far more cost-effective way, and we fully expect nearly all the travel of the executive cabinet to be commercial. There may very well be at times the requirement....
As you know, under the system now there is some chartering, and that may occur. But we all recognize that the cost of charters is substantial. Cabinet is aware of that, and we are now in a position where we want to get the most efficient costs and to travel in a way that saves the taxpayer the most money.
[ Page 11928 ]
In terms of utilizing one private charter for some kind of coordinated travel down the road, I can't say if that will happen. I think the first six months of this new system are going to be very telling. There is no question that it's going to take longer for cabinet ministers to move around the province, and their time will be impacted. When we look at the service that commercial offers, it's good. There will be some adaptations in people's travel habits, particularly for the regional ministers who live in outlying areas. You know what it's like to get back and forth; you do it every weekend, I presume. You know how difficult it is to get back. That's what we have to live with. That's the message we're getting. People expect us to move around just like most other people.
I think there is support out there. They recognize, too, that cabinet members.... It's a no-win in a way, because the people out in the regions want the ministers there to talk to, to meet with and everything else. They want them there as quickly as possible. On the other hand, we have to get back to do business. So I think there is sympathy for us travelling and getting out, but they want us to do it in the most cost-effective way. That's the challenge we have announced and are prepared to meet.
K. Jones: You're talking about having a cost-effective method, and you have done studies. I understand that a 300-page study was done by the Ministry of Finance into government air services. I say "I understand" only because....
I have the letter from your freedom-of-information and privacy branch dated April 20, acknowledging that on March 23 your ministry received my request for studies and reviews done on government air services. The letter indicated that you were then, after a month's time, passing.... You're supposed to be able to give us the answer, not wait for a month and then pass it on to somebody else. You have passed it on to the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations and also to the Ministry of Health with your submissions. They then proceeded to take another month or more to process that request for information. It's apparently foot-dragging in the process of a simple request for information, trying to get the basis on which this decision was made.
I've been informed by the Ministry of Finance that they received the letter from you on April 22, and the request is now going to take an additional 30 days over the maximum 30 days that have already expired, making the fact that they would expect to respond by no later than May 23.... That date has already expired. Regarding the Ministry of Finance report, they have now informed us that it's going to take them another 30 days to sever. I don't know what they did in the first 30 days while they had it in their hands; they obviously did nothing with it. It seems like a great hide-the-report game is going on regarding this whole request.
The minister also says that earlier....
The Chair: Excuse me, that was a division bell. We'll take a recess at this time and come back in a few minutes when the vote is completed.
The committee recessed at 9:57 p.m.
The committee resumed at 10:05 p.m.
K. Jones: We pointed out that it took your ministry a month to deal with our attempt to get information about the studies that were done on government air services through your freedom-of-information and privacy group. Then it went to the Ministry of Health. It took them over a month, and they still haven't got their information to me. It went to the Ministry of Finance after being a month in your area. It has been over a month with the Ministry of Finance, and is still unanswered. The Ministry of Finance now indicates that for some reason it's going to take another month to take certain sections out. This is unusual because I understand that you've already discussed the unabridged form with members of government air services. I don't know what should be hidden from me that isn't hidden from the government air services people.
I don't know if the minister is listening to me.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm very tired. I just finished over four hours of Motor Carrier Commission hearings on certain taxi companies.
Part of the problem in the issue you raise is that until very recently cabinet has been deliberating on Government Air; this is still fresh. You know that it's an important issue when that information is still under deliberation by cabinet. As I indicated earlier, processes have been put in place whereby the union was given an opportunity to take a look. The books were open in terms of our findings. There have been ongoing discussions and reports back to cabinet, and the Treasury Board review has been actively considered. I don't want to sound like I'm not being forthright with you, but it is a Ministry of Finance report. We can't release the report; the Minister of Finance will release the report. I thought it was to be released very soon. You should also recognize that on a number of occasions very recently cabinet has had to continue looking at that report.
K. Jones: I'll just read from Hansard this morning. You stated, in reply to a question: "After the budget announcement was made, the union asked me and the Minister of Finance to get together with their representatives" -- that is, Government Air representatives -- "to take a look at the Treasury Board review and the numbers. We basically opened the books to show them what we found. They came back with some numbers...."
If you are opening the books to them at the time of the budget....
Hon. R. Blencoe: No.
K. Jones: That's what you say; those are your words, hon. minister.
Hon. R. Blencoe: After the suit.
K. Jones: After the budget announcement, yes, and that was before the March 23 date that you received my request for information about these studies. I cannot understand now why the Ministry of Finance is saying they have to go through the report and take out certain sections of it when that report has already been opened up, by your own words, to members of government air services.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Out of respect, and the wish to give employees the opportunity to look at the information the Ministry of Finance Treasury Board staff collected on Government Air, we thought it important and decided they should get the opportunity to take a look at that information. I should let you know that they did it under an oath of secrecy, signed by each member. They had to take an oath that they wouldn't release or discuss the report. It was done
[ Page 11929 ]
because we thought it was an honourable thing to do. These people had worked a long time for the government, and we felt they were due the respect -- after signing an oath in confidence -- to look at something that was dramatically affecting their lives, and we did this. My understanding is that the report will be released to you very shortly. I don't have that full information because the Ministry of Finance is going to be releasing the report to you. That's the background with the employees.
I want to put on record that I have the utmost regard for the way the employees at Government Air, who are being affected in a fairly dramatic way, have handled this issue. It's been extremely hard. I have met with them, as lots of people have, and they've handled the situation in a very professional way. I really congratulate them for the way they have tried to work this through with us in a very professional manner -- just to put that on record.
K. Jones: I also would compliment these members of your staff in Government Air for their professionalism. I have had an opportunity to talk with some of them, and they have dealt with it in a very professional manner. I would also like to remind the minister that all members of the Legislature take an oath of secrecy. If you're stating that you had these people under oath, is this now the new method of getting undeleted sections under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act -- that persons take an oath of secrecy to be allowed to see the unclipped form of a document?
Hon. R. Blencoe: You may wish to criticize our process, but we thought it was the honourable and fair thing to do with employees, many of whom had served the province and the citizens of this province a long time. We thought we owed them that opportunity. They did swear the oath of secrecy, and we shared with them the report, which was a substantial component of this decision. We think that was the honourable thing to do. If you disagree with that, so be it. We're trying to deal with this in a fair and open manner. We're currently working with those affected in a manner that is consistent with our approach to employees who have worked a long time for the government. We recognize that the government sometimes has to make tough decisions, but in making those decisions we can be reasonable and fair, recognizing their professionalism and respecting what they have done as government employees. That's what we did in this case.
[10:15]
K. Jones: I don't think the minister is being terribly professional in implying that I said I was opposed to the process you've gone through. That's certainly what I heard you say. We were asking for access to the same report. That report has taken over two months, which is well beyond the 30-day limit, which is supposed to be a maximum, and it's supposed to be based on a minimum issuance of information. Could the minister tell us specifically why it took 30 days for his ministry to deal with a report on which he has no information to give?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I think I've answered that question. We are continuing to pursue this, and I understand the report will be released in due course. I have given the rationale for why we gave the employees an opportunity to look at the work. I don't think there's much more I can say on that issue.
K. Jones: Since I don't have the report, though I've tried very hard to get it, I'm going to have to ask you a series of questions in regard to the report and the reasons for this decision. There has not been a clear definition of the background to this decision, other than that you've said it's going to be more efficient. We only have your word on that, hon. minister. We don't question your word in that regard, but it would be much more comforting if we had some documentation showing how this is going to be done and could get assurances about the quality of the alternative air ambulance services. I have heard various concerns about some of the existing private carriers' levels of safety. I have no clarification on that, but people in the air services have indicated that in the past year there have been two or three accidents involving privately contracted air ambulance services to the government. Could the minister explain those situations?
The Chair: Hon. member and hon. minister, I'm just going to intervene here for two seconds and say, first of all, that I suspect the minister could respond to the second question. But in terms of your request for information from the reports, that's out of order; that's future policy. The report is not public. The question about accidents is fair game. But I think any question about the reports, although the minister can take his own counsel on this, is out of order. The second half strikes me as a legitimate question.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Part of the difficulty is that the review to which the member refers was done under the purview of the Ministry of Finance and Treasury Board staff. The details of some of the questions the member is asking really should be dealt with by the Minister of Finance. I've answered as much as I can on the issue the member raises about timing, and I have tried to give an explanation of that.
Ambulances are not my area of responsibility or expertise. The Minister of Health contracted our services for the three planes, and we have let the minister know we're getting out of the business. The Minister of Health now has a job to do in seeking alternatives for the 40 percent utilization of air ambulance that we had provided the planes for. You should question the Minister of Health on his views about quality and the various issues you raised. They're all good questions.
The Chair: I can add that the Ministry of Health estimates are coming up.
K. Jones: Thank you for your assistance, hon. Chair, but I have to keep the onus where it actually belongs. The minister can't pass on the responsibility for aircraft usage or the types of contracts let. These contracts are not let with the Ministry of Health but are for the provision of aircraft operations and the contracted aircraft themselves. Could the minister tell us exactly how many of the contracted aircraft have had any form of accident, be it minor or major, or any difficulties with operations under private contract operation during the last two years?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I have gone into some detail on the quality assurance program, because one of the members asked about that. Quality assurance is a program within Government Air, and it will continue under the Ministry of Government Services to monitor the planes used for air ambulance that are taken from the private sector. They will continue to do annual audits of the charter companies, and they'll check the aircraft and their flight times. They conduct investigations of any accidents or incidents and make sure the performance requirements for the aircraft, the air fields
[ Page 11930 ]
and the crew are maintained. When we're using private sector aircraft for air ambulance, it is the job of the quality assurance people to determine that patient care requirements are met in the aircraft being utilized.
Regarding your question about accidents or incidents, I'm aware that there have been some incidents reported. They go through the normal channels, which are the official mechanism for reporting air situations. I don't have the details of those here, but there have been no reported injuries. There are always incidents, and they have gone through the usual channels.
K. Jones: Since the minister has told us there have been some problems with privately operated aircraft used as air ambulances, can he tell us if there have been any similar incidents with government air ambulance services?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I understand there have been incidents within the government air service that have been reported and handled. Again, there were no injuries or anything like that.
Look, by its very nature things like that will happen, and we try to max out in terms of quality assurance. The monitoring program has been there for three years. Four people do the monitoring, and it's our full intention to maintain this quality assurance program through monitoring. The Ministry of Health will be utilizing the private sector in a more advanced way. We now monitor the private sector for 60 percent.... Obviously the quality assurance program will expand its efforts to monitor the rest of the air ambulance services that will be covered by the private sector.
I want to make sure there is no misunderstanding. The safety record of government air services is exemplary; it's excellent. It has set a fine tradition, and I don't want anybody to misunderstand that. There are, like in any operation, incidents. There is a normal procedure to report these, and there is review and investigation of those kinds of incidents.
K. Jones: Thanks to the minister for absolutely nothing in the way of answers.
Could the minister specifically tell us how many incidents there have been in the last two years, or the last year, with regard to Government Air and private operators in air ambulance services under contract?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I will undertake to get you the detailed report of incidents for the last year, which is standard procedure for reporting these kinds of events.
K. Jones: Could the minister be so kind as to give us the information for the last three years, please?
Is the minister aware that one of the difficulties in air operations is that there seems to be a lot of layover time for pilots as they do their operations? Particularly in regard to the air ambulance services, they can be waiting up to two hours or more at various locations. Also, is the minster aware that considerable overtime is earned by some of these paramedics, particularly the ones on the infant transport team? I've got an indication that one of them may have grossed as much as $125,000 in the last year or so. That seems to be more than a deputy minister gets, and I was wondering how that could possibly be occurring. I understand that the pilots are also wondering why they have to wait so long on standby. As a result, they're getting into overtime situations as well. Could you identify what actions you've taken to try to eliminate that extra cost?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The issue you raise is very much in the purview of the Minister of Health, and you really should take up those kinds of issues with the Minister of Health. I can't answer those questions.
K. Jones: Those problems occur in your operations; they're your pilots. They're the ones who are being paid overtime as well. Surely you can't just slough it off to the Minister of Health. It sounds like you really don't care.
Hon. R. Blencoe: They contract; we charge back.
K. Jones: And you really don't care what it costs, eh?
The Chair: Through the Chair, hon. members.
Hon. R. Blencoe: One of the fundamental reasons why we have removed ourselves from the Government Air business are some of the issues you refer to. Again, if there are wait periods, we charge. There is a charge to the Ministry of Health. My understanding is that because of the ambulance, the nature of the injury or the time in getting the patient there, these things often happen. Again, your questions on some of those issues are better directed to the Minister of Health. We are on a charge basis. They contract our planes, and we send the bill.
K. Jones: The minister is saying that he's running a cost-plus operation. That doesn't seem to give assurances that we're getting an efficient operation out of the government air service, and perhaps that's one of the problems.
Does the minister expect, as the government air service is sold off, that it will continue as a union operation?
[10:30]
Hon. R. Blencoe: This is not privatization. We're winding down the service, and we're selling off the assets. There is nothing union or non-union. We're getting out of the business.
K. Jones: Just another question on that subject, and then I'll let you....
If we're getting out of the business, does that mean we're not going to be contracting any work to some other carrier? I think you're going to have to, hon. minister. You can't just say you're closing down any more than a construction company can close down and say it's no longer going to take responsibility for its unionized workers. The labour act states that you have to carry those contracts through to the next operator. How are you going to get around breaking those contracts?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, we're not selling the business. It's not privatization; it's not selling it lock, stock and barrel as a business. We're winding it down, and we're selling off the assets. You'll see some of the ads this weekend. We're simply no longer in the government air business. That is understood by everybody. Tough decisions have to be made. I understand how tough it has been, but that's the decision.
L. Fox: I have a few questions around the quality assurance program. The minister suggested that they're going to continue this program with four employees, as I understand it, who are presently in the program. Are these employees specialists in aircraft, or are they accountant-type people who go around and inspect logbooks, and so on?
[ Page 11931 ]
Hon. R. Blencoe: Of the current four people, three of them are former pilots. Mike Sealey is the head and one of the longest-serving Government Air employees with years of flying, and the fourth person is a mechanic who obviously understands the mechanical issues around airplanes.
L. Fox: Very good, I'm pleased to hear that.
One question, I think, has to be asked. The minister made the point that we now operate this program, and it looks after 60 percent of the air ambulance flights that are presently contracted out to the private sector. One of the things I hoped for in this transition is that we'd see more of those aircraft come from the rural parts of the province and deliver that service. We could in fact see a decentralization of the service, and perhaps through that -- this part of the question is in the Health ministry, and I'll approach that when we get there -- we could use some of the savings by having the actual medical assistance, paramedical people, in the regions come out of the ambulance delivery service there. We would have better utilization of those individuals and help show up the lack of bodies in some of those regions. So I'm kind of hoping we see that decentralization through this contracting out. But what comes to my mind is that we're going to see a situation where these four people are going to be spread awfully thin in terms of adequate service, if in fact it's given in the regions of the province.
One thing that has become evident in terms of monitoring private airlines are the problems MOT has -- the federal ministry. Oftentimes, because of the lack of manpower, the only time they investigate an aircraft is after it has had to report an incident. I would hope that we can give some comfort to the rural parts of the province, which really value this air ambulance service, and that we're going to have an adequate system in place to guarantee the level and quality of service that we have enjoyed through Government Air.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'll try to respond very briefly to the member. I really want to put on the record that I'll be the first to admit that if my good colleague the Minister of Health wishes to correct me, I will not be offended in terms of the information I share with you.
My understanding is that part of the review that is currently underway by the Ministry of Health in terms of preparation for their ambulance requirements is taking a look at the issues you raise, hon. member.
The needs of the province have changed dramatically in terms of the regions, population growth and where the hospitals currently are. As you know, air ambulance was based out of Victoria. It was set up a long time ago in Victoria. Everything was done in Victoria; that was the way things were done. Things are changing. My understanding, from talking to my colleague -- and you can get more information from him -- is that part of his thought is that much of this work could very well be decentralized and put out into the regions, because there's a shift to where it's needed. I think that makes a lot of sense. I don't want to go much further because he can probably share his work on that area with you. I suspect there will be some changes in that area, and I think there has to be, from what my information is. The regions make a lot of sense in terms of a decentralized system.
L. Fox: I appreciate that part of it. I guess my larger question is: how are we going to continue to operate the quality assurance program if it is decentralized, as I hope it will be?
Hon. R. Blencoe: We don't anticipate any problem in that area. As for the expansion of the private sector operators, we fully expect the majority of that will be taken up by the existing companies that already have the contracts. We know their work. There may be one or two new companies that buy in and are successful. But there aren't a lot of companies that actually do this work; there are seven or eight of them in the business. We already audit them all. We know their operations and what they run, and our staff are well versed in the kinds of planes they have, their track records, etc.
There may be more to do in terms of the aircraft they utilize. But in terms of how they operate, their track records and the kinds of things that quality assurance does -- auditing charter companies, checking their aircraft flight times, etc., -- we don't expect a major shift in terms of having massive new research into particular companies. As I say, there are about seven or eight of them in the business, and we currently utilize their services.
L. Fox: Well, that suggests to me something that perhaps will be discussed during the Ministry of Health estimates. The present contractors, as I understand it, that do the 60 percent by and large offer turboprop service rather than jet service. Therefore we're going to look a little less at the quality of service and more at the aircraft itself. There's going to be longer travelling time; and there are going to be certain conditions under which those planes are not as safe as the jets are, and so on. I'm not a specialist in aircraft, and I don't expect the minister to be. These are questions that are being put to me by the people in my constituency. However, I think these questions are best addressed in the Ministry of Health estimates. We're probably both going to have difficulty, because neither of us is that knowledgable about aircraft.
I want to get back briefly to the process that is going to be used in the disposal of the aircraft. Is the ministry looking at engaging the services of a broker in the disposal?
Hon. R. Blencoe: There is lots of interest by brokers. We'll go out to tender, and we will select a broker.
L. Fox: I have one question to follow that. Obviously there have been discussions about the value of the aircraft. In the preparation of your estimates with respect to the disposal, have the brokers given you any indication as to whether the planes are of equal or more value than they were a year ago? Are you in a seller's or a buyer's market for these disposals?
Hon. R. Blencoe: It's hard for me to guess; I don't want to guess the present value compared to a year ago. I'm told that at the end of June the two independent assessments will be available. We're currently having assessments done by two companies that are experts in this field. I have a general comment to make about this. We have good equipment, and we intend to get back as much as we can for this asset. However, we are going to rely on those who do this for a living.
L. Fox: Has there been an estimate of what the total cost will be to pay out all the staff that are going to lose their jobs over the course of the next year? Does the minister have any final estimate as to what that cost is going to be?
Hon. R. Blencoe: We are in the process of dealing with displaced employees; we're working to find them alternative jobs. We have a full system place with expert advisers who are helping us find jobs within and outside of government.
[ Page 11932 ]
We're getting ahead of ourselves for me to estimate the cost. Our intention is to try to minimize it. We want to try to minimize the severance cost by making sure these people move into other jobs. We've already had one pilot hired as a computer person in PSERC. That's the sort of thing we're trying to do to minimize our costs. We have a full-scale program in place on their behalf to help them through this difficult time.
[10:45]
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us how much it is costing to have Murray Axmith provide job-finding services and carry the employees through this transition period? Could the minister also tell us the cost of the...?. I'll wait until you answer that one first.
Hon. R. Blencoe: The member has asked about a very important area. This is one area in which we are trying to minimize the impact on staff by giving them the best information possible on future careers. Murray Axmith Services specializes in seeking out, counselling and checking the skills of the employees and matching them up with other potential jobs, resume preparation, techniques for....
K. Jones: What's the cost, minister? We're not interested in the details.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I just want to make sure you understand that this is a very important component. We have given a budget of up to $60,000 for that contract.
K. Jones: Does their contract include having wine and cheese offerings similar to the Commonwealth Games party put on for the Games employees? Are you giving these employees of Government Air the same type of opportunity to meet with their interested employers?
Hon. R. Blencoe: It's late, and I'm tired. I will resist commenting or making what should be an appropriate response to such a facetious comment. The answer is no.
K. Jones: Hon. Chair, it sounded as if you were taken aback a little by that. I was too.
I find it a very legitimate question to ask. It was well publicized by the Commonwealth Games as a good way of helping their employees to be able to go on to other job opportunities. Why wouldn't it be appropriate to do that for Government Air employees?
Hon. R. Blencoe: You should take up the issue you raised with the Commonwealth Games Society. We have covered that. We are doing our best for these professional and loyal people, who have worked for government for a long time. Quite frankly, I think your comment demeans their efforts on behalf of the people of the province, and I'll put that on record.
K. Jones: Very well. It's your choice. We're just asking legitimate questions the public would like to have answers to.
Could the minister tell us the amount of value the government received from the disposal of the old hangar at the Victoria airport? Is the minister aware that the new operators -- Viking Air, I think -- have now been in the new hangar for about four months? Having spent about $160,000, they now have a hangar that meets all the requirements Government Air required of them to be able to continue to use that space. Instead of spending $800,000 to $1 million a year for ten years, government air services could have remained in there with an expenditure of only $160,000.
Hon. R. Blencoe: We're talking about different circumstances and requirements. They are different air services. I am not well versed on Viking Air, but I know of them. We are running a service that is very much different, particularly the air ambulance. All the advice on the work at the hangar was that there was a major issue in terms of safety. The engineering studies are there.
Regarding the costs and the contract, BCBC is the agent of record for these transactions, as you know. You should take that up with the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for BCBC.
The Chair: I would like to draw everyone's attention to the time. I believe the House is to pull up at 11 p.m. If you're interested in finishing up tonight, you might bear that in mind.
K. Jones: How much more time do we have before we have to be in the other House?
The Chair: Probably five minutes. Seven minutes would be really cutting it fine.
K. Jones: I'd just like to ask a couple of questions to finalize this. Could the minister tell us, with regard to the utilization of government air services, what a Rob Santarossa of Hydro did while he rode around on a Government Air jet chartered on March 22 for budget delivery, as it went from Victoria to Abbotsford, Kamloops, Kelowna, Penticton, Castlegar, Cranbrook and Victoria? Why would there be a Hydro person riding along with the budget delivery?
Just to give you some assistance, I believe that happened to be the day the budget came down, so I presume that was delivering the budget. But why would that person from Hydro be riding with them?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, we were moving the budget around. It's standard procedure; it's done every year. In terms of the Hydro employee, I have no idea, and I will ascertain why. If you have a report there, I'll try to determine -- if indeed it's accurate -- why that Hydro person was riding with the budget.
K. Jones: I hope the air logs are accurate, hon. minister.
Hon. R. Blencoe: According to the Minister of Finance, the only passenger aboard was the Ministry of Finance person who actually delivered the budget. That's the information I have, but I will check into the information you have -- or supposedly have.
K. Jones: I can show the minister a copy of the air logs, which list Rob Santarossa of Hydro.
The Chair: Thanks, hon. member, you can pass that across. I think you had another question you wanted to put.
K. Jones: With regard to freedom of information, hon. minister, could you tell us how you utilized the $6 million budget in the last two years for its implementation?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Sorry, could you repeat your question?
[ Page 11933 ]
K. Jones: For the last two years the ministry had $6 million allocated each year for the implementation of freedom of information. That was in the budget. Could the minister tell us how that money was allocated? And was that money all accounted for in the implementation process, or was it exceeded?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Shifting gears here, the budget money that was referred to by the member is for training and paying staff, and for substantial changes in record management, of course, as we move to a whole new system of information management and sharing information with those who request it. The ministry's FOI coordination for 1993-94 alone is $1.7 million; information and privacy branch, $564,000; corporate projects, $260,000. In that budget you mentioned, we developed the legislation and policy manuals, and information that I've tabled in the House in terms of the policy and procedure manuals -- considerable work.
K. Jones: How much over budget did he go with that in each of the two years?
Hon. R. Blencoe: It was on budget both years.
Vote 39 approved.
Vote 40: ministry operations, $84,011,273 -- approved.
Vote 41: product sales and services, $10 -- approved.
Hon. R. Blencoe: I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 10:57 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]