1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, JUNE 30, 1994
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 17, Number 5
[ Page 12597 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
V. Anderson: This is the last day for the interns. They have given us very effective and efficient service during this year, and we'd like to express our appreciation to those in the area today: Lisa Dumbrell, Kim Chan, Wayne McIlroy and Caroline Welling. Would the House give them our welcome.
J. Sawicki: In the spirit of flexibility that has evolved around the introductions, I would like all members to join me in wishing a special happy birthday to someone we all know and love. That is Ian Fraser, the legislative comptroller, otherwise known as "Dr. No, Member, you can't use your budget for that expenditure."
Mr. Fraser has looked after the assembly budget since 1979, and he became the assembly's first legislative comptroller when the office was set up in 1989. It's a special birthday because it's Mr. Fraser's last as legislative comptroller. Since he will be retiring in October, when the House is not likely to sit, I thought today was a good day for all of us to thank him for his dedication and to wish him well.
The Speaker: On behalf of the members, I'd like to wish Ian well and happy birthday as well.
L. Reid: I would ask the House to join me in welcoming today Matthew Green. Matthew is the grandson of Arthur Ash, who served this House well and ably in 1952 and represented the riding of Saanich in the "Boss" Johnson administration. I'd ask the House to please make him welcome.
Hon. E. Cull tabled the 1992-93 annual report of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1993, in accordance with section 53 of the Financial Administration Act.
Hon. A. Edwards tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources for the year 1992-93.
NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY
F. Gingell: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Today in Nanaimo, sentencing is occurring for what may as well be the New Democratic Party of British Columbia. The charities convicted put money into the NDP in Nanaimo, and it was used for political purposes. Today, will the Deputy Premier finally do what is expected by all British Columbians and demand a full public inquiry into this terrible charity ripoff scheme?
Interjection.
F. Gingell: And that is true.
Hon. E. Cull: As the member knows full well, we are in the middle of this court process right now in Nanaimo. It would be totally inappropriate for me to make any comment at this time, and I will not be making any comment.
The Speaker: Does the member have a new question?
F. Gingell: This morning the special prosecutor in Nanaimo said that the Gaming Commission was concerned about the lack of charity money finding its way to the appropriate destination. Ace Henderson said that $60,000 was funnelled into the Nanaimo Duncan Labour Memorial Society, which never registered and which turned around....
The Speaker: Order, please. Would the hon. member please take his seat.
The Attorney General rises on a point of order?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, as members know, the matter was before the court this morning; it's still before the courts. The judge is the person who draws conclusions from the evidence being presented. This is sub judice, and no questions should be asked in this House.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. Would the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston please take his seat.
Hon. members, the point of order raised by the Attorney General is a matter of serious concern, I'm sure, for all members. When it is suggested to the House that a matter is sub judice, it is incumbent upon the Chair to respect the chief law officer of the province with regard to that matter. I would therefore have to rule that the matter cannot be visited, in light of the Attorney General's comments.
LAND CLAIMS NEGOTIATIONS
A. Warnke: My question is for the Attorney General. Yesterday the Minister of Employment and Investment stated: "We'll have no closed-door private meetings on this or any other question." That is a sentiment shared by every British Columbian concerning the federal and provincial governments and aboriginal communities arranging settlements at everyone's expense. People with concerns about private property rights or ranchers who depend on Crown lands for grazing are also concerned. Will the Attorney General also state in very clear terms that no behind-closed-door deals will be made, that all people will be fully informed and especially that those directly affected will be full participants in the final settlements?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'll take the question on notice for the minister responsible.
RETRAINING FOR FORESTRY WORKERS
L. Reid: It was reported that the MLA for Comox Valley somehow suggested that apprentice shoe repair is an appropriate solution for thousands of soon-to-be-unemployed forestry workers on Vancouver Island. My question is to the Deputy Premier. Your colleague's comments do nothing but infuriate and frustrate people in resource communities across this province. Unlike the NDP, they know that it takes more than retraining to create wealth and jobs. Can you honestly tell resource-dependent families in this province that you support the ludicrous comments made by that member of your government?
[ Page 12598 ]
Hon. E. Cull: This government will see the investment of $2 billion in our forest communities over the next five years, which will make sure that all of the workers in those communities continue to be employed in the forest industry.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
L. Reid: One year ago this government gave over $50 million to the Elk Valley for retraining displaced miners. Today we know that all of that $50 million has been spent, yet 1,000 miners are still without work. Retraining on its own does nothing to create employment or expand the economy. When will the minister terminate this jaunt through the Enchanted Forest and come back to the reality of the unemployed who happen to be on Vancouver Island today and who want an answer from this government?
Hon. E. Cull: I suggest that the member go back and have a closer look at the forest renewal strategy -- which her party did not support -- because there's far more in that strategy than retraining. There is intensive silviculture and support for value-added manufacturing. There are all kinds of jobs in the forest sector, to ensure that our forest industry remains vibrant and growing in the future.
ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND ESL FUNDING
R. Neufeld: My question is to the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism. Yesterday the Premier announced that provincial exams will be offered for Mandarin and Japanese in 1995, and for Punjabi in 1996. He also said that such second-language instruction will become mandatory for grades 5 to 7. Given the current dire shortage of funding available for ESL programs, can the minister tell us how his government intends to adequately fund this initiative?
[2:15]
Hon. M. Sihota: As all members should know, British Columbia leads the way in Canada in terms of economic performance. We are number one in Canada in job creation, and one of the reasons we lead the way in economic growth and development is our strong tie with the Asia-Pacific markets. In order for us to maintain our economic advantage and remain globally competitive, we have to make sure that we are proficient in the languages that our trading partners speak.
Hence, hon. member, the initiative -- which we're proud of -- on the part of this administration to make sure that opportunities are provided for young British Columbians to learn how to speak Japanese, Mandarin and Punjabi. Obviously, if we are to introduce those initiatives, then we will provide the requisite funding to make sure that our young people have the skills necessary to speak those languages, and that we maintain our economic prosperity and advantage here in British Columbia.
The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
R. Neufeld: We strongly agree that B.C. students should be encouraged to learn other languages, particularly the Asian and Punjabi languages. But as things stand today, there isn't nearly enough funding or enough focus on teaching English adequately, not only as a second language but as a primary language. Will the minister at least commit that any new money earmarked for expanded language instruction will be matched dollar for dollar with money for improved English instruction?
Hon. M. Sihota: The budget for education under this administration has increased by 12 percent over the last two years, if memory serves me right. In fact, hon. member, we are the only government in Canada that has been able to increase education funding two years in a row since coming into office. No other government can match the progressive record that we as an administration have for increasing funding in education. Again, hon. member, we lead the way in Canada, and we're proud of it.
PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS
W. Hurd: I have a question for the Deputy Premier. It's amazing what some of the government private members are saying in the media these days. The member for Nelson-Creston was quoted as saying the time has come to abandon our current notion of property rights in the province. He said: "Do we believe, as a hundred years ago, that private property is a kingdom? Or has the time come to move past that ethic?" My question to the Deputy Premier is: does she support her backbencher's call for a revolutionary change in property rights in the province, or will she disavow it here and now?
The Speaker: The hon. member has another question?
W. Hurd: I've been advised to ask the Attorney General this question, as he has some strong feelings about private property rights. Given that the member for Nelson-Creston is also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Forests, will the Attorney General stand in the House today and commit himself to his longstanding support of private property rights in the province? And will he disavow these kinds of statements from a parliamentary secretary and a member of his caucus?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's obvious this week and particularly today that this session is just about over, judging by the questions.
PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENTS ON FISHING RESORTS
C. Tanner: I have a question for the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. Mr. Minister, the fishing resort industry is frustrated that the government doesn't value their economic contribution to British Columbia. Sandra Millar, the president of the B.C. Fishing Resorts and Outfitters' Association, has stated that increased assessments and fees will cost the industry $200,000. How can the minister support the suffocation of these small businesses for the tourists of this province, which generate many jobs and millions of needed dollars?
Hon. B. Barlee: The fishing industry is probably going to feel the impact of our long-term strategies. Our total income in tourism will jump from $5.6 billion this year to $6.1 billion. That's a gargantuan jump, and we're fractionally ahead of that. I just travelled across to the Sunshine Coast the other day and addressed 87 members, I think, of the chamber of commerce, which was a significant turnout. I travelled with the owner of an airline. The owner of the airline says the fishing business is so good that his revenues will jump from $6.4 million this year to $10 million. I think they're doing fairly well.
The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. member.
[ Page 12599 ]
C. Tanner: This minister answers questions in the House at question period the same way he answers in estimates. He doesn't give any answers. Lip service and promises are not what the fishing resort industry need.
On June 15 the Minister of Environment said the Assessment Authority was reviewing the matter of assessments at that time. In five days the taxes are due, and the industry has not yet been contacted. Can the minister explain why no one in the fishing resort industry is being consulted as part of the review of the assessments? Is it due to the minister's incompetence or indifference?
Hon. B. Barlee: I read those letters yesterday, of course, and they are reviewing this. I also went over the figures yesterday, and it's really quite dramatic. You may not have heard of the Discover B.C. program, but we have about 23 people manning that program, and calls have gone up by 61 percent this year.
Some Hon. Members: Staffing!
Hon. B. Barlee: Excuse me. They're staffing that program. I beg to be corrected.
I believe that the fishing resort industry and all other resort industries are really quite happy. Their average revenues are up by between 12 and 14 percent already this year, and this isn't the height of the season.
COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY NEGOTIATIONS
G. Wilson: This government entered into an interim agreement with respect to the Columbia River Treaty, virtually unreported and unnoticed. This is a multibillion-dollar deal for the people of British Columbia. Will the minister tell us what process is in place now for public input with respect to the disposition of those funds, and whether there is a commitment to have those funds put back into the Kootenay region and those communities that suffered as a result of the Columbia River Treaty and the dams that were constructed?
Hon. A. Edwards: As I have said a number of times -- and I'm sorry the member didn't hear it -- we are in negotiation with the United States about the return of the downstream benefit entitlement. We have reached no agreement at this point.
The Speaker: The member has a further question?
G. Wilson: In light of the fact that this is a multibillion-dollar deal that is going to impact the lives of many British Columbians and the economy of this province in an unprecedented way, will the minister today commit to a public process with respect to the disposition of those funds once that agreement has been made?
Hon. A. Edwards: We have already had a number of public meetings dealing with this in the Columbia area. We have discussed it with other people throughout the province. It certainly has been open to a lot of public discussion. There's no question that there will be public input about what will happen when we reach a negotiated settlement with the Americans under the treaty.
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I think there's agreement -- but I'll just test the House, if I could -- that we waive the summary debate on the Ministry of Environment estimates. Almost all of that estimates debate was conducted in the House, which would not have required a summary debate. So, just for the record....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. The Government House Leader has put the question that leave be granted to waive the report. Shall leave be granted?
Leave granted.
Hon. G. Clark: Do we need a subsequent motion to waive the report? No. I got the high sign. So I'll call Committee of Supply.
The House in Committee of Supply B; W. Hartley in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT AND INVESTMENT
(continued)
On vote 24: ministry operations, $443,523,600 (continued).
Hon. G. Clark: Mr. Chair, I'd like to introduce to the House.... Everybody knows Deputy Minister Frank Rhodes and Deborah George, who is the assistant deputy minister responsible for science and technology. As I understand it, there's another ten minutes or so on the Transportation Financing Authority, and then we'll move on to science and technology. We may not need any more staff for the TFA; if we do, we'll be happy to call them.
D. Symons: These questions are ones I asked the Highways minister. She referred them to the minister responsible for the Transportation Financing Authority, because that's where the answers come from, apparently. When I was asking three or four questions about funding for certain projects, the Highways minister kept referring to the fact that that wasn't within her purview and that I would have to ask this minister.
One figure we were asking for was the amount of money going into the rehabilitation of highways. It turned out that there was a $40 million difference between what was in the ministry books and what they were going to spend. She said that other $40 million.... I was complaining about the fact that they are underspending on rehabilitation -- the good-roads-cost-less process -- and that it should be a lot more than this government is putting into it. She explained that there was more money coming from the Transportation Financing Authority. I simply asked the very obvious question, which was: "Which projects are going to be financed through the Transportation Financing Authority?" From the answer, I got the distinct impression that they didn't know.
So I'm asking the minister now to supply -- maybe it would be too difficult to do right now -- the rehabilitation projects the ministry is funding. While you are at it, we wouldn't mind having the other projects -- the capital expenditures -- that are being funded through the
[ Page 12600 ]
Transportation Financing Authority. This is probably something you'll take on notice, but I'd appreciate a list of them.
Hon. G. Clark: I can try to get the information for the member, but let me explain. It is a bit subjective, and I think there is some debate. In other words, when does a major rehabilitation project become a new capital project? Sometimes the rehab, if you will, of a two-lane road becomes a three-lane or something, and qualifies as new construction. That's where there's an overlap. There is some debate about that question, now that there's a new.... There always has been debate within the Ministry of Transportation and Highways about what's allocated under new construction and what's allocated under rehabilitation. But we're developing guidelines on that question. Even when you develop the guidelines -- and that's information I can provide for the member -- there is still a subjective test based on the specifics of any particular project.
D. Symons: I'd appreciate that, because the answer I got was that some would be coming in due course. I hope your due course is not too long.
[2:30]
Could the minister tell me what interest rate is being worked out? When you come up with a $1.1 billion price for the Island Highway project, you have obviously worked in the fact that you're borrowing now and are going to recover it through taxation later on. You've worked in an interest rate, I'm sure. What interest rate are you working on? If interest rates go up, is the price going to be more than $1.1 billion?
Hon. G. Clark: We don't have the exact rate here, and I'm not absolutely certain. It's based on the provincial treasury's forecast of interest rates, and they tend to be very conservative. But I'll be happy to get that for the member.
D. Symons: There seems to be an upward pressure on interest rates in Canada. Indeed, if your estimates are low, that $1.1 billion could be considerably affected by that. That's one thing I was wondering about.
I'll go to the Island Highway and the highway contractors' agreements and the particular one that deals with the Operating Engineers. In OP.121, there's vacation and statutory holiday pay. Then we skip on to OP.130 -- health and welfare, and pension plan funds. Then it says: "Contributions shall be made at the rate of $1.55 per hour to the Operating Engineers' health and welfare plan." Is that the same as the Medical Services Plan and a dental plan, or is this something in addition to MSP?
Hon. G. Clark: I didn't negotiate the details of the agreements, so I honestly don't know. But in most cases, the building trades unions are essentially different than other unions, where the union negotiates with the employer to pay in certain benefits, and then the employer provides those benefits. In the building trades unions, because they work for multiple employers, the union itself manages the benefit packages by charging employers a fee -- a dollar an hour, $2 an hour or $1.50 an hour. It goes to the union, and then the union buys benefits accordingly. In fact, they adjust the benefits down if they can't achieve what they want. So that's the normal process. I'm not sure of the details that the member is talking about, but I'm quite sure that out of that money, the union, on behalf of their members, would then pay Medical Services Plan premiums and buy dental or whatever else was incorporated.
D. Symons: Thank you for the openness, at least, of the answer that you're not sure, but I would appreciate it if you would look into that and send the answer back. Tied in with section 130, which I referred to -- the Operating Engineers' health and welfare and pension plan funds -- is section 132, which says: "Contributions shall be made at the rate of $2.50 per hour to the Operating Engineers' pension plan." The words "pension plan" seem to come up in two places. An operating engineer expressed some concerns to me about that section, asking me if I realize that by the time they get their plan vested, the engineer will only be working on a small project and will never get it vested. There's an awful lot of money going into the Operating Engineers' pension plan that never really will go into pensions for those engineers who are working on that highway project. They are not going to be working long enough on any given project for it to become vested. Therefore they're contributing to a fund that will do very nicely for the few operating engineers that are able to draw from it, because a whopping amount of money will be going in there from all the others that are doing small projects over a short period of time and will never get to the figure where they end up being able to collect on the pension plan. Through our taxes, all of us are paying for that on the Island Highway -- this money that's going into pension plans that many of the people paying into it are, in a sense, never going to be able to collect from.
Hon. G. Clark: I think it's important.... The member keeps making this distinction of the Island Highway. Pretty well all roads in British Columbia have been built by the government, regardless of who was in power and under what structure. Almost all the roads in British Columbia were built by building trades unions. In the last five years that's changed a bit, but all of the roads were built, and the Operating Engineers were one of the three unions that did most of the construction. So there's no distinction. The taxpayers are paying for these collective agreements indirectly in the sense that these union companies are winning and they're paying.
If an individual Operating Engineers member has a complaint about the operation of the pension plan, then they have to take it to their union and complain. It's not for us to be dealing with that question. We picked up the clauses that are negotiated in the private sector and are paid into it. I will, though, undertake to get information for the member if I can, in terms of whether there's some wording -- pensions done twice.... But with respect to any individual who has a complaint, there are probably lots of individuals who have complaints, and they have a democratic process which they can follow to air those complaints. If they're not satisfied, they even have a process at the Labour Relations Board and can file a complaint if they don't think the union has represented them well. That's the appropriate forum, not the employer and not in the House.
D. Symons: I would tend to differ somewhat because the government set up something called Highway Constructors Ltd. Indeed, I would think that if they're going to insist that all the workers except for the five that an employer.... Prior to our lunch break, you made the comment that it's open to all people. Well, what's not open is that an employer or an owner can bid on a project, but once they've got the project they can only bring five employees along. All the rest basically have to go through the union hiring hall. The employer can have a large crew of people he's worked with for years, and they've worked well together as a unit; but
[ Page 12601 ]
those people aren't going to be the ones under the employer's control, supposedly, if that particular bid happens to be won.
I would think that when the government is setting up this highways contractors' agreement and is going to say it's unionized, it simply doesn't say, "Well, bring all your union agreements," and that's it. You would take a look at what exactly you're setting up, what exactly the government of British Columbia is paying for. I find it a little inconsistent if you're saying that we would simply take those agreements and say we're not responsible. You are responsible. You're using taxpayers' dollars to pay for whatever was in those agreements, and I would think it would be incumbent upon this government to see what was in the agreements. In that sense, I believe there is some responsibility on the part of the minister.
If we carry on in that agreement, in there is the statement that the fair-wage policy was to hold, and also that if there's any conflict between the fair-wage policy and that particular highway contractors' agreement, the highway contractors' agreement stood. Now I hear that it's changed, and that what stands is not the highway contractors' agreement or necessarily the fair-wage one, but the collective agreement.
I'm wondering what happens now, if the collective agreement applies, to the $2 differential that this minister kept on repeating was the great saving we were getting because instead of paying full union rates, we're paying $2 less than that and we're saving money for the people of British Columbia. Granted, we're paying somewhat near the union rates rather than the non-union rates, which would be even lower than that, but we could have saved more if we went non-union. Does that $2 differential -- the saving that you kept touting -- disappear if the collective agreement applies?
Hon. G. Clark: I don't quite understand what the member is saying. Fair wages apply. What happened in this collective agreement was that the wage rates were cut down to the fair-wage level, essentially. There is a little more than fair wages on the benefits and pensions side of the arrangement, the apprenticeship training and that, but the wage rates came down to fair wages. They cannot come lower than fair wages, because we have a policy with respect to that. Therefore they're exactly the same as they would be if it was under the non-union sector.
D. Symons: I was under the impression -- and you can correct me if I'm wrong, because I would like to be corrected if I am wrong -- that the fair wage was out and the collective agreement was in; the collective agreement took precedence. Therefore if the collective agreement was more than the fair wage, you're going for the collective agreement payment of salaries. Is that not correct?
Hon. G. Clark: You're right. There was some confusion initially around that. The collective agreement is prevailing, but only because in this case the overall package was complex and negotiated in.... So there's some variance from the fair wages -- some a little lower than fair wages and some a little higher than others. Because it was a negotiated agreement, the benefits were higher.
In a couple of cases the wages were a little lower, so in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour it was decided that, in the Island Highway project, the collective agreement would prevail so that there would be some certainty in bidding. In the first round of bidding there was some confusion around that, and some people would argue that they should take the highest common denominator. In fact, the employer, HCL, requested that in fact they take the collective agreement as prevailing, because of the trade-offs that took place in that process.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
D. Symons: I gather that some of the figures we were given before by the minister, because he was referring constantly to the fair-wage agreement and saying that won't quite apply anymore.... This might change the overall cost, then, because you were giving us these savings by going this particular agreement route, based on some figures or agreements that are changed now.
Also, if we can move on to the first contract, I believe the Little Qualicum bridge was the first contract let under Highway Constructors Ltd. That's not up and running, from what I can gather. There were some difficulties with that first contract; the low bid had some difficulties. And you found some other problems with the others. It's been opened up again, I believe. I'm wondering if you've got any contract now under that contractor where the contract has been let and the work has begun.
Hon. G. Clark: Yes, the contract has been let. The member is correct that in fact the union company was the low bid and withdrew. I think the second-lowest bid was from Peter Kiewit and Sons, which is actually with the General Workers' Union or something -- a different union. As I understand it, they were awarded the contract last week.
L. Reid: I'm pleased to enter into debate on the Employment and Investment estimates, as they pertain to funding and nurturing, if you will, the research and development industry in this province. I'd like to start particularly with the biotechnology industry.
Ernst and Young very recently released their third report on Canadian biotechnology. They're calling it Biotech 94: Capitalizing on Potential. It's suggesting that the industry is making some progress in Canada and in British Columbia, frankly, but that the companies, the government and all the partners in the process have to do more to ensure that the industry does thrive and continue to employ British Columbia graduates, etc. They speak specifically of buoyant financing vehicles -- whether that kind of funding can be put in place -- and whether government can have a useful role in some kind of competitive regulatory-environment exercise. I ask the minister to comment, because I think those two items particularly are the building blocks for whether we launch a very productive, viable industry or continue to have government perhaps impede the progress of some of the finest minds in this province.
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I very much appreciate the tone of the comments. Generally, I really agree with what the member is saying. Let me just paraphrase, to make sure I've got this right, though. You're saying there are really two areas: one is financing and the other is the regulatory environment. Governments have a role to play in both of them. Right?
There are other things we could add to that, which we're trying to do. There are skills training initiatives, to try to fit people into a new, growing area. We're providing some capital, physical assets; I guess that could come in the way of financing. But as you know, in the case of the recently announced pharmaceutical lab, the Merck Frosst building, the government is essentially contributing a physical asset,
[ Page 12602 ]
which we continue to own but which is being used by Merck Frosst. There are things other than those two. Today I'm especially prepared to say that I think you're right: those are two key elements in promoting a biotechnology industry. We're working with the federal government on an ERDA infrastructure project. We've got some new DEI -- Discovery Enterprises -- funds, with a biotechnology focus, and we're active with the Ministry of Environment on regulatory matters.
[2:45]
Let me just talk about the financing side for a second. DEI was restructured recently. We're looking at a venture capital fund that focuses on promoting biotechnology. Secondly, we in the Ministry of Finance -- and now with this ministry as well -- established what we call the B.C. Focus fund, which will try to provide venture capital and merchant mezzanine financing: next-level financing for high technology. It's for other firms as well, but some of them focus on high technology.
It's important from the government's perspective.... There's a debate in the industry now, and I would be interested in the member's comments on this. Should the government be getting into start-up loans and other loans and loan guarantees for the high-tech sector generally, which is highly risky and hard to go to the bank for? That's high-tech as opposed to biotechnology. We've resisted that, to be frank. We've said: "Look, that's a very tough game to get into." Other governments are doing it, but we prefer to partner with the private sector. We'll put some money up, and the private sector matches it and manages it. That's been the model we've followed, and many in the community have been very supportive of that.
Nevertheless, even though we've done that and I agree with it, people are now coming and saying: "Okay, you've done that, but some of these funds are supposed to be focusing on high-tech and biotechnology, but they're very conservative, and they're not actually giving any money out." So there's still some pressure to look at creative ways in which the government can help these start-up firms. We're certainly prepared to look at that, and we are very interested in any models, but we're very reluctant to get directly into lending or giving money, even though you can actually make a reasonably good case. That's the financing side, and we can talk more about it.
There are some big issues on the regulatory side that are a bit more challenging. We have patent protection legislation and federal legislation and federal issues involved, so where can the province play a role on the regulatory side? We think we can. We are working with the Ministry of Environment, because sometimes there are some very important environmental regulations that we want to work on to make sure they work for industry as well as for the Ministry of Environment. But some of the bigger challenges are at the federal level, and they are harder for the province to play a role in.
L. Reid: I appreciate that the minister concurs that one of the economic drivers is whether or not we have a strong base in science and technology. To look at biotechnology as one aspect of that discussion is useful for today -- not to restrict the discussion to financing vehicles and to regulatory processes, because I completely concur with the minister when he talks about infrastructure. Indeed, a number of smaller R and D firms could benefit from government funding that creates some laboratories, centres or product assembly plants, if you will. They can all participate and take advantage of that kind of infrastructure. I would support that notion, because I think it is about a partnership, and it is about asking government to participate in the process. Am I asking government to give money to this exercise? No, but I think we could certainly look to government creating a better climate for lending those kinds of dollars.
If it goes to the full extent of a loan guarantee, I would support that, because I think there are some opportunities for government to take some very fine decisions that will translate into jobs for British Columbians. Research suggests that for every $35,000 you put into a research climate, you create at least one if not more jobs for British Columbians, and you create concentric circles, if you will, of associated industries and of people who want to reside in British Columbia and give back to the scientific community.
On that point, the minister and I both attended the conference at the University of British Columbia, at TRIUMF, about the future of the KAON project. If that project is not destined to go forward in our lifetime, we're looking to see this government create, nurture and value a range of smaller projects so that we can take advantage of some of the funding opportunities available. I would ask the minister to comment on some of the partnerships around western diversification funding. Even as recently as June 10, a number of dollars came into this province through the western diversification fund for a specific biotechnology enterprise. I'm wondering if the minister has plans to encourage more western diversification dollars for British Columbia.
Hon. G. Clark: We are actually doing a lot of work in the biotechnology area. If the question was regarding a replacement for KAON, the short answer is yes, we are very interested in pursuing some biotechnology initiatives. But before we do that, there is what we call the old ERDA program. We're working hard to finalize an agreement for some financing for biotechnology industries. We're not quite there yet -- and I don't have all the details, although I can provide them for the member -- but I think we're close to an agreement. That will be a significant advantage. As you probably know, the British Columbia government funds the Biotechnology Alliance. About $230,000 a year is almost fully funded by the province. They're doing some very interesting work.
Beyond those two specific initiatives -- we were putting some money in and we have a chance for a fairly major amount from the old ERDA program -- when we look to offsets or other opportunities where we could try to convince the federal government to participate, we think there are some very interesting opportunities on the biotechnology side. I'm not really prepared to get into any more detail than that today, but we are looking at some interesting areas.
On the pharmaceutical and biotechnology side, Toronto and Montreal really have the critical mass that the member was talking about. We are really getting there; it's growing very fast here. We're really excited -- and I know the member is -- about this growth industry and about how it helps the economy. We're not quite there yet, but we think there's some real potential -- the winning of the Nobel prize by Dr. Smith, essentially in the field of biotechnology, and the profile that that has given us; the funding he is providing, which our government and the federal government are matching; the centres of excellence, which are funding biotechnology; research and development under Technology B.C., which has some biotechnology focus; and the Biomedical Research Centre at UBC as well. I think it's fair to say -- and you'll see this from this government's economic strategy -- that we really see this as a growth area
[ Page 12603 ]
that we can build upon, with some government assistance to get that critical mass so that it can start to take off.
One of the attractions of B.C. is the tremendous number of amenities we have. It's a beautiful place to live, and there's a high quality of education and services. We shouldn't undersell that in terms of our ability to compete internationally for very talented people who might want to live in this magnificent part of the world and produce world-class science.
L. Reid: Just as an aside, I would ask the minister to kindly share with me, at some future point, background information on the B.C. Focus fund. I would certainly appreciate that.
In terms of whether or not the government has a role to play in enhancing research and development, I would certainly look at telecommunications, the creation of medical equipment in this province and particularly animation. I think that all of those are new technologies, new knowledge-based industries, and are about how we create those opportunities for British Columbia graduates. Could the minister kindly comment?
Hon. G. Clark: We're doing all of that. I don't know if you've been reading our material or what, or if we've been leaking some of our material. You said it well. There are some really interesting opportunities in British Columbia that we're very high on. The animation side is interesting in a variety of ways. There's Electronic Arts in Burnaby and UBC's MAGIC program -- I'm not sure what the acronym stands for. There are lots of opportunities in the areas you mentioned.
On the telecommunications side, I've gone on some trade missions. MPR Teltech here in B.C. is a world leader in telecommunication switching technology, doing world-class research, and there are some other areas. The Advanced Systems Institute, as well, is something that we're working on. All of this means that we see this part.... It hasn't got a lot of attention, and in some ways it's not quite as attractive as a big highway project or something. But in reality -- and I don't have any hesitation saying this -- it is actually far more important to the future of the province. The Premier talks about it, and all of us talk generally about knowledge-based, Pacific Rim, value-added industry. Well, this sector is the key component to take us the next step in the of development of our economy. The forest sector and the forest renewal plan is critical, but biotechnology and high technology related to the forest sector really give us a chance to add value in a major way to the B.C. economy. We see it as a key part of the government's economic strategy. All of the things the member mentioned are under active consideration.
The one thing she hasn't mentioned -- maybe she will in a minute -- is the whole information highway question. We have a major initiative underway with a variety of ministries and Crown corporations. This ministry is the lead ministry and Deborah George is the lead staff person who is pulling this together to see how the provincial government can work with the private sector to really development the electronic highway in British Columbia. Incidentally, we're doing the work and we're already, before we've really started, the most advanced of all provinces in Canada on the electronic highway. So we think there is easy opportunity for further work there.
L. Reid: The minister has raised some interesting items in debate and I thank him for his comments on the information highway. I'm sure we would have come to that this afternoon. It needs to be said that the industries looking to participate in the information highway will not always have the dollars to purchase the hardware. Indeed, if government can look at some of those initiatives, I don't believe there is tremendous uncertainty about them. I think there's tremendous certainty about the need for that and the ability for British Columbians to participate in it.
I commented earlier, hon. minister, on the initiatives you may be undertaking regarding the western diversification fund. Could you comment on that?
Hon. G. Clark: I forgot that, but Deborah George and Frank Rhodes met with Western Economic Diversification staff this week on the very question of the higher-technology sector. I've met with the minister, Lloyd Axworthy. They're refocusing the WD fund away from grants and loans to companies down to smaller companies. It's fair to say that the federal government is interested in broader initiatives that can help develop the economy. I'm in the early stages of pursuing whether the WD and the federal government want to participate with us in some initiatives around the high technology sector that we think could be beneficial.
L. Reid: I appreciated the minister's comments on B.C. Research in terms of value-added for the forest sector. Their experimental seedling program is certainly a tremendous advantage for British Columbia. I think they can actually take that technology and apply it in a number of different countries and hopefully regain some dollars from it. I would support that.
My other questions this afternoon revolve around the Science Council. It was my understanding that this government slashed the funding for the Science Council fairly significantly. I would be interested in the rationale for that decision and where that funding status currently sits.
Hon. G. Clark: In the first couple of years we had to make some tough fiscal funding decisions across government. The science and technology fund was cut fairly significantly because it is one of the few discretionary areas of government. It's not locked into a program; it's essentially grants given for research.
I don't make any apology for that. We have to deal with trade-offs in the fiscal environment that we're in. I feel very positively that -- I'm not sure everyone would agree with this -- it forced the Science Council, the science community and ministry responsible for science and technology to really refocus their efforts and rethink what they were doing in a more cost-effective way. Now that there has been that downsizing, a strategic plan for science is being developed, people are working hard and I think everybody is really getting much more focused. We've now increased the funding for science and technology in this last budget by about 10 percent. That's not restoring some of the cuts that were made in the last couple of years, but I think we've got a more effective approach.
I also believe what I said earlier: really, in this day and age, there have to be partnerships with the private sector. We can't just go around giving grants anymore. Even if we can make an argument that it creates jobs, etc., we have to look at partnerships with the private sector. That's what we've been trying to do: refocus it sharper, make it less vulnerable to cuts in the future, have a strategic plan that everybody buys into as part of our economic strategy and then fund that strategic plan. That's what we tried to do.
[ Page 12604 ]
L. Reid: I certainly support the minister's contention that it needs to be a partnership. I'm wondering if that discussion has happened directly with the Science Council. In talking about a partnership with the Science Council and a partnership for funding dollars, is the Science Council going to be operating in a different fashion in terms of being able to bring in private dollars in addition to government dollars?
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, the answer is yes. They have the power under the act now to seek private sector funding. In fact, if anything, I'm encouraging them to do so. We've invited them to be part of the budget process so they can participate in it rather than just be, if you will, vulnerable, or outside and independent. We want them to be part of the science and technology agenda of the government.
[3:00]
L. Reid: The minister talked about the rationale for cutting the budget of the Science Council. The minister talks about that being discretionary funding; to me that's kind of visionary funding or funding for the future. If we continue to cut it, I'm not clear that we will be able to continue providing job or career opportunities for British Columbians. I think that's the issue today. We graduate some very fine individuals from our colleges, universities and institutes.
The minister made note of Michael Smith. Certainly his receipt of the Nobel prize was a glorious, wonderful thing for British Columbia. Yet we tend to take away the dollars that are in fact the building blocks which will at some point create another Michael Smith for this province. They will create other opportunities. I appreciate that the minister considers it discretionary; I consider it to be a building block that's part of a commitment. The commitment has to be stronger than a discussion in the Legislature; the commitment has to be whether or not government is committed to putting in place some of those building blocks. I trust that the commitment is there and that it will be evident in the actions over the next six to 12 months. I think we are at a turning point for the future of biotechnology in this province and for the future of basic research and development.
The minister commented earlier about Merck Frosst giving $15 million. Then -- it certainly was the notion in the field -- the government smacked them in terms of allowing some other patent discussion to go on when their issue had not been properly addressed through the courts. There are some mixed messages, if you will, and some differing signals about how welcome new research and development and the pharmaceutical industry are to British Columbia. I trust that the minister is in a welcoming mood this afternoon and can suggest that British Columbia is open for business and that it will put in place some of the structures that will encourage industry to come to this province. I would ask the minister to comment.
Hon. G. Clark: I hope that's not the case. The member may be reflecting what she's hearing, so I don't discount that. We've been working hard to make sure they are welcome. We had a pharmaceutical forum, which had more attendees than we've ever had before in B.C. There is growth in the industry, and we've been very supportive of it. But we have tried to be tougher on the fiscal side as we get some focus.
I hope I didn't mislead the members by saying there's discretionary funding for science and technology. Research is not discretionary funding -- I agree with the member -- but some discretionary components were cut. Should Teck Corp. get $100,000 from the government for a research grant? Should Cominco get $100,000 for a research grant? Those kinds of things are what we are questioning, not the basic science and technology or centres of excellence. None of that was cut by this administration. None of the laboratory work by Michael Smith or anybody else was cut. Only a small part of the science and technology fund, which had some discretion in it, was cut, refocused and now enhanced. I think it has really sharpened the strategic focus for science and technology.
I've been working hard in the last six months, and I hope the signals have been very positive for the industry. There has been some increased funding. I've been trying to keep that part of our economic strategy. I share the member's enthusiasm for the sector, and I hope that's penetrating out there. I think it is, from the feedback I'm receiving. I think we've got great things in store in British Columbia in this sector.
L. Reid: Perhaps I'll put the last two questions together and some discussion can occur. I have some questions about the future of industry champions in the province. Certainly there are individuals today who support differing sectors of the science and technology field. Is there some discussion around increasing the number of industry champions? Is there a discussion about some certainty around the funding for those advocates, if you will, for differing sectors of the industry?
If I can tie in my second question as well, it refers to what I think is indeed a fine model in Quebec, which looks at ensuring that a certain percentage of their health care budget and other budgets goes directly to funding science and technology. There's a formula there, and some expectation for the industry in terms of what matching dollars they can count on. Has that discussion occurred in British Columbia? If it has not, is it the minister's intention to put in place some reasonable expectation around research and development funding so that industry coming to British Columbia can get a better handle on where they need to take their new ideas and thoughts, and hopefully choose British Columbia? Could the minister kindly comment?
Hon. G. Clark: With respect to the latter question, we do not have an index relationship. It's an interesting one. I am advised by my deputy that apparently something like that exists in Quebec, and I'll take a look at it.
With respect to the question of champions, the Science Council of B.C. determines the number of champions. We haven't cut their funding. They tend to focus and phase them out after a couple of years. But it's really up to them, and we haven't interfered in their decision-making in that regard.
L. Reid: I would simply thank the minister, because I hope that the passion around science and technology in this province will continue. I would certainly like to see it continue in relation to the Ministry of Health. I think it is going to be the industry that drives the economy. Certainly, in terms of skills and training, we want people working in this province and, once they have graduated from some of the finest institutions in the world, to be able to apply those skills and promote some wealth within British Columbia. I thank the minister for his comments.
W. Hurd: I have a brief series of questions about the sustainable communities fund that was set up by the government a couple of years -- and a couple of budgets -- ago. I was interested to see that there appears to be little activity with respect to the fund, and I wonder if the minister
[ Page 12605 ]
could briefly update this committee on where the fund is going, what activities it might have undertaken in the last fiscal year and whether he anticipates any drawdown on the fund in the current fiscal year.
Hon. G. Clark: I'm just going from memory, so I hope I'll be corrected. Last year we spent $1.5 million from the natural resource community fund, which largely went to two communities: Elk Falls and Granisle. We have applications in from Trail and.... There are eight communities potentially identified for funding, but we actually have applications, I'm sure, from two: Trail and Stewart. This is largely a contingency fund that's not designed to provide ongoing funding. It's for single-industry towns that downsize. We don't want to fully allocate at the beginning of the year. We want it to be there in case there are contingencies or if a single-industry town gets into some crisis. We have lots of applications. We look at them carefully. We intend, I think, to spend probably a little more this year than last year, but probably not too much more.
W. Hurd: I know we'll get into the vote about the job protection commissioner shortly, but can the minister advise us whether access to the fund is governed by a recommendation from the job protection commissioner? Does it usually follow involvement by the job protection commissioner, or does the fund act unilaterally at times upon request from regional districts, local governments or individual communities?
Hon. G. Clark: Yes, it's more than just the job protection commissioner, although obviously that would be very influential in terms of our decision-making. But the regional development officers, the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, and communities come forward. Trail is a good example; it will be a difficult decision. Trail has had some significant downsizing, and we've saved the smelter. The question is whether or not they should be eligible for resource community funding. You can make an argument on both sides of that. We'll have to weigh it and make a decision.
W. Hurd: I have just one final question. In terms of access to the natural resource community fund, is the percentage of the local economy that depends on the natural resource used as a guide? Is it over 50 percent? I'm just wondering whether communities in the province that would be affected by reductions in the annual allowable harvest, for example, might be able to access what I assume to be almost a disaster relief fund. Is there a percentage that the ministry uses to determine what constitutes a natural-resource-dependent community? Is it basically a one-industry town that would be eligible for this funding? The minister has mentioned Trail, but clearly there are a number of other industries in Trail besides Cominco. Perhaps he could clarify that for the committee.
Hon. G. Clark: There are guidelines for access to the fund. I'll be happy to provide them to the member. I'm just saying that different communities push the envelope of the guideline, and Trail is one of those. I'm quite sympathetic. They have a very good proposal, and they are trying to make something happen. There has been downsizing. They aren't really a one-industry town; they have more than that. That's a debate we are still having internally. It is meant to be a contingency fund in the event of a Cassiar or something else. Granisle is a good example -- the closure of a mine.
We don't want to use up the funds for planning studies in communities that aren't clearly in jeopardy. But on the other hand, people are making very creative applications that really fall within the guidelines. We want to be as helpful as we can. That's the best I can do; we're weighing it. I'll give you a copy of the guidelines; they are fairly detailed. Essentially, we are dealing with one-industry towns, but not exclusively.
W. Hurd: With respect to this fund, the minister has indicated that the ministry spent about $1.5 million last year. Does that basically represent interest from the fund, or is the fund generating revenues in excess of the amount that is being spent? If it is, the question one would ask is: is the strategy of the ministry to see this fund build up over time? Or are we eventually going to see a decision to expend the entire assets or earnings of the fund on an annual basis to assist one-industry towns and resource-dependent communities in B.C.?
Hon. G. Clark: I take it as an excellent recommendation that we allow the fund to build, but Treasury Board has capped the fund at $25 million, and we are allowed to spend the interest on that amount each year. It cannot accumulate. Any unspent interest goes back to Treasury for dealing with the fiscal requirements of the province. Last year we didn't spend the full allocation, and it goes back to Treasury to deal with our deficit problems.
Vote 24 approved.
ESTIMATES: OMBUDSMAN
Vote 6: ombudsman, $4,641,000 -- approved.
ESTIMATES: INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
On vote 5: information and privacy commissioner, $2,181,000.
G. Farrell-Collins: Can the minister tell us how much of that budget is used for whiteout and how much is used for blank paper?
Vote 5 approved.
ESTIMATES: CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST COMMISSIONER
On vote 4: conflict-of-interest commissioner, $195,000.
W. Hurd: On a point of clarification, the minister will be aware that the conflict-of-interest commissioner submitted a series of recommendations to the House with respect to broadening the powers of the conflict-of-interest commissioner's office. I wonder if the Government House Leader could advise us how that report should be pursued by the House and whether or not that type of recommendation is one that the government would be comfortable in seeing introduced. I think there's an issue here, because clearly the report does recommend a broadened role for this particular officer of the Legislature.
Hon. G. Clark: That's quite a legitimate question; in fact, I think there are other recommendations, actually, which narrow the role. Generally speaking, I think it's fair to say there's some broadening, but there are other sections which
[ Page 12606 ]
restrict the ability of private citizens, or something, to make complaints.
The government has not taken a position on the report, and now that the member has raised it, we will take it under advisement. It's clearly an appropriate area for a parliamentary committee. It's not inappropriate for government to make a decision on that. So the government will take your advice and review whether or not we think this should go to a parliamentary committee.
[3:15]
I don't think the recommendations were what I would call earth-shattering or momentous. There were some pragmatic recommendations about broadening and some that, I think, restricted access a little. It's clearly well worth considering, so we'll do so.
Vote 4 approved.
ESTIMATES: COMMISSION ON RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
On vote 3: Commission on Resources and Environment, $4,180,000.
Hon. G. Clark: I have asked for staff from CORE, Mr. Denis O'Gorman, to come in, because I understand there are a couple of questions on CORE. I'm just awaiting his arrival.
W. Hurd: This obviously represents a change -- the reporting of CORE to the Legislative Assembly. As the Government House Leader will know, it reported through estimates debate in the Ministry of Forests and Ministry of Environment in years gone by, and I may have missed the change. I wonder if the Government House Leader could advise the committee when the change occurred with respect to a separate vote for CORE in the estimates during the current fiscal year. Having reviewed the mandate which established the Commission on Resources and Environment, I've been unable to determine whether there was a commitment made to change the way in which the vote was dealt with by the House. Could the minister clarify that?
Hon. G. Clark: My understanding is that last year the CORE report was dealt with in the House by the Attorney General. Notwithstanding that it was in the Ministry of Environment, the actual handling of it was by the Attorney General. My understanding of it, in any event, is that the member is correct that CORE was initially put in as a subvote, I believe, of the Ministry of Environment.
That was viewed by the government to be not entirely appropriate -- not the end of the world, but not entirely appropriate -- given that CORE is statutorily a body of the Legislature and not of the government, and that the commissioner, Mr. Owen, is an officer of the House. Given that that's the reality, it is my understanding that it was moved to a separate vote, as is more appropriate, and is therefore handled by the Government House Leader, in this case, or by the Attorney General for the purposes of reporting to the House.
The only change that has taken place, at least in my recollection, is not who's handling it in the House or who is leading the debate, but where the vote is in the estimates book. Prior to this, it was a vote in the Ministry of Environment. I believe very strongly, because it's a statutory body of the House, that it should be a separate vote and be treated in this manner rather than in a government way by putting it under a particular ministry.
W. Hurd: I appreciate that answer from the minister. But certainly he will be aware that when the debate to set up CORE occurred in this assembly, there was considerable debate around how the report was to be dealt with and whether it was to go to cabinet or to the House. I noted that when the Vancouver Island land use plan was initially released by CORE, it was done at a press conference outside the precincts and before it was tabled in the Legislature.
I think that there is a principle here, since the commissioner is an officer of the Legislature. One would assume that he would table the land use plans for not only Vancouver Island but also the Cariboo and the Kootenays in this assembly, where it's possible for him to do that -- and clearly that would have been in the case for the Vancouver Island report. I wonder if the Government House Leader sees a problem with the fact that unlike any of the other officers of this Legislative Assembly, the commissioner on resources and environment issues a report to the public. One would assume that report goes to cabinet and then is dealt with. There appears to me to be no mechanism for that report to be tabled and either dealt with or debated in the House.
I just point that out as a reason for expressing some concern. This debate may have been dealt with by the Attorney General last year, but at the time there were no reports available. I wonder if the minister could enlighten us as to whether he feels it might be appropriate for these reports to be dealt with by the Legislature in the form of a tabling motion before they are accessed by the media and the public.
Hon. G. Clark: I'm not sure, actually; I'll have to give it some consideration. We struck the bill in such a way that it would be a public report -- essentially reporting to the public as opposed to the government or the Legislature. It's very hard, it seems to me, to argue against that. But if the member is saying that there should be an opportunity for debate in the House on his reports because he's a servant of the Legislature, that may be worth considering. The other thing that's worth considering is sending it to a parliamentary committee for review and discussion. We had this discussion last year, and I'm actually quite sympathetic to the notion that legislative officers would have to report to a committee of the House rather than have their estimates dealt with in this way. I'll take that under advisement, and discuss it with Mr. Owen and with the government to see how people feel.
I'm not completely convinced, because public reporting is pretty good insulation. I think he releases a report simultaneously with the government, so it's a pretty open and transparent process, and not one that's shrouded in government secrecy. I'm not sure that we need to move that into the House when it's already open and public.
W. Hurd: I think this is an issue that needs to be pursued a bit further -- not at length, but a bit further. Officers of the Legislature, such as the CORE commissioner, the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner and the conflict-of-interest commissioner, could be directed by this House to undertake some other form of activity within the mandate of the legislation.
It occurs to me that during the announcement of the CORE report on Vancouver Island, the commissioner made reference to job-loss statistics in connection with the adoption of the report. I assume the government would have assisted in some way in providing information for him to compile those job-loss statistics. I know they became very controversial with respect to their accuracy. Returning to this
[ Page 12607 ]
issue of how the material should be reported, I just wonder if it's appropriate for an officer of the Legislature to be releasing a report containing controversial job-loss statistics to those members of the assembly charged with the responsibility of directing the activity of this commissioner before that report is released in this House.
The CORE commissioner was originally set up under a subvote of a different ministry and has now emerged in this set of estimates as a full-fledged officer of this House. He, among the other officers, occupies a different role now, either by accident or by design. The reports that are issued are obviously controversial, carrying with them implications for job losses and community stability. I would just issue the plea again that if the Legislature does have charge of the CORE commissioner, those reports should be available to us before they're released to the media, as a matter of courtesy to the House. I would just make the point that I think there has been a major change, and I think there are some implications for the future with respect to officers perhaps being created under other legislative jurisdictions or other legislative initiatives being set up by the government.
Hon. G. Clark: I'll certainly take that under consideration. There's not complete legislative consistency with all the officers of the House. They all have different reporting practices and different statutes, so it's not completely uncommon that there's no uniform method of reporting. We chose to have the report public; that's a pretty transparent process. But I'll certainly take the member's comments under advisement. There's certainly legitimate concern.
W. Hurd: I'll comment, then, just so we have it on the record, that clearly the reporting schedule for the commissioner is different. It goes to cabinet as opposed to coming to the House. There's no mechanism for the report to be tabled in the House and debated. Again, I believe that's unfortunate. In light of the fact that two additional reports are coming that have the potential to be as controversial as the Vancouver Island report, I hope the government would give serious consideration to supporting some sort of motion to change the reporting schedule for those reports and for this commissioner.
Vote 3 approved.
G. Farrell-Collins: It may not be in order, because the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy vote has already passed, but the member for Surrey-Cloverdale had a few questions he wanted to ask at that time. I know we can't go back and revisit it, but perhaps the minister could assure me that if these questions were given to him, he would pass them on to the commissioner, and we could get some written answers in response to those.
Hon. G. Clark: You want answers for those? Absolutely.
ESTIMATES: AUDITOR GENERAL
On vote 2: auditor general, $7,559,000.
F. Gingell: I'm sure neither the ex-Minister of Finance nor the present Minister of Finance expected this to pass without comment, because the auditor general performs a very important and useful role. It is all part of the exercise of accountability, and I know that all members of this House support better accountability. It is something that we all speak about at election time and all believe in.
But accountability doesn't finish with the auditor general. The next critically important step in the accountability role is for the Public Accounts Committee to meet and deal with the report of the auditor general, as they do. I've never missed an opportunity to stand in this House and beg this government, on my knees, to allow the Public Accounts Committee to sit out of session. I'm glad to see two of my fellow Public Accounts Committee members here. This year we have met at 8 o'clock on Tuesday mornings, and we only have an hour and a half. There are all of the pressures of the busy life that all MLAs have, and this just adds to it. We really aren't able to do the kind of job that the taxpayers of this province are demanding. Accountability is an important subject, and I take this opportunity to once more ask the Government House Leader -- and I ask the Minister of Finance to endorse my request -- to pass the necessary resolution, before the House rises this summer, to allow the Public Accounts Committee to sit out of session and do the job that it is given the responsibility of performing.
Hon. E. Cull: I want to thank the member for the fine job he does in chairing the Public Accounts Committee and tell him that we will take his request under advisement.
Vote 2 approved.
Hon. G. Clark: The most important vote, hon. Chair, for members of the House: vote No. 1.
ESTIMATES: LEGISLATION
Vote 1: legislation, $24,352,000 -- approved.
Hon. G. Clark: I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
[3:30]
The committee reported resolutions.
Hon. E. Cull: I move that the reports of resolutions from the Committees of Supply on April 14, 18, 20, and 27, May 4, 17 and 31, and June 2, 7, 13, 14, 15, 21, 23, 28, 29 and 30 be now received, taken as read and agreed to.
Motion approved.
Hon. E. Cull: I move that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $19,282,392,834. This sum includes that authorized to be paid under section 1 of Supply Act (No. 1), 1994, and is granted to Her Majesty towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1995.
Motion approved.
Hon. E. Cull presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act, 1994-95.
[ Page 12608 ]
Hon. E. Cull: This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for government programs for the 1994-95 fiscal year. The amount requested is that resolved by vote in Committee of Supply after consideration of the estimates. To maintain uninterrupted delivery of government programs, it is essential that this supply be granted expeditiously. As the appropriation covered by the interim supply bill will expire shortly, supply is urgently required so that a variety of essential payments to GAIN recipients, hospitals, school districts, universities and social agencies, as well as the government payroll, may continue uninterrupted.
Therefore, in moving introduction and first reading of this bill, I ask that it be considered as urgent under standing order 81.
Bill 57 introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith.
Hon. E. Cull: This supply bill is the second and final for the fiscal year 1994-95, the first having been passed on March 31, 1994, when the Legislative Assembly authorized the value of appropriations for three months. This bill, which is in the same general form as previous years' final supply bills, requests a total supply of $19,282,392,834 for voted expenditures, as outlined in the schedule to the bill.
Finally, I point out the requirement for passage of the supply bill, in order to provide for the expenditures of the government for the 1994-95 fiscal year. I move second reading of Bill 57.
The Speaker: If it is acceptable to the members, before putting the question, we'll just take a moment for distribution of the bill.
While the bill is being distributed, hon. members, I have a somewhat regrettable notice to convey to you. Due to a booking error by TSN, our satellite broker, the Hansard telecast will have to be terminated at 3:45 this afternoon. We regret the probable gap in the broadcast of the legislative proceedings. If at all possible, the portion of the proceedings that is not broadcast may be shown on local cable stations at a later date, in which case an attempt will be made to notify the members and the viewing public.
I believe the bill has been distributed, and the Chair now proposes to put the question.
Motion approved.
Bill 57, Supply Act, 1994-95, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.
The House in committee on Bill 57; D. Lovick in the chair.
Section 1 approved.
Schedule approved.
Preamble approved.
Title approved.
Hon. E. Cull: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 57, Supply Act, 1994-95, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
The Speaker: Hon. members, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts. We will have a short recess at the call of the Chair until His Honour is ready.
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.
Law Clerk:
Library Act
Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 1994
Waste Management Amendment Act, 1994
Fishing Collective Bargaining Act
Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act
Child, Family and Community Service Act
Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services Statutes Amendment Act, 1994
Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1994
In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.
Supply Act, 1994-95
In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill.
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Hon. G. Clark: It's been a very productive week. I believe we have one more long and productive week to go in this session, but at this time I hope people have a restful long weekend. I'd like to move that the House adjourn until 2 p.m. on Monday.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 3:54 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]