1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, JUNE 1, 1995
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 20, Number 16
[ Page 14815 ]
The House met at 2:07 p.m.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, in politics, friendships and loyalties and support can be fairly fleeting things. In my case, however, there have been at least two people, and perhaps only two people, who have been there from day one, and I suspect will always be there -- and I know that -- and that's my mother and father. They're here for the first time, and I hope the House will make them feel welcome.
W. Hartley: In Victoria for the past two days, 29 students from St. Patrick's elementary school in Maple Ridge, with their teacher Bella Yu and principal, Anne Kully, and some 29 parents, are here to receive an award. They were contestants with over 2,000 schools across British Columbia in the Royal British Columbia Museum schools contest. They were the winners in their grade group at drawing and colouring dragons, and they won a Macintosh computer system for their school. Please welcome them.
F. Gingell: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is Mr. Bill Dennison, a longtime South Delta community activist. He's not one of my political supporters, I must admit, but I'm a supporter of the work that he has done for our community over many, many years. I ask all my friends to make him welcome.
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to introduce two friends and supporters from Vancouver. In the gallery today are Mr. Laffin Tompkins and his lovely wife, Patricia. Would the House join me in making them welcome.
N. Lortie: I would also like to add my thanks and congratulations and support for Mr. Bill Dennison, who is a supporter of this side of the House and a longtime and dear friend. He is sitting up behind me, and I didn't even know he was there. I thank the hon. member for pointing that out.
DOUGLAS LAKE RANCH BLOCKADE
M. de Jong: Yesterday the Attorney General reiterated his intention not to intervene in any sort of meaningful way in the situation that's developing at the Douglas Lake Ranch. Those statements have been met by a response from the Upper Nicola band, and that has been a unilateral declaration from the band of their intention to maintain the illegal blockade until such time as they have received "total recognition of their claims to aboriginal rights and title." My question to the Attorney General is quite simply this: how much further does the situation have to deteriorate before he will show the leadership that British Columbians expect of him to ensure the speedy removal of this blockade?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Last Friday in court the Attorney General successfully intervened in an application by a private party to get an order to clear the blockade. My agents are actively involved in enforcing the court order. In this case, my agents are the RCMP, and I have full confidence in the ability of the RCMP to make the appropriate tactical and strategic decisions in respect of securing public access on the road in question. The police....
Interjections.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The members ask about leadership. As the Attorney General in this province, I provide the leadership. The RCMP are the group who actually carry out the work on the ground, and that's the appropriate place for it to happen. The policy of the RCMP is to assess the situation to make the correct tactical and strategic decisions. If the member had his way, the risk of violence would be accelerated, and I don't think members of the opposition want to have on their heads the consequences of violent action which could come about as a result of an inappropriate tactical decision.
Deputy Speaker: A supplemental, member for Matsqui.
M. de Jong: Let's just assess where we are as a result...
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: Order! Members, let's allow the question.
M. de Jong: ...of the action or inaction on the Attorney General's part. Thirty minutes ago at a press conference, the Upper Nicola band made its position clear. The band is demanding total recognition of aboriginal title and rights. It has also made it clear that any negotiations with the government will take place on the basis of that claim. I understand that there is a meeting scheduled for later this afternoon. My question to the Attorney General is: does he believe it is appropriate to be engaging in that manner of negotiation while court orders requiring the removal of an illegal blockade remain unenforced?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: For the third day in a row I will tell members that there are no negotiations with the Upper Nicola band. The government is not negotiating with the Upper Nicola band about matters in which they feel there are injustices to correct. What we are doing -- what the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs is doing, what the police are doing and what other private citizens are doing behind the scenes -- is to try to get the band to pull down the blockade without resorting to consequences that none of us want to have happen.
LABOUR MOVEMENT INVOLVEMENT IN DRAFTING OF ELECTION ACT
G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Attorney General. Today senior government officials were reported in the media as saying that the delay in introducing the Election Act was due to a lack of agreement between the government and the labour movement. Can the Attorney General tell us which individuals or organizations in the labour movement he or members of the government have been consulting with in regard to this legislation?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I have consulted with nobody in the labour movement.
[ Page 14816 ]
Deputy Speaker: Supplemental?
G. Farrell-Collins: Will the Attorney General disclose to the public all correspondence within his ministry and between his ministry and the labour movement concerning the development of this bill? Further, will he disclose all drafts exchanged back and forth between his ministry and the labour movement, and will he tell us which sections were altered or deleted at the direction of the labour movement?
[2:15]
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I know of no correspondence between the ministry and the labour movement in respect to the drafting of this bill. If there is, I'll be happy to locate it and share it with the member. I know of no drafts that went back and forth, because to the very best of my knowledge that didn't happen. So I don't know what the member is talking about.
ISLAND HIGHWAY PROJECT COSTS
J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Yesterday the government extolled the virtues of amortizing the cost of major assets over many years rather than paying as you go. As an example, can the minister confirm that the Island Highway will actually cost taxpayers $3 billion when it has been financed over the 30-year period, rather than the billion dollars announced, and can the minister tell us how the government plans to raise the funds necessary to pay for that very expensive financing?
Hon. G. Clark: The Transportation Financing Authority is responsible for the financing of highway construction. The member is correct that these are amortized over the life of the project to pay for it, but in net present-value terms, the value for the highway is the same, because a dollar spent 30 years from now is not worth as much as a dollar spent today. The cost of the highway we have been dealing with is in today's dollars. That maintains the situation.
In addition, if the members remember the Build BC Act, which was debated in the House and passed, the Transportation Financing Authority cannot spend money that it does not have; in fact, it's illegal to do so. All of the investments in highways in British Columbia have to be financed through dedicated revenue. At the moment, there is dedicated revenue from the car rental tax, as well as, I believe, from a 2-cents-per-litre gas tax. Any future funding for any future highway projects has to be from a dedicated existing gas tax or other sources of non-tax revenue.
Deputy Speaker: The hon. member on a supplemental.
J. Weisgerber: I have a supplemental to the Minister of Transportation and Highways, whoever he or she may be. The Deputy Minister of Transportation and Highways, Vince Collins, wrote to the Minister of Transportation and Highways, saying that there are essentially two ways in which the government could raise the necessary $3 billion. One is to impose a toll, which will cost Island residents about $736 million over the period of time; the government would also scoop $2.1 billion from the gas tax. The second option is to take only $1.9 billion from the provincial gas tax and impose an additional $977 million tax by way of a special Vancouver Island gas tax of about 4-1/4 cents per litre.
Can the minister tell us which option the government plans to use to retire this debt? Will Island residents be facing a 4-1/4-cents-per-litre additional tax to pay for this government's Island Highway project?
Hon. G. Clark: No quarrels with the letter. There are many options to provide financing for the Transportation Financing Authority, including imposing new gas taxes -- and the legislation allows that; a dedicated gas tax on a regional basis, a provincial basis; tolling, which we are actively exploring -- and the member, of course, is part of a government that imposed a toll on the Coquihalla Highway. In addition, there are development cost charges associated with highway development and other associated ways in which we could look at generating revenue to put back into highways.
I'm not going to announce today a future course of action of any future government, but I will say that to date, as a result of the outstanding financial situation in the province, we've been taking existing gas tax revenue away from general revenue and directing it to highway construction, including the Island Highway. So there have been absolutely no incremental new taxes associated with this magnificent new highway on Vancouver Island.
LIVING ALLOWANCE FOR PERSONS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS
V. Anderson: Last year the patients at Riverview Hospital told the Minister of Social Services about the inadequacy of their living allowance. The ombudsman agreed with them. This $82 is used for clothing, bus fare, toiletries and all of their extra expenses. The minister said then that she would try to find an increase in these meagre funds in this year's budget, yet no increase is forthcoming. Will the minister change her mind and now respond favourably to this urgent, minimum need of the patients at Riverview Hospital?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I am actually delighted.... It is not prearranged that I get up to talk about an announcement we made last week -- that went completed unnoticed by the opposition -- about expanding the benefits for people with disabilities. So I am pleased to be able to reiterate the details.
We have removed a major barrier to people with disabilities in changing the definition of handicap under the current GAIN system. No longer will people with disabilities have to declare themselves permanently unemployable and, by government definition, remove themselves from the workforce. We changed that; we have redefined it. The definition hadn't been changed for 20 years, and now the definition is based on duration rather than permanence. It has been welcomed by all groups representing people with disabilities. It's excellent news, and I think we're the first government to do so.
Deputy Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.
V. Anderson: The patients at Riverview Hospital are not aware that any situation has changed for them. They are picketing the government offices in Vancouver, even today, because they have not had a positive response to represent those who have mental illness -- not mental handicaps, but mental illness -- for an increase in their.... They are asking for an increase of only $20. They picketed the office today. Can
[ Page 14817 ]
the minister tell us that they are going to receive this increase in their living allowance, their bus fare and assistance with their clothing? Will she tell us and confirm today that all three of these items are now being granted to the patients at Riverview Hospital?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Gee, I'd actually given you the information about the announcement. I'm surprised you don't know that the change in the definition actually now has been expanded to cover those with mental illness. So that's excellent news.
I would also like to say there are limited resources available. We have worked with the community of people with disabilities to target those dollars in a most effective way. The comfort allowance remains at $82 per month. I suggest that if this member opposite wishes us to spend more, perhaps the first number he should call is 1-800-Chretien.
COMPLAINTS COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION BY JUSTICE OPPAL
J. Dalton: A question to the Attorney General. Justice Oppal has recently confirmed what we have all known for a long time now -- that this government is sitting on any initiatives dealing with much-needed justice reform. We just need to witness again the inaction of this Attorney General on the Douglas Lake issue. Oppal has recommended an independent complaints commissioner as one of his strongest recommendations. The Attorney General told this House on April 25: "I think Justice Oppal's conclusions were, in part, reached as a result of often conflicting advice and conflicting conclusions reached...." Is the Attorney General saying he does not believe that Justice Oppal's recommendation had any basis to it?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: Not at all. In fact, on that point I think Justice Oppal makes very good recommendations.
Earlier this year my ministry was engaged in meetings that occurred among a wide variety of people who have an interest in the complaints commission process. They were meeting every week for a full day, over a course of many weeks. It became clear as March progressed that developing consensus among the various interests on this issue was going to be impossible before the legislative deadline; we wouldn't be able to get a bill in, in time in this session. So we decided to continue the discussions, working toward another deadline because we simply couldn't meet the one this year.
Deputy Speaker: The bell terminates question period.
Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in Section A, for the purposes of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. In the House today I call Bill 29, continued second reading debate on the Employment Standards Act.
EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT
(second reading continued)
Deputy Speaker: The member for Okanagan East adjourned debate. [Applause.]
J. Tyabji: I'm not sure if the member for.... I appreciate that the member for Mission-Kent has provided support for me. If I'd been in the House yesterday for his speech about the difference between cream and scum, I probably would have provided the same kind of support.
I started debate on this section this morning and said very clearly that the first section of this bill must be separated from section 12 and what follows. The reason is that most of the provisions and changes that are made in the first section of the bill are long overdue. In fact, I'm sure that the Minister of Women's Equality would recognize that many of those changes will directly benefit women. It's good that we see some provisions in here for pregnancy leave. We will get to how we think that should be fine-tuned in committee stage. By and large, with the exception of some sections that may need amendment, the direction that is taken in the first part of the bill is very encouraging, and the government should be applauded for bringing these changes in.
I heard a lot of members talking about what happens in the fast-food sector, and what happens if you're in a place with a high degree of turnover. Before I get into the second section of the bill, I should put on the record that I actually was an employee of McDonald's Restaurants for awhile. Unlike many of those in this House who have talked about it from a theoretical point of view or from a book-learning point of view, I know how to make the fries. I know what it means when the beeper goes off, and I know how dangerous it is if you don't clean the grease off the floor before you run back to get more supplies. I've done that.
[2:30]
I've also worked in the tourism industry. My first job, I think, was $2.85 an hour at minimum wage. It's frightening when you think....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: Sort of like this job, that's right: underpaid and overworked. I get it. I appreciate the contribution from the other members. I like the all-party nature of this debate.
Given that that was a $2.85-an-hour job, it's interesting that we've heard the leader of the Liberal Party call for abolishing the minimum wage, which is shameful. We've heard the member for Matsqui and other members talk about the abolition of child labour laws, which is shameful. Meagre as the $2.85 an hour was, I recognize that I was protected at that time by both minimum-wage and child labour laws.
I understand the vagaries of the fast-food and retail sectors. I should say my first job was at Flintstones Bedrock City, and I used to make hot dogs and juice. I did the same job for two summers in a row. Being in the tourism sector, you can understand the need for flexible schedules. Even having worked in these areas and recognizing the difficulties that some of the provisions of this bill will have with respect to scheduling, I think the amendments we will be introducing in committee stage will actually assist with meeting the requirements of the bill and the needs of the workplace. We'll wait to see if the minister will be amenable to that, of course, but I can at least speak with some experience on these issues when I stand up on the issue of small business.
Having been involved in a family business in the wine industry for a number of years, I also recognize that there will
[ Page 14818 ]
be some additional burdens of paperwork in this bill, but it will provide protection for the employer, and that's something that hasn't been raised before. The provision for seven years of recordkeeping, although it may be cumbersome, will protect the employer from those employees who leave and then try afterward to extort money or, through the provisions in this bill that are meant to protect an employee, use this bill against the employer. It will actually protect them in the long run to have those records.
The second part of the bill is the part that the Progressive Democratic Alliance cannot support philosophically, in principle or in any form, as it is written. Having done some research on section 96 of the federal constitution, I believe very strongly that in a constitutional challenge, part 12 of the act would not stand up in a court of law. The reason is that the Employment Standards Tribunal, as established, has judicial powers as its mandate. It is not an administrative body; it is a body to carry out appeals and hearings. It's an adjudicating body of decisions of the director. There is a precedent in law. Peter Hogg, who is probably one of the country's foremost experts on constitutional law, has written about section 96 and when it applies. He has specifically said that when a provision for a residential board in Ontario was struck down in the Residential Tenancies Act, the reason it was struck down was that its primary purpose was judicial or subjudicial, and that it was in fact taking over jurisdiction of a higher court, and there was no constitutional power for the provincial government to give the power of a higher court to a nonjudicial, subjudicial or pseudo-judicial body.
We see in the Employment Standards Tribunal that the government has again tried to strike that. When we read through this, it's interesting to see the things that get a red flag. The tribunal is established -- that's the first thing we see -- and it consists of the following members: a chair, appointed by cabinet; adjudicators, appointed by the chair, who is a cabinet appointee; and members appointed by the minister. This is hardly a process that's coming through either the constitutional act of the federal government or the panel by which we appoint judges, nor is it a body that is accountable to the public in any way, shape or form. It is an appointed body.
What is the power of the tribunal? The power of the tribunal is to hear the determinations of the director, if those determinations are put before the tribunal. As well, the director is not a third party but somebody appointed by cabinet. The proceedings under section 107 of the act -- and this is where we have a very strong problem with this -- are: "Subject to any rules made under section 109(1)(c), the tribunal may conduct an appeal or other proceeding in the manner it considers necessary, and is not required to hold an oral hearing." There is no provision for the public to have an opportunity to see if justice is being done in these hearings.
If we ask ourselves what the most efficient form of government is, we all know that the most efficient form of decision-making is a dictatorship. Clearly, if we have all the power to set up the most efficient form of government, and if, because we're in the driver's seat, we think we know best and we know how to solve things quickly, then the most effective way to do that is through a benevolent dictatorship. So perhaps the government would say....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: The member for Yale-Lillooet says that would be great.
H. Lali: No, no -- Frederick the Great.
J. Tyabji: Ah, Frederick the Great. Good thing he clarified that; I thought he was saying it would be great to have a benevolent dictatorship.
Hon. Speaker, I would actually welcome a motion that we have a benevolent dictatorship in B.C., because then we could debate who decides what is construed as benevolent, because clearly....
Interjections.
J. Tyabji: Well, it depends which Gordon, and you can't name a member in the House.
Interjections.
J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, it's nice to see so much support for the leader of the Progressive Democratic Alliance coming from other members of the House.
But to go to the heart of this, if we can agree that a benevolent dictatorship is the most effective way of governing, why are we in a parliamentary democracy? Why have we built up a judicial system, and all the associated powers and checks and balances that, in theory, are in that system -- even though, with the state the justice system is in right now, we're having people ask for reform, change and accountability? This is giving the hearing powers of a superior court when there are assets seized and where there has been a determination. There could be search and seizure, under one provision of this act, by the director. Once the assets are seized, there can be a closed hearing. In fact, if we look at the director's decisions -- and those decisions are what come before the tribunal.... Let's look at this for a second, because, to me, this is where we start to get on some very shaky territory, unless we decide we want a benevolent dictatorship and that we will in fact get benevolence from the regulation and legislation of this bill. That's not where I'm at, but if that's where the public is at, I would like to hear that from them before we take that route in legislation.
Under section 79 of this act, what do we find? This is the director's determination; these are the matters, decisions and issues placed before the tribunal under section 79. Section 79(1) says: "On completing an investigation, the director may make a determination under this section." "May not" is implied. How do we know which elements have brought the director to that determination? We see that under section 79, in subsections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6), the qualification is that if the director is satisfied, the director may do the following.... There are no parameters of satisfaction laid out here. Section 79(2) says: "If satisfied that requirements of this act and the regulations have not been contravened, the director must dismiss a complaint." We're all happy that the director must dismiss it if there has been no contravention of the act, but how do we know when the director has been satisfied and when not?
Section 79(3) says: "If satisfied that a person has contravened a requirement...the director may" require complicity, require remedy or impose a penalty. There again, when
[ Page 14819 ]
we get into the penalty section we get into a realm of grave danger, because we find that the penalty schedule is at the arbitrary whim of the director. If the director is deciding a penalty schedule, that is the person who, on an arbitrary basis, says: "I'm satisfied" -- or not satisfied -- "there has been a contravention." They may then, under this act, go into the business premises without a warrant and search, interrogate and seize assets for the purpose of following through on this. Those are potentially very dangerous legislative powers for an appointed person.
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: For the record, the member for Prince George-Omineca has said that when they do search and seize, the people they're doing that search and seizure on will not have guns if the federal gun legislation goes in. I suppose we're supposed to be happy about that. This is a very solemn subject, so I shouldn't be laughing. Sometimes, though, it does allow the debate to go a bit smoother.
Under section 79(4), we find:
"In addition, if satisfied that an employer has contravened a requirement of section 8 or Part 6, the director may require the employer to do one or more of the following: (a) hire a person and pay the...wages...; (b) reinstate a person...and pay...any wages lost...; (c) pay...compensation..." -- and we know that it's going to be at the discretion of the director -- "(d) pay an employee or other person reasonable and actual out of pocket expenses...."
Now, if you have a small business, and the director is satisfied there's been a contravention, has set up a schedule of penalties and puts them on this business, then we know that in a later section of the act there are liens automatically placed against the assets -- automatically. There's no choice there. There can be immediate seizure and sale of the assets.
The business's right of appeal is to the tribunal, which is appointed and a self-interested body. It's a totally closed shop. The proceedings can be done behind closed doors. There are no written proceedings, no transcripts, no provision for any kind of order -- even an order of dismissal. There is one provision for an order that comes out, but even that doesn't necessarily have to take place, with all the needs of the person filing the appeal. That person's needs can be completely dismissed. We know that also, in the penalties section, a high degree of arbitrariness can be assigned to a business by a director or by the tribunal. They can decide to set the level of compensation if they believe there's been a contravention.
So where we see there being a serious problem.... We know the seizure and release of assets is provided for. There are no time limits. There's no provision for compensation for the person who's had the assets seized, if we find out later on that there was an undue seizure of assets. There's no provision for compensation if there's been a loss of business during that time.
All the power is in the hands of the appointed people, and there's no recourse to the courts. There's a provision in here, under section 110, "Finality of tribunal's decisions and orders," which I think is also unconstitutional. It says: "A decision or order of the tribunal under this Act or the regulations on any matter in which it has jurisdiction is final and conclusive and is not open to question" -- and most importantly -- "or review in a court on any grounds."
An Hon. Member: Shame.
J. Tyabji: That is absolutely shameful. That is why we cannot have quasi-judicial bodies. We have them through many other acts. We've spoken against them before in the House -- the members of the Alliance have.
But in this bill we see those quasi-judicial bodies having no administrative function whatsoever. This body is a judicial body, a body made to decide disputes and settle arbitrations. In fact, more than that, it's not even made to decide disputes, because the hearing or the determination of the decisions is done at the whim of the director. This body is only there as an appeal mechanism. So it's a closed-shop appeal at the discretion of an individual appointed to make a decision about whether there's been a contravention of the act. That's a problem. I'd say that's a big problem.
There are some other things I'd like to mention. I know I probably don't have a lot of time, and I actually have to close down fairly soon. But all of us should recognize that everyone has a right to the principle of natural justice. In fact, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada, which is often maligned for preserving the rights of those who have committed an offence over the rights of the victims, makes a provision for the principles of natural justice to apply in any hearing. We all have the right to due justice and due diligence in the administration of justice.
That does not occur in this act. Section 114 is headed: "After an appeal is requested." Let's say we're a small business person. We've had a disgruntled employee who's come up and has managed to bend the ear of the director. The director, at his or her whim, has sided 100 percent with that employee, and now we've requested an appeal before the tribunal. There are no time limits on any of this, I might add, which is very problematic. Section 114 says: "The tribunal may dismiss an appeal without a hearing of any kind if satisfied" -- there's that phrase again -- "after examining the request that (a) the appeal has not been requested within the time limit..." -- all right, that's a technical reason -- "(b) the appeal is not within the tribunal's jurisdiction" -- I don't know how it would be satisfied on that. And subsection (c) is a problem: "...the appeal is frivolous, vexatious or trivial or is not brought in good faith." Who decides? This is a closed shop. This is an appointed group. Maybe, for example -- and I don't want to sound cynical; I don't want to sound like I don't believe in the process.... For argument's sake, let's say that the director is a good friend of the Minister of Employment and Investment. He's here; we'll use him. He's a good friend of the Minister of Employment and Investment....
Interjection.
J. Tyabji: That's a good point. There are precedents for this in some of these appointments. Let's say the government says: "We really like the Employment Standards Act and we're really pro-employee, so we're going to put one of our employee-oriented people in as an appointee." That person is going to help set up a little tribunal -- maybe they happened to go to school together; I think there are some precedents for that; we know some of them have taken their master's together, they're buddies, and they've got this little club happening. The director makes a decision: "The employer was a bit of a jerk in this instance, so I'm going to hammer this person as an example to all the other employers."
[2:45]
Interjection.
[ Page 14820 ]
J. Tyabji: It's just a hypothetical example. So let's say that's what happens; let's say that the director had a bad day. It happens -- gets up in a bad mood and decides to really hammer the first case across his or her desk. Later on, you've got this tribunal. They know there's an appeal coming before them, but maybe the press gallery were actually awake that day, came to work that day, somebody actually wrote the article up for them and brown-enveloped it, so they printed it.
The government's worried they're going to get embarrassed if there's a tribunal inquiry into this, even though it's closed and we don't have to hear about it. So the tribunal says: "We'd better protect our director, because the director is at the pinnacle of the entire Employment Standards Act." The government brought in this act, the government can't afford to be embarrassed on this act, and they say, "I'm sorry, this is a frivolous appeal," and they do all the political rhetoric -- not that we've heard political rhetoric before, but let's say that we're in that kind of frame of mind where there's going to be political rhetoric -- and they just shut the appeal down. They can't take it to court. Even if that small business has any money left after being hammered through this process of the director's determination and the attempt to take it to appeal, they're not allowed to.
Before I forget, the other section that I have to raise with respect to the director.... First of all, section 121 is another section which should make us all quite concerned, because after removing the right to litigate any of the decisions of the appeal board and after removing the right to an open hearing and pursuing justice through this closed process of appointees, in section 121 we find that the director cannot be required to give evidence in other proceedings:
"Except for a prosecution under this Act or an appeal to the Employment Standards Tribunal, the director or a delegate of the director must not be required by a court, board, tribunal or person to give evidence or produce records relating to information obtained for the purposes of this Act."
That's just crazy. That means that it renders section 118 a little bit silly, if we have read this bill. Section 118 says: "Right to sue preserved" -- oh, great! It says: "Subject to section 82, nothing in this Act or the regulations affects a person's right to commence and maintain an action that, but for this Act, the person would have had the right to commence and maintain." Let's say, for example, that you happen to be in a profession where your reputation.... My time is almost gone. If your reputation matters, and you are being hauled up before the board, you would have a hard time getting the director to testify in a slander suit if you wanted to try to preserve your reputation through litigation.
There's a lot more that will be said in committee stage. We cannot support the bill from section 12 on, but the first part of this bill is commendable.
D. Mitchell: I too would like to enter this debate. I had a chance earlier on in the debate to speak to the sixth-month hoist amendment moved by the official opposition. We had some interesting debate on that amendment, but I'd like to follow up on a few of the comments made by the member for Okanagan East.
The debate on the amendment was interesting in a number of respects. We were talking about a sixth-month hoist; effectively it was an amendment to kill the bill. During the debate yesterday on that amendment, a number of issues were raised as to whether or not this bill should proceed now, should not proceed now, should be hoisted for six months, should be delayed or postponed further -- what have you. Listening to the debate last night was interesting.
I noticed at one point that some of the government members spoke on the amendment. It was useful to get the government's position in defence of this bill. The member for Mission-Kent actually made an interesting intervention in the debate. He was going on about how.... He was using an analogy: he was talking about the pond in the front of his house and how scum rises to the top of his pond. At one point in the debate -- I couldn't understand why, just watching -- the member for Delta South actually raised a point of order against the member for Mission-Kent, because he seemed to think that this principle of scum rising to the top was applying to him or to his party, which surprised me, an observer.
Hon. Speaker, yesterday, when you were not in the chair, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources responded to the point of order by clarifying this issue, in a parliamentary sense, pointing out that the member for Mission-Kent was likely referring to scum in general and not in particular. I think that should have satisfied the point of order raised initially by the member for Delta South, except it occurred to me to wonder -- and I think it's relevant to wonder in this debate: if the member for Delta South is genuinely concerned about the principle of scum rising to the top, how does he justify his continued membership in that party? It was just a thought, and I just wanted to follow up on that.
In addressing Bill 29 in second reading, which is a debate on the principle of Bill 29, I've got to say that we have to ask a question as to whether or not this is an appropriate model for employer-employee relations in the 1990s. I would say that it might be an appropriate model for labour relations for the 1890s, but not for the 1990s. It anticipates a model of industrial relations that is perhaps reminiscent of the early stages of industrial capitalism, where workers were, according to the mythology, exploited mercilessly and unconscionably by the captains of industry; where employees were forced to work at hard labour in the pits of underground coalmines and haul coal on their backs. As a result, they needed certain rights and protections, which 100 years later are no longer required, because industrial relations -- thank goodness! -- have progressed a long way. Perhaps they were never as bad as the socialist mythology would have us believe.
The model of employer-employee relations that Bill 29 is based upon doesn't really fit the modern-day economy of British Columbia. It's a service-oriented economy that is dominated by small and medium-sized businesses. They are creating the jobs that are being generated in this economy. The large unionized corporations are no longer creating jobs; they're downsizing; they're reducing the number of jobs in the economy. That's a pattern that has been in place for some time now in British Columbia. We know that all the new jobs are coming from smaller, non-unionized firms -- in the service sector in particular.
We understand why the government would be intellectually attracted to a simple model, where we would have big government, big labour and big business getting together and deciding on the terms and conditions of work in the workplace. But those terms and conditions of work in the workplace don't always resemble the reality of the labour force and
[ Page 14821 ]
labour conditions in the modern-day economy of British Columbia. Most British Columbians don't work for big government or big unions or big business; most British Columbians actually work for smaller enterprises.
Interjection.
D. Mitchell: As the Minister of Employment and Investment correctly says, that's what Bill 29 is directed to. It's trying to force that old corporatist model on the small business sector. When I refer to the corporatist model, what I'm referring to is the model that was used by Benito Mussolini in Italy in the 1920s and '30s. He thought that if you got together with big business and big labour unions and big government, they could scratch each other's backs, and they'd be happy together forever. But it ignored the fact that the small businesses weren't represented.
Now, what did the government do when the Coalition of British Columbia Businesses -- representing the smaller and medium-sized businesses in the economy -- came and asked for one final round of consultation? The Minister of Skills, Training and Labour said: "No, forget it; no more consultation. We're not concerned about the small businesses in the province. We've decided what we're going to do. We've consulted our big labour friends, we've consulted some of the big companies who employ our unionized friends, and we've decided what we're going to do. We're going to enforce the Employment Standards Act on you. We don't really care what the small businesses have to say. They don't count."
That's effectively what this arrogant government's attitude is saying. And it's wrong, hon. Speaker. It's wrong, because it's using a model of employer-employee relations that doesn't fit the modern-day reality of the province. It's a dinosaur model....
Interjection.
D. Mitchell: The member knows he shouldn't be heckling me from the cabinet seats, where he'd like to sit but never will. He shouldn't be heckling me from there, but I enjoy it, because it's nice to see him over there. He'll never sit over there for very long, but enjoy it while you can, hon. member -- so close to the throne, sitting right next to the throne.
Interjections.
D. Mitchell: I'm sorry that I've scared him back to his seat, because I was actually enjoying it, hon. Speaker.
Bill 29, I think, is going to result in a diminution of the rights of both employers and employees. It's going to force what some have suggested would be a situation where employees and employers.... It's going to force a situation where both employees and employers aren't working for themselves, aren't working for their companies, but working for the government. They're going to be effectively working for the government, because they're going to be spending an inordinate amount of time filling out forms, dealing with paperwork. They already have to deal with huge bureaucracies: the WCB -- it's a huge burden for small businesses -- GST, PST, the corporation capital tax. And now we're adding onto that a new Employment Standards Act, which doesn't provide incentives for business people; it provides disincentives. It will effectively discourage anyone from wanting to start a business or go into business and create jobs.
Those are the reasons that I'm disappointed, and I'm dismayed that the government would bring forward this bill at this time. I don't want to belabour the debate. When we get into committee stage on this bill, I know we're going to have some good debate on a number of sections. I'm going to leave my comments at that, but just in case there is any confusion, I will be voting against second reading of this bill.
C. Serwa: I'm pleased to join the debate on Bill 29, the Employment Standards Act. Certainly I've heard a great deal said about it, and I see that in the work of Mark Thompson it talks about rights and responsibilities in a changing workplace. As I read through this particular piece of legislation, my initial fears were really confirmed. We're talking here about the rights of employees, and we're talking about the responsibilities of employers. We're not talking about mutual responsibilities, and that's clearly evident as you progress through this particular bill.
When the review of employment standards came back, and the recommendations of Mark Thompson came in, they were certainly far more expansive, and they were very controversial. Some of the recommendations were really well off the mark as far as reasonableness is concerned. At that particular point in time -- that was in March 1994 -- the Social Credit group issued a press release on that, and what I said then still holds true.
An Hon. Member: You said "group"?
C. Serwa: The Social Credit group, the party that formed government for 13 of the last 15 elections in the province of British Columbia, in case your selective memory dismissed that, hon. minister.
Nevertheless, our concern at that time was similar to what it is at the moment. We have a great deal of concern with respect to the agricultural industry. As I said at that particular point in time, putting their employers out of business is a very strange way to benefit agricultural workers. Once again the government has listened for ten months but only heard what it had already decided behind closed doors with union bosses who fund their party. Socialist ideology is running wild, while the livelihoods of the thousands of people who depend on the viable agricultural industry in our province are of no consequence to this government. We are appealing to the minister directly to scrap this aspect of the Thompson report.
Interjections.
C. Serwa: Gales of laughter -- and from a group that collectively has probably not contributed or created more than one or two jobs amongst them all. They've worked in the public sector; they've worked for the unions; and, fundamentally, they have worked often as parasites in society rather than as builders of society. Gales of laughter.
The legislation clearly indicates the lack of understanding about small business. It demonstrates a lack of understanding with respect to small business, and that's the tragedy -- because of the narrow spectrum of individuals that this party derives its political candidates from. It's also a tragedy and an
[ Page 14822 ]
absolute recognition that the government of the day and government members are not your typical group of political leaders. They are governed by the NDP provincial council, which dictates what happens.
The debate that we're going through and the flow of legislation we've seen in the last few days show clearly that heads have been knocked together by the NDP provincial council. I'd certainly like to know who is on that, other than Ken Georgetti and the other union bosses who have bridled you and directed your concern. But obviously they have said this to you: that, clearly, the easy trying to please all of the spectrum of the public in British Columbia is for naught. You have already lost that particular contest. It has been lost absolutely, and you'd better try to keep the friends who put you where you are. Then I can see this return to the type of legislation that you've tendered or brought forward in the last few days in order to be mindful that you must do everything to at least elect some members in the next election and form some form of government.
[3:00]
I see the Speaker is a little testy, but I'm mindful that the former Minister of Environment, the former Minister of Labour, the other day took all sorts of latitude not discussing the philosophy and principles of a previous bill. In discussing the philosophy and principles of this bill.... And you have to be patient and understand, hon. Speaker, that I have to describe the background leading into the philosophy and principle of this bill and its origins.
Deputy Speaker: Let me clarify for the member, who has had considerable experience in this Legislature and knows better. The only intervention the Chair was making was through the Chair, when he was directing his comments directly to the minister. I offered that caution without turning on the microphone as a courtesy to the member, so let us be very clear for the record, member: I have no wish to impede debate, nor would I.
C. Serwa: One of the things that enables the House to proceed on a more or less level playing field is the civility of decisions that come from the Speaker's chair. It's very, very necessary in what is sometimes a very testy and obviously partisan forum, so I thank you very much for your comments.
The reality is -- and the newspaper headlines say it well -- that there's a rat's nest of rules, and it will hurt the little guys. It definitely will. What we're seeing in the philosophy behind this particular piece of legislation is the philosophy of the government in power. It's a socialist philosophy. They want big government, they want big unions, and they want big business. That's the area that they wax eloquently on and where they draw their strength, and I can understand that. But it doesn't represent how jobs are created in British Columbia. And it doesn't matter what type of words the government uses, the fact remains that they are doing everything in their power to make small businesses smaller -- to almost vanish to the point where you have a small business, an owner-operator type of a business, and that's it. Everything else will have to be done by a very large organization, so I imagine they will get the support of the big unions, and I would imagine they will also get the support of the big corporations -- more so than the Liberal Party. They seem to feel that big business has the Liberals in their pockets, but I suggest quite the contrary. The government of the day is creating an environment that enhances the opportunity for big business and is destroying the field of opportunity for small business, and there is a great deal of concern with respect to that.
I suppose when we've heard a lot of discussion here.... We've heard about the social and economic equality that the government talks about, but one thing they never talk about is equality of opportunity. That's something that's not considered even in this type of legislation. You are militating against the opportunity for new entrants into the workforce. You are militating against it in a number of situations -- for example, no hiring of children under 15 without the director's permission. Now, who is going to go to the director to hire someone under 15? There are a lot of young people, especially young children who have grown up on farms, who are very adept and capable and who know how to work or are willing to work and who want to work at a younger age. So now we have to go and get someone's permission to hire that young person.
You know, my early years were spent on the prairies. I remember when I was about eight years old that I went out in the farmers' field and picked, I think, wild mustard that was among the grain. There was a large group of small children, probably eight to 10 years old, doing that. We felt kind of proud doing it, and we did earn some money. I don't think it was a bad experience; I don't think it was an abuse of children. I started driving a cat, a bulldozer, full-time in the summertime, when I was 14. That was not abuse; it was a tremendous and exhilarating opportunity. I worked every summer since that particular point in time. I've always found employers I've worked for to be fair, reasonable and approachable. One of the things in the nature of small business is that you talk to all your employees on a daily basis.
When we look at this particular bill, it has been designed from the large type of employer perspective and from the union perspective. It has not been designed from anything that is sensitive or sympathetic to small business and the opportunity for small business in the province. It has not been designed realistically for the challenges that face those people engaged in agriculture. On the cattle ranches throughout British Columbia, cowboys get up when it's dark, and they probably don't get home till it's dark -- and that's in the middle of the summertime. So we're going to put them on an hourly wage, we're going to pay overtime and double time, and we're going to do all these things. Where is it going to come from?
I'm going to tell you where it's going to come from. It's going to come from people downsizing or expanding the use of equipment, and we're going to have more and more unemployed people. I've heard members from the government side talk about the strength of the economy and the credit rating; this morning they were feeling very good and very proud of it. But I think the government better have a better look at some of the realities that prevail.
They should take a look at the young people and their opportunities and their future in the province. Right now there's a great deal of hopelessness, because the young people have a very, very high percentage -- higher than ever before -- of individuals who are unemployed. Sure, there may be some of them who haven't completed their grade 12, and maybe there are some who have completed grade 12. There are a lot of young people who have completed university and don't have good jobs in the province. That points to the type of sickness that is out there.
[ Page 14823 ]
The reality is that we can't diminish our necessity to be competitive. We have to be productive, and we have to be competitive. If we have too many obligations imposed by government -- be they taxes, bureaucratic red tape, excessive rules and regulations and inspections or be it this type of legislation -- we are denying that type of competitiveness. Every widget we produce or every pound of beef produced here in British Columbia and then exported has to bear its share of government-imposed cost. That's the unfairness of this. We're getting to the point, hon. Speaker, where we are pricing ourselves right out of not only our national market but our international market. The government seems committed to jobs, but I have seen no evidence of any commitment to jobs here. Rather, I see the elimination of jobs.
McDonald's does a splendid job of employee training. They may not pay very high wages, but for new entrants into the field there is a splendid training program and a splendid opportunity in self-discipline and the work ethic, and the expectations of the standard of performance are all there. McDonald's does an absolutely tremendous job with young people, and I applaud them for that. But what we're doing with the types of regulations and legislation that we're looking at today is eliminating the opportunity. McDonald's can capitalize. They can get automatic equipment that can do the job and replace employees, and that's what this government is forcing them to do. What does it mean? It means that more and more young people are going to feel that sense of hopelessness. They will have nothing, and they have nothing to lose. When we talk about social problems, that is fundamentally the basis of those social problems: the loss of the feeling of self-worth, the loss of confidence, the loss of the feeling of contribution and getting remuneration for that contribution to society. This bill does absolutely nothing to enhance the opportunities in any way, shape or form.
When I go through this particular piece of legislation, I am mindful that employment standards are necessary. Our previous government thought so and indicated that, and it is obviously a concern of all members in this Legislature, but this particular set of employment standards has become overly intrusive into the whole system. It has been designed by individuals who have no understanding of and no familiarity with the challenges faced by small business in British Columbia. If we don't have small business, we do not have jobs for the people in the province, because most of the jobs have been created by small business. That is a reality, and it is something we can't ignore.
Big business has reduced the number of employment opportunities. When we look at the forest industry, we have to understand that as we have paid our forest workers more and more in the way of wages through union demands, we have had fewer and fewer employed in that particular sector. In the last ten to 12 years, there has probably been at least a 30 percent to 40 percent decline in the number of forest workers in the logging and milling sectors of that industry.
The current government may want to colour that by saying they are employing a lot more people because they have these tree-planters and they're going to go into stream rehabilitation, etc., but for the IWA the reality is that those good-paying, full-time jobs have simply vanished through mechanization. I've gone through plants where there is a line of 100 metres of equipment controlled by one person with a computer system, and the finished product is coming out the other side. Instead of pulling lumber off a greenchain, now we have electric sensors, and we take random-length, random-width lumber and stack it in stacks without a human hand touching it. That makes it more and more difficult for people to find good, satisfying, well-paying jobs here in the province.
The government likes to assume that all employers are poor or bad employers, and it is quite the contrary. With the type of team effort that is required in small business, you'll find that communication is very good. In this particular bill, it indicates that one of the goals of the bill is to enhance communication. The drafters of this bill obviously have no understanding of the reality that prevails in small business, because under subsection 2(c) -- "encourage open communication between employers and employees" -- the reality is that in small business, that occurs on a daily basis.
I have talked briefly about the requirement for no hiring of children under 15 without the director's permission. That is another piece of bureaucratic red tape and, as far as I'm concerned, totally unacceptable. It denies an opportunity for many of our young people in the province to seek gainful employment, and many have the ability and want those types of jobs.
They are restricting a number of issues, such as minimum daily hours. I can only presume that a student delivering papers has to be paid for a minimum of two hours at the regular minimum rate on a daily basis, and that is going to do nothing but dry up jobs. We have a whole series of areas like that. It may be summer camp-type jobs at camps run by non-profit societies that are going to be impacted by this legislation. We hire employees by the month, and all of a sudden we have this legislation. The summer camps are going to have a great deal of difficulty because, other than trying to evade the letter of the law, they have no ability to comply with it. If they are going to require the fees that warrant this type of legislation, they will have no client base, and the young children will have no summer camps to go to. It's simply not possible to conform to this type of legislation and be economically viable or competitive.
I cannot support the legislation. I can't support the tribunal concept. The fact is that there are a number of elements that even the government of Canada.... It has been alluded to earlier, in section 110: "A decision or order of the tribunal under this Act or the regulations on any matter in which it has jurisdiction is final and conclusive and is not open to question or review in a court on any grounds." Not even the government of Canada's legislation has that type of status, and here the current government in British Columbia is going to create a tribunal which is so all-powerful that it can ignore the ruling of the highest courts in the land. I question the legitimacy of that.
I think that the bill has been drafted by a government that has really lost control. I think history will look at this government as probably one of the most despised and corrupt governments that has ever been in any province in Canada. This government does not have any vision; they do not have any particular plan. They are controlled by an unelected, unaccountable group who are invisible, hidden behind a screen -- the NDP provincial council, a group that is greedy, full of self-interest and lust for more and more power.
This government has never shown any indication of serving the general interest or the public interest of the people of the province. This bill is directed by the provincial council as an opportunity to strengthen the union arm of the govern-
[ Page 14824 ]
ment. I think it's a tyrannical government that is paying attention to only those special interest groups that have supported the government.
[3:15]
In the end, I will be voting against the philosophy and the principles of this bill because it tends to distort the free market system. It's not based on fairness and balance. There's no effort to ensure that employees also have a responsibility to employers. There's no need to provide adequate notice, and in a small business that is very important. Right now we're relying on the goodwill of an employee. If this legislation made any effort to be balanced and fair, consideration would have been given to that. I see that there is only the consideration given to the employee. In the end, it's not balanced, it's not fair, and it's not reasonable. It would place a great load not only on a small business, which is violently opposed, but certainly on the agricultural sector.
I supported the hoist motion put up by the Liberal opposition, because I believe in all fairness not only that business throughout British Columbia should have the opportunity to look at this legislation and value and assess it for what it is, but that it's exceedingly important that young people and employees have the same opportunity. Because what this legislation will do is start to erode the job opportunities for all sorts of employees in the province. Whether they're part-time, whether they're young employees or whether they're senior employees, it will erode opportunities. They will simply not be economically viable jobs, and they will simply disappear.
The net result of that will be that more and more individuals are going to depend on government for their livelihood. Government members maybe are quite satisfied, and I'm certain that some bureaucracies in the government are quite happy to have more and more people on the GAIN program or to be looked after by welfare. But we have to remember the loss of the potential of the individuals entrapped in that particular program, and the inability of the taxpayer to support a growing a number of individuals on it.
We're mindful, also, that we have the baby-boomers in their late forties, early fifties, who are moving through the system. Legislation like this is going to deny a young funding base to provide for the health care and pensions of those who are moving off into the pension field. So once again, it strikes out on that basis. I think that the legislation is very partisan. It has been ill-thought-out, ill-presented, and it warrants a second look by government.
D. Streifel: I request leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
D. Streifel: In the gallery today is a group of students, accompanied by parents andteachers, from Ferndale Elementary. I've just spent a very interesting 20 minutes on the front steps with these young folks, answering their questions. I would suggest that all members of the House should spend some time in their community with young people of that age and try to get through those questions. I think it would make these media scrums out here seem rather tame. Would the House please welcome these friends from Mission.
A. Warnke: Actually, I would reiterate what the member for Mission-Kent said. As a matter of fact, all of us meet with students and young people at one time or another. All of us, I think, have had very pleasant experiences on every occasion -- certainly on every occasion that I can recall -- and I meet several classes throughout the year.
I'm not going to go on at length this afternoon. Prior to this afternoon, there had been several presentations both in support of and against the bill. I'll follow up and essentially express to you, hon. Speaker, that I want to add my voice to my colleagues' on one particular aspect especially. Indeed, as I've listened to the debate develop, I've noticed that there is a pattern. There are changes put forward in this bill. Changes are required in terms of establishing employment standards. There are parts of the bill that are very supported. The opposition critic has made it very clear that there are many aspects to the bill that are worthy of support and that probably will receive our support once we move to the next stage. The pattern that I see in terms of a critique of this particular bill focuses on small businesses.
I just want to add a few comments to that, as well. It is worthwhile reiterating to get the point across very clearly to government members that something of a pattern is evolving. Something in the bill does need some improvement, and that is where small businesses are affected. Indeed, I would say there are two areas of the economy that are affected: small businesses and the farm industry.
The member for Abbotsford spoke very well this morning about the impact of this bill on the farm industry. I find it very interesting that when I compare another piece of legislation that's before us, the so-called right-to-farm act, with this particular bill, I see a pattern there. On the one hand, there is one bill that expresses the right to farm and expresses some raised expectations of how the farming community is supposed to respond to that particular bill; yet when we get down to the nitty gritty in this particular bill, I think it has a profoundly adverse impact on the farm industry and doesn't come to grips with the reality of the farm industry.
Many members -- they represent different parts of British Columbia -- have probably had some experience helping farmers during the summertime in a farming community. I myself had that experience up in the valley when I was a teenager. I helped out farmers in the upper valley, and I got a little for it. I helped farmers by haying, and I helped other companies when it came to raspberry picking, bean picking and that sort of thing. When I reflect on my memory of working for one company that hires young people to strawberry pick, raspberry pick, bean pick and all the rest of it, and I compare it to the farmers who hire people for haying, I must admit that I've always been impressed with farmers who hire young people. By and large, they have been pretty fair; sometimes more fair than the corporations who hire young people. I suppose this is a part that bothers me just a little bit, and perhaps the minister might once again take a look at the bill and perhaps see those areas where some improvement is needed. The reason I emphasize this is that where a corporation is involved.... This kind of legislation may have some sort of potential problem but will probably not impede corporations. They get through the hoops very well -- sometimes because they are corporations. I suppose we can think of the fast-food industry. The member for Okanagan West referred to one example of a corporation that hires young people.
[ Page 14825 ]
I share with that member the extent to which McDonald's has helped young people; and it is helping them out at lower wages than what would perhaps be tolerated by the adult community.
The other side of the coin is that when I look at this bill and how it impacts on farmers, realizing that they have to.... Essentially they hire young people to do the haying -- stack bales of hay and that sort of thing. They're not really exploiting young people. Somehow I envisage young people -- and I have had this experience -- having a much different relationship with the farmer than with corporations. I suppose that's where it would be worthwhile to go back and have a re-examination here, because the farm industry -- I'm talking about family farms.... If we are really interested in the right to farm, I think we have to think about the family farm. As the member for Surrey-White Rock eloquently said this morning, the impact this bill has on small businesses -- and a number of members have referred to the impact on small businesses and the family business.... This is where I think we need to re-examine the relevant parts of this bill -- not to impose any more restrictions, impediments and red tape on small businesses.
It's extremely important that in our economy, especially since the minister has said that we're moving from a resource-based economy to a service economy.... I would invite the minister to appreciate that if we are moving -- and with him, I believe that we are moving to more of a service-based economy -- that we have some fundamental respect for family farms, family businesses and small businesses, because the impact that it has on them can be profound. It certainly has a profound impact on the rest of the community, as we are all consumers using these services.
I cannot expand on some elaborate and, I would say, very good presentations that have been given on this, except perhaps one last point: with respect to those provisions in the bill where the intent is to improve the situation of domestic workers, the government may be dead on. And in that context, I am quite supportive. It's one of those bills that has sort of mixed blessings: areas that can be supported and other areas deserve some re-examination. Possibly when we go through committee stage, the minister and the government will respond accordingly.
There was one comment made this morning. The member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca said we were taking small businesses into account. Yet in that presentation, the member argued in favour of the government and said that it had been in touch with the small businesses. Well, that was twofold. That member said: "We used Professor Thompson to get in touch with the various small business communities." On that point, I would say: "Precisely; there is an arm's length between the government and the small businesses that are being affected." They're listening to Professor Thompson -- and on his behalf, he put together a good report and all the rest of it -- but the fact is that there is no direct contact between the government and the small businesses that are being affected.
That was one defence where I see there is a problem. The second one is that the government did get in touch with small businesses. How? Through constant consultation with coalitions and associations; the member listed a number of them. But as I listened to the list of coalitions and associations, I said to myself: "You know, that is part of the problem. The government has not paid attention to the impact of legislation such as this on small businesses, because there was no attempt to have direct contact with small businesses." It was done through coalitions and associations.... And to a certain extent, maybe that reflects a bias of myself: sometimes I'm suspicious, or, at other times, and perhaps this is relevant in here....
Again, it acts as an intermediary, because you have so-called representatives of small businesses. To be quite hones with you, I have paid attention to some individuals who claim to represent small businesses throughout Canada, and when they respond to a Finance minister's bill, or the budget or something like that and they're asked by the media for some sort of comment, sometimes I have really wondered and asked myself: "Who the heck is this individual to claim to represent small business?"
[3:30]
I would encourage the government to try to get some direct contact with small businesses that are affected, and listen to examples such as those the member for Surrey-White Rock was pointing out this morning. Pay close attention to those examples, rather than always trying to rely on intermediaries such as the coalitions, associations and all the rest of it. That, I think, reveals why there is a fundamental weakness in at least some parts of this bill. On that, hon. Speaker, I take my place.
F. Randall: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
F. Randall: In the gallery this afternoon we have 29 students in grade 4 at Douglas Road Elementary school, and they're accompanied by Mrs. Bradley, their teacher, and other adults. Would the House please make them welcome.
D. Jarvis: I'll just make a few comments in the conclusion of second reading of Bill 29. I would tend to be in favour of most of the cases in this bill; some items are very good items. But there are a few things that have to be pointed out, I think, and that have been pointed out by a lot of the members over these last couple of days. One of them is that it assumes that employees cannot make any flexible arrangements regarding hours of work, overtime, statutory holidays, leaves and vacations, etc., and that they can only do so, according to this bill, under the tight control of the government. If this bill is any indication, the government appears to assume that all employers are bad employers, and we all should know that this is not true. As a matter of fact, it is quite the opposite, in the sense that most jobs are created by small businesses. This is a situation that really has to be taken into consideration if this bill is going to curtail employment through small businesses.
An Hon. Member: How?
D. Jarvis: How? It does. We have always realized that the first-time man on the job, on the scene, is sometimes paid the minimum wage, or close to the minimum wage, or can only work so many hours. There's always the housewife or the single mother who has children and who can only work so many hours a day. Now they are required to pay her for four hours. Those sorts of things do affect it considerably.
[ Page 14826 ]
Another aspect of this bill that I'm not pleased with -- I think it's under part 5, and we'll get into it in detail in committee stage -- is the larger businesses that it will affect, not necessarily the smaller businesses but larger businesses, those that have collective agreements. Now we have the holiday aspect under part 5, which they'll have to renegotiate or make some kind of consideration for.
This bill prohibits flexible work arrangements, as I said before, for students and women who are working on a part-time basis. The bill itself makes no attempt to create employment, which is our main requirement, I believe, in this House. Any bills that we're bringing forward to do with labour should be to help create more employment.
To sum it up, this bill simply represents, on the whole, more government intrusion into the employer-employee relationship, and on that basis, I will be voting against the second reading.
F. Randall: I'm going to be very, very brief. I just wanted to make a comment on Bill 29 and certainly go on record as supporting it. Most of the comments that we've heard have been negative with regard to practically everything -- and even comments are made now that the bill should be creating employment. This bill is to protect employees from abuse by unscrupulous employers, and there are few of those around.
I don't want to get into all the details in the bill. When we get into committee stage, we'll be able to deal with each issue clause by clause. I know that the minister will deal with any legitimate concerns or problems that are raised. I know that there was one mentioned earlier, and I'm not sure whether federal government records for income tax purposes are for seven years or six years. There was a speaker in the opposition who said it was six years, and my information is that it's seven years. I think that should be resolved, because I think it should be the same period of time. Those kinds of things can be discussed as we go through.
Certainly this bill is not a problem for fair employers. It's there to ensure that certain standards are met by all employers. There is a fair amount of abuse with regard to working conditions and benefits for people who are usually working in very minimum-paying jobs. Concern about the farm was mentioned, farm labour. If a labour broker brings people in to work, there have to be assurances made that those employees are going to be paid. The person who's having the work performed on their farm should ensure that those wages are paid. You can't have labour brokers not pay the workers when the farmer has all the work done. So I think that is also important.
I guess the other comment is that there's talk about referring this -- tabling it. You know, it's been about two years in the making, and I don't know how long you keep discussing these things. There have been all kinds of consultation -- as was mentioned previously -- and meetings with all kinds of different groups. I just want to say that all the discussion about small business and people going out of business.... From my experience, I would say that most of the people I know who have gone out of business -- and I've talked to a lot of small business people -- have done so because people aren't paying their bills. It's usually larger employers who hire all these small employers. They don't pay them, and they eventually go out of business. That is the major problem. I've not known any of these employers to go out of business because of working conditions that their employees have -- and obviously non-union employees, because they're not working under a collective agreement. The big problem is them collecting from the larger people they perform work for.
The major problem today is that, on collections, if it's $1000 or under, you're just wasting your time to even try to go to small debts court and collect it. It's written off. Those are all written off, because now the small debts court goes up to $10,000 on collections. It's a real problem even to try and collect; it takes years. That's an area that I know is being looked at currently.
The problem of small business going out of business is mainly because of big business not paying their bills, from my experience. All you've got to do is look at the legal section in the newspaper, where you see that people have claims in against certain people for not paying. It's usually small businesses that have not been paid by larger businesses -- not their employees who are an effect on them performing business.
Most of the comments here seem to be against the workers receiving some sort of standard or benefit -- in other words, keep them down as low as you can. It sort of reminds me about the story in the paper where it says that Liberals would roll back pay of public employees. The fight here is to not even let these employees, who have no collective agreement or have minimum standards, try and establish something. And here they're talking about rolling back pay already for public employees.
The Liberals have no concern about working people. They have absolutely none, in my mind, and I've listened to them. In fact, I was shocked at the words of the man in the cloth over there, the way he spoke about this bill. A man of the cloth speaking like that really, really disturbed me. I'm going to wind up. I encourage the opposition members to rethink this and certainly support this legislation on second reading.
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers on the debate, I'm going to call on the Minister of Employment and Investment. His remarks will close second reading.
Hon. G. Clark: I'll be brief, in closing debate on behalf of the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour. I must say I'm a bit surprised by the tenor of the comments from members of the opposition -- that somehow this was a bill "designed by union bosses." That was one of the terms I heard which strikes me as a bit strange, given that this is for non-union workers. One could argue that there's a conflict of interest for unions, in terms of trying.... Why would they support enhancing working conditions and benefits for the non-union sector if it means it will be harder for them to organize them? Frankly, when you read comments about this being designed by union bosses or you hear the opposite side, it strikes me as ludicrous when you look at the fact that this bill is designed not for union workers. It's in fact designed for those many thousands of workers who are non-union.
Then when you hear comments and a great long speech by the last remaining Social Credit member about how somehow there's a clause in here that you have to get a certificate before you can employ someone who's 15 or under, and how
[ Page 14827 ]
this is some travesty and some socialist plot, it struck me.... I looked at the old bill passed by the previous Social Credit government, and it has exactly the same clause: no person shall employ a child without the permission of the director or his or her authorized representative, if they are under the age of 15. There's no change in this bill, as opposed to the other bill.
Then I heard all this about the agricultural community and how this travesty -- this radical, socialist idealogy -- is infecting this bill. I looked at the old Employment Standards Act, and I find that in fact there's a one-word change, which is really a technical change designed to implement employment standards in the agricultural sector. There are no radical changes in employment standards in the agriculture sector.
Now, I could actually make a speech arguing that we should go further with employment standards. I know some of my colleagues would support that. But this does not do that. So what does it do? I refer members.... This is a little-known fact, but on the first page of every bill it says: "Explanatory Note." It says there are four key changes. Firstly: "The investigative process is streamlined." Non-union workers who file a complaint about minimum standards not being adhered to have a streamlined investigative process.
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: Yes, I know it; it's a socialist plot to streamline government, but I defend it, and I'd suggest that members opposite should support it.
What else does it do? Secondly: "An independent appeal tribunal is established." Again, I think it sounds very reasonable. A whole review, a consultative study and professors recommend an appeal tribunal.
Thirdly -- and this is a good one; this is a real lefty one: "Enforcement is strengthened by requiring payment of interest on unpaid wages and by providing for penalties." The old bill had penalties. Many times the penalty to the employer was that he had to pay wages that were rightfully owed to a former employee. Now you have to pay it with interest -- surely a reasonable response. Yes, it is a tougher response, but it's a tougher response to employers who have been convicted of violating the minimum standards in law for non-union employees. They now have to pay interest to the workers they've abused -- a reasonable response.
I acknowledge that the last point here is a major step forward. It says that we require unpaid leaves. "Unpaid leaves are added for bereaved employees and employees with family responsibilities." I might remind members that I think it was Ronald Reagan, a Republican, who allowed for family leave. One of the only progressive bills that Ronald Reagan signed when he was President of the United States was to allow for unpaid family leave. We're bringing it in here following on the footsteps of that major left-wing leader, that socialist leader, Ronald Reagan. We're providing unpaid leave.
I won't make a big speech about it, but unpaid leave for family responsibilities, for children who get sick.... A single mother is trying to look after her family, and her child is sick at home. They can't afford a babysitter; they don't have a nanny. I know that's hard to understand for some members: they don't have domestics working for them. They can take time off, and the employer can't penalize them. Even though it's without pay, they can take time off to look after their children. That, I suggest, is absolutely the appropriate role for government when it comes to preserving family values: protecting families, and allowing them to take time off to look after their children.
[3:45]
This bill -- and I think members opposite made this point -- really answers the question: what is the appropriate role of government? Members opposite suggest -- and I heard it today from many speakers -- that this goes too far in protecting the rights of workers and in not allowing employers more freedom when it comes to employment standards. We suggest and make no apology for this: this bill modernizes the Employment Standards Act. Yes, it goes farther on unpaid leave for bereavement and for dealing with children, but it also says that there is an appropriate role for government.
Not all businesses are good to their employees; not all businesses are unscrupulous -- of course not. This bill will do nothing to impact good, decent employers, which are the majority. This bill is not a burden to the vast majority of businesses, small, medium and large, who treat their employees fairly. But there are unscrupulous employers. Government intervention is required to protect the rights of workers who work, unfortunately, for unscrupulous employers. Go down to the employment standards branch and talk to the investigative officers, and they will tell you that every year there are thousands of legitimate complaints and convictions under the Employment Standards Act dealing with unscrupulous employers.
This bill is tougher on unscrupulous employers. It extends protection for the non-union sector in British Columbia. It is a modest step, one that all members should support, and I commend the bill to them.
Second reading of Bill 29 approved on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 31 | ||
|
Pement |
Edwards |
Zirnhelt |
|
O'Neill |
Perry |
Hagen |
|
Kasper |
Hammell |
B. Jones |
|
Lortie |
Giesbrecht |
Smallwood |
|
Cull |
Gabelmann |
Clark |
|
MacPhail |
Pullinger |
Sihota |
|
Randall |
Beattie |
Farnworth |
|
Doyle |
Janssen |
Streifel |
|
Simpson |
Jackson |
Krog |
|
Brewin |
Copping |
Schreck |
| Lali | ||
|
NAYS -- 17 | ||
|
Dalton |
Warnke |
Reid |
|
Farrell-Collins |
Hurd |
Stephens |
|
Weisgerber |
Hanson |
Serwa |
|
Tanner |
Jarvis |
Anderson |
|
Symons |
K. Jones |
van Dongen |
|
de Jong |
Fox | |
Bill 29, Employment Standards Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
[ Page 14828 ]
Hon. G. Clark: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 9.
WATER PROTECTION ACT
(second reading continued)
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, I recognize now the hon. member for Esquimalt-Metchosin.
An Hon. Member: It's not Port Renfrew?
M. Sihota: No, it's not Port Renfrew. In fact, the Chair last time called it Malahat-Juan de Fuca, but Port Renfrew is in the riding of Malahat-Juan de Fuca now. They have the second-best MLA ever there. Oh, I'm sorry, he's gone, so I can say whatever I want to say.
I know that I've spoken for about an hour on this bill, and I'm not going to speak much longer. [Applause.] Maybe I should, and talk about the efforts of the opposition to mine the Tatshenshini.
By the way, I see the Minister of Environment. We, of course, announced another park today -- Tetrahedron -- and I give her credit.
Hon. E. Cull: It was a good announcement.
M. Sihota: It was a good announcement.
But, hon. Speaker, I'm not.... I think I've made the comments that I wanted to make about salmon and the need to protect the salmon resource in British Columbia, and that that is one of the two pillars of this legislation. I think I've already put on the record our record with regard to protection of the integrity of the salmon resource in the province. I think I've also, during the course of those comments, made clear my observations of the total lack of interest and commitment on part of the opposition in this province to protect the integrity of our salmon resource in British Columbia. I note that to date they haven't.... I talked about Kemano and in particular about the comments of the Leader of the Opposition in that regard, in the one sort of green spot that the leopard showed.
Today I want to talk about the other pillar of this legislation. The other pillar, of course, is the fact that this legislation vests in the possession of the Crown the water resources of the province. In that sense, this legislation is historic and unprecedented but also necessary. The reason I say it is necessary is that, constitutionally, British Columbia and all the other provinces have the right and the jurisdictional control over resources that are situated in the land that sits within the provincial boundaries. We have control over our forest resources, our mineral resources and our water resources.
In the context of forests and mineral resources, this Legislature -- and particularly this government with regard to legislation like the Forest Practices Code and Forest Renewal B.C. -- has made a very determined statement about control over those resources and our ability as a province to manage those resources for the benefit of future generations. We want to ensure that future generations have access to an environment and a land base that is at least as safe, as clean and as bountiful as the one that we as British Columbians are fortunate enough to inherit.
To illustrate that case, what we have done as a government is change the way we manage our forests, through the Forest Practices Code and through Forest Renewal British Columbia. We have changed the revenue that accrues to the province because of the rent that is charged for that forest resource. We've brought forward changes in terms of Forest Renewal British Columbia. As I noted the other day, the opposition voted against the Forest Practices Code despite the overwhelming acknowledgement in this province that we had to change the way we manage our forests. The opposition in British Columbia, and the Liberal opposition leader in particular, called Forest Renewal B.C. both bad politics and bad business when, indeed, we are reinvesting back into that resource to ensure that future generations have access to a resource that is as bountiful as the one we have inherited.
[4:00]
Similarly, we brought forward environmental assessment legislation in this legislative chamber last session to ensure that land base decisions -- on mining, for example -- go through the process of environmental assessment. Not only do we make sure that decisions are made in an environmentally sustainable way, but we also make it very clear that we have sovereignty over our land base in this province.
This legislation before the House seeks to do the same with regard to the water resources of British Columbia. In this legislation we are saying that British Columbians have control, constitutionally, over the water resources that are located in this province. We are acknowledging in this legislation that water is an essential commodity not only to the existence of human life but for the future economic prosperity of this province. We as British Columbians have a right to determine how it is that we utilize our water resources in British Columbia.
I had the privilege of engaging in the 1992 constitutional discussions with the federal government. The federal government, under law, has the constitutional responsibility of signing international treaties on behalf of the country, and they enter into international covenants with other nations of the world. The federal government entered into the North American Free Trade Agreement on behalf of the people of Canada. Under that agreement, they purported to sign agreements that covered the utilization of our natural resources, including water.
During the course of the 1992 constitutional debates, this province took the position that the federal government had no right to sign international agreements with other nations when those international agreements touched areas of provincial jurisdiction. In other words, if the federal government wanted to sign an international agreement as it relates to forestry or mining -- and yes, to water -- those international agreements have to be subject to the agreement or the acquiesence of provincial governments that have control over those natural resources. In other words, the federal government can only sign agreements in areas where it has constitutional responsibility. If it wants to sign agreements in areas where provinces have constitutional responsibility, then it has to say in the agreement that it has to get the consent of the province. In this country, and historically in this province, we have guarded our right to assert our sovereignty over the natural resources located in this province. We have a legal obligation to do that, in terms of the constitution.
When the federal government executed the North American Free Trade Agreement, in my view it had no right to give
[ Page 14829 ]
up control to the Americans over access to our water resources. We're saying in this legislation not only that water is an essential commodity, but that public policy decisions with regard to water will be made by members of this chamber and by the government of British Columbia, not by the government of Canada, nor, more importantly, by the government of the United States of America.
Do we have the right to control our water resources for our own domestic needs in British Columbia? If we want to prevent diversion of water from one watershed to another as was supplied under the Kemano project, then we have the right to decide that we don't want to allow for that kind of diversion, as part of the exercise of our control, our sovereignty of our natural resources. If we want to prevent the Thompson River diversion so that water from that area can be diverted from one watershed to another, we can put a block to that, as we've chosen to do under this legislation. And we can do it in part because we want to protect the integrity of our salmon resources in British Columbia, for all the reasons outlined earlier on. Or we can do it because we want to protect a commodity as vital to human life -- and all life -- as water. We have the right to do what we want to do with our water resources. We have the right to utilize the resources that God has given us -- to control our own economic destiny in the interests of British Columbians.
This legislation says very clearly and unequivocally that bulk water in British Columbia is not for sale, nor should it be. Under this legislation we have determined that water will be available for sale only in the case of bottled water, and under the conditions that are allowed for in the legislation, but that bulk water, despite all of the desires of corporations like Multinational Water and Power Inc., will not be sold to the Americans. Therefore we're making the statement that we have the right to control our own economic destiny, that we're masters of our own economic fate, that the federal government has no right to give away our resources in the way that they have contemplated in the North American Free Trade Agreement, and that it's not for the Americans to assume that our water can be available at their whim, to irrigate golf courses in Arizona, as they would prefer. It's not on.
We are also saying under this legislation that there are environmental imperatives that we have to take into account. We will not allow for that export, because of its environmental impact. For example, under this legislation we are saying and acknowledging that diminishment of water in a river can have an impact on the environmental attributes of this province. For example, withdrawing water from a river close to a river's mouth -- let's say that it's worked its way through all of the factories that want to have access to it -- will have a negative impact on the environment with regard to estuaries in this province, and to ducks and other wildlife that depend on water for their own purposes.
I am confident that all members of this House, of all political parties -- even the Liberals, who would love to give away our water resources -- will offer support for this fundamental principle and powerful statement being made by government in this legislation.
T. Perry: A bill like this has been a lifelong dream of mine -- perhaps not lifelong; I think when I was a baby I was more interested in milk than water. We're permitted the occasional hyperbole in this House just to keep things lively. Back in university, when I studied ecology at UBC, I remember a young woman named Laura Falk, now Laura Duncan. She is now the leader of the East Kootenay Environmental Society, and on the board of the University of Victoria. She and I did a project together on dams and proposed water diversions in B.C. Because of that we became aware of the so-called NAWAPA project -- North American Water and Power Alliance -- a frightening scheme first put forward in about 1964 or 1965 by the Ralph M. Parsons Engineering Co. of Los Angeles, California. I still have a copy somewhere of that original report, and it's ironic that the former B.C. Minister of Energy, the late Jack Davis, was once a proponent of that scheme. He was also the federal Environment minister at one time. It's frightening to think he was in favour of the NAWAPA scheme at one point.
Really, what it related to was the notion common to the Three Gorges project on the Yangtze River, the Aswan Dam on the Nile, the major dams on the Columbia and similar projects all over the globe. That frightening project on a river in northwest India, for example, that the World Bank is....
An Hon. Member: You're supporting the Three Gorges dam.
T. Perry: No, we're not. I see the member is suggesting that we're supporting Three Gorges. The government is not supporting Three Gorges. The Premier announced in China last fall that B.C. would not participate in the Three Gorges project.
There was a philosophy at one time -- and it was common in Quebec, in Manitoba, and in the early days in B.C. -- to flood everything you could find and divert water in every which direction -- and the environment be damned, so to speak. Well, thank God there was an awakening to worry about water diversions after the havoc the Aswan Dam in Egypt wreaked on the sardine fishery in the Mediterranean at the mouth of the Nile.
British Columbians have been in the forefront of that concern, yet wild and crazy people have had the ideas of diverting rivers like the North Thompson River. I remember that the member who is going to speak subsequently and who represents that area, and others in the Kamloops area, are very concerned about that scheme. My reaction is that it is such a crazy idea, why worry about it; no one would ever seriously dream of putting that idea forth now, to divert the North Thompson River south into the United States. Yet people do seriously consider ideas like that. There are people in California who would love to get their hands on that water, to put our farmers out of business by outcompeting them with our water and to change global hydrologic patterns.
I don't think we need a long speech here to say why that's so bad. I just want to say that I think it's long overdue in British Columbia for us to decide that we will not allow our exports of bulk water in the form of massive river diversions or huge transfers of water by pipeline.
The water has been created by the evolution of this planet over four or five billion years. It belongs where it is now, and I hope it stays there. I'm confident that this act will help to protect our natural environment in B.C. and keep the water where it belongs, as part of a natural hydrologic and ecological cycle. So I'm going to be very proud to vote for this bill and look forward to hearing from the member for Kamloops-North Thompson.
[ Page 14830 ]
F. Jackson: It is with great pleasure indeed that I rise to say a few words in support of Bill 9, the Water Protection Act. In the previous New Democratic Party government, we protected land through the Agricultural Land Commission. We, the other day, debated legislation which will protect the farmer's right to grow food on that land. We protected the quality of air by implementing AirCare and extending it to commercial vehicles. We will be doing away with beehive burners, which are a major contribution to air pollution.
Today, we are moving towards protecting our water. Bill 9, the Water Protection Act, has one very clear purpose. It states that the water of British Columbia is for use by British Columbians within the borders of British Columbia. This bill is very important for me and for my constituents, because one of the things that it does prevent happening is the diversion of the North Thompson River into the Columbia River system. The previous speaker talked about how, at various times, he said that this was very unlikely and they would never do that. Over the last three or four years, it's very clear that in fact there is a great demand for our water south of the border and even in Mexico. It's also become very clear that it could well be very profitable for some to do that.
[4:15]
Over the last three years in the North Thompson valley, I have been to a number of public meetings in Clearwater and Barriere, where the message was quite clear: "We don't want our river diverted." The North Thompson Indian band says very clearly: "We don't want our river diverted." In the case of the North Thompson Indian band, they don't only look at the economic or the possible environmental impacts of such a deal; for them the river has spiritual connections. At the south end of the North Thompson River, in the city of Kamloops, the Kamloops Chamber of Commerce said in no uncertain terms: "We don't want to divert the North Thompson River." So it's relatively easy for me to speak in support of this bill, because I know there is constituency support for this.
There are members of other political parties who seem to think it still might be a good idea to study this and do feasibility studies on it. One thing this bill will prevent is even that thin edge of the wedge from happening. Anybody who drives up Highway 5 cannot miss the signposts: "Leave our water alone." "Don't sell our water." "Don't divert our river." This bill is very important to my constituency, and I'm very pleased to be part of this debate and make sure that this Water Protection Act passes through this House.
I would like to finish on lighter note, with the fact that in the North Thompson valley we're getting a kind of double benefit. We have a plant in Clearwater that bottles water from the Clearwater River, a tributary of the North Thompson. There is great demand for it in bottles, and that will be allowed under this act, so we can continue to bottle our water and satisfy that demand.
We have said in no uncertain terms, and this bill says in no uncertain terms, that we will not allow the diversion of the North Thompson. In so doing, we will protect the environmental aspects, whether they be for salmon or the downstream benefits, maybe for irrigation, and also protect the North Thompson Indian band and their spiritual values. This will also protect the idea for the residents in the valley that the river is theirs. For the people of British Columbia, it establishes very clearly that this water is ours. I think this is a very important piece of legislation we are passing through this House, and I would ask all members of the House to support it.
M. Farnworth: Bill 9, the Water Protection Act, deals with one of the most important resources in this province. Those of us who live on the West Coast on this side of the mountains often take for granted that when November comes, it will cloud over for the next five or six months, and when the rain comes down, sometimes we have more than enough water. But if you live on the other side of the mountains, water is scarce, which creates deserts. It's the stuff of life.
What happens is that our water, which is this province's greatest natural resource, is viewed as something that other countries -- the Americans in particular -- think of as being very desirable. One has only to look at their wasteful practices in agriculture, where they grow cotton and alfalfa in the desert, and they consume ever-increasing amounts of water to grow crops that really aren't economically viable without cheap, subsidized water. Yet they want more, and where do they turn? Not to their own states, because they don't have any left. The Colorado River no longer runs into the ocean; it sort of trickles out as a mud flat into the Gulf of Mexico. They look north to British Columbia, and they have come up with schemes to divert our own rivers and to flood the Rocky Mountain Trench. They look to Ontario and to other provinces.
We have jurisdiction in British Columbia, and we can do something to protect our water for today and tomorrow. The Water Protection Act does that. I know we have the support of members in this House, and when the time comes, I'm sure they will vote with the government. Every British Columbian has to realize that there are schemes out there to divert the North Thompson that have a lot of money and influence behind them. There are people who would like to dam the Fraser; there are people who would like to flood the Rocky Mountain Trench. Large corporate American projects would love nothing better than to turn the Rocky Mountain Trench into one giant reservoir. It has the support of influential Canadian Senators, and former Tory cabinet ministers support the diversion of some of British Columbia's most important rivers.
Well, this government won't stand by and allow that to happen. This government realizes the importance of water to the people of this province. It is our greatest resource, and we have to ensure that it's there tomorrow. This bill does that. We've seen the federal government try and protect it for us through a free trade agreement, by adding a clause that Canada's water is not for export. Unfortunately, the Americans don't recognize that. Why? Because they want access to our water. They want unlimited access to it, something which we must not allow. For only on our own terms and our own conditions, through such things as bottled water exports, which we currently allow, where you can turn the tap off on very short notice, and there's no international agreement controlling the amount that has to go across the border....
It is vital that British Columbians realize the threat that our water resources are under -- not just the pollution threat but the threat of greed and the threat from those who see it as a way of postponing the day of reckoning with their own resources, because they have squandered them. This may not
[ Page 14831 ]
be the most headline-grabbing bill that we debate in this Legislature. It may not be to many people the most glamorous bill, but as the hon. member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain says, it should be. We have seen in too many places what happens when water resources become polluted or overexploited -- how environments suffer, how people suffer, how countries can suffer, and how irreversible the damage can be.
One of the greatest environmental tragedies in the world today is occurring in the old Soviet Union on the Aral Sea, where the Oxus River used to drain into one of the largest inland seas in the world. The river was diverted to supply water to cotton fields, water to grow citrus crops and vegetable crops in the desert, and it did this for some 25 or 30 years. But what happened was that water levels declined because water was no longer reaching the lakes. Towns that were once coastal towns are now some 15 to 20 miles inland. The lake itself, the Aral Sea, is now devoid of all fish. There are no fish there anymore. It is a nightmare, an environmental nightmare of gigantic proportions.
That type of thing will not be allowed in British Columbia. That is why we are passing Bill 9, and I urge all members to support it.
R. Chisholm: I rise today to support Bill 9. I think it is very good legislation brought forward by the government in this particular case. And I think that over the past years we've seen some question about the exact status of water. When you take a look at NAFTA, when you take a look at free trade, there have been various opinions about whether it was traded away, and much controversy has raged in the past couple of years. This bill was very much needed to prove to the rest of the world that B.C. will maintain its sovereignty over this resource.
It is a very valuable resource. For instance, we dump 187 billion gallons a day into the ocean, yet right now today there's rationing in Abbotsford. So we must be very, very careful in what we do with this resource -- whether we divert it, bottle it, put it into transmissions lines or put it on tankers. We have to be very careful, because at a minute's notice we could be rationing, just like they are in Abbotsford today.
Water has always been envied south of us. They have been diverting and drying up their rivers for use in their agriculture, and they've been looking northwards at ours. They have been competing with us in agriculture, and they would dearly love to get hold of our water to help them continue competing. Then, like I've heard in other speeches, there are consortiums out there that would dearly love to use the Rocky Mountain Trench to transmit water from our watershed to California. There are consortiums out there that would love to dam the Fraser River, which would destroy our salmon fisheries. I didn't hear that in these other speeches. These are the salmon fisheries that we're so worried about at this point in time.
There are things we have to question in this bill -- that is, will there be taxation of well water and this type of thing? We'll get to these various points in committee stage. But in the main, not transferring water between watersheds is a very good thing. The minor points that we have to discuss in committee stage will just clarify the confusion. I would like to know in committee stage if formal requests for water have been made to the government of British Columbia. This will come out in committee stage. It is very important for us to know these things. We are expecting another 1.5 million people in the Fraser Valley in the next 15 years. Water is going to be very big, and we do have to protect it.
I mentioned earlier about the salmon fisheries. The salmon fisheries are sitting right now on the brink of extinction. We talk about water. What happens if you take water out of the Fraser, or if you divert it? What happens to the fisheries at that point in time? We discussed this with the Kemano situation, and we came to the conclusion that it would destroy the fisheries; it would be very shortsighted of us to do so. It is no different with this particular situation. This resource is probably the most important resource that we have to protect, and we've been very lax with it in the last few decades.
As far as bottling it and sending it to the United States is concerned, I firmly believe that that is perfectly all right. But when we start bulk shipments of water, we are going to be looking at our eventual downfall.
[4:30]
The last thing I'd like to say, and I've said it twice already in this speech.... We're talking about water. Here we are: it is June 1, and we're talking about whether it should or should not be sent out of the country as an export. On June 1 they're rationing in Abbotsford. Members of this chamber should think long and hard on that one. If we're rationing in Abbotsford on June 1, it could very easily be a lot earlier in other years. We have lots of water -- or so it would seem -- but our ecosystem requires that. Any change to that ecosystem is liable to destroy the whole fabric of our environment.
C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to rise and speak on the philosophy and principles of Bill 9. I'm very, very pleased that the government has decided to move in this direction. Overall, I have to agree with the philosophy and principles of this. I spoke to one of the high-profile government members prior to putting the moratorium on the export of water and the issue of licences in British Columbia, and I'm grateful for his wise counsel in this matter. We discussed a number of areas in that particular phone call. There is certainly an issue with native concerns; there's the concern with coastal estuary situations; obviously there's a significant concern with bulk water exports, be they from the coastal rivers or from the interior. A very famous Social Credit member and a Premier of the province for 20 years, W.A.C. Bennett, cautioned us about the concerns of exporting water.
When I was Minister of Environment, there had been a great deal of pressure on the province to issue more licences for the export of water. It's incumbent on everyone in this Legislature to know that water licences that enable the bulk export of water from some areas already exist -- in particular the water behind the dam at Ocean Falls, for example. It's a significantly large volume of water.
There were a great many controls, and I initiated a study and a search for information on a number of different aspects of what the impact would be. Some of them had to do with the bilateral trade negotiations -- the pricing of water. If we charged even 1 cent a gallon for the export of water, we had to charge a similar price here at home. An acre-foot of water contains approximately a quarter of a million gallons, so you would be looking at a return of $2,500 for an acre-foot. Obviously, our agricultural sector, particularly in the interior of the province, has difficulty with water taxes as they exist at the present time. So there were those implications.
[ Page 14832 ]
There were other elements that deserve scrutiny. Some of them have not been answered. If I have concerns with this legislation it's because I haven't seen evidence that all of the questions I had asked or had initiated have been responded to. There are areas in the province, especially on coastal watersheds, where there are no salmon streams; the water drops directly into the ocean. There were concerns about the local environment and what would happen if a certain quantity of that water were denied from that traditional source and what it would do to the ecosystem. I don't think that question has been answered.
I did take the trouble to make a trip to California, and I went through the area where the Goleta water board had served water, and these were the potential customers for the bulk export of water from British Columbia. At that time they were suffering the significant effects of a drought, and they were looking at all sorts of options and alternatives, one of which was the export of fresh water from British Columbia. Washington and Oregon, by the way, declined the opportunity to export water to their neighbouring state of California.
Desalination was one option, but the one they finally chose was recycling water from the sewage system and putting a dual system within their community to water public areas -- lawns, parks, that sort of thing -- with the recycled water. The necessity for the export of bulk water has diminished with the heavy rains on the Pacific West Coast in the past several years. Reservoirs are full, and flooding has been more of a problem in California than drought. The water table, the aquifers and the surface water reservoirs have all been replenished, so the demand is not there.
It's been said by all members in this House that water is a very important natural asset. We do have control of our water. That is one of the things we do have under the British North America Act of 1867 and the Constitution Act. We have that control within British Columbia. I certainly agree with the government's specific concerns about the export of large-scale diversions or bulk water export. There are still many questions out there, and I think that while this is a conservative measure -- and I applaud being conservative -- we'll have more time to study it.
At some point in time, if we do have surplus water, I think that the opportunity is there. But the inter-watershed transfers of water are certainly opposed within British Columbia. With the heavy growth in the Okanagan some time ago, there was a suggestion that a canal be built from the Shuswap River and connected into the Okanagan system, therefore absolving some of us in the Okanagan from a responsibility to maintain water quality. That option was denied, and rightfully so. In the course of reality, the Okanagan communities had to come up with sewage systems and tertiary treatment systems, and I think the Okanagan is a leader in that. Actually, water quality in Okanagan Lake has improved dramatically. This is in spite of the longer period -- an almost 200-year turnover -- that's required for that water, because we're storing more and more water at the higher elevations for domestic use and irrigation systems.
So all in all, as for the philosophy and principles of this bill, I heartily applaud and approve of this particular bill, although it is not without fault.
Interjections.
C. Serwa: I have to say this to the gang that couldn't shoot straight. A few days ago we were going to have a debate -- I think it was on the Columbia water basin and the sale of power to the Bonneville power authority. As a matter of fact, the gang that couldn't shoot straight couldn't even initiate a debate on a Wednesday morning, because they didn't do their homework.
This particular bill contains elements in it that are not well thought out, for example the prohibition against B.C. water removal. This is in section 5. There's a limitation, I believe, to 20 litres of capacity or less. There is no accommodation or allowance for the reality that prevails. Really, this legislation means that individuals in a camper or trailer or motor home, if they cross the line into the United States, can be charged under this legislation with the export of water. That's not considered.
What has not been considered is aircraft that load up with thousands of gallons of water, in the case of a 747, not in 20- litre containers but in large tanks. They can be charged with the export of bulk water; they fall afoul of this particular piece of legislation. What about ships? We tried to encourage a cruise ship basin in the port of Vancouver, and it has been highly successful. They obviously go through hundreds of thousands of gallons of water on a cruise, and are we to prohibit them from loading up with British Columbia water, or do we make them dump it?
So there are flaws in this particular legislation. I am confident that the flaws will be attended to in Committee of the Whole, as they must. But in spite of the flaws, the philosophy and principles are in fact correct. Water is life. Water, in spite of the apparent abundance in the province of British Columbia, is in very heavy demand. I'm well aware of it, living in the Okanagan Valley, which is really the northern tip of the Sonora Desert, which starts in Mexico and ends in the southern part of the Okanagan Valley. Even in the Kelowna area, without irrigation systems we are a semi-arid desert, with precipitation somewhere between ten and 20 inches annually, so we need irrigation.
In the conservation of water -- which is very important in our particular situation, with a growing population and with the agricultural demands -- the irrigation districts are becoming more and more efficient. We've gone from open ditch systems to sprinkler systems, and now we're going to trickle systems, which supply the water exactly at the point that it's needed, and we conserve more and more water. Our communities are more mindful of the consumption of water.
So we're on the right track. I applaud the legislation. It certainly supports the moratorium that I placed on the export of water, and that is a significant compliment to the former government that imposed that. I will be supporting the philosophy and principles of Bill 9.
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further debaters at this point, I ask the Minister of Employment and Investment to close debate.
Hon. G. Clark: I'm pleased to close debate on behalf of the Minister of Environment and to speak briefly on Bill 9, the Water Protection Act. British Columbians know the vital importance of water, and they know that British Columbia's water is at risk, at least in parts of British Columbia. I believe they know that strong, decisive action is needed to protect it. Today through this bill, British Columbians are getting the
[ Page 14833 ]
decisive action they want, and today through this bill, British Columbia's water resource is getting the protection it needs. Bill 9, the Water Protection Act, prohibits two environmentally unsustainable practices.
First, the bill bans large-scale, interbasin river diversions. The member for Kamloops-North Thompson has been pressing the government on this matter, and I'm very pleased to be here today, as I know he is, to support this bill, which does exactly that. Secondly, the bill bans large-scale bulk water removals from British Columbia. As a result, the passage of this bill will mean British Columbia's rivers will not be diverted to California or anywhere else, and bulk fresh water will not be sucked out of the province. This government, with the overwhelming support of British Columbians, is resolutely exercising its authority to the fullest to ensure that British Columbia's water remains under democratic control, and to safeguard our water for current and future generations.
Several speakers have mentioned that water is the lifeblood of our environment. It's obviously essential for life. For humans, water has always influenced where people settled, what they did and how they lived. In many ways it determines our way of life. Today, clean and abundant water is essential for our entire economy, including our agriculture, fisheries, forestry and tourism industries. Unlike any other substance, water integrates and links our economy and our environment.
People could ask: "So what is the problem in British Columbia?" Of course, no one is suggesting that it will stop raining here in British Columbia along the Pacific coast and suddenly all of our water will disappear. But water does face some very serious risks here in British Columbia. Some consumptive uses of water appear to be, or could soon be, unsustainable, particularly in certain regions, especially as British Columbia's population continues to expand. The previous speaker talked about very serious pressures on the water resource in the Okanagan Valley. Global climatic change could make this problem much, much worse. Water is continually at risk from pollution in the form of industrial effluent and municipal waste or as the result of unsustainable forestry or agricultural practices. Uses of water also frequently conflict. As the review of Alcan's proposed Kemano completion project has shown, the diversion of a river for generating electricity may devastate both human settlements and critical habitat for fish and other wildlife. All of these risks, and more, affect water in British Columbia.
Even before the introduction of this bill, the government was addressing these risks. I do acknowledge that the previous government, under one of the previous ministers, also dealt -- at least on a short-term basis -- with a moratorium on bulk water exports; that was continued by this administration. In 1993 the government launched an ambitious review of British Columbia's water policy. This review, done by the former minister -- now the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin -- and continued by the current minister, is designed to change the focus of water legislation in British Columbia from water allocation to water stewardship. It is no longer acceptable to try to meet, at all costs, the ever-increasing demands for clean and inexpensive water. Such an approach is outdated and outmoded; it is discredited. Instead, we must safeguard the vital water resource; we must protect it. This government initiative, this bill, to maintain a healthy and sustained water resource will continue.
[4:45]
In 1993 the government, of course, established the Tatshenshini park; it has recently joined the heritage rivers program, and, as many members know, the Premier was awarded the American Rivers award for protecting the spectacular Tatshenshini River. Earlier this year, as I mentioned, the government took the necessary and courageous step of cancelling Alcan's plan to divert a significant amount of the Nechako River. The cancellation of the Kemano completion project will protect millions of salmon and, indeed, the Fraser River itself.
Protecting individual rivers against risks that affect them is vitally important, but clearly it mustn't stop there, because there is a significant risk to British Columbia water that overshadows all the others. This bill is designed to address that risk. Essentially, there are entrepreneurs, or business people, who want water to be bought and sold as if it were a commodity like any other. These investors want our rivers to be sucked into a huge continental network of artificial pipes and canals; they want everyone to literally kowtow to California's wasteful and ever-increasing thirst for water. But most of all, of course, they want to make a quick buck. They want to take our rivers and siphon them out of our province so they can make money. This is not some conspiracy theory, because British Columbians know this is a real problem, albeit not large at this point -- but clearly looked upon by investors in California and individuals.
Many members are familiar with Bill Clancey, the CEO and president of Multinational Water and Power Inc. It refers to water as the "commodity of the future." His proposal, of course, was to divert water from the North Thompson River into the Columbia and then through a series of natural and artificial watercourses to California. This bill clearly and unequivocally puts an end to such a crazy scheme.
Mr. Francis Dale, the Los Angeles-based president of Citizens for Water and Power for North America, believes the U.S. is "water-vulnerable." He has dusted off the old NAWAPA proposal from the 1960s to dam the Peace, Kootenay and Columbia rivers. This proposal would see Prince George submerged in an 800- kilometre-long lake in the Rocky Mountain Trench. Mr. Dale takes pains to emphasize that this concept is not abandoned; it is being pursued persistently and diligently.
While these seem potentially far-fetched, it is very true that in California and parts of the United States there is a very serious water shortage. As members know, these two individuals I just mentioned, among many others, cast an eye on British Columbia to see if we are stupid enough, frankly, to divert our natural rivers or water to sell as a commodity in the United States. There are enough people saying that if we can make money at it, we should do it.
It is important for the government today to take some leadership and to demonstrate to British Columbians that our water in bulk form for export is not for sale. It may be what some investors want, but it's not what we're going to do in this bill. It seems to me, very clearly, that's where British Columbians lie.
I want to talk very briefly, as I close, about NAFTA, because it does play a role. Many British Columbians are convinced that NAFTA makes the situation much worse. Canadians were repeatedly told, under the North American Free Trade Agreement, that it only covered bottled water. The Mulroney government set out its position on the issue in August 1992, in a publication entitled the NAFTA Manual.
[ Page 14834 ]
In that booklet, the Mulroney document stated that, as in the FTA, only water packaged as a beverage or in tanks is covered in the NAFTA. British Columbians have the good sense to recognize that if that's what the agreement means, then that's what the agreement should say. But it is not what the agreement does say.
President Clinton's top trade official, the trade representative Mickey Kantor, indicated just over a year ago that the agreement did not cover just bottled water. In a letter to American environmentalists, his position was that under the FTA and NAFTA, "when water is traded as a good, all provisions of the agreements governing trades and goods apply." In other words, if we were not smart enough to prevent bulk exports of water, albeit in tankers or in water diversions, then the provisions of NAFTA would apply -- not as Mr. Mulroney said. Certainly the American interpretation is that the provisions of NAFTA apply. That would continue to make us vulnerable in terms of controlling water for our own uses. British Columbians know that water can be sold and traded as a good of commerce not just in bottles but in tanks, tanker trucks, ocean supertankers, pipelines and even diversion channels. According to Mr. Kantor, the official position of the United States is that NAFTA covers trade in all of this water. What's worse, NAFTA formalizes an investor-led direction that sets the foundation for establishing a continental market for water.
In view of these and other serious concerns, the Premier urged the Mulroney government not to proceed with NAFTA in its present form. As we know, of course, the federal Conservatives proceeded just the same. The B.C. government repeatedly requested that water be exempted from the NAFTA, and the federal Conservatives failed to obtain such exemption. Indeed, there is no evidence that they even tried. The B.C. government urged that the so-called NAFTA side agreement on environment be drafted to provide meaningful protection for water, but the federal government did not obtain that protection.
Just in case the Liberals opposite are feeling left out, let me remind them that some Canadians certainly feel betrayed by their federal Liberal cousins just as much as by the Mulroney Conservatives. During the last federal election, Mr. Chretien promised to renegotiate the NAFTA. He promised specifically to deal with water. And of course, the Liberals did not, after the election, deal with water in any meaningful way or in either the side agreement or the agreement itself. The federal Liberals failed to act. At one point the government of British Columbia requested delaying implementation of the NAFTA legislation until some kind of memorandum of understanding could be obtained exempting bulk water and investment in services relating to water. Again they failed to obtain any kind of understanding with respect to that.
Given the fact that the federal Tories and the federal Liberals negotiated the NAFTA agreement after elections and did not exempt bulk water, combined with the federal American government under Mickey Kantor just about a year ago formally indicating that their position is that bulk water exports, or any kind of major water exports, are covered by NAFTA, it's important today that we bring in legislation -- in spite of any of those analyses -- to make it clear to British Columbians that in spite of the fact there was no action under NAFTA under the Mulroney or Chretien governments, this gives us the protection that British Columbia sought. We have to bring it in in the form of this legislation to ensure that in British Columbia, at least, we are very clear and united and that -- as Canadians, as British Columbians -- we will not tolerate bulk water exports, supertanker exports, diversions, canals or any kind of bulk water exports from British Columbia to the United States, whether or not it is covered by NAFTA. It's British Columbia's water, it's our water, and we need to protect and safeguard it here for our use and for our future generations.
I believe it is a historic day, because this is not an insignificant piece of legislation. The overwhelming majority of British Columbians want, I believe, strong decisive action to safeguard their water. They know that water clearly is a necessity, and they know that the value of the pure water resource will continue to rise.
Today, with this bill, I believe we have strong and decisive action. We're acting before it is too late, before someone starts to export bulk water and the provisions of NAFTA potentially apply. We're doing it before supertankers are taking water out of British Columbia, before massive pipelines are laid and before we lose democratic control of the British Columbia water resource.
I believe that this is legislation we should be proud of. I'm delighted to see members opposite from other political parties recognize -- I'm not sure they recognize the significance of the legislation -- that it takes very bold action to prevent forever the kinds of large-scale exports contemplated by investors and by previous governments. I'm very proud to support this legislation, and I ask all members of the House to do so.
Deputy Speaker: In view of the debate now being closed, I will put the question on second reading of Bill 9.
[5:00]
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]
Bill 9, Water Protection Act, 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. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 36.
CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
(second reading)
G. Brewin: I'd like to ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
G. Brewin: I'd like to have the House welcome to the precincts, on the behalf of the Speaker, a group of approximately 32 students in grade 6, several adults and Ms. J. Meyberg. They're from Eatonville Middle School in Eatonville, Washington, and they're here studying comparative government and local history. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. J. Smallwood: Bill 36 is a significant piece of consumer protection legislation. Through this legislation, we are
[ Page 14835 ]
taking steps to ensure that consumers have the opportunity to make informed choices and are not subject to unfair business practices. Bill 36 is a response to numerous requests from consumers in British Columbia for protection from negative-option marketing of unsolicited services and high-pressure time-share sales tactics.
Negative-option marketing puts the onus on a consumer to say no to services that the consumer did not request in the first place. The effect of such offers is that consumers may pay for services that they did not authorize or request. Understandably, consumers in this province have found this situation to be highly objectionable. In addition, consumers are often unaware that they are receiving unsolicited services through a negative-option offer, and that their bills include charges for such services. Bill 36 introduces a number of safeguards to deal with the problems that negative-option offers of unsolicited services have posed for consumers. The negative-option provisions are retroactive to January 26, 1995 -- the date that government's intent to legislate in this area was announced.
This new legislation will ensure that consumers must say yes to unsolicited services that have been provided through a negative-option offer before they are required to pay. If a consumer inadvertently pays for such a service, the consumer may demand a refund or credit. If the seller fails to provide the refund, the consumer may seek a judgment for compensation of at least $100, or three times the amount owing if that figure is higher.
Bill 36 will require sellers to send disclosure notices to consumers within 60 days of providing an unsolicited service through a negative-option offer. The notice must explain the details of the service and clearly indicate that no payment is required unless the consumer consents to the service. This disclosure requirement addresses the fact that the provision of a new or additional service could easily escape a consumer's notice. The disclosure provision also makes it clear that consumers have the right to know what services they are receiving and what charges are being included in their bill.
During the consultation, both industry and consumer groups said that consumers should not be entitled to benefit unjustly from the provisions concerning refunds and financial penalties. The legislation acknowledges this concern. Consumers are not entitled to a refund if they knowingly paid for an unsolicited service provided through a negative-option offer while deriving a benefit from the service. In addition, the period of time during which the consumer may obtain a refund is limited to two years from the date the disclosure notice was received.
The legislation also allows for the exemption of some services by regulation. We recognize that the marketing of some services is already sufficiently regulated in other legislation, and a service may be exempted for that reason. For example, the British Columbia superintendent of financial institutions has already prohibited negative-option marketing for insurance.
Bill 36 also amends the definition of direct sale and direct seller to clearly exclude businesses that sell at a customer's home but do so at the customer's request. This clarification is necessary since the existing definition indicates that direct sellers are business persons who conduct consumer transactions at locations other than their permanent place of business.
Some business people, such as skilled tradespersons, often conduct transactions at the consumer's home but do not initiate contact with the consumer as a door-to-door seller. Such businesses and transactions will be clearly excluded from the new definition of direct sale and direct seller. In addition, it is intended that home-based businesses that market their products at trade fairs and craft shows be exempted by regulation.
Bill 36 will also allow the registrar of direct sellers to designate another person to perform the duties and exercise the powers of the registrar in his or her absence. These direct-seller amendments will serve to improve the administrative efficiency of the Consumer Protection Act.
In the area of time-share contracts, new provisions are introduced to help consumers protect themselves against high-pressure and sometimes misleading sales tactics. Time-share contracts for the use of property such as houseboats or recreational vehicles often involve large sums of money and high-pressure sales tactics. My ministry has received numerous complaints from consumers who have experienced losses through transactions involving such contracts.
Bill 36 will help protect consumers against high-pressure sales tactics by providing purchasers of time-share contracts with a seven-day cooling-off period, during which the buyer may cancel the contract for any reason. Sellers will be required to disclose the cooling-off period clearly in that contract. The cooling-off provision will apply to time-share contracts concluded in British Columbia for property such as houseboats and recreation vehicles located both in and outside British Columbia.
These provisions will parallel both the cancellation period and the application provisions for time-share contracts for real property under the Real Estate Act. These measures will discourage high-pressure sales tactics in the marketing of time-share contracts and provide an effective remedy for consumers who find they were misled.
In conclusion, this legislation responds to the needs and concerns of consumers in British Columbia. These new measures will help ensure that consumers can continue to enjoy a fair and equitable marketplace in British Columbia.
I move the bill be now read a second time.
J. Dalton: Certainly we all knew that this bill was coming. I think we can recall the controversy last fall when Rogers Cable quite rightly produced a lot of criticism. I would have to give the minister credit; she stood by her guns. Those big bad people from Toronto thought they could ride roughshod over B.C. consumers, and of course, they knew otherwise.
I must say I had only one or two calls in my constituency office on the issue. Happily, on the North Shore we have Shaw Cable, which is a responsible and ethical company. In fact, just recently I got a notice in the mail saying that they would be around, sooner or later, to disconnect the new channels that were put on -- the freebies that caused the controversy last fall. They haven't come around yet, so we're still enjoying the freebies. When they do it, that's fine; I don't want the extra service, the so-called negative option, that Rogers was forcing on people. But I didn't have to go through the protracted exercise, happily, that many people in this province did to avoid the thing this bill is addressing: the negative option. Certainly that is long overdue.
I guess it's fair to say that this is a bill which has, of course, gone through many transformations over the years.
[ Page 14836 ]
The original act was brought in in 1967, and naturally it has been amended and changed over the years. It should be, of course; we have to react to market conditions and consumers' concerns, which is the main thrust of the bill. We have to react to what is happening in the business world in general, and I think this act demonstrates that.
So as far as that particular aspect of the bill is concerned, certainly we in the opposition have no trouble whatsoever. I guess it's unfortunate that any time you introduce a worthwhile piece of legislation -- certainly the original act was very worthwhile, and everything that's happened since -- naturally there are some people out there who are going to look for the loopholes and the backdoor approach. That's what has happened with the negative option. So that's been taken care of.
I think we may have some questions at committee stage as to why the time-share amendment has found its way into the bill, but we needn't worry about that right now. That's not an issue that we can specifically address in second reading. When we look through the bill, we're pleased to see some of the changes that are either out of necessity or for housekeeping -- perhaps there may be one or two housekeeping items, as well, in Bill 36 -- but it is certainly necessary to plug some of those loopholes. I know that more and more, all consumers are ever-vigilant, but naturally government sometimes has to ride to the rescue and help out where the individual consumer may need protection.
[5:15]
I say that the consumer is more and more vigilant because most people these days, of course, do have their eyes open, and they're aware of the tricks of the trade. But it is certainly the mandate of this ministry -- and the purpose of this bill, the Trade Practice Act and others in the ministry -- to protect the marketplace from those who choose to abuse it or circumvent it in some way.
It would be a nice thought if one day we could be in a position to repeal all of these consumer bills because the consumer didn't need that protection. But that is not the case, and it's probably not likely in the near, or even in the far, future that we'll get to that stage. It is certainly, I think, also very true to say that all of us, whether we are here in the Legislature or just out in the marketplace itself -- and of course, those of us here are also consumers -- must always be out there with our eyes open to what is happening, because you never know what message is being preached with the next knock on the door, or what may be on the other end of the telephone.
It is, I suppose, a happy thing for the government that there are some bills on the legislative agenda this spring that the opposition is prepared to support. The last bill we just voted second reading of, the Water Protection Act, is an example; this will be another one, I presume -- I can't speak for the other parts of the opposition. There are some bills, of course.... Yesterday at about this time there was a very controversial bill that we were dealing with. I happened to be on the other side of the pond, as I put it, last evening; quite by accident, almost, I tuned in at the very time when a member of our caucus happened to be in the Speaker's chair, and a bit of controversy came up -- and not just about the bill itself. I'm referring to the Employment Standards Act, of course, which has caused a lot of controversy. There happened to be a particular point of order which caught my attention, and I drew it to the attention of my children. I said: "Come here and look at this, because this is the sort of thing that sometimes happens, unfortunately, in the House." I think we're in a more amicable mood today. Tomorrow, who knows? We may vacillate back to the other, more negative, side of things -- no pun intended, because we're dealing with an important part of negativism in this bill.
So we in the opposition are pleased to see this. As the minister said in her remarks, they had flagged that this was coming, and that's why the reference to January of this year -- the retroactivity is in the bill.
With those comments, I am certainly prepared to endorse support of this bill on second reading.
L. Hanson: We did have notice of this bill coming forward, and I suspect that unless we learn some secrets during committee process that we don't understand now, we also will support the bill. To me, negative selling has always seemed to be less than direct -- less than a straightforward asking someone to purchase something and then having whoever it was to recognize that they would do that. So I think in that sense it's good. I guess we all remember the days when.... I think it was a European company that started to send out invoices for registering your name or your business in overseas directories, even though you hadn't ordered it. I suppose the largest danger from any of this is that in everyday busy life we may miss something if negative selling is allowed. That commits us to something we had never intended. I suppose that as individuals there is a necessity to keep aware of things that are happening around you. I might suggest that some of our more senior citizens sometimes get trapped into this, not because of anything other than they are senior people, and that sometimes.... I'm getting to be a senior, and sometimes I don't pay the attention that I would have in the past. But I think we can support the bill without too much difficulty.
One of the things I might point out to the minister is that there is.... In another life I had some municipal experience, and there is a process that effectively is negative selling within the Municipal Act for local improvements. Although there are notice requirements and so on, I was always a little nervous about using it as a method of getting approval to go ahead with something. Be that as it may, unless there are some things that we learn during committee stage, the principle of the bill seems to be a good approach. I think it will better our consumer protection in British Columbia, if it is as I understand it to be.
D. Jarvis: I want to make a few comments on Bill 36, the new Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 1995. Like everyone else who has talked so far, the negative option was the biggest trigger for these changes. Quite frankly, I didn't find that the negative option was that bad -- especially in my area of North Vancouver -- with Shaw Cable. It certainly didn't take the right away from people to get out of buying a given option. Nevertheless, the majority certainly still counts in this world, and a lot of people did take offence. So it's probably for the best that it is in the bill.
The other aspect I wanted to make a few comments about is that I come from a sales background, and I was quite interested to see what triggered time-shares to be specifically on the list. I used to sell time-shares back in the seventies. Of all places, I used to commute to St. Louis, Missouri -- a long, long time ago -- and I could never find a salesman who
[ Page 14837 ]
would be that high-pressure as to force someone into buying a time-share -- especially myself; I would never do that. This is something that, in most cases, I cannot find.... Most real estate salesmen aren't in this business to.... They're in it for a long time, not a short time, and a really high-pressure salesman doesn't last very long. It would be kind of interesting to find out from the minister just how this is.
In other words, I will be supporting this bill on the basis of what is before us now, unless we come into something that's unusual in the committee stage.
Hon. J. Smallwood: There needs to be a recognition of what happened and what is happening in this province, and not only with regard to this particular piece of legislation and some of the driving factors. Consumers in this province made their voices strongly heard, and they need to be congratulated for that. What we're seeing in this past year to 18 months is that our ministry has been actively involved in support of consumer organizations by producing information and support to arm consumers to make good judgments. The strength of that collective action is an important strength in the marketplace. It's a balance to bring about and support the good business practices that are out there and, at the same time, call to account businesses that are offending consumers, whether that is through heavy-handed marketing practices or through other practices.
I would like to stand in my place and not only congratulate the other speakers who have spoken on and supported the legislation but also recognize the role of consumers. I encourage consumers to continue to inform themselves, to organize to hold the marketplace accountable and to ensure that consumers' voices are strongly heard.
With that, I would like to move that the bill be referred to Committee of the Whole House....
Deputy Speaker: Minister, we need to vote first. The question is now second reading of Bill 36, Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 1995.
Motion approved.
Bill 36, Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 1995, 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. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 20.
GUARANTEED AVAILABLE INCOME FOR NEED AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm pleased to open up second reading debate on Bill 20, which is the GAIN amendment act. It's true that our province continues to be a national leader in economic growth; there's no question about that. Last year our economy -- our people -- generated an average of one new job every 12 minutes. But many among us -- children, families and communities -- are not sharing in this prosperity. More than 130,000 B.C. children -- one in seven -- are dependent on a welfare cheque for their next meal. Among children aged five and younger, the figures are even more disturbing: more than one in five depends on welfare.
Earlier this month the Premier's Forum on New Opportunities for Working and Living released a comprehensive report that details the economic and social factors underlying these troubling statistics and provides recommendations for long-term fundamental changes. We're studying those recommendations, but we cannot ignore the need for action now to strengthen and protect our social safety net.
In my ministry we are well aware of the relationship between poverty and despair. Too often we witness that despair when it manifests itself in family violence, child abuse and neglect. Again, too often the damage does not stop with the individual who is mistreated. The damage reverberates throughout our communities and is passed onto the next generation. In a very real way, the quality of life that British Columbians will enjoy in the future depends on how we treat our children today.
It's difficult to reconcile these facts with the federal cuts to social-program spending announced by the Chretien government three months ago. In British Columbia, these cuts will amount to $1.2 billion by the end of the 1997-98 fiscal year. That's in addition to the more than $500 million in cuts to federal spending for B.C. social programs this year alone. Ottawa is off-loading costs and responsibility onto this province. It's clear that we must find ways to do more with less.
We've been doing that. Let me outline for you what our government has done in the last year. In this province we're investing in education, skills training, health care and partnerships with business. Last July we established the Premier's forum to examine ways government can work to improve the quality of life in this province. Within Social Services, we have spent the past year examining every aspect of the income assistance system to find ways to make it more effective, efficient and fair. Last year we introduced measures to combat fraud, waste, abuse, and duplication of benefits or services. We closed a costly loophole that allowed people to receive duplicate welfare and unemployment insurance benefits. We created a new prevention, compliance and enforcement division that nearly doubled the number of welfare fraud investigations underway. Overall, last year alone, we saved the taxpayers more than $60 million.
Still, our reviews have identified other more systemic problems that must be addressed immediately. Beginning in the next couple of weeks and continuing through 1995, we will introduce measures to improve our ability to manage the system. We are taking action to direct resources more effectively to those among us who are most vulnerable. Some of these changes will require amendments to the GAIN Act itself. Others will require regulatory change. As they are brought before the House and as they are implemented, we'll provide greater detail, but generally let me outline the changes.
[5:30]
They will affect four areas: the appeals system, eligibility criteria, benefits for persons with disabilities, and special grants for persons facing hardship and crises. We are also proposing some long-term initiatives that build on last week's recommendations from the Premier's Forum on New Opportunities for Working and Living. I will discuss those measures shortly.
First, let me outline the changes we've proposed whose impact would be immediate. Under the GAIN Act, the income
[ Page 14838 ]
assistance client is guaranteed the right to appeal. Anyone who disagrees with the ministry's decision to cut, stop or deny welfare benefits can request an administrative review conducted within the ministry. If that is unsatisfactory, clients may appeal to a three-member tribunal comprising community members selected for this purpose.
A comprehensive review has revealed serious concerns about fairness in the system. Selection of tribunal members does not represent the overall community. Tribunal decisions vary widely from case to case and from region to region. Many decisions reflect neither the substance nor the intent of the governing legislation. And tribunal decisions can only be appealed or overturned in court, generally a long and very costly process. If the public is to have confidence in the integrity of the income assistance system, decisions made by tribunals must truly reflect the substance of the governing legislation and the standards and values of the broad community in which we live.
To address these issues, we are proposing to enhance the recruitment, training and selection methods for those who sit on tribunals, and to establish a provincial appeal board with expertise about the GAIN Act, to help ensure that decisions across the province made by tribunals -- which will remain -- are consistent and fair to both clients and taxpayers.
The second area in which we see a need for change is eligibility criteria. Critics say existing rules are often too loose and people should be forced to sell their homes, cars and even stereo systems before they qualify for welfare benefits. These critics fail to understand, though, a fundamental fact, and that is that welfare is temporary assistance. The average income support client leaves the system within six months and goes back into the workforce. Taking away such basic supports as shelter and transportation would be counterproductive, not to mention punitive.
However, our review has demonstrated several ways in which eligibility criteria and rules can be changed to make the system more fair and to ensure that assistance goes to those who need it most. Therefore we propose to lower allowable cash asset levels for single employable people and childless couples who need income assistance, to eliminate special allowances -- such as the work clothing allowance -- and restrict some parts of the transportation allowance, and to broaden eligibility for handicap benefits, currently paid to one in nine adult income assistance clients.
Let me elaborate on the benefits for persons with disabilities. Over the past 18 months we've been working with people who have disabilities to pinpoint needed changes in the handicapd benefits program. We have reached consensus that existing eligibility rules are badly outdated. Under existing law, people receiving handicap benefits must meet the following criteria: they must have a permanent disability, they must have no chance of ever finding full employment, and they must need extensive supports to manage daily living. These criteria were established more than 20 years ago, based on a number of assumptions which just don't hold up today. Persons with disabilities were often institutionalized, they were not considered employable and they often remained in the same social and economic circumstances all of their lives. Not only are these assumptions outdated, they are disrespectful and unfair. People receiving handicap benefits are labelled for life. There is no provision for reassessing their needs.
Programs developed for people with disabilities must respect their rights, aspirations and abilities. To that end, we are proposing to eliminate two key parts of the existing eligibility criteria: the requirement for a permanent disability and the requirement for permanent unemployability. We're doing away with those two. We will also work with persons who have disabilities to ensure that the system unfolds as it should and meets the needs of people with disabilities as, with this change, they move from welfare to work. We will establish an advisory group to help us move handicap benefits outside the broader welfare system.
The final general area in which we have identified a need for change is special grants to persons facing crises or unusual hardship. Under the Canada Assistance Plan, my ministry is defined as the place of last resort for people in these situations. It is a fact that families and individuals can face serious short-term hardship without being eligible for standard welfare benefits --for example, the parent who is newly unemployed and needs money for groceries and can't wait to receive the first unemployment insurance cheque, or the student whose rent is due and whose student loan payment is late. Over the years the ministry has developed policies for crisis and hardship that meet those needs, but we believe they are now too loosely defined and manage to be considered either ineffective or unfair.
Hardship assistance is intended for people who would face undue hardship without additional temporary support. Crisis grants are intended only for those whose health or safety is in imminent danger due to a lack of resources. In our review we have found some broad interpretations of "imminent danger." We have found similar variations in the meanings of "crisis" and "undue hardship." The regulatory and legislative changes we're proposing here will clarify the intent of these necessary policies and remove the ambiguities. We also propose to implement a tracking system for crisis grants, to make sure they are not being used as a regular source of income.
In addition to the measures I have just outlined, my ministry is currently developing some long-term initiatives to renew our income support system, to help ensure that it meets the needs of British Columbians well into the twenty-first century. Over the next year we'll introduce strategies specifically for youth, to further encourage skills training and work experience; establish pilot projects to test new methods of delivering income support while helping people move towards financial independence; and, as I mentioned earlier, establish an advisory group to help us move handicap benefits outside the broader welfare system. That has been recommended broadly by both the Premier's Forum on New Opportunities for Working and Living and many other groups who represent people with disabilities.
In conclusion, the changes I have just described will help this province maintain a social safety net for those who need it most. It's becoming increasingly clear that British Columbians cannot rely on the federal government to care for the most vulnerable members of our society. Since 1990, Ottawa's share of spending on social programs has been steadily declining. This year alone, federal cuts to the Canada Assistance Plan cost the province more than $500 million. Payments to British Columbia will be cut by another $420 million next fiscal year and a further $800 million in the following year.
Given the enormity of the federal off-loading, some will say that these new measures around income support don't go far enough. But this government does not believe in forcing
[ Page 14839 ]
people to their knees before we help them to their feet. These measures are not intended to punish. They are intended to restore the integrity of British Columbians' income support system, to make sure benefits are paid fairly and equitably, and to ensure that assistance is available and provided to those who are truly in need.
With that, I move second reading of Bill 20.
V. Anderson: Hon. Speaker, I just wanted to check. We are on Bill 20, is that right? An interesting presentation, but it had very little to do with Bill 20.
Hon. J. MacPhail: You haven't read the bill.
V. Anderson: I've read the bill, but very little in the presentation had to do with Bill 20. There are some interesting things that the minister has put forward about things she was going to do in the future, things they're planning to do at some time, which were put out in a press release on the 26th and put out as a presentation that she made in Vancouver at that particular time. As you read through the presentation, it says primarily what they are planning to do, not what they have committed yet to do -- which is fairly typical. It is good election propaganda, so I understand why it might be put forward.
But the main focus of Bill 20 itself, taking away the other rhetoric that's there, has to do with appeals to a tribunal. We have had tribunals in this province, and they have been among the best in Canada -- the most well-respected and the best-working tribunals in the Canadian system. They have been extremely fair and extremely useful in the community, and they have involved community people.
The tribunal, though, had a difficulty with the ministry which the minister has not alluded to, the difficulty being that the tribunal turned to the act and judged the decisions that tribunal members made against the GAIN Act. Therefore, because they referred to the GAIN Act and not to the regulations which are an interpretation of the act, they came up with different conclusions than the social workers were forced to make.
I say forced, because I have sat on many of these tribunals. I have had the privilege of chairing many of these tribunals, and I have discovered from experience that time and time again social workers without number -- and, of course, I wouldn't want to name any of them -- when we have sat down to discuss the reason for the appeal, would say: "We had to, by the regulations, give the decision that we gave, but if you look at section such and such of the act, you will find that there is a far better interpretation than we were able to give because of the regulations that we were demanded to follow."
Just to give clarification about the tribunal, the tribunal is made up of a person appointed by the Ministry of Social Services. Generally speaking, that person, in my experience, has been a very well-qualified, retired social worker. Many of them worked within the social work system for many years, so they came with a strong and expert knowledge of the social work system. On the other hand, many of those who were appointed by the client -- using that term for the moment -- who appealed a decision that was made, were persons who likewise had worked long and hard as advocates within the system, and they were equally very much aware of the regulations and the act and its provisions.
When those two came together, they agreed on a third party, a neutral person, either from the client or from the Ministry of Social Services, to be the chair. When we came to the meeting of the appeal tribunal, the social worker, with their resource people, stated their case; the client, with their advocates, stated their case. There was opportunity for the three tribunal members to ask each of those presenters for clarification to fully understand what the issue was that was being appealed and why the original decision was made.
[5:45]
By far the majority of those cases.... I might say that when those presentations had been made, the presenters, the client and the representatives of the Ministry of Social Services left the tribunal meeting area. The tribunal -- the three persons -- then had the opportunity to discuss fully, to look into whatever documentation they had before them and to make a decision on the case. They had the opportunity to say that Social Services were completely right, to say the client was completely right, to make recommendations for further study, to bring it back for more information or to make side recommendations which, perhaps, neither the client nor the social worker had understood and brought forward.
Those representations made by that three-person tribunal indicated time and time again that in the particular cases they were examining, the regulations did not properly deal with or interpret -- and so did not agree with -- the decision of the Ministry of Social Services. Modifications were made, recommendations were made and payments were made; oftentimes, if short-term payments were made, then their schedule also provided for the repayment of those if there was a special need -- always according to the act itself.
Very few of those cases that were appealed to the court, as the minister mentioned, were overturned in the process. I have heard consternation from across the community as a result of Bill 20 going forward, because those who have had an opportunity to look at it in the short time it has been available to us have certainly discovered that the aim of this particular motion is to do away with the effectiveness of that appeal system. It hamstrings that appeal system -- to select, first of all, the people who can be a part of it, and to brainwash them, so that they too, like the social workers, will have to listen to the regulations rather than to the actual act itself. It sets up another layer of bureaucracy in being a policeman; that's honestly what it is. It's not even a fair, balanced and open judgement of a policeman, because it will give to this tribunal, as has been indicated by the minister, instructions to make sure that the kind of freedom, openness and fairness the system has known will no longer be followed. This appeal board, from the tribunal, is not primarily to serve the needs of the clients in the field. This appeal board is totally -- and I stress totally -- so that the ministry exercises control over the clients in the field.
It is a dastardly deed that they brought this forward and presented it, as the minister has today, in the guise of all the other presentations that have nothing to do with this appeal board system. To try to cover it over with ice cream and icing to make it look like it's a great thing that's happening, something which will be a benefit to everybody, is entirely a falsehood. We will have more to say about this, but this attempt to sneak through this particular piece of legislation is, I am sorry to say, a real disservice to the credit of the minister and the government and to the credit that the tribunal system has had across this country, particularly here in British Columbia.
[ Page 14840 ]
I know we will have more discussion in second reading on this particular bill, but I have to say that I'm very disturbed by the letters and correspondence I've received back from the community. Some of them were so angry that they almost burned up the fax machine. I hope the members of the government will not let themselves be brainwashed by this particular presentation up here, and will discover from low-income people right across this province....
Interjection.
V. Anderson: Oh, the members laugh at me. But you go back to your low-income people who have felt that the NDP did represent them -- and I said, who felt they did represent them. They no longer believe that the NDP represents them, and surely, when they see this particular piece of legislation, and if the government has the audacity to pass it before it's reviewed by the community....
I've been in touch with -- or they've been in touch with me, I should say -- some of the persons who have served on the minister's advisory committee on these matters. The recommendation to the minister from those people who are aware of the community and of the situation is that this not pass at this sitting, but that it be referred back to the community; that it be referred back to the minister's advisory board, unless the minister has so changed that board that it's no longer representative of the low-income people of the community.
When the minister talks about some of the other changes she is promising about eligibility changes and handicap benefits changes, there are certain valid comments in what she's saying in those other areas. We would be delighted to undertake that discussion. I gather that the minister is presenting these at this time because it gave her an audience to present it to the community, not because it had any direct relationship to this particular act. I will have to ask the minister, when we have an opportunity, about my understanding that these other items she has raised are being changed in regulations. They're not being changed in the act itself; they're being changed in regulations. Why has she brought them to the floor at this time, other than to try to gloss over this particular bill? I'm not quite aware of her purpose or her reason, but we will have time to discuss that.
Seeing that the end of the hour is nearing, I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising recess until 6:30 this evening.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 5:55 p.m.
The House resumed at 6:38 p.m.
[M. Farnworth in the chair.]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply in Section A, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates; and I call Committee of Supply in Section B, the Ministry of Social Services estimates.
The House in Committee of Supply B; M. Farnworth in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SOCIAL SERVICES
(continued)
On vote 53: minister's office, $402,165 (continued).
V. Anderson: I hope we can have an interesting and entertaining evening, and I welcome the minister and her staff here this evening.
I would like to back up to our last meeting. First of all, there were a couple of responses the minister gave to my colleague, and I want to see if I understood or heard correctly the comments she gave at that particular time. My colleague was asking about security deposits. I understood the minister to say that all security deposits are now paid directly to the landlord; they're not paid to the recipient, who then goes to the landlord. I want to see if I understood that correctly or if I misunderstood it. Are security deposits paid directly to landlords, or are they picked up by the client -- using that term for the moment -- in order to then take them to the landlord?
Hon. J. MacPhail: In most cases the security deposits are generally paid to the client, who then owes the landlord or landlady. It's the paying back of the security deposit that is an agreement between the landlord or landlady and the ministry. However, the exceptions are cases where the client is what we call "under administration." I'm sure the hon. member is familiar with that, where we pay the bills directly. In those cases the ministry would pay the security deposit directly to the landlord.
V. Anderson: Perhaps you might clarify, then. That had been my understanding, so I was surprised by what I understood the minister to say, so I want to clarify that. What is the process, then? The client gets the security deposit and takes it to the landlord. What is the process by which the landlord is made aware, and at what point is the landlord aware, that the security deposit is to be paid back to the ministry, not to the client?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The client and the ministry sign an assignment of security deposit at the time that the security deposit is issued. However, that assignment is not sent to the landlord until after the client has secured the accommodation.
V. Anderson: So if I understand correctly, that is sent to the landlord after the accommodation is secured and the client has moved in, but it doesn't.... So it's sent while the client is there, not at the point that the client is given notice to move out. If a client moves in July 1 and has taken the money and paid the rent, is it in July or August that the landlord is notified? Or is the landlord notified of the assignment when the client is moving out? What's the time of notification?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's up front, but after the rental agreement has been secured by the client, so that there's no possible identification of the source of income.
[ Page 14841 ]
V. Anderson: That is, there's no identification of source of income until after they've moved in, and then of course there is identification from then on. That's why I was asking at what point that was made. So if they're there, then within a month the landlord does know that they are on welfare. That's what I wanted to clarify.
Also, you talked about the household income. I know there has been a fair bit of discussion about how the household income is arrived at. If there is one person living there, if there is a married couple living there, if there are two friends living together, then is it...? How does that work out, and what is the line at which the friends, when they're living there...the line at which, if they are there two or three nights a week or stay overnight or whatever it is...? When I say friends, I'm not making any distinction between whether they're male or female; they're just two friends.
Hon. J. MacPhail: That's quite a vigorous response. The test is economic dependence. It's not based on any relationship other than economic dependence, and that test is outlined in the regulations of the act.
[6:45]
V. Anderson: Let me just follow that up. If two girls are sharing accommodation and are sharing the rent, do you take into account half the rent? What's the arrangement of taking that into account if two persons are sharing the rent in that location?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We generally give welfare.... In fact, I think the rule is that you give welfare to adults. In the situation that you describe, I assume you mean women who are eligible for welfare. Therefore, if they are economically independent of each other, it would be assessed on the basis of half-and-half.
V. Anderson: When you were talking to my colleague the other day, I also understood you to say that people who quit their jobs are not eligible for income assistance. They are unemployed and are without income, but I understood you to say that because they quit their job they were not eligible. Is that so? If so, under what circumstance would they become eligible?
Hon. J. MacPhail: People who quit work without cause -- we'll be using several double negatives -- are not eligible for regular benefits. They may be eligible for some hardship benefits under certain circumstances. People who quit with just cause -- not without just cause, but that works out to with just cause -- are eligible if they meet the test of eligibility for regular benefits, which means that if they are able to work, they have to be looking for work immediately.
V. Anderson: I understand what the minister is trying to say, in part, but I'm still not clear about that. Whether they have quit with cause or not will be a judgment call of the financial aid worker or social worker they are working with. They may have quit because they couldn't stand the heat or because they were uncomfortable -- which others may or may not accept as a just reason for quitting -- or because they couldn't get along with the people they work with, or whatever. There would be a judgment call about whether it is with cause or not, and whether they would get hardship in that first month; perhaps they would get hardship immediately. But if you take the month after, and the month after that, and they meet the eligibility and are out looking for work, at what point -- even though they quit their job -- are they eligible, then, to come back into the system? I'm just trying to clarify what that means.
Hon. J. MacPhail: When clients disagree or want support for their position in terms of a FAW who may assess them differently when they claim to have been fired without cause, we work very closely with the employment standards branch, which has a quite concerted, regular and efficient test for determining that.
V. Anderson: I understand that with UI, if you quit without cause you would not get your UI for a period of a number of months; you would be eligible at a certain time. If you quit without cause, I'm trying to figure out at what point you are able to come back on -- or is it never? That is what I'm trying to get at: at what point are you able to get back on after you have been refused initially? How do you get back on? What are the criteria? UI has criteria -- what are the criteria of Social Services?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I want to make sure that the hon. member understands that the income assistance system is a payer of absolutely last resort. The kind of situation he is describing, while hypothetical, I understand.... Each case has to be treated individually, so I'm not quite sure whether he has a particular case in mind. At the end of the day, if a person can demonstrate after a period of time that he or she is looking for work in a very concerted effort -- and our financial assistance workers are extremely well trained in this area, with a great deal of expertise -- and demonstrates need, which is the entry criterion for income assistance, then the financial assistance worker may declare them eligible.
V. Anderson: I appreciate that clarification. In practice, it seems to me we're saying that when they quit work, they have had income up to that point. So they have some income, and if it's not enough to get them through the next month or whatever, they may get a hardship grant to carry them over. But probably by the following month or the month after, once they've used it all up, they are again eligible because they are in need, and I understand that. So that's the process. It isn't like UI where there is automatically a period of months before you can apply again. It's a question of need. So I'll take that, unless I hear otherwise, as what the minister has indicated.
Perhaps that led to the reason the minister was having difficulty answering my colleague's question last time about how many people had been denied assistance or were cut off because they had quit, for whatever reason. She said there were no records of that.
Interjection.
V. Anderson: I hear a person saying that nobody is really cut off as long as they meet the criteria. So they might be off for a month or two, but as soon as they meet the criteria they're back on. On the question of keeping track of how many people have been denied assistance for whatever period of time, I gather no record is being kept of that, and that's what he was trying to discover. How many people are actu-
[ Page 14842 ]
ally denied assistance and may never come back on? Or some of them may come back on in a month, six months or a year, whatever the case may be.
Hon. J. MacPhail: To date, the efficiency of the system and our use of administrative time has been to track statistics that are useful. We consider it very important that we end abuse and make sure all of our efforts are into making the system efficient and cost-effective. That kind of statistic has no use, except perhaps to satisfy the opposition's need to understand the severity of the system. Other than that, I'm not sure what its use would be.
W. Hurd: Just to follow up on the line of questioning from my colleague, the minister talked about the cycling that occurs in and out of the system after a period of months. The statistic I think she used -- that 60 percent of people left the rolls within three months of coming on -- is actually somewhat misleading, because she has identified a problem of recycling that occurs throughout the system.
I just want to ask the minister a basic question about that phenomenon. Can the ministry identify the extent to which this cycling through the system has contributed to the rather dramatic rise in the cost and the percentage of the budget that has gone toward social assistance in the last four years? Clearly there's been a steady and dramatic increase. Looking at the statistical increase over the years, I think it was something like 25 percent in 1992 alone and an average of 12 percent a year for the last five years. Clearly, hon. Chair, the costs of social assistance are rising dramatically at a time when, as the government is fond of telling us, the economy is supposedly performing at the highest rate in Canada.
On a general level, perhaps I can ask the minister whether this dramatic increase in costs over the last five years is attributable to this recycling or cycling phenomenon that she talked about earlier. Is it the result of in-Canada migration? Maybe I can just engage in a more general discussion about why the minister feels there has been this dramatic increase in rates over the past five years, even given the performance of the British Columbia economy.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Excellent question, and I'm happy to address it, because, of course, there's a great misunderstanding around these issues by not only politicians but also the general public.
Just let me correct one of your points, which was the caseload increase. In the year 1993-94 there was a 10.9 percent increase, then it fell dramatically last year to a 5.4 percent increase, year over year. Of course, the member opposite will know well that we're predicting, actually, a negative increase in the change, year over year, for the year 1995-96, with lots of supporting documentation for why that forecast is made.
Let me say again what the drivers are. It's unfortunate that we have to divide our estimates into time slots like this, because we're repeating much of what we've already said. But I indicated to you that the two drivers contributing last year to the 5.4 percent increase, which absorbed the entire increase of the caseload, were UI off-loading and population increase -- net in-migration to the province. Of course, in Canada one is still allowed to move from province to province. Both those factors accounted for the entire caseload increase. The UI off-loading is under circumstances where the Chretien government further cut not only those who were eligible for benefits but also those who do become eligible for benefits in the length of time they are permitted to collect benefits. That process started.... Of course, those cuts to the UI program started in 1990 under the previous Tory government, but the cuts were substantially deepened under the Chretien government last year, and the cuts have added the equivalent of 6,300 cases per month to income assistance.
Also, I would note for the member opposite that we are the only.... No, that's not true. P.E.I. also has a net in-migration of 500 per year. But, other than that kind of insignificant statistic, our population is due to net in-migration -- not immigration, but in-migration -- in the tens of thousands. Both of those have contributed.
What effect does that have on, for instance, our young people who are...? The term "cycler" is a statistical term and is certainly not one that's appropriate to identify with respect to the.... But I understand it's a term that I brought to your attention. It is not really a very respectful term, but for the purposes of these statistical discussions, we will use the term "cycler." Young people who have been in the workforce are -- as you know, if you have children -- last hired, first fired, and they have not been eligible for UI benefits, whereas you and I may have been in our day. Therefore they have to rely on income assistance until their next job, and then they are in the situation again of last hired, first fired. However, that's not to say that the incremental experience accumulated by returning to the workforce is not beneficial. Of course it's beneficial, and eventually they are attached permanently to the workforce.
W. Hurd: Clearly it's a perception -- and maybe it's not an accurate one -- that, in fact, it is the cycling or recycling through the system that is contributing to the increase in the costs and the increase in caseload. Surely that can't be entirely attributed to in-migration from other provinces, because these are people who are clearly already in the province. That's the reason why the question I posed is not an insignificant question. The question, also posed tonight by my colleague from Vancouver-Langara, is about the number of those who are denied benefits for reasons of quitting gainful employment. I'm aware that in 1994, for example, the number of people who were cycling back through the system is much larger than those who are coming on the rolls for the first time.
Maybe I could ask that question first. Is the number of people who come back onto the rolls after the three-month period higher than the number of new cases that come before the ministry for social assistance?
[7:00]
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's an interesting discussion. I'm not quite sure what the point is, so let me just give you a couple more statistics, and maybe we can explore it further then.
The 80 percent of cyclers return because of job loss, UI pending or UI benefits ending. Another statistic is that over half, or 52 percent, of starting cases -- which I assume is what you're working with here, as opposed to those coming off -- have been receiving income assistance at some point in the preceding 12 months but have also been working at some point in the preceding 12 months.
If you want to engage in an economic discussion about why that occurs, there are many factors that contribute to it in terms of the type of jobs that are created at certain times and
[ Page 14843 ]
the seasonal nature of our economy in certain areas of the province. In some cases, yes, it is due to young people entering the workforce without the necessary skills to be Velcro'd to the work situation. They build up those skills over a period of time. In a previous decade, I would say, it would be.... The people who are cyclers on income assistance in the nineties would have been people who would have had several UI claims in the 1980s.
W. Hurd: This really seems to speak to the importance of quantifying the nature of the employment loss that is incurred by the recipient. I would hope and expect that the ministry might be able to analyze, with respect to those who are cycling back through the system, what type of work experience is being interrupted and the reasons for the interruption. It might be through layoff, the closure of the plant or company or perhaps even a decision made by the individual to leave employment and to come back onto the welfare rolls.
I know the concern being expressed here is that our system may be creating a group of individuals -- not by any means all, but a significant number of individuals -- who will simply use employment as a basis for participating in unemployment insurance and then the social assistance program. That is the reason I would be more satisfied if the ministry was making more of an effort to determine what types of job losses are being experienced by these people who come back into the system.
I wonder if the ministry is making any attempt, with respect to that percentage of people who are back on because of job loss, to analyze why it is that they aren't able to stay employed. Given the buoyant nature of the economy, what is the reason these people are back? Is it just that they have been laid off? Is it the type of occupation they're in? Is it because they quit?
That gets back to the question we talked about earlier. Surely the ministry would want to know whether they quit a job without any reason.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I think there's some confusion here. We do keep those statistics -- absolutely. In fact, we've just done a major research paper on the cyclers. But those are people who are eligible for benefits.
Your point before was: why don't we keep track of those who are ineligible for benefits? What's the sense? They're not a cost to the taxpayer. We do keep track of the statistics. We know exactly why people who are cycling in and out and are eligible for benefits lose their jobs. There's a major body of research on that. I think you're confusing it with the question: why don't we keep track of statistics of those who don't show up and aren't making use of our system? We don't keep track of that because it doesn't contribute to the understanding. They are not part of the burden on the taxpayer if they're not eligible for income assistance.
Again, I've given to you -- and it's because of our cycler research -- why 80 percent of cyclers return: because of job loss, UI pending or UI benefits ending. There's lots and lots of statistical information behind that. We also have instituted major surveys, called exit surveys, of people who then leave income assistance and go to work. So we're keeping track of the reverse -- of how job creation and regional economies are affecting the caseload from a positive point of view as well.
W. Hurd: Let's assume, then, that there was an individual who wanted to lead a lifestyle of temporary, short-term employment, which would allow access to unemployment insurance -- which as we know has a longer waiting list, under changes to the federal legislation that the minister acknowledged earlier. The person comes in, having no job, and I assume is eligible to collect benefits until such time as the unemployment insurance program kicks in. Assuming that somebody chose to lead that kind of lifestyle, what penalties, inducements or incentives would there be for the person not to do that?
Clearly, there might be a decision on the part of individuals to work the minimum, to qualify for benefits, to quit the job for no reason and then cycle through the system. The minister has acknowledged that this is a phenomenon that has occurred -- this cycling phenomenon that she's identified. Assuming that somebody wanted to participate in that kind of lifestyle, what penalties or checks and balances would there be to prevent that from happening? Or is that an acceptable lifestyle and acceptable work experience in British Columbia? I mean, is there anything the ministry would try and do to discourage that, in this set of estimates?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I can hardly wait to actually have the policy around social programs revealed by the members opposite in the Liberal Party, because so far the line of questioning from the two members who have asked me questions are diametrically opposite in philosophy. I look forward to it. I'm sure you will bring the two together; there's no question about that. I'm sure the Leader of the Third Party will be interested in seeing how you bring those two together. He should be more interested than I am; I'm sure that's why he's here sitting in the House.
Let me make it clear to the member for Surrey-White Rock that job loss does not qualify you for income assistance. So the kind of lifestyle.... I mean, I hope he's not giving away secrets of the way he used to conduct his life, because that doesn't in any way.... Just merely quitting a job, or job loss of any sort, doesn't qualify you for income assistance. It does allow you to go into an income assistance office and apply for the criteria of eligibility for income assistance. Again, I reiterate that we're the payer of last resort.
There's a test for eligibility of income assistance, in terms of your assets, your need, whether you're looking for work or not, your training -- there's a whole series of criteria. Depending on how an individual meets those criteria, we then assess our responsibility under the income assistance program to that person.
It may be that the training is adequate for that person to be on temporary assistance. The requirement is merely for her or him to go and look for work in a very concerted way, and we will assist in that through our community skill centres. It may be that the skills of the person no longer meet the needs of the economy of the nineties, in which case we will put the person into a mandatory training program.
We are doing very creative project monitoring around how we make sure self-sufficiency occurs. There is a major self-sufficiency project occurring in this province to determine -- particularly in the area of single-parent recipients, which is an ever-increasing part of our caseload -- how one meets self-sufficiency and stays off the system.
W. Hurd: The minister is not really getting the question I'm asking, I suppose, so I'll make one more try at it before I
[ Page 14844 ]
move on. If a person makes a decision in our free and democratic society to quit a job, and if they survive for some time off savings, make an application for unemployment insurance and are in a period of waiting before they are eligible to collect -- and the minister has acknowledged that this phenomenon, this bridging between the loss of employment for any reason and the collection of unemployment insurance benefits, is occurring in British Columbia to a greater extent -- what checks and balances exist at the front line of the ministry, when a person comes in, with respect to analyzing what their reasons were for leaving their job? Is it a simple form that they fill out? Is there a verification process with the previous employer? Is the applicant taken at face value as to why and how the job terminated? These do not seem to me to be insignificant statistics. Surely the ministry would want to know whether or not sectors of the economy are contributing to the welfare rolls to a greater or lesser extent, or whether a person who becomes eligible for income assistance had been back two or three or four times before. That would be useful information, I would think.
I'm concerned, and I think others are, that for some people there is the phenomenon of a welfare lifestyle. The minister laughs, but I believe that to be the case. I'm looking for some incentives from the ministry to not only discourage that kind of decision but to at least provide some checks and balances and some analysis of whether or not it's a widespread problem. I'm not getting the impression from listening to the minister that someone who makes a decision to quit a job is necessarily going to be penalized by this ministry in any way. I think that's a.... Let me use a hypothetical situation. Suppose a person does quit a job, has exhausted their savings and comes into the office to apply for benefits. Are they likely to receive them if they quit the job, or does that make any difference?
Hon. J. MacPhail: They aren't eligible. I don't know how many times I can say that: they are not eligible.
Let me answer the questions that you did ask for the first time; you didn't repeat these questions. Do we do checks on people to follow up for verification of their information? Absolutely. Are we allowed to contact former employers? Absolutely. Is that a requirement of FAWs in order to determine eligibility? Yes. Do we have checks and balances in the work of our FAWs, who are experts in the area? Yes. Have we put in place eligibility officers to do exactly that kind of work, to do broad checks? Yes. Eligibility officers are a second stage of review to determine eligibility after the financial assistance worker. What else could we do? Do we do audits of offices to ensure that the eligibility rules are being followed? Yes. All of those have been instituted by our government. Are income assistance recipients required to keep regular contact with their financial assistance worker about their job search, both verbally and in writing? Yes. Did our government institute that? Yes.
W. Hurd: Given the fact that we're experiencing an increase in people who cycle or recycle through the system, is the minister satisfied, then, that all those people who come through the system -- or a significant majority of them -- are people who were legitimately laid off or legitimately fired by their employers, or who have a reason why they can no longer have employment -- in fact, that it's a result of a layoff, of a legitimate termination of employment, that does not relate in any way to the decision the individual might have had to quit? Is the ministry satisfied that they have the auditing, the monitoring, to ensure that the people who lose their jobs lose them for reasons beyond their control?
[7:15]
Hon. J. MacPhail: No. In fact, we don't satisfy ourselves with trends at all. We check the facts on each and every case. We treat each case, each application, as an individual application, and check out the facts each and every time. We're not satisfied with assuming that the trends allow particular people, regardless of checking, to be eligible for income assistance.
Where there is doubt, concern or suspicion in terms of an application, where the person actually has to sign a legal document saying the facts are all true, if there's doubt in any way, we refer that matter to a fraud investigator. I'm not sure whether you were in the House or not when we indicated the dramatic rise in the number of investigations that have been carried out for fraud over the course of the last fiscal year. I think it's doubled.
W. Hurd: I just want to ask a brief series of questions about the policy the government has with respect to temporary work, particularly for the heads of households who have dependent children. The minister is aware that the penalties are quite overwhelming. I believe 75 cents or something comes back from every dollar. Maybe the minister could clarify that. What percentage of the dollar that comes back for temporary work is deducted from the income assistance cheque?
This has been an area of some debate within the field, as to whether or not a single parent, who may have two or three dependents, has any incentive in this province to pursue temporary or part-time work, when in fact the amount is deducted at source by the ministry. I wondered whether the ministry was considering any set of pilot projects or any sort of limited-entry programs that would really encourage a single parent on income assistance.... They tend to be long-term participants in the system, and that's understandable, with the costs of child care and other costs associated with being a parent. Is there any attempt or any thought of the ministry to review this policy -- this really, I think, punitive policy -- on deducting from the income assistance cheque the proceeds of part-time work? Or does the minister see any incentive in maybe relaxing that provision, to allow single mothers, for example, to work in a part-time job to acquire skills and not pay a steep penalty, which in many ways, I think, provides a lack of incentive for single-parent households to pursue work outside the home.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I understand that it's important that estimates be treated as a way of learning about the situation, so I accept that question in that context.
Income assistance is a payer of last resort. In terms of the earnings exemption, it's not a matter of people being penalized and having their earnings dollars taken away from them. What happens is that people are encouraged to go out and work. They earn a salary during that period of time, but we top them up; we give them income assistance up to the minimum level of income assistance payment. The reverse
[ Page 14845 ]
that you suggest would bankrupt us. Believe you me, your savings in the area of what you think you could save in terms of fair wages would disappear in the course of one month if your policy were put in place.
But let me just tell you what the system is. People earn wages, and then we top them up through the income assistance system -- that's exactly what happens. And, in fact, there has to be a system in place where there is a fairness and equity between those people who work full time and receive a wage just above the income assistance rates.... There has to be an equity between the employed poor and those who have to rely on income assistance, and that's how we achieve it. In the month of March 1995, over 18,000 clients had earnings exemption -- that's 10 percent -- and we top that up to the basic levels of the welfare rates.
There are all sorts of ways that governments can change policies to eliminate the barriers to work and perhaps eliminate the disincentives to work. Our government has created the Premier's Forum on New Opportunities for Working and Living, and they have produced a document that would be very interesting for the hon. member to read in terms of eliminating those disincentives, those barriers to work, and moving people from welfare to permanent work. The programs under Skills Now are an excellent way of doing that.
One of the other factors, which all sorts of studies have shown, is that you have to have affordable and accessible child care. Our government's record on that stands as exemplary. You also have to ensure that jobs are created not just in the lower mainland or in the Victoria area but where, perhaps, there are not the community and family supports for people to work and have family support to look after their children. However, I will also tell you that the areas of greatest success in moving people from welfare to work on a permanent basis are amongst our single parents.
W. Hurd: I wonder if I can just ask the minister, then, in specific terms: for a single parent with two young children, would it be accurate to say that the amount of income assistance they would be eligible for would be around $15,000 to $16,000 a year? Would that be what they could approximately expect to receive?
Interjection.
W. Hurd: Through the Chair.
The Chair: Yes -- through the Chair, please.
W. Hurd: I know, hon. Chair, and I respect that.
I'm assuming that a single parent with two dependent children in the house would be eligible to receive around $15,000 or $16,000 in income assistance per year, assuming that they remained on income assistance for a year. Is that a reasonable figure to operate from?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Fourteen thousand.
W. Hurd: I assume that would obviously include dental and medical. Would those benefits be in addition to the $14,000 per annum, or are they factored into the amount that is provided?
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's $1,175 per month, plus medical and dental.
W. Hurd: Considering the marginal tax rates, then, and the cost of employment, would it be fair to say that a single parent with two dependent children would have to earn approximately $25,000 in the private sector in order to provide the same benefits that would be available to somebody with two dependents on income assistance in the province? Has the ministry done a study of what the equivalent required rate of earnings would be in the private sector for someone in the same kind of situation? Is that the type of information the ministry attempts to compile, or would the minister not regard that as helpful information?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, of course. Barriers to employment is where I assume you're coming from -- and not in a punitive way. Barriers to employment in moving from welfare to work is an area we are very concerned about and one that we study regularly. It was part of the major examination of the Premier's Forum on New Opportunities for Working and Living.
Let me put it to you in a general way. It's the negative tax rate, or the negative effects of taxation, as one moves from income assistance to full-time work. At some point, there is a spike in terms of the effective tax rate of a woman -- let's say a single parent moving from welfare to full-time employment. That spike exceeds a rate of taxation of 150 percent. She not only moves into a situation where she's paying the income tax rate, but she also loses her benefits such as the child care subsidy and medical and dental benefits as well. Smoothing out that barrier becomes absolutely key to us, as well as smoothing out the differences between the employed poor and those on income assistance. I think that's the issue you're getting at: that a policy change has to occur.
I really urge the hon. member to read the subcommittee's report on the Premier's Forum on New Opportunities for Working and Living, where they make some excellent policy suggestions, both fiscal and programmatic, on how to end those barriers to employment.
W. Hurd: To pursue the analogy a little further, I didn't get a direct answer to my question as to whether a $25,000 salary in the private sector is the equivalent of $16,000 in income assistance; but for the sake of argument, let's say that it's close. It would almost appear that there is little possibility of a single parent who has two dependent children going out into the workforce and acquiring a $25,000-a-year job. I wonder whether the minister is satisfied that single-parent households are able to get off the rolls in any significant way, shape or form. Are we again dealing with a fairly constant participation rate of people who continue to collect income assistance because of the benefits the minister has acknowledged?
Maybe I could ask this question, assuming that a single-parent family receives $16,000 a year and benefits. If the head of the household were to go out and earn an additional $6,000 in part-time income, for example, would that money -- and I'm just asking the question, hon. Chair -- be deducted from the income assistance at a rate of 75 cents per dollar earned? Is that the figure that's used? In the minister's mind, would there be any incentive for a single parent to go out and earn an additional $7,000 a year -- not getting to $25,000 but getting to $21,000? Would there be any incentive, or would they be better off not doing that?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me tell you the biggest incentive for getting off income assistance. When you're a single parent
[ Page 14846 ]
raising two kids on $1,100 per month, it is incentive enough in terms of getting more money than $1,100 a month. For anyone to think.... No matter what level of poverty you measure at, $1,100 per month comes way under -- way under. For anyone to assume.... I just find it unbelievable that a member opposite -- and I'm anxiously awaiting his colleague from Vancouver-Langara to question me along the same lines and see exactly what he thinks about the level of income assistance rates in this province.... For anyone to think that a welfare lifestyle encourages people to survive on $1,100 a month, is just.... Well, they've never lived on $1,100 per month. I haven't either, and I never would want to. Let me tell you, first of all, that you're wrong about the $25,000 per year. I have no idea where you got that figure.
Interjection.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm going to give that to you.
But it is indicative that you sort of go way overboard to assume that it's $25,000. It would hover around.... You would have an exit rate annually of about $19,000 per year in which to balance out.... That is what you would have to earn as an employed wage -- I would assume you would allow people to work other than in the private sector -- in order to level the playing field for a mom on income assistance with two dependents.
[7:30]
The issue here is not keeping people on income assistance and allowing them to earn a certain exemption -- to increase the exemption. I don't understand how that at all assists people in getting out of poverty. What assists getting people out of poverty, and actually assists the taxpayer at the same time, is to get people off income assistance -- to get them right off it, so they don't have to rely on it and so one in five kids in this province aren't brought up in poverty.
There are a couple of ways of doing that. Well, there are lots of ways of doing that. But first of all, it makes sense that we use the tax system effectively. Again, the Premier's Forum on New Opportunities for Working and Living talks about how you smooth out that tax system, so there's not that big spike moving from welfare to work. I see confusion in your eye about understanding that, and I'd be more than happy to sit down with you and explain it to you, because I know you have a very strong background in economics. It's smoothing out that taxation rate and moving from welfare to the world of employment. It means that people have the skills available, and also the security for their children at home in terms of proper child care, so they're not limited in the jobs that they are able to take. Increasing the exemptions won't do a whit of good in achieving any of those things.
W. Hurd: I've listened carefully to the minister's answers, and I'm not sure there was a single one there to the question I asked. I'll ask it even more simply.
Assuming that they're eligible to receive in the range of $15,000 of income assistance as a single parent with two dependents, how much would they lose if they made a decision to go out and earn $7,000 in part-time income? What would they lose with an outside income of $7,000 from whatever source? How much would they lose from their basic income assistance cheque? That can't be that hard an answer for the minister to come up with. It's not even basic economics.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, do it then.
W. Hurd: Well, you tell.... Hon. Chair, the minister can tell me, because I'd like to know exactly what they would lose if they did make a decision in a free and democratic society to go out and earn part-time income and report that income to the ministry office. How much of their social assistance cheque would they have, I guess, taxed away or be forced to repay, or would they pay anything?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, you're going to have to listen to the answers, hon. member, because I said they don't lose money. They get to keep all of their earnings, and then they're topped up. That's what they get. So if you earn $6,000 a year, you're topped up to what your cheque is, what it costs to top you up to the rate of $1,175 per month after that -- plus the earnings exemption, which, I thought you would know, is $200 per month plus 25 percent of the wages. So the earnings exemption on.... Did you say $6,000 per year? You switched; you said $6,000 and then $7,000. So 25 percent plus $200 is $3,300 per year.
W. Hurd: The basic message is that there is no incentive for someone to go out and get part-time work. That's the message the minister has offered, because they're not going to receive any more than the basic minimum amount, which is $1,175 a month.
Interjection.
W. Hurd: Well....
The Chair: Order. Let's direct our comments through the Chair, please.
W. Hurd: Hon. Chair, the minister's messages don't work, because if you earn part-time income, your social assistance amount will be no more than earnings up to $1,100. So clearly there is no incentive for anyone to go out, earn money legitimately and report it. What I'm asking, I guess, is whether the ministry, given that the part-time work has some value in our society.... There's less of a need for child care, for example; there's the possibility that the person can find a babysitter and work at a part-time job at night. It just provides more flexibility.
All I'm asking the minister to acknowledge is that there might be some benefit, in some circumstances, in recognizing that somebody who is trying to support two children in a single-parent household should have the option of earning part-time income; perhaps increasing the thresholds per month would provide an opportunity for a single parent to get experience, even if it's in a part-time job. But in the minister's long, rambling answers, I'm not detecting that there is any incentive to work part-time -- none. If that's true, then I'd be happy to be corrected, and I know I'll be corrected.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm so glad the hon. member is the critic for Forests. I'm sure the forest natural resource industry is far less complex than these matters, and therefore I accept his alacrity in picking this up.
Of course there's an incentive, and in fact, one-half of the single parents who are on the income assistance caseload would call you wrong, because they actually do take up the
[ Page 14847 ]
incentive. The incentive is that you get to keep 25 percent plus $200 of your earnings over and above the topping up; your actual eligible income is topped up to that level. So there's a huge incentive. But more importantly, what single parents will tell you -- and at least 50 percent of them took the opportunity in the month of March to use the incentive -- is that you get the experience, as you said, and the training, the attachment to the workforce, etc.
Is the system working as best as it can? Absolutely not. Should we make changes? Yes, we should. The Premier's Forum on New Opportunities for Working and Living has put forward some extremely creative solutions for eliminating the disincentives to work, and our cabinet will be considering them fully. I'll get you a copy, and I really urge you to read it. They're detailed, but simple to understand; certainly they're in full detail. They're not philosophical solutions; they're practical programmatic solutions.
W. Hurd: So the minister can tell the committee, then, that she's satisfied that the provisions she has outlined, which allow for the income assistance recipient to keep 25 percent of the part-time income they earn plus the $200 a month, provide the necessary incentive or inducement for single parents to go out and find.... Can the minister tell us how many avail themselves of that opportunity? Does the minister have any idea how many single-parent people collecting income assistance in the province have actually taken advantage of this tremendous opportunity she offers to go out and earn part-time income? How many have actually realized the tremendous opportunities and are in fact doing that in British Columbia?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I just answered that question; I said it is 50 percent of single parents, but I'll give you the exact numbers. I want to understand exactly where the hon. member is coming from. Is he advocating a larger earnings exemption? Let's just make that clear. It would help me if that is exactly what he's advocating. Then we could engage in a useful discussion about tax dollars around it, if that is what he is suggesting. Fifty percent of the single parents is about 9,400 who take advantage each month of part-time earnings.
W. Hurd: That's why, at the start of the discussion, I asked what a person would have to earn in the private sector in order to realize the same household income as simply staying on social assistance without pursuing employment. That was the basic rationale for it. I think that may be a good starting point for the discussion: perhaps their earnings exemption should be reviewed.
When we originally engaged in the discussion, I asked the minister whether there was any suggestion or attempt at perhaps a pilot project to identify whether increasing the earning ability would in any way provide more incentive for welfare recipients to pursue other skills in order to pursue part-time jobs. I think that's a useful philosophical discussion. I would hope that the minister would tell us that she's convinced that the system, as she has said, is not working as best it could, and that keeping 25 percent of what you earn plus $200 a month may be a policy that needs to be reviewed. Is it being reviewed?
Hon. J. MacPhail: What the hon. member is saying -- and I'll be interested to see whether increasing the earnings exemption becomes Liberal policy -- is that you really don't think that welfare should be a payer of last resort, that it should be a nice situation where one can work part-time and also collect income assistance benefits, and that the payer-of-last-resort concept is a....
Interjection.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, hon. member, if you're going to engage in these discussions you're going to have to understand the implications of your policy suggestion. I certainly know that the third party will be interested in understanding how you want to spend tax dollars by increasing earnings exemptions.
But let me just say that we have all sorts of projects going forward about how to increase self-sufficiency. There is an outstanding project going forward where there's an earnings supplement that's calculated as half the difference between a participant's gross earnings and the province's earnings benchmark for a single parent with two dependents. That benchmark is set, and people who are on income assistance are given earnings supplement in the form of a job, with a supplement to move them to that benchmark. They pay taxes, they have child care costs and their work-related expenses are taken into account. Even after this, most families are $3,000 to $5,000 per year better off on the self-sufficiency project. Over 17 percent of all the project group members were off income assistance by October 1993 with the project starting the year before that, compared to 10 percent of the control group members who were not given these supports. So there's a tax savings, simply because the earnings are higher for the self-sufficiency project, the overall success rate is much higher, and they have a job. So yes, there are projects like that going on all over the place. As I said earlier, single parents are amongst our greatest success stories in terms of moving from welfare to work.
But let me tell you about the Fraser Institute -- an institute I'm sure you're familiar with -- which released a paper in December 1994 on welfare reform in British Columbia. They offered numerous criticisms of the current system and offered a number of proposals for change. One proposal was to totally exempt earned income for welfare recipients, which was tied with another proposal to limit basic clients to drawing two years of benefits during any five-year period. The rationale behind this proposal is that by placing limits on earnings exemption, governments have created a high marginal tax rate. That is something that you have just advocated, so I understand where you're coming from.
But let me just tell you that the Fraser Institute's proposal to totally exempt earned income from income assistance is based on a faulty assumption. That's the faulty assumption that you articulated -- that we take back 75 cents of every dollar. We've already discussed the fact that the government tops up a client's earned income with an income. Therefore it's only reasonable to expect that as a client's earned income increases, the income top-up will be reduced.
What you're advocating would result in a dramatic increase in income assistance expenditure, something that presumably your leader has opposed and, certainly, I would assume, that the Fraser Institute would oppose as well. Completely exempting earned income also puts the employed poor at a disadvantage.
Anyway, if you can turn your thoughts around to assume that it's a top-up, so that the tax expenditure through income
[ Page 14848 ]
assistance tops up, surely you would not want to completely exempt all earnings, because that means, then, that no matter how much earnings a person got, they would get their income assistance rate. I don't think that's the way the hon. member wants to spend tax dollars.
[7:45]
W. Hurd: I just want to touch again on the issue of what a person has to earn in the private sector compared to what they collect on income assistance. The minister suggested that $19,000 of earnings in the private sector would allow a person to lead the same kind of existence, as menial as it might be. The minister suggested that, and I have no doubts that it's true, at $1,175 a month -- that the amount you'd have to earn would be $19,000. I suggest that it's probably a lot higher than that. I don't see how $3,000 would compensate for the costs of being employed in the province and of child care if it were necessary to pay that. I don't see how that's a wash.
I just have one final question with respect to this issue. I wonder if the minister can tell us what the average stay on social assistance is for a single parent in British Columbia. Is it a long-term stay? Is it three years? Is the trend going up or down?
The minister suggested to the committee that she's satisfied there are incentives out there for single-parent households to get off the social assistance rolls. So I wonder if the minister, given that statement, is intending to track the decision or the movement of single-parent households on social assistance. Can I ask two questions? What is the average stay, and is it getting longer or shorter? Are they cycling back through the system to a greater degree? Where are we going in terms of the trend with single-parent households?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Just let me clarify the hon. member's interpretation of my remarks. The hon. member was suggesting that an unlimited earnings exemption would be the incentive needed. I was merely suggesting to him how that wasn't going to solve any problems in terms of the tax burden. I also stated to the member opposite that better solutions were needed in terms of moving people from welfare to work and referred him to the Premier's Forum on New Opportunities for Working and Living document. So let's just keep the record clear in that area.
I can provide the hon. member opposite, perhaps tomorrow if he's still engaged in the debate, the statistics around the percentage of the caseload population. The percentage of single parents who make up that caseload has remained fairly constant -- I think the last chart I saw was -- over the course of the last 20 years. I can get that for you; it's actually upstairs. There is no question, even on a basis of population, that single parents as a proportion of the caseload is remaining constant. That doesn't mean that single parents aren't, as a percentage amongst themselves, slipping ever more greatly into poverty. The single greatest driver for that is family breakdown, with the non-custodial parent abandoning the family.
W. Hurd: I'm going to just end this discussion by making one suggestion. It may be greeted with mirth or disdain by the minister, but I'll risk it. I really hope that the ministry would consider identifying what a single parent with two dependents would have to earn in the private sector to realize the same lifestyle, or to have the same ability to provide for a family, of the income assistance level of $15,000. What would they have to earn in the private sector?
Put some consideration into liberalizing -- if I can use that term -- the part-time income rules. That would at least provide the family with some incentive to bridge a portion of that income up to $20,000 or $25,000 per year, or whatever it would be. I really think there would be some social benefits attached to that that would provide more skills to single-parent households. One would hope that it would encourage them to move off the full-time welfare rolls and increase the amount of income available to the family. It seems to be such a simple way of allowing a family to live a better lifestyle -- the minister acknowledges that they are struggling on $1,175 a month -- with the private sector providing the incentive of the possibility of earning $7,000 or $8,000 a year from a part-time job.
In all the minister's long answers about the Premier's forum conference and everything else, I didn't detect an acknowledgment from her that allowing a single parent to go out and earn $8,000 a year without penalties would be a policy even worth considering. I would hope that the ministry would, in the course of the coming year, be looking carefully at the exemption levels for part-time employment income and considering whether or not they provide a way of increasing the family income of people on social assistance. After all, we're supposed to be concerned about the children in that situation. I would just invite the minister's response to the idea that maybe the ministry should be looking at these employment disincentives, if I can use that term, very carefully.
With that, I take my seat -- undoubtedly much to the relief of some of my colleagues and the members of the third party.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Actually, I'm quite astounded at this, but I welcome the policy put forward by the Liberal Party in terms of engaging in a debate on the costs of income assistance to the taxpayer. As the payer of last resort, the concept of income assistance is that it is a point of departure into the paid workforce. What the hon. member opposite is suggesting by expanding the earnings exemption.... I'd be more than happy to sit down with him and explain to him how his illogic comes about, but what the member opposite is actually doing is encouraging income assistance as a point of destination. Your policy is encouraging.... What you're suggesting, just as a rough estimate -- hon. member, I'll actually hone this down more finely for you -- would add hundreds of millions of dollars of costs to the income assistance system. If that's Liberal Party policy, it will be interesting to see how it unfolds with the taxpayer.
What you're suggesting is that people should be able to get an income assistance rate and then have a certain level of earnings. That's what the hon. member opposite is suggesting. The way the system works now is that there is a level of payment for the income assistance recipient that's calculated on the basic rates plus 25 percent of their earnings and $200. Let me run you through an example here. For one parent and two children, the benefits are $1,175 per month. On top of that, we allow them an earnings exemption of $200 per month plus 25 percent of what they earn. If they have part-time income of $500, their earned income exemption is $275, which comes to a
[ Page 14849 ]
total of $1,450. If a person earns more than the $500 a month, that means we pay them less income assistance; we top up their earnings less with taxpayer dollars. We top them up less, so the more they earn, the less is required of income assistance, which is tax dollars going to them.
What you're suggesting is that they should be able to keep all that money and the basic level. Do you know how much that would cost in tax dollars? I'm not sure how it would lessen the disincentive. Our exemptions are set so that it is more attractive to work than to be on welfare. I know you're hinting at something else, but we set the rates so that the minimum wage is more attractive.
Really, hon. member, through you, Chair...Mr...whatever...hon. Chair....
An Hon. Member: Hon. Chair.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes -- Hon. Chair....
The Chair: Hon. Chair is just fine.
Hon. J. MacPhail: If the Liberal policy on welfare reform is to put hundreds of millions of dollars more into the current income assistance system, then I welcome an election on that issue.
W. Hurd: I just couldn't leave the debate on that note. I want to advise the minister what I think is probably happening, and I'm sure she'll want to go upstairs and grab some statistics to prove me wrong. I believe that a major proportion of the single parents who get on social assistance never get off; they are long-term participants.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Wrong.
W. Hurd: Well, I hope I am, but I'd like to find.... I mean, I asked the question earlier: how many leave? How many cycle back through the system? It's an important statistic, because if they are on five, six or seven years, or even four years.... I mean, first of all, I suspect that in some cases -- because $1,175 isn't much -- there is part-time income being earned anyway, and it just isn't being reported. I suspect that's what may be happening, because as the minister has pointed out, who would want to try to survive on a monthly basis with two children at $1,175 a month?
How many actually leave? Are they long-term participants in the income assistance program? Because if they are, then the minister's rhetoric about being the exit point rather than the entry point is just rhetoric; that's all it is. She says we're providing incentives for single parents to get off welfare, but she hasn't come up with a figure as to how much they would have to earn in the private sector before they could legitimately get off welfare and be better off.
The minister is suggesting that increasing the earnings exemptions, by virtue of the fact that we couldn't deduct it from their monthly income assistance cheque, would cost the system millions of dollars. But if they are there anyway for a long period of time, then that becomes the important part of the debate. If they are on for five or six years, then by denying the benefit of exemptions for part-time work, the system is paying the maximum.
I would ask the minister whether she is aware of how many single parents are long-term. How many get off every year? Those are important statistics as we focus on this income supplement debate. She suggests it would cost millions of dollars, but it would only cost hundreds of millions if people were not actually staying on for long periods of time. I don't believe that allowing a higher exemption would necessarily encourage people to stay on for longer periods of time, particularly if they could gain some training and experience, and if some limits were put on the amount of years that they could collect. The concern I have is that single parents may be on the rolls for long periods of time, and I would hope that the minister would have some figures on what percentage that would be.
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's not a guesstimate about how much it would cost. We could calculate exactly how much it would cost, and the cost would be immediate if the Liberal election platform about having unlimited earnings exemption was put into place. You would know immediately how much it cost, because every dollar that the Liberal Party policy of increasing the exemption puts into place is a dollar more of expenditure. That's exactly the cost. We don't have to estimate it.
[8:00]
Let me tell you how long single parents stay on the income assistance system. I am sure that the combination of the member for Surrey-White Rock suggesting that there's a welfare-dependency lifestyle and the accusation that single parents stay on for their entire life is a personal point of view. I'm sure that's not Liberal Party policy, because I know that others on your side would stand up immediately and call you to task for that. But let me tell you what the statistics are. Out of a caseload of about 53,000.... I'll take one month, because you always have to look at this from a snapshot point of view, right? In one month there were 53,000 one-parent families on income assistance. Almost 2,500 stayed on only one month, another 2,500 stayed on two months, another 2,200 stayed on three months, another 1,200 stayed on seven months and another 1,000 stayed on 16 months. Fully 70 percent of single parents with dependents are on income assistance for 35 months or less. Yes, there are families who are on income assistance for more than 35 months; there's no question about that. And there are reasons that our government, for the first time ever, is addressing why that is the case.
Our child care is increased so that single parents with dependents now have access to child care. This is a massive improvement for single parents. The extension of benefits for medical and dental, so that you have them for the first year of employment, is having a phenomenal effect on single parents moving from welfare to work. Our revitalized family maintenance enforcement program, where we actually work with single parents on income assistance to get the non-custodial parent to pay up, is having a wonderful effect on improving the independence of single parents, so that they have a court-ordered support payment that is theirs, as they move from welfare to work. The success rate has skyrocketed among our family maintenance enforcement workers in pursuing agreements for the non-custodial parent to pay for their children. The statistics are here; I welcome the hon. member to examine them.
[J. Doyle in the chair.]
V. Anderson: That was an interesting discussion. Two analogies came to mind. One seemed to be discussing
[ Page 14850 ]
whether the cup was half empty and the other was discussing whether the cup was half full, but they were discussing the same cup. Another analogy that came to mind was that they were talking about the same family, but one was coming in the front door and the other was coming in the back door. We're just talking about different perspectives and are not able to connect with each other.
I don't want to go back over that, but it seems to me that much of what my colleague was trying to get at is demonstrated by the self-sufficiency project. If there was an opportunity for the language and understanding to gel, it probably would have gelled in that particular discussion.
One of the comments, though, that I wanted to raise with the minister -- I wasn't quite sure towards the end of that discussion -- was about wanting to make the minimum wage more attractive. And I'm not sure where she's saying in the discussion that a person on assistance.... The mother with two children was getting roughly $1,200 plus child care plus medical benefits and the other things, and that mother would need $19,000, if she was working in the workforce, to be equivalent. The minimum wage, as against the $19,000 before taxes or before deductions.... At $7 an hour, the minimum wage would be $14,560. So working at minimum wage, that parent would be $5,000 below the $19,000 that you said would be needed if you were working in order to be equivalent to the $12,000 that you would be getting on income assistance. You talk about the working poor, and I realize that that's the situation, but I'm not sure that was clarified.
Let me just go over that again. If I understood correctly, as a single parent with two children, you'd be getting about $12,000 a year for income.
Interjection.
V. Anderson: Some $14,000 a year for income? Okay. So you would be getting $14,000 a year for income as a single parent with two children. On minimum wage, $7 an hour -- which it will be before too long -- you would get $14,560 a year, but out of that $14,560 a year, you have at least a portion of your child care to pay, and you have your medical, dental and taxes and everything to come out of that. All I'm trying to point out, and what my colleague was struggling with and what the minister commented on in passing, is that the working poor -- and they choose to do this, because they'd sooner be that way -- are having a more difficult time at the moment than a person on assistance. Because it would take about $19,000 in income to actually give you the equivalent of what you're getting on income assistance. But I don't want to dwell on that; I just wanted to make the comment as we go by that those figures are there.
What I would like to do, though, is pick up some of the discussion we had earlier today in question period, because I think that's relevant. To pick up the discussion that we had in question period about Riverview, I go to the ombudsman's report of May 1994, which had to do with Riverview. The minister made some responses which it would be helpful to clarify, because there wasn't an opportunity to clarify them in question period. Initially, it had particularly to do with what's called the comforts allowance, the bus transportation opportunities and the clothing allowance.
To start off first of all with the comforts allowance, I want to read from the ombudsman's report of May 1994:
"Poverty and mental illness...go hand in hand. Most Riverview patients -- i.e., those who are eligible for income assistance because they have no income or appreciable assets -- receive only a comforts allowance of $82 per month...When one considers that $82 is all the money available to many patients for every discretionary expense they have, including additional food and clothing, entertainment, gifts, etc., its inadequacy is readily apparent."
This is the report of the ombudsman, saying that the $82 a month inadequacy is readily apparent. And this was backed up, of course, by the comments of the patients and their representatives a year ago, when they talked to the minister.
The minister acknowledged the problem a year ago. We have her own letter which did that. A year ago, because we discussed this a year ago as well, she said that in the current budget -- in this year's budget -- since last year's budget was already expended, there would be some opportunity to look at that. So there was an implied promise that it would be dealt with, by the minister's comments of a year ago. I'm trying to understand at the moment, in regard to that comforts allowance, why this was not followed through, to some degree at least.
Perhaps, in asking, I might ask: how long has that $82 figure been in operation? When was it established? And when was the last time it was changed?
[B. Copping in the chair.]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I understand from the members of the official opposition that they wish us to spend, spend, spend. So far tonight, the members opposite who have spoken have asked for increases in my budget to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Unfortunately, their doing away with the fair-wage policy won't even make up for the amount of money that they've asked me to spend tonight. So I'm very anxious to hear, and I look forward to, the suggestions of where this official opposition that hungers for government is actually going to manage my ministry in a fiscally responsible way.
For the member opposite to indicate that I have dealt with this matter in any but the fairest and most compassionate way is to be misleading. I really get quite upset by it. It's exploiting a situation of those who are most vulnerable in a politically unsavoury way.
I met with the advocates of the patients from Riverview at the time a year ago and was very forthright with them in saying that there was no money available in last year's budget, but that there was an opportunity for us to look at the situation in terms of government priorities in the upcoming budget, which of course has resulted in the budget we are discussing here today. In so doing, I met with a wide range of community groups that represent people with disabilities.
Together in a very consensus-building way, my bureaucrats, and I on occasion, reached a plan of action for moving people with disabilities into the 1990s. That includes moving people with the disability of mental illness into the 1990s. For the very first time ever, people with episodic illnesses are eligible for the handicapped benefits -- the same people who have to move from Riverview Hospital into the community and back. So our government, with the available tax dollars, is managing in the most effective way possible to limit the barriers and to even the playing field for people with disabilities.
[ Page 14851 ]
Now, will that be helped by taking $5 million more? I don't know what the member opposite wishes to increase the comforts allowance to. I know that the group I met with today in a very confrontational way, after I had spent much time in looking into their problems and trying to work with them, wishes to have it doubled. That cost would be at least $5 million per annum, on that basis.
The comforts allowance has a history to it. It was set on the basis of.... First of all, for people who have to live in institutions -- again, our government has an exemplary record of moving people from institutions into the community, the best in North America -- the policy around the comforts allowance was set to say that if you are on income assistance and not having your shelter, food and clothing needs taken care of as occurs in an institution, what would be your disposable income on income assistance? That was set years ago at a certain level. Since then, in the last eight years at least, there has been a 37 percent increase in that comforts allowance. It's been increased five times.
But I'll tell you something, hon. members. There isn't a person on income assistance in this province who, after all the basic needs of food, shelter, clothing and transportation are taken care of, has $82 of disposable income left at the end of the month.
V. Anderson: The minister seems to have difficulty realizing that estimates are for the purpose of asking the government about their budget and what they're planning to do. They're not for arguing about Liberal, NDP or Reform policy.
Interjection.
V. Anderson: You are, yes; I agree with that.
Interjection.
V. Anderson: I know you will, but that's not the purpose of estimates, and I'm not trying to enter into that policy. I know the minister and other ministers in this House have got into the habit of interpreting all the time -- saying what somebody else is saying, when they're not saying that at all. It isn't worth trying to respond, because they would only misquote your response anyway.
But I'd still like to ask the minister about the changes she has made about the persons with mental illness who are in the Riverview Hospital at this point, and who now can become recognized in the new category, the same as persons with mental handicaps. Can they have that recognition while they are in the hospital, or do they only get it when they are not in the hospital? What's the situation? If they are out of the hospital, and then move into the hospital, do they lose their recognition? What's the process for being recognized in the new category, which I approve of? What's the relationship while they're in Riverview Hospital or any other institution? Are they on the new program? Has it started already, or is it something in the future?
[8:15]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Currently, the changes that were announced last week by our government are two-stepped. We announced immediately.... In fact, that's what Bill 20 is about. Is that what Bill 20 is about? No, no, we're going to be introducing that -- right. Sorry.
We'll be introducing legislative changes to the definition of handicap. We were discussing them earlier in Bill 20 discussions. The definition that will be instituted -- and I welcome easy and early passage of those changes in this House -- will be within the context of those who are eligible for welfare and have a disability, but will be eligible for the extra handicap benefit. I think it's about $175 on top of the unemployable rate. Indeed, the handicap benefit is related to being eligible for income assistance, and that means that you have to be in need of basic food and shelter. Therefore it would not apply to people who are in institutions. They're not eligible for income assistance, and they have never received income assistance, except for the comforts allowance, because their basic needs are being met through the institution.
However, we also announced at the time an initiative which I am really looking forward to implementing, and that's the removal of income support for people with disabilities from the welfare system completely. We struck an advisory committee of community representatives and ministry staff to remove that system. How that system unfolds in order to level the playing field for people with disabilities still has to be determined.
V. Anderson: I'm glad that the minister has finally figured out that these new things are not part of Bill 20. That is what we were trying to tell her earlier today. That is legislation that she is planning to bring in at some point in the future. That is one distinction that we needed to make that wasn't made earlier today, either in question period or when we were dealing with Bill 20. I'm glad we got that separated.
The minister clarified what she did not make clear before: the changes that she is talking about for persons with disabilities who are eligible for welfare payments do not apply to people while they are in a residential setting. Earlier she implied that this would make a difference to people in the residential setting. Therefore the $82 was irrelevant, because it was going to be looked after by this new initiative. She's made it quite clear now that this new addition does not apply at this point to those who are in an institutional setting. She has stipulated that those who are in an institutional setting cannot receive welfare and get on what has been called the GAIN for Handicapped program.
I still raise the question that there are some people who move into Riverview for one, two, three, four, five or six months. There are some people who spend their whole life there. Incidentally, there are people in both Riverview and Woodlands who have no desire to move out of those institutions. They feel that they are being forced out when the minister says that she is doing something good for them. They've lived there for 50 years, and they want to continue living there. To say that she is doing what's good for them when it's against their will is not adequate. But that is a side issue at the moment.
The issue is the people who are living in Riverview. The changes made at this point make no difference to them. I understand that they are not eligible for the handicapped benefits, because they are not on the social system. What I'm asking is: is the minister saying...? I want to clarify the other. She also implied today that because of the new changes, persons in Riverview would be eligible for bus passes or the equivalent of bus passes, either on a short- or a long-term basis. As of now, are the persons who live in Riverview eligible for bus passes because of the changes that she has made?
[ Page 14852 ]
Hon. J. MacPhail: I don't actually recall the words "bus pass" passing my lips today, but I will address it. Let me reiterate what I said. If the implication was different, I'll clarify that now. At no time did I indicate that the people who have a mental illness and reside in Riverview are eligible for the GAIN for Handicapped benefits. What I did hope to say -- and I will make it clear now -- is that people with an episodic mental illness who move out of the institution and reside in the community will, for the very first time ever, be eligible to apply for the GAIN for Handicapped program. Both self-advocates and community advocates in the mental health community lauded the announcement. We opened up our definition to include as many people as possible to the limits of our budget, in the most fiscally responsible way; to include people who at some point in their lives need the residency of Riverview Hospital.
So that's the case. But certainly people who live in Riverview Hospital are not eligible for welfare and therefore are not eligible for the handicap benefit. But we work very closely with the staff of Riverview, whereby when residents are moving out of the hospital and into the community, we have an on-site institutionalized assessment program for residents, so that they don't have to wait until they get out of the institution to determine whether they are eligible for the GAIN for Handicapped or not. So there's a smooth transition, a seamless transition, and we're pleased that that occurs.
In the area of bus passes, now people who move out of Riverview and are eligible for GAIN for Handicapped will also be eligible for year-round transit passes.
V. Anderson: I appreciate that explanation. So the minister is saying that now persons with mental illness will be treated in the same way as persons with other handicaps in the community. Is that right? The minister is nodding her head to say that there's no distinction now about what handicap you have, whether it's physical or mental; they will all get the same treatment. I think that's an improvement, and I agree that that's an improvement, once they move out of Riverview.
Let me follow that one up and then come back to the other in a moment. But let's follow that one up since we're here. You're saying that there's an assessment while they are in Riverview -- and, again, that was dealt with very clearly by the ombudsman's report, indicating that in the past the problem they had in moving out was that it took a month or two for those assessments to take place. Does that mean that when those persons are aware that they'll be moving out of Riverview a week, two weeks or a month ahead of time, which usually they are, there's a planned exit; that the moment they move out of Riverview -- that day -- they are on income assistance and will have, if you like, a crisis grant to help them get established when they come into the community? Because that has also been a problem: that when they come into the community, they have no funds, they have no place to go. Is the transition...? The ombudsman's report said that there would be a senior social worker of supervisory status who would have that in hand and have all of those arrangements made, so they would be instantaneous as the person moves out of the institution. Is that what the minister is saying will happen?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, if they're eligible for income assistance. But some people move from Riverview into a job and have a source of income, so that has to be taken into account. As I said, we determine the eligibility prior to them leaving Riverview. But yes, if they meet the eligibility criteria of needing support for basic food and shelter, that's from day one.
V. Anderson: So just to clarify: if they're planning to move out, and they meet the eligibility criteria -- they have no job, they're willing to look for a job -- but they need crisis grants and they need a rent allowance, those things would be available to them the day they move out of the institution. And also, the bus pass would be available for them that day, because they have to have transportation as soon as they move out. Will those things be done in advance, so the day they move out of the institution -- normally, at least; there could be the odd exception when things fall apart...? But would the intention be that the bus pass, the housing allowance and the crisis grant -- if they need it -- and their regular income would be available to them the day they move out of the institution? I would hope so, and I would commend you for this. But I just want to make clear that's what's happening.
Hon. J. MacPhail: We cooperate fully and work very hard at planning for people who are moving from the institution, not only in the areas that you say but also in terms of settling people who require support into the community. So all of that preparation is done prior to people leaving the institution. I wouldn't want to give any indication to the hon. member opposite that there aren't glitches. I don't know of any, but I'm sure that some would come to my attention on occasion.
V. Anderson: I'm pleased to hear this, because as the minister is well aware, these were all recommendations that were in the ombudsman report of 1994. I am glad to hear that these things will be taking place in cooperation with.... I know the community agencies that have been working with the minister and with persons from the Riverview residence.
[8:30]
As the minister has indicated that these items do not apply to those who are living within the institution, I want to come back to that area. This isn't a political thing; this is a concern that I had before I got in, and I'm dealing with friends of mine who live in the institution. This isn't a political thing, and I'm disappointed that the minister tries to make it a political thing. This is part of the estimates, and particularly so since the minister herself was today trying to make it so important.
There are still the three questions, and I'm disappointed that the minister is not willing to consider some way of dealing with the necessities of the comforts allowance. I recognize she's not willing to deal with that. So we'll have to leave that for the moment, because she's made it clear that there's no other way around, or mediation or process for dealing with that. Or no way of indicating why, over the years when she says that there have been five different increases, she feels that they are at the maximum at this point.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
The other part of that discussion.... Perhaps the minister would clarify for me another major concern. A concern of most people is to have adequate, presentable clothing that they can feel is theirs and that they can be proud of. I noticed
[ Page 14853 ]
in the ombudsman report regarding clothing.... I again read from the ombudsman's report, because this is the benchmark the minister talked about a while ago:
"Riverview patients wear everyday clothing unless subject to a restriction to pyjamas. If on admission the patient needs clothes, the hospital has a stock of clothing from which the patients can choose. Shoes, socks and underwear are provided by the hospital for all patients. The volunteer service operates the apparel shop on the grounds. A patient needing a particular item can bring a requisition from the home ward, and select from the donated clothing in the shop at no charge. A patient may, of course, buy clothes in the community, and relatives often bring clothing for them. The combination" -- and here's the important part, if the minister is interested -- "of poverty and second-hand clothing that may not always fit contributes to a 'look' that is part of the stigmatizing of mental illness."
I want to reread that sentence. This is the ombudsman's report of a year ago -- May 1994: "The combination of poverty and second-hand clothing that may not always fit contributes to a look that is part of the stigmatizing of mental illness." That's what the ombudsman saw when she evaluated the situation at Riverview. That's what the people at Riverview have been alking about: the stigmatization of the clothing they have and their inability to do anything about it. They are asking for a way to go about this. They have said: "We'd like the opportunity to go to Zellers or K Mart." I know that every woman and every gentleman likes the privilege of being able to go out and get a scarf, a brooch or something that gives unique individuality to their apparel, which says: "This is mine, and I can be proud of it. It says who I am, and I can have that particularly." This is the kind of thing we're talking about.
One of her staff indicated to me today -- and I'd like to check this out -- that there is money that goes to the institution for clothing, and that some of that money is available directly to the patients so they can spend it individually and personally. Can the minister confirm for me whether or not that is the case and how that operates? Because that's the system I hear them asking about. If it's already in place, fine. If they already have money individually to help them get along with their clothing needs, fine. But that's not what we've been hearing, so we want to have that clarified.
Hon. J. MacPhail: This is an appropriate question for the Minister of Health, who administers this budget. I am informed by the Minister of Health that he increased the clothing allowance budget for the patients of Riverview by 10 percent in this budget, so it is now $228,000 per year. But beyond that, I don't have the information of the Minister of Health. However, his estimates are not concluded, are they?
Interjection.
Hon. J. MacPhail: They are? Oh, okay. Anyway, it's an appropriate question for the Minster of Health.
V. Anderson: Are you saying there's no money in your Social Services budget that goes to the clothing allowance at Riverview, that the money for the clothing allowance at Riverview comes from the Health budget, and that the only way you would contribute to clothing at Riverview is through the comforts allowance? Is that right?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I am on territory that is not my responsibility, so I can't give an informed answer. The clothing allowance for the patients of Riverview is the responsibility of the Ministry of Health. There is no provision in the Ministry of Social Services for a clothing allowance for patients; it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Health.
V. Anderson: That's clear; I appreciate that. I think others will be interested in that as well; we can go to the Minister of Health on that, rather than to the Minister of Social Services. It's good to have that clarification for everybody's benefit.
The same is not true of the comforts allowance, because that comes from the Ministry of Social Services, right? So the question is that if there's going to be any extension.... The question is also: while the person is living in Riverview, if they have the opportunity to go out for a break or to a show if they have enough money in their comforts allowance, or if they need to go down in preparation for moving out and look for a place to live or a job, and they need transportation expenses -- return bus fare, a monthly pass -- is there a way? Does providing them with the opportunity to have transportation expenses outside the Riverview Hospital grounds come under Social Services? On what basis would that be provided by Social Services?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The transportation for extra-institutional activities is to come out of their comforts allowance. People who leave Riverview Hospital now and who are eligible for the GAIN for Handicapped benefit will also be eligible for a bus pass. So there is a substantial expansion of people with mental illness in this province who will be eligible for bus passes.
V. Anderson: That clarifies the issue. What the minister is saying very clearly is that the $82 a month looks after all their transportation expenses, all their clothing expenses outside the institution, all their entertainment expenses and all their personal care expenses. All those items are encompassed in two dollars and 80-some cents a day. The minister is saying that for these persons who have mental illness, over and beyond the people who live in the community.... I recognize the needs of the people in the community, but while you have mental illness, there are extra and special needs for you to get back to health, to get out of the hospital and back to work, and to live regularly in the community.
The minister is saying that the only channel for these persons to receive help through Social Services is through the comforts allowance. The minister is saying that whereby it has increased five times over the last number of years, she does not feel that they were eligible for or in need of any more increase last year or in the current year. It's frozen at that base, because she believes that the last five years have adequately caught up to the need, where people were presumably behind before. I just want to clarify that. So all these items -- bus pass, clothing, any special needs whatsoever -- come out of this $82, and the minister believes that is adequate at this point within her budget, and is equal to or above what they would receive if they went out in the community, even under the new handicapped designation.
I guess what I'm asking of the minister is if she has recognized that once they leave the hospital, they're eligible for -- not only eligible for, but have a right to -- additional support. Why is it that when they're in the hospital, they have no right to some of that additional support? Why is it that they have no right to it when they're in the hospital, but they have a right to it the day they step out of the door of the hospital as a member of the hospital community?
[ Page 14854 ]
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's interesting that the hon. member doesn't in any way make suggestions to me, which would be most helpful, about how and where increasing the comforts allowance could come from in the budget. What would he take it out of? What other areas of the budget would he take it from? I'd be more than happy to hear from the hon. member on that.
V. Anderson: Not having had the opportunity to look at all the budget, I'm sure I could discover it very quickly within the budget if I had the opportunity. I'll sit down with you if you give me the opportunity, and I will be happy to look at the budget, particularly when the minister is talking about all the millions she is saving in the budget in her investigations.
I would still like to clarify this. A person who is in the hospital goes out into the community, and the day they go out, they are receiving the new handicapped package. They're out in the community for two or three weeks. For one reason or another, they are not able to overcome their illness, and they go back into the hospital. Do they lose their support the day they go back into the hospital?
It's a joke? Okay. I'm sorry, hon. minister, but when the minister is ready to reply, then I will deal with her response.
Interjection.
V. Anderson: Yes, I'm getting testy. The minister is making a big joke...
The Chair: Hon. member....
V. Anderson: ...while I'm trying to deal with important aspects of people's lives. I think that's something to get testy about. I'm trying to ask if the persons who go out of the hospital with mental illness.... And that's not a joke that they have mental illness, hon. minister; it's not a joke.
When they go out of the hospital, you have agreed that they go immediately onto services in the new extended service, and that is great. When they go back into the hospital three weeks later, does that mean they immediately go off those services? If they've been in a room, and they've had it established, and they go off those services, what system supports them because of their mental illness when they go in and out of hospital? It's not quite the same as some other physical handicaps, which may be or may not be as episodic as this is. What is the system of security that these persons have, and what's the system of support as they go in and out? And why is it that when they go into the hospital, they have less support than when they're outside the hospital? I can't understand the two-tier system that has been created here.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I apologize to the hon. member opposite if I offended him with my laughing. I really do apologize. There's always been a little bit of give and take in this chamber, and sometimes we engage in activity that is not necessarily part of the debate. Certainly my conviviality amongst some of my colleagues had nothing to do with the debate, and I apologize for offending him.
Let me explain to the hon. member once again how the system works. When a person resides in Riverview Hospital, his or her needs of basic food and shelter are taken care of by the institution. The income assistance system is to provide people who have no other source.... It's a payer of last resort to provide for basic needs of food and shelter. So when a person is no longer under the roof of the institution and has no other source of income, then that person probably will meet the test of eligibility for income assistance for the time that he or she is outside the institution. However, if the person returns to the institution, then the needs are met and the person is no longer eligible for income assistance.
[8:45]
It's not a two-tier system; it's not a two-tier system at all. It's a recognition that people get their sources of food and shelter from different areas, and when you're in a hospital, that's where you get it. And if you're not in an institution, then you have to provide for yourself, and that's why the income assistance system is there.
V. Anderson: I appreciate your comments and your apology -- and another colleague here who also apologized for getting you in difficulty. So I appreciate it, and I recognize that it does happen.
But I still have a concern. I know there is a concern here, because I have experienced it with friends of mine who have gone in and out of the hospital. If you have a family available to you and you go in and out of the hospital -- if you've rented a room and suddenly you leave the room -- then there's somebody to look after it and care for it. And if you have a bill that you haven't paid, there's somebody to look after paying the bill.
What I'm trying to get at is: what's the continuity in the system when somebody goes in and out of a mental hospital? Because they do it not only once; they do it a number of times. They may do it half a dozen times in a year. What's the continuity, and where is the system that helps them? We know in other systems of social services in the past that people have been transferred from one office to another, but the files have got lost and the continuity is not there. If you're in a mental health situation, that aggravates you, not assists you.
What we want to discover is how these persons who have a mental health concern are assisted in the transition, smoothly, in and out. And where they do not have family, how will their individual needs be taken care of and looked after, so they won't be accused of not paying their rent, they won't be accused of not paying their bills, or whatever the circumstances are? Suddenly they have assistance in the community to get some of these personal things out of their budget. They move into the institution for a month or two, and they don't have any ability to do this. That kind of coming and going has no continuity. Since we're improving the system, let's improve it to really make it a supportive and secure system, not just partway.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes indeed, we're very sensitive to those circumstances. And even though there are two separate systems for dealing with meeting the needs of a person with mental illness, whether she be in an institution under the health system or in the community and the responsibility of the income assistance system.... That's the very reason that, when they are out of the community, we have delegated the authority for determining benefits for income assistance on-site to Riverview, to make that support as seamless as possible for the residents of Riverview. I would also advise the member opposite that in circumstances where a person actually returns
[ Page 14855 ]
to Riverview for short periods of time, her rent and hydro would continue to be covered in anticipation of her return to the community.
V. Anderson: It's that kind of assurance that we've been trying to get. In the changing systems, people are not always aware that this is happening. It's that kind of assurance that not only these individuals need but that the families and friends that support them also need.
One of the items that I wanted to clarify is one that the ombudsman raised. It is related to the same.... One of the realities that we all know is that people need an identification system when they apply for social services. Oftentimes, when they go into the institution, it has been discovered -- maybe they are there for the first time -- that they don't have that kind of identification. Is there a process in place, as was recommended by the ombudsman, that as soon as they are met by the social worker -- as I presume they are when they go into the institution -- this identification system will be made available to them, and arrangements will be made so they have these needed opportunities for identification when applying for welfare or whatever else it may be? This was the recommendation of the ombudsman. Identification should be made available to them while they are in hospital, so they should have that available. Do they have to take that out of the comforts allowance, or will that be provided for them as it is for others who would get it when they're on social services?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, this is a two-part answer. One is that we've actually gone a step further and delegated the assessment of eligibility to Riverview Hospital itself. That's all done before they even leave the institution; therefore identification is not even an issue. But for residents' use, for regular living experience in the community and for the need for identification there, yes, we would assist in obtaining that identification, including payment for it.
V. Anderson: I appreciate that. Is it automatic? Often patients -- or anyone -- don't think of this until they need it, and then it's too late. Can that be a part of the automatic process of the assessment? Part of the assessment is: do you have identification? If not, they would be helped to get that identification as part of the assessment when they enter the hospital, and they would have it from then on.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, it is my understanding that that is an obligatory part of the process for leaving the institution.
V. Anderson: I think we may have already answered this. Under the new system this may be taken care of. The ombudsman recommended in her report that there be a cash amount -- and her suggestion was $200 -- available to patients when they left Riverview in order that they had cash on hand when they went into the community. Otherwise, they are in difficulty as soon as they get outside the door. Under the new system that the minister has indicated, is this need for cash in hand understood when going out into the community? Will it be available to them on the day they leave the institution?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm not sure. I'll look into that and get back to the hon. member.
V. Anderson: When you are doing that, it might be useful to review some of these recommendations I am highlighting out of the ombudsman's report, because it would be a simple way to verify that these things are being done. I would appreciate it if you might let us know about that.
Another area the ombudsman referred to particularly was the area of housing, and that this was the single most important need when people move out of the institution. Last week in our meeting with the council in Vancouver, this need was reiterated, as I think the minister is aware. What kind of cooperation is undertaken by Social Services with Riverview and with the Housing ministry, I presume, in order that these people have assistance in finding housing that's available to them? The suggestion has been made, both in the ombudsman's report and by others, that for many of those persons who are moving out, the cottages already on the Riverview grounds are possibilities for housing for these persons to live in a situation in which they can be comfortable, at least until other housing is available. There certainly isn't enough housing in the community at the moment. What is the process of working with them? They do not have family to work with them. Who undertakes this process, as part of their health? Is it cooperation of the Riverview staff, the Social Services staff or the Housing ministry? What's the process of helping these people who have difficulties and need assistance, at least initially? Any of us would have trouble working through all of this. If we had their burden, it would be that much greater. What assistance is available to help them so they don't end up in despair just because it's too much to cope with all at one time? What's the process? What's the process of working together? Who do they contact for this to happen? If I'm talking to my friends there, who do I say they should contact to look after housing that might be available to them when coming out of the institution?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The discharge planning of patients at Riverview is the responsibility of the Riverview staff, working in conjunction with the mental health division of the Ministry of Health. My understanding is that personal planning takes place and is put in place before the discharge occurs.
V. Anderson: One of the recommendations -- and I presume that you're working with them on it -- was that there should be an information kit available to patients on their discharge process, in plain language, that would have to deal with.... Let me just read this recommendation, because I want to know if this also is being undertaken:
"That Riverview Hospital provide all patients prior to discharge with an information kit that gives information in plain language on how to live successfully in the community, including medications and side effects, addresses and phone numbers of community mental health and other support services, how to obtain identification if lost...and how to open a bank account and do basic banking."
This information kit would help them to move into the community and is a cooperative one that would be shared, I presume, between Social Services, Riverview and whomever else. I presume that Social Services would be fundamentally involved in this, so I'm wondering: is a kit available, or is a process in place to provide this kit so that these persons may have the information they need?
Hon. J. MacPhail: These are excellent questions, but they're outside of my purview. They're the responsibility of the Ministry of Health, both for the Riverview division and the mental health division.
[ Page 14856 ]
V. Anderson: Part of the recommendation here, hon. minister, is that there be an interministerial committee of Health and Social Services particularly, but I would also include Housing. There should be an interministerial committee. Too often we have heard, in our dealing with people in the community, that their right arm belongs to Health and their left arm belongs to Social Services and their feet belong to Housing and their head belongs to somebody else. It's not good enough, when we're dealing with people who are coming into the social services system, to say the moment they step out of the door that that's the responsibility of the Health ministry or the responsibility of Riverview. It's a joint responsibility: Health and Riverview and Social Services and Education are all part of one government. It's the government that's taking on this responsibility. It's not enough to say that that's Health and that's Social Services.
The recommendation of the ombudsman is that there be integration and interrelationship, that these processes like the kit not be the kit of only one ministry dealing with its functions but be a kit that's available to help that person with every need they have in the community. We shouldn't have one kit for Health and one kit for Social Services and one kit for Finance. We're talking about the whole person, not parts of the person. I'm trying to discover what the integrated process is and how one applies the integrated process for the recommendations that the ombudsman has given to the Legislature.
The ombudsman didn't give these to Health or Social Services; these are the recommendations of the ombudsman to this Legislature. They're for us as a collective unit, not for separate bodies. It's not good enough to say that it belongs to Health or Social Services. What is the integrated process whereby these persons are dealt with as a whole person in an integrated way? To whom have Health and Social Services and Riverview designated integrated programming and planning for things such as this kit and other items like this for those moving in and out of hospital?
[9:00]
Hon. J. MacPhail: We do have a committee at the executive level, with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Services developing and implementing social policy integration, and that committee functions well and meets frequently. I will ensure that.... I'm not familiar enough to know how detailed they get into the Riverview matters, but I'll check and get back to the hon. member.
V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's response, because I think it's that checking.... I'll appreciate hearing back from her. I know that there's an integrated committee working at the executive level, but the crux is what's working in the Riverview community with John and Jane and Bill and Pete in their daily life, and what's happening to them, and how they focus in on that area. I'm sure it's because it apparently isn't working that the persons at Riverview have to come to us for answers. There's no local person that they seem to be able to relate to.
Hon. Chair, I will change my mode and leave the Riverview question for the time being. I appreciate what the minister has offered in that regard.
I would like to move, as I indicated the other day, into the area of the administration and support services of the ministry. I would like to relate these not only to the blue book, to the financial management sheets that we have before us, but I would also like to relate it to the BC Guide. When persons from the community are trying to access or understand the operations of the ministry, it's not the blue books that they go to, to look at the finances. They don't have the blue books. It's the programs that they turn to when they first undertake this.
So looking at administration and support services, I see that there's more than a $2 million increase in the global part of this budget. Perhaps there are some highlights of where that $2 million has come into the budget, so that we can look at it globally before we try to break it down. As well as looking at the financial part of it, I would be interested to discover how many full-time-equivalents are working in that administrative and support services section. How many of our administrative people are in there? How does that compare to the previous year, as well as the...? We have the finances, but not the number of people in that section in comparison to previous years.
Hon. J. MacPhail: The administration and support services section of our budget covers salaries and benefits, plus operational costs, systems, travel, building occupancy, etc., of the following: ministry executive, audit services, communications, policy planning and research, human resources, and training and financial management. There are approximately 771 FTEs in those areas. The hon. member is quite right: the budget has increased by $2.31 million. It's a 3.7 percent increase. The increase is allocated to the following areas. Pay equity adjustments and other wage increases -- a 1.5 percent wage increase was negotiated in that area. New staff have been required, and training in other areas, to support the new Child, Family and Community Service Act. The cost of building occupancy has gone up. Many leases were renewed at the last reorganization of the ministry, which was in 1988, and those leases are now expiring; they are having to be renewed at higher market rates. There's actually been an increase in occupancy rates of 16 percent.
There are systems costs for what we affectionately refer to as SWS MIS, which is the social work systems management information system; it tracks information in the areas of child welfare and child protection. The other affectionate term for systems is CHIPS, which is a new personnel information system that is actually governmentwide now.
These are the costs for our ministry. There have been decreases, actually, in this budget as well. Advertising went down 32 percent; professional services and office furniture and equipment went down 3 percent.
V. Anderson: I was trying to work out from the BC Guide if these are the ones you have referred to. Under the financial services division, you have the financial policy and systems branch, the program payments office and the administrative payments office. There are these divisions: the health services division, the information and privacy division, the personnel and staff training division, the systems services division and the administration of statutes and acts. Do these areas come under the administration and support services budget, or do they appear some other place? I'm just trying to place where these come within the budget.
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's actually a useful tool, I think, to look at the BC Guide, and I appreciate the hon. member doing it on that basis, but let me just explain a tiny bit of a difficulty
[ Page 14857 ]
-- actually it's not a tiny bit. It's a difficulty. This guide, of course, is a user-friendly, plain language kind of guide for consumers. Our budget, the budgeting process required by governments and the accountability don't necessarily overlap with the guide. But we've tried our best, in anticipation of.... Actually, the hon. member gave us notice that he would be using this. So the answer to the last question is that....
Interjection.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Most are in the admin and support budget that we just talked about, but not all. We've tried to work with the guide, so if he could just quote the page from which he's working, that would help. I can look it up here. Okay?
V. Anderson: What page am I on?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes.
V. Anderson: SSRV 32. Well, page.... I copied it there, so I'll have to go back to find the page. It starts at page 589. The financial services division is further on.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Almost all of these are the administration and support budget, with a couple of exceptions I'll just go through -- like, the health services division is service to people who are on income assistance. So the administrative support for that particular program comes out of the program management of income support. But the rest are part of the admin budget.
V. Anderson: A couple of questions come out of that. I'll come back to the health services one that comes later. In the information and privacy division.... We touched a little on that the other day, in regard to transfers of funds. Could you comment on what difference it has made to the operation of the ministry because of this division having to be created with the new act? What difference does this make to the operation of social workers, in reporting? I know, as we mentioned earlier, there's been some uncertainty about.... Are there new regulations or guidelines that simplify the process and make the process better for them in reporting for the future that's ahead of us?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I believe, actually, that freedom of information is holding us much more accountable to the public. Our staff would agree with that. That doesn't mean it isn't time-consuming, but we certainly look on it as an investment into being held more properly accountable to the clients we serve. So certainly our staff are cognizant of documentation requirements in light of freedom of information and certainly cognizant of confidentiality matters on the protection-of-privacy side of the act. It has focused us in a way that's very useful -- but labour-intensive.
V. Anderson: Labour-intensive. Can you give...? Because it's labour-intensive, I presume more reporting is done on computers now than used to be. So I'd be interested, you know, how that's being worked in. What kind of network is being used in that regard? Others may be like me: they haven't moved into the computer age to that extent yet.
If you take the average worker dealing with clients in the field, is this taking an extra 5 or 10 percent of their time? What's the kind of workload that's being put on them because of this mandate -- an extra 5 percent? Or is there any estimate of what extra demand is being put on them because of this? On the other hand, have computer systems and others been put in place that have decreased the demand? Does it even out? I'm trying to get some feel for what's happening, because there is computerization on the one hand and information need on the other.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Let me clarify what I mean by labour-intensive. It means not that the job is becoming more difficult but that we've had to be very cognizant of making sure that our policies, practices and procedures meet the needs of potential requests of our clients under FOI and PP. Just to give you a more full accounting of the kind of requests we get and how that might transact into pressures on the ministry, most of the requests are from people looking for personal information. The vast majority are for personal information in the area of child welfare or adoption, and the vast majority of them involve files that have already been closed. So there's very little impact in cases on the field.
As I said earlier, the extra work comes from the increase in staff at the central level. The requests are all shunted centrally, and we now have 19 FTEs delegated to freedom of information. I think we have at least three times as many requests for information than even the next-highest ministry.
V. Anderson: Because we have freedom of information and also because of computerization.... I'm not sure how we can separate them anymore. Have we had to devise a series of definitions of common meanings in a way that we didn't have in the past in order to clarify it more clearly for ourselves in our training work and with other people? As a result, has there been developing a manual of terminology and their meanings, and how these are translated, both in reporting and in computerization?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Your question is a good one, and I think the conclusion reached is that computerization has its own changes required in the way that we do business. But it is not necessarily impeded or helped by the FOIPP legislation.
[9:15]
V. Anderson: I'm aware that if we can get common language it will be helpful. I was aware of that when we were interviewing Joyce Preston, when she was trying to work in the Vancouver community bringing together the people from different ministries and discovering the difficulty of that. Everybody had different budgeting and accounting systems and different terminologies, and they had to back up and see if they could get a common system that would reflect all of that. As we try to integrate and interrelate in the ministry, I am asking if there is an attempt within the government to bring together terminology that helps us to relate between ministries so that we're dealing with the person with a common terminology and a common technology, no matter which minister we go to.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I absolutely agree. I'm constantly amazed -- I won't say shocked, because that would be too histrionic, but it does border on that -- of how little integra-
[ Page 14858 ]
tion of our technology there is, not only in direct government but in Crown corporations, hospitals and school boards, etc. And in some cases the private sector isn't a better model, either. We are trying to integrate our mechanization much more effectively. We are taking on what is called a contract management process. We have approximately $600 million in contracted services, where we contract with agencies to provide family support services and child welfare services. We've just instituted rules and procedures for standardizing the contract, the establishment, the review, etc., through Treasury Board. Much of that will require integrated computerization as well. The five ministries in the Social Services area are integrating their contract management processes and will therefore move toward integrated computerization.
V. Anderson: The personnel and staff training division would also be in this area, I think. It was highlighted in the Gove inquiry that in the area of child apprehension and child care, there was a great need for training social workers. In the ombudsman's report, the comment is that the persons who are dealing with mental illnesses did not seem to have the training that was needed. In the adoption area, we're getting the same kind of concern: social workers there do not necessarily have the training to deal in the area of adoption. It would be my guess that in the past, social workers were generalists who came out of college and got moved around between one division and another. It was assumed that the training they had would be acceptable in every area. What programs are undertaken to give the specialized training that's needed in adoption, child apprehension, mental illness and foster parent care? What training programs are there in the many specialized areas in which the ministry works? I think it's probably best to raise that under the personnel and staff training division.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, I've recognized, as have my executive staff, that increased vigilance and change is necessary in the area of training social work staff. Of course, I very much look forward to the recommendations in the area of training that Judge Gove will make in the Matthew Vaudreuil inquiry. I know that he has looked into this matter very intensively, and I know he will be coming forward with some good recommendations in the very near future.
We're very committed to the training of social workers. Mandatory core training has been in place for social workers since 1984. It consisted of two weeks of training only and then an on-the-job training package. Then we had a variety of specialized workshops delivered in local areas, to the local community -- for instance, a fetal alcohol syndrome workshop. We're planning a new training regime to be implemented at the end of this year. A total of 23 weeks of core training for new social workers is scheduled to be delivered by field staff at the end of this year. That is not even including the proposed three-month model for brand-new social work staff. The 23 weeks is for everybody and then three months for brand-new staff as well.
We've revised the existing training on an ongoing basis so that it remains updated and consistent. Extensive training for social workers is planned with regard to our new legislation, and there is a whole area that we could discuss on that. The new social work training is the three-month core training, and they'll have that training before assuming any responsibility for a caseload. The training packages will be delivered to social workers, field staff and the community as well, in preparation for the proclamation and implementation of the new Child, Family and Community Service Act.
Oh, 23 days, sorry. It's 23 days of core training. I was wondering how we were going to afford 23 weeks for all of our staff. Sorry about that; I thought it was pretty dramatic.
Also, we are working very closely with schools of social work to bring them more in touch with the nineties and child protection and child welfare. I've had some very good meetings with the universities in this area. We've also provided funding to the various schools of social work so that they can research how to enhance social work training. Our staff is coordinating with aboriginal service teams to address the training needs of aboriginal communities specifically. We've also had some recent training initiatives in advanced training for social workers in the area of neglect, which was an issue that was raised with the tragic death of Matthew Vaudreuil, in the area of self-help and mutual aid group facilitation training and some training in the area of violence with families.
As well, all of our social workers currently have access to our central library. That contains an extensive collection of current materials and is well used by our staff.
V. Anderson: To ask a technical question: how many FTEs have you added for this program, and also what has been the expansion and what are the funds that go into this total package of personnel and training -- both FTEs and funds?
Hon. J. MacPhail: I just wanted to make sure that we'd actually announced this. Although I'd love to give it to members of the House first, I want to make sure all the staff knows about it. We've added seven FTEs to our current 64 FTEs in the training division to prepare for all of this expanded training. But I also want to let the hon. member opposite know that in addition to the 50 new social work positions -- child protection positions -- that I announced late last fall, we have allocated in our budget the equivalent, on an annualized basis, of 240 positions for implementing the new act. So that's a good beginning toward ensuring its success.
V. Anderson: Just to clarify, the 50 position that you indicated before.... And there are 200 new positions that will be added in this current year?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, the 50 full-time positions were allocated out of last year's budget, and by the end of this year's budget there will be 240 new, additional positions assisting in the implementation of the act.
V. Anderson: So what would be the total financial budget of this personnel and staff-training division of the actual...? Some of these new staff will probably be listed in other divisions, but in the personnel and staff training division, what is the number of employees? I gather that there are 71 employees there altogether. What would be the funds that are part of that training division for this coming year?
Hon. J. MacPhail: We're just trying to figure out and confirm for you the absolute figure of FTEs. I said to you that it was 64 for 1994-95. Sorry. I think that does include the new
[ Page 14859 ]
seven-FTE increase just for trainers, but there is also an increase of 19 positions for backfill in the field while staff are being trained for the implementation.
V. Anderson: The other part of that, hon. Chair, was the finances of that particular policy and training division. The personnel and staff, I mean.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Just for the personnel and staff training division, we spent $6.8 million in 1994-95, and this year it is expected to rise to $8 million.
V. Anderson: I can't help but comment as we look at these millions that the comforts allowance might have taken off a few pennies from each one and done very well.
I presume policy, planning and research is in this same area as well. Are there certain divisions within that? Does that do policy, planning and research for all the different areas of the ministry? How many people would be involved in it, and what would be the budget in policy, planning and research?
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, that's a corporate policy, planning and research division. It covers all aspects of those needs in the ministry. There are 37 FTEs allocated for an expenditure in 1994-95 of $3.5 million.
V. Anderson: I noticed one of the pamphlets that it lists, particularly there at the bottom, so I wanted to just raise it in passing. "When Disaster Strikes...." -- and emergency is called "Emergency Social Services." Is it just by coincidence that it's under there, or does that come under that division? I noticed the pamphlet is listed under that particular section of policy, planning and research, where at the bottom, it says: "When Disaster Strikes...Emergency Social Services." Does that mean that the emergency social services come under this division and, if so, what is involved, and who's involved in that? What is the program involved there?
[9:30]
Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, actually it may seem like an unusual fit, but that is the division under which it falls. We assist municipal emergency social services volunteers in planning aid for individuals and families forced from their homes by emergencies beyond their control. We provide the volunteers with training and identification pins and public information materials. There are currently over 3,500 local emergency services volunteers serving 135 different communities in the province. Organizations which work with our ministry in providing support to local volunteers include: Salvation Army, St. John Ambulance, Canadian Red Cross. There's a whole host of.... Please don't assume by my exclusion that they're not wonderful, but there's a whole long list of volunteer agencies.
In 1994 we assisted victims in 109 separate incidents, ranging from house fires to floods, mud slides and a toxic smoke evacuation. We're assisting right now in Fort Ware with their fire. I think they're in a situation of.... We also have people who actually leave the country and go to other parts, internationally. I think we have staff in Louisiana with the flooding.
I notice many of our colleagues returning to the House. I don't think, with the greatest of respect to both me and my colleague from Vancouver-Langara, that they're coming to hear us speak. I think they're coming to hear us stop; and I say that, seeing them with that hungry look in their eyes. So with the indulgence of my colleagues, I'll move adjournment....
The Chair: Actually the motion is to move the committee rise, report progress....
Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 9:33 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; J. Pullinger in the chair.
The committee met at 2:31 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
On vote 55: minister's office, $432,000.
Hon. J. Pement: Hon. Chair, I just want to say that good roads and transportation systems are essential to the social and economic development of our province. Our mandate is to protect and build on our multibillion-dollar investment, creating jobs and opportunities for British Columbians. Our priority is safety, and our focus is fiscal responsibility. Our approach is careful planning and developing an integrated transportation system that supports and sustains our economic growth, which is the strongest in Canada.
My ministry is a job generator. Government studies have shown that for every million dollars spent on the infrastructure, 13.2 jobs are created. That translates into 7,300 jobs for British Columbians on the infrastructure projects we have scheduled for the current fiscal year. These include highways projects, bridge construction, paving, upgrading intersections and adding transit-only lanes.
The dramatic increase in vehicles on our roads over the years has given rise to concerns over congestion, pollution
[ Page 14860 ]
and safety, and we are responding. We have developed traffic safety initiatives that are designed to have a profound effect on our economy and on our lives. Traffic safety is a $2-billion-a-year problem. In 1993, accidents killed 512 people and injured 47,000 others -- a number that is equivalent to the population of the city of New Westminster.
We are targeting speeders, drinking drivers, drivers who drive while prohibited or unlicensed and new drivers, because these drivers have a high proportion of accidents. We are also toughening up fine collections so fines are more of a deterrent. And we are looking at bicycle safety, recognizing the growth in popularity of cycling as recreation and as an alternative transportation mode.
We have developed our programs after lengthy consultations with police, local governments and traffic safety organizations, and this consultation process with our partners will continue during the implementation stage.
We are allocating $25 million for traffic safety programs, a mere fraction of the $350 million in annual savings expected in societal costs, especially health costs, work loss and insurance claims. More significantly, the measures in the first year are expected to save 100 lives and reduce injuries by 6,000.
We are addressing concerns over congestion. We have $2 billion worth of major projects on the go to improve traffic flows on Vancouver Island, in the lower mainland and along the Okanagan Highway 97 corridor. These projects cannot go ahead without funding from B.C. 21 and the Transportation Financing Authority.
We are promoting alternative transportation modes that will reduce dependency on single-occupant vehicles and increase shared ridership through public transit, van pooling and high-occupancy lanes.
We are addressing concerns over pollution caused by vehicle emissions. Our AirCare program in the lower mainland is removing more than 50,000 tons of pollutants from the air each year.
Our infrastructure comprises 42,000 kilometres of highways, 2,700 bridges and 19 ferries. Its net worth is estimated conservatively at $14.5 billion. To build and maintain our infrastructure requires good planning, which is something we emphasize in my ministry. Maintenance and rehabilitation are the twin pillars of our value-for-money system. We are allocating $142 million for rehabilitation this year and $375 million for maintenance. In addition, we are budgeting $400 million on capital projects funded through the Transportation Financing Authority.
These projects so vital to the economy are not only improving our infrastructure, but also providing jobs and helping people acquire skills. We have budgeted $7 million under the federal-provincial strategic highway improvement program and $4 million for urban renewal highway projects with municipalities.
Our total capital construction allocation is $410 million, up from $304 million last fiscal year. Such investments are necessary to keep pace with our economic development and to provide a transportation and highway system that the people of British Columbia expect and demand.
The heart of our strategy is balance and security: balancing what is needed in the interests of the economy against what we can afford in the interests of the taxpayers; securing jobs and opportunities for ordinary British Columbians, businesses and communities. We have made significant strides in making our operations more efficient. We have pared $12 million off our budget for administration; we are doing more with less. We are maximizing the percentage of our budget devoted to road and bridges programs, and through the hard work and dedication of the 3,600 men and women who work for my ministry, we are meeting the challenges and getting the job done. We are making a significant contribution to B.C.'s prosperity today and tomorrow.
D. Symons: I'd just like to respond to the minister's opening statements. I appreciate that they were short, and I will likewise make mine short so that we can move on.
I cannot find fault with anything the minister has said, because I would agree with the intent of everything. I guess what we'll be doing during the estimates is exploring whether what they're doing is being followed through with and possibly seeing that maybe more could be done.
I find the minister is making comments about the capital projects which they're doing now, but in the first few years of this government's mandate, the capital projects done by the government were almost zilch. They were simply doing what was left over from contracts that had been signed by the previous administration. They are indeed spending more, but of that large figure -- the $400-some-odd million that's built in capital projects -- I think the majority is being sunk into one particular project, and there are many other regions of the province in desperate need of highway upgrading or new highways. I will be again exploring what the government's intentions are with those particular projects.
I note with interest the government's mention of the changes they are making in the Motor Vehicle Act to be more responsible, I suppose, in seeing that drivers behave in a more responsible way and to address the issues of those who are not, particularly drinking drivers and people who are driving while their licences are suspended. But I would argue -- and will argue, when we get farther into the estimates of that particular portion of the ministry -- that they have simply scratched the surface of this particular topic and maybe made a token effort at dealing with it. When we look at the bills, I'll be bringing up some amendments and ways that we might tighten it even further than I think the government has.
It's interesting to look at the various projects that the government has in place and to compare them with the projects that need to be done. I would want to follow along during the estimates in exploring the manner in which government has gone ahead with some of these projects. I have had real concern expressed to me by people who are affected by the building of the Island Highway through the expropriation of their property. We'll be looking at the issues that these people have brought forward.
I note that there has been an increase in some of the spending of various departments of the ministry, but overall the actual spending has remained fairly constant over the last few years. It does not compare, really, to the spending of past administrations on this very important aspect of British Columbia's infrastructure. I would draw to the minister's attention the fact that spending on infrastructure renewal through maintenance still falls far below what Good Roads Cost
[ Page 14861 ]
Less recommended be done. This has been a continuing problem that I've been drawing to the minister's attention over the years. It seems that the problem continues to about the same degree this year.
These opening statements give an idea of where I will be heading during the estimates. I will be dealing with specific areas of concern and specific projects, but that's basically where I would like to go. From what I have gathered by watching other estimates debates, I generally do what seems to be unusual, as you have found out from previous experience, and as the deputy minister doubtlessly knows: I go to the estimates book and ask questions from it. My first question is: how many staff are there in the minister's office for this fiscal year?
Hon. J. Pement: We have a total of six.
D. Symons: Has this changed from last year? I'll lump this together with another question: has there been any change in the duties or classifications of any of them that has resulted in wage or benefit changes?
Hon. J. Pement: No.
D. Symons: I look back a few years when this government took office, and I note that there's been about a 13.4 percent increase from the 1991-92 fiscal year up to this current budgeted fiscal year. That averages out to around 3 percent per year, which I don't think I can find too much fault with. That seems to be fairly modest, I would think.
[2:45]
If we can move to the line items in the estimates book, then, in the administration and support services, there is one figure I'd like to inquire about. When I asked a few years ago why there wasn't a drop in the administration in this line because of the drop or cessation of capital projects due to cutbacks in the first few years of this government's administration, the answer the then minister gave me was that the staff team was being kept together for the projects that would be coming up in future years. We now have the Island project, Westview and a few others. I'm wondering: why the increase last year and the slight dropback this year in that particular line?
Hon. J. Pement: Again, we keep going back to the restatement of the estimates that we had problems with last year. What we could do is a reconciliation for you so that you can see where the numbers level out.
D. Symons: I wonder if I might give the numbers I have and we can see. In 1992-93, I have $30.7 million under that particular line; in 1993-94, $30.25 million. The actual amount we have for 1994-95 is $38.5 million. That was the jump I was referring to a moment ago. That's dropped back to your estimate for the coming year of $34.255 million. Are those figures correct?
Hon. J. Pement: Again, when we did our budgeting this year we removed $12 million out of the administrative budget, and in that process we took from our computer systems department. We pulled those people -- FTEs -- into our administrative side, and that's the difference in the numbers.
D. Symons: Will we see a corresponding reduction somewhere else for the increase you are referring to here?
Hon. J. Pement: Yes. It's a case of where we move the people to make our administrative budget more flexible so that we can use those people within the central system.
D. Symons: The one common thread I have found during the years I've been opposition critic for transportation and highways is that from one year to the next, there's always some putting things in different pigeonholes, as the previous minister referred to it, so it makes it extremely difficult to compare one year to the next in the process I would like to do to keep track of what's going on. It seems there is almost a concerted effort to make sure one can't follow the trail by moving things about.
We might move into the next line in there, the planning, municipal programs and major projects. Looking at those figures I find that in 1992-93 it was $23.8 million. In 1993-94 we dropped down suddenly; I guess the adjusted figure was $14.8 million. The actual figure for 1994-95 is $10.9 million, and for this coming fiscal year $10.4 million is budgeted. Your planning, municipal programs and major projects have been on a steady decline; I note roughly 50 percent.
I wonder if you might explain -- and I will be asking further questions on this -- where these reductions have taken place. We have gone, since the beginning of this government's mandate, from $23 million down to $10 million. I'm not criticizing government for making cuts, but I wonder where they have been made.
Hon. J. Pement: Again, this is a case of moving some of our resources into the Transportation Financing Authority, particularly the ATAP, which is one of the areas involving transferring staff, as well.
D. Symons: I note that there is a 50 percent increase for statutory notices -- that's in STOB 42. Why is there such an increase in one year? Maybe you could tell us what notices are necessary this year that weren't last year, since these are required notices.
Hon. J. Pement: This is a case of the capital program having been increased from $290 million to $400 million. Therefore the tendering notices, etc., increased in that particular area.
D. Symons: The contributions, STOB 82, are roughly the same as last year. Is this primarily for the municipal programs? What are the contributions for?
Hon. J. Pement: Could you tell me which particular area that's in? Operations or planning?
D. Symons: I'm still under planning, policy, municipal programs and major projects in STOB 82.
Hon. J. Pement: That's grants to the municipalities -- secondary highway maintenance grants, etc.
D. Symons: It's a fairly small number, actually. I'm wondering if the minister might tell me: historically, has it been
[ Page 14862 ]
around that figure? Or is it just the last few years? Am I looking at the right number? Oh, I beg your pardon, I skipped down a line and made it considerably less. So it's roughly $4 million. Has that over, say, the last decade been roughly the same figure?
Hon. J. Pement: These grants are conditional on the incorporation of the municipalities, and in past they've been higher and sometimes lower, but the last three years we have been pretty well around that mark.
D. Symons: I just want some confirmation that this $84 million figure isn't including the Canada infrastructure programs, where some of those are highway projects. Does that appear somewhere else or does that appear in the ministry at all? Are they covered somewhere in the line items here or somewhere else?
Hon. J. Pement: Again, the infrastructure program went through the Ministry of Employment and Investment, and that's where the funding came from.
D. Symons: Moving on to highway operations -- I'm trying to go through these lines a little faster than I have in past years -- there's a 12 percent reduction. Is this because of more work being placed under maintenance? Has it been a shifting of responsibilities, or is the operation side smaller? Where have the savings been accomplished?
Hon. J. Pement: Again, I want to remind the member that we took $12 million out of our administrative budget, and this is an administrative area within operations particularly focused on travel and office overhead -- reductions in those areas and, again, the systems reductions that we made more concise.
D. Symons: We'll move into the maintenance part. I think this is maybe one of the more important lines in the estimates book here. To me it seems that maintenance and rehabilitation are really at the heart of maintaining our healthy highway system. This is where I feel the government is most at fault over the past few years in not keeping that heartbeat as strong as it should.
I note that the maintenance budget is very slightly less than last year, but roughly in the same category. I believe the ministry has rescoped some of the tasks done by that. There was some talk -- if I can find this -- back in March 1994. I'm reading from a news release from the government, "Highway Maintenance Talks Aimed at Cutting Costs." I believe that in the process of doing that there was talk of changing some things. Possibly mowing and that sort of thing could be done elsewhere, rather than under the maintenance contract.
I'm wondering if the minister might give us some feel for what some of those scope changes were in the contracts. I believe they're now being signed for the new period.
Hon. J. Pement: Again, we're talking about the negotiated contracts, not the ones that are upcoming with regard to scoping. We did reduce the standard on mowing and looked at other discretionary items, but not the surface of the road.
D. Symons: Then I might ask whether the changes that you made to rescope the other ones are carried forth into the contracts that are currently being signed.
Hon. J. Pement: I think it will be essentially the same as where we were last year.
D. Symons: From what the minister answered -- for mowing, for instance -- this would mean that they would be mowing maybe three times during a season rather than four times. It's not a case where the contractor doesn't have to do it anymore and the ministry is picking up that job; it's not that sort of thing. It's a change of the task that they're doing, but not removing the task from maintenance and putting it somewhere else.
Hon. J. Pement: Yes, we're still mowing. Before, we looked at a particular height of the grass, but now it's the number of times per year that the mowing is done -- hopefully at the height of the season, when grass is growing more than in other parts of the year.
D. Symons: I believe that at one time in the lower mainland farmers would mow the grass along the main highways. They would get the hay from that. Is that sort of thing still done? Is it so full of pollutants now that they don't want it?
Hon. J. Pement: It happens, but it's done on a minor basis because of the volume of traffic we have, particularly in the lower mainland. On occasion, some farmers still do that activity.
[3:00]
L. Hanson: The subject of mowing triggered a question in my mind. I'm sure that the ministry staff are aware of this, but a process that is rigid, in the sense that you have to mow it so many times a year, is really not very practical. Different parts of the province and different parts of my constituency have different kinds of problems. If, as an example, we have a particularly wet spring, we get a growth that really creates a hazard on the highways if it's not cleared. They may mow it three times in one spring, and that isn't enough. The next spring they can mow it once, and it's good for the year. I hope the ministry considers these things and gives us an avenue for recognizing this concern through some discretion, I guess, on the part of the local highways management people.
Hon. J. Pement: Yes, we certainly do give that discretion to the local ministry people. There are areas across the province where the growth doesn't happen as quickly as it does in the Vernon area. We certainly recognize that in some areas of the province it can be a hazard if the grass becomes too high. Therefore we do give that discretion. Again, it is a reduction in the number of times of mowing, as in the past.
L. Hanson: I suppose the original intention of mowing periodically as opposed to by the height of the grass is a recognition of the need to keep costs in line. I suppose the contractors who are responsible for that have some flexibility in their budget to accommodate different springs also. Do they?
Quite frankly, the message I've gotten in a couple of cases is not exactly as you mentioned it, but I recognize that maybe communication doesn't always filter through the way it should. I'm trying to get the information here so that if it occurs, I'll know what the situation is to talk to people about.
[ Page 14863 ]
Hon. J. Pement: Definitely if the contractor and highways people see that the grass is too high and we need to add some more to the budget for the contractor, we can negotiate that.
D. Symons: Continuing along on the maintenance lines, looking under the subheading "ferry maintenance," I note in STOB 20 that the ferry maintenance professional services increased by fourfold over what was spent on that particular item last year. I wonder if you might give us a flavour for what caused the increases.
Hon. J. Pement: What happened is that we moved the Barnston ferry payments from STOB 82 up to 20. That's where the difference is.
D. Symons: In other words, the minister is saying that it was considered a contribution to operate that ferry. Are the other ferries then considered contributions or are their operating expenses coming in somewhere else? I'm curious as to why one is a professional service when it was a contribution before.
Hon. J. Pement: The Barnston ferry is a contract service, whereas our other ferries are done through our operational costs.
D. Symons: During the transition from one set of maintenance contracts to the next, I believe some of them were given extensions. The process dragged on for some period of time for some of the contractors. This really involves a hardship for them financially, because they have to go out and secure the equipment they need. Often this is rented equipment. Renting for short periods of time -- for three months or whatever might be the extension on their previous rental period -- is much more costly than renting for a three- or five-year period, which they are able to do if they know they have secured that contract.
I wonder if the minister might give us some sort of assurance for the contractors as they come up for renewal each series of years -- and I am pleased to see that you have increased that period of renewal for them so there is more certainty for them for a longer period -- that when it comes around the next time, they will be able to roll from one into the next. That way, as one contract ends, they'll know whether they have or haven't another one. They won't have to sit in some sort of neverland for a few months or portion of the year while they wonder what is going to happen to them and what equipment they may need.
Hon. J. Pement: We did have the extensions in this particular round of negotiations, particularly because we had a tripartite group -- contractors, roadbuilders and the labour force. That group got together to talk about contract concerns, etc., and made recommendations. From those recommendations, we made the decision to go with a five-year contract, which will, I'm sure, be approved by labour and the roadbuilders. We should not forget that contracts are a competitive bid. When every contract comes up, it is in a competitive market. However, we feel that we've worked through the process and some of the problems. I feel that negotiations will go smoothly and information will be there in the next while, prior to the renegotiated or tendered contracts.
D. Symons: I wasn't at all questioning the competitive part, being a member of a free enterprise party on this side of the House. Certainly I'm in favour of competition and bidding on these projects. My concern is that there would be a period after the contract had ended when they would be given an extension for a short period of time but wouldn't really know at that stage whether they should be getting equipment and manpower -- I guess you call it person power nowadays -- and so forth ready for a five-year period or just a three-month period. This did cause some concern among them.
If we can move into highway rehabilitation, this is an area that I have great concern with. I notice that spending on rehabilitation continues to be well below what the Good Roads Cost Less study recommended a few years ago. I think N.D. Lea did that for the ministry. The study said that to maintain the infrastructure we have, we should be doing a minimum of about 2 percent of the infrastructure each year. That works out to about $250 million spent on rehabilitation. We're not spending that. I'm just wondering if the government has contingency plans in order to play catch-up at some future date, because you're not catching up now. We're falling further behind. What are we going to be doing about that process? Year by year, we're basically losing some of our infrastructure out there.
Hon. J. Pement: We should not forget that the word of the day is fiscal responsibility. This government is now out of a deficit and working toward a small surplus. Within those budgeting processes, we don't always get the amount of money that we would really like to have in each ministry. I think we are working hard with the money we have to maintain the infrastructure. I think the ministry and those who do the work for the ministry do a very good job. If there is more funding in the future, we'll certainly do that. But on all sides of the House, I hear the words "good fiscal management." I hear from the Liberal Party to cut spending. I think if you want to have more money, you have to decide where you're going to make those cuts.
Basically, what we've done is maintain our rehabilitation budget. We've cut in the area of administration, which says for this ministry that it's going to be doing more with less money.
D. Symons: If all the studies indicate that when you let a road go past a certain point before you begin rehabilitation, you will incur much greater expenses a few years down the line when you have to rebuild, my question might be whether this is fiscally responsible. Is it fiscally responsible when you know from studies done and reports given that if you do not keep up the rehabilitation process when it's due, you're going to be in trouble and incur much greater expenses at a later date? Are we postponing, then, by saying we're being fiscally responsible today? Are we postponing a much greater fiscal occurrence a few years down the line that somebody's going to have to pick up some time in the future?
Hon. J. Pement: When we decide how to spend our dollars, we do it on a regional basis. We have priorities in the regions; we try to meet those priorities and most often do. In terms of particular areas of concern in the system, we should also not forget a capital budget that is also part of upgrading in highway systems as well. I think on a whole that we are meeting most of the demands. Again, I say to the member, you decide. Where do you cut to get more money?
[ Page 14864 ]
D. Symons: When I was canvassing the same topic last year and questioning the amount of money being spent, indicating that it was lower than I thought it should be, the minister made a comment to the effect that the TFA was going to be putting in some more money that didn't occur in the line ministry -- I think the figure was $60 million, if I remember correctly. I wonder if what we see here in the book is it. Or is other money going into projects that are rehab?
[3:15]
I believe you indicated that last year these were rehab things that could almost be counted as a capital construction because they were major rehab programs. Are funds coming from another angle that might make up some of the deficit in what I think is needed in this particular line?
Hon. J. Pement: Again, I think last year I did a bit of a breakdown for you. There was the SHIP program. Dollars were received from the federal program we cost-share and contributions came from the TFA on some projects as well.
D. Symons: My question was: would moneys be coming this year from the TFA? Am I taking that as a no, or shall I go on to the next question?
Hon. J. Pement: Sorry for my confusion. Yes. There will be money again this year.
D. Symons: I wonder if we might get a figure. Is that known at this stage?
Hon. J. Pement: At this point the final program is still with Treasury Board for final approval.
D. Symons: I'm reading from a fairly recent issue of the Civil Engineering British Columbia magazine -- I'm not sure when in 1995; they don't seem to date their pages and I tore the page out of the book. It's called "Adventures in Pavement Management." The consultants have done a state-of-the-art pavement management practice exemplified by two projects carried out by N.D. Lea Consultants in British Columbia during 1994. They were a determination of paving priorities in the south coast region of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and initial stage of pavement management system for the city of Surrey. I wonder, using the information that N.D. Lea has supplied, is the ministry planning on applying that particular technique to the highways throughout the province?
Hon. J. Pement: The ministry does have a program in existence. They're in a three-year phase of a five-year program and a complete management system with regard to the pavement and the infrastructure.
D. Symons: Apropos the comments I was making earlier on my concerns about the spending on rehabilitation, I'll just read a few lines from here: "Since it is not only the cost of fixing a road that matters, but also the cost of using it, and since vehicle operation costs over a road network are typically ten to twenty times greater than network maintenance costs" -- and I assume maintenance would include the rehab of it -- "major economic savings can be achieved by using timely road maintenance to minimize vehicle operating costs." So not only do we save money if we can do timely maintenance, because rehab costs a lot more when it becomes reconstruction, but we can also save money to the population in general by maintaining roads, which cuts down on the cost of the vehicles that are using those roads. I'm just trying to reinforce what I was saying earlier: I don't think we're spending enough on that particular aspect of the highways in British Columbia.
I wonder if we could just move on to the budget for the hot-in-place rehab program this year. I asked questions last year of how many lane-kilometres were planned to be done, because that's my way of understanding how many miles you can get off it -- square metres doesn't mean a great deal to me. I got a figure of 500 lane-kilometres, and I believe by the end of the year about 450 were actually done.
The information I'm getting this year is that the figure allotted so far is around 250 lane-kilometres -- roughly 50 percent of what was done last year. Using this hot-in-place technique is a very cost-effective way of rehabing our roads. Can the minister give us some assurance that there's going to be considerably more done and that it will be somewhere near that 500 figure from last year?
Hon. J. Pement: In the area of the hot-in-place pavement, we are looking at about 300 lane-kilometres this year, but we're also looking, through the capital programs, at some other major pavement projects as well.
D. Symons: I have some concerns from two fronts: one is that I think this way is about 60 percent of the cost of doing it by the old technique -- using the hot-in-place technique rather than pulling it up or putting a totally new surface on top of the old surface. I'm concerned, then, that we're not doing more than that, because it's a good saving and it rehabilitates the highway.
I guess the other concern I have is the fact that there are four of these rather expensive machines -- costing between $1 million and $2 million apiece -- sitting in the province. We may lose those, because there's not enough work in 300 lane-kilometres for four machines -- there's barely work for two during the season that they could be doing -- and these machines may be sold off by the contractors, as they can't afford to keep that machinery not working and pay the debt load on the purchase of it. If we lose that, then when we want those things they're not going to be there for us.
We have to space our budgets for this particular type of work evenly over the years and not have highs and lows so that contractors don't know from one year to the next whether there's going to be enough money to put food on the table for the employees. Can't we somehow rig up a program where there can be some certainty year by year of what's needed so the people that are going to be doing the work will have some degree of certainty that the equipment they're buying is going to be financially viable for them.
Hon. J. Pement: With regard to rehab work and capital work, we put in $550 million in capital work and extensive paving work as well in the last while. Again, one does not guarantee how many lanes of work one can do from year to year. We try to have as much of a balanced program as we can. As I say, in a regional sense we work toward priorities. Therefore I recognize the concern that the member raises, but it's as balanced a program as we have in the operating sense.
[ Page 14865 ]
D. Symons: Just looking overall -- and I assume the minister is aware -- I discovered that when I asked questions of any one of the other ministries, it seemed that the minister and deputy ministers had what I was after almost within the hour that I had asked the question.
I've got some information from the ministry here on asphalt material usage. I think this deals with stockpiling and getting ready for projects over the past few years in the various regions. The one thing I did note as I went through -- I think the first one I had here went back to 1991 -- is the almost continual decline in the amount of materials used. This would indicate to me, I guess, that we're simply not doing the number of projects, both in the hot-in-place -- as you indicated just a moment ago -- and in other rehab-type programs. We know as well that the capital programs for a few years were down. I guess the Island Highway isn't quite to the stage of putting asphalt down yet, but other categories that are more in the rehab line seem to be down as well. This seems to me to be an indication that we're neglecting the rehabilitation of our highways.
Hon. J. Pement: I think sometimes we compare apples and oranges when we talk about some of these issues. The stockpile that you're talking about is really for new paving projects, whereas hot-in-place uses an existing surface. It's a case of taking a look at the full program, rather than just pieces of it.
D. Symons: Actually, the figures that I'm using here seem to divide that out. They have the hot-in-place recycle, the seal coat and all the other asphalt mix in tonnes -- recycled mix and so forth. It does divide it into various categories. We get a feel for what it is and the various litres used in emulsions in projects as well.
The next category that I would like to look at from the estimates book itself -- and I am getting near the end of the estimates book -- is capital construction. I'm looking at the recoverables, the $400 million-odd there. I'm assuming that the majority of those are recovered from the Transportation Finance Authority. The non-recoverables are simply the other items that are being financed through the ministry and not from the Transportation Finance Authority. I wonder if the minister might be able to tell me what the determination is as to whether a project will be financed through the Transportation Finance Authority or will be a line item in the ministry's books.
Hon. J. Pement: I didn't quite catch the last part of your question, but just in terms of the non-recoverables, these are areas that would predate the TFA funding. They are property settlements and construction claims.
D. Symons: That wasn't the answer I was expecting. I guess I was presupposing what the answer would be that there are still some projects that are capital projects, which the ministry itself is doing under the old way of doing things. I guess what you've told me, then, is that all capital projects now are coming from the TFA and that there's nothing of that aspect left in the ministry. It's a surprise to me. That cuts out the next question, then, as to which ones come from where.
I note that there's a 10 percent increase in salaries and benefits. I'm wondering if you might give me some idea as to whether that is because there are more workers on the site. I gather that the renegotiation of the contract that is signed through the highway contractor, Highway Constructors Ltd., is going to be coming up fairly soon. Is this an increase in salaries, an increase in employees or what?
Hon. J. Pement: Again, taking a look at the capital program, we went from $290 million to $304 million. I beg your pardon -- $404 million....
D. Symons: It's $409 million.
Hon. J. Pement: Yes. In that process, there is more staff -- more workers.
D. Symons: That may answer my next question, which is on the 20 percent increase in public service travel. Is that also because of...? The main increase in your funding is the Island Highway. I would think that the majority of travel involved would be over fairly short distances. A 20 percent increase seems fairly high.
Hon. J. Pement: Within the ministry we have mobile crews that we bring in to do particular projects throughout the province. Therefore the costs may not be for on-Island travel; they may be for off-Island travel.
D. Symons: I gather that with the highway contractor, Highway Constructors Ltd., the object was local hire as much as possible. Your answer seems to indicate that there is a considerable amount of non-local hire.
[3:30]
Just moving on to another area -- but you may want to respond to my comment there -- there seems to be a doubling of the non-discretionary publications here. I mentioned that before under one of the other items. I guess that's again because of the advertising for the highway contract, but I thought that was the answer you gave me for the other increase in non-discretionary.... Can you use the same answer -- "for the Island Highway" -- for both lines here? It seems that you....
Hon. J. Pement: It is for advertising the different projects. Again, these are Ministry of Transportation and Highways crews, whereas those working through the contractors are local hire.
D. Symons: Just a clarification on the last answer from the minister. When you are speaking of the Highways crews coming in, then the Highways crews are doing some of the work related to the Island Highway. I thought most of that was going out for contracting.
Hon. J. Pement: It's more your technical team -- the surveyors, the supervisors, people who come in and work immediately on the project, have background and know how to get the projects up and going. It's like a mobile team that does that.
D. Symons: I would suspect, too, that on the Island Highway some of the work, preliminary work possibly, is being done by day labour. They would come under Highways expenses. Would that also account for this, in that those people might be travelling some distance to the site?
[ Page 14866 ]
Hon. J. Pement: The day labour people who do that work come under HCL, but Highways does the supervising of that labour.
D. Symons: I'm going to get to the Island Highway specifically later in the estimates, but that's interesting. Basically what you're saying is that Highway Constructors Ltd. is hiring the labourers, but the supervisors are Highways personnel who will come in and supervise them, rather than a contractor who would be doing it under a contract basis.
Hon. J. Pement: Yes. That's for day-labour work.
D. Symons: I note in STOB 50 there's an increase of 250 percent in utilities, supplies and vehicles. I wonder if you might again give me an idea. We haven't increased by 250 percent the amount of spending in capital construction, but we seem to have increased the utilities, supplies and vehicles item by a considerable amount.
Hon. J. Pement: It reflects the increase in the capital projects that we're doing. It's adjusted upwards for the increase in capital work.
D. Symons: I wonder if we can carry on with that for just a moment. Maybe the minister can give me a little bit of a flavour of why it should go up 250 percent when I think the majority of work on that project is still being done by the private sector. I don't think a private sector's utilities, supplies and what not would come under this line item -- would it? That would be simply under contract assignment. Would it come here or would this be some other expense?
Hon. J. Pement: Just to get it straight, this increase reflects the actuals of 1994-95. It reflects the increase in the program from $209 to $409 million.
D. Symons: I don't know if that clears it up at all; I don't know if we are going to clear it up. I think we are dealing with utilities, supplies and vehicles. I would assume that the ministry isn't purchasing these for the contractor. Therefore these are ministry purchases related to a particular project -- most of this being the Island project, I assume.
I'm wondering if we might just move on to another item. I'm not sure how we are going to find out what was last year, what was this year and how we've readjusted because of the problems we had last year. Indeed, will the figures we have this year be appropriate when we get to the end of this year? We might find out otherwise.
If we can move on to office equipment, I note that it's had a $270,000 increase. Next to the thousands of millions we were dealing with before it won't seem to be very much, but it's a 70 percent increase in office equipment from the previous year. I guess I will leave the other item.
Hon. J. Pement: I'm going back to the previous question. Again, the costs that are reflected this year.... Last year we had underestimated with regard to the capital works that we were doing. We brought the number up accordingly this year.
Don't forget that in this season we're actually into construction. Prior to that we were doing the behind-the-scenes work of design and consultation, that type of work. Now we're actually into construction work on site. Therefore we have to accommodate the people coming in in terms of office equipment, etc., on the Island Highway.
D. Symons: I'm curious. When you said you underestimated last year, I guess in a sense you might be saying you're overestimating this year. Therefore this will pay off last year's underestimation. To me, this almost sounds like cooking the books. If you underestimated last year, then I'm assuming.... Do you mean you spent more at the end of the year, or are you just increasing because you didn't spend it last year, but you needed it and now you're spending what you need this year? Is it making up for last year's deficit? Or is it just that you didn't buy what you needed and you're doing it this year? Which is it?
Hon. J. Pement: It really reflects what the needs are now in terms of the major construction work being done on the Island Highway. We needed this office furniture to accommodate the crews coming in so that they could do their work. It's nothing to do with cooking any books. It's a case of being very clear that we have much more of a capital program to work with, particularly on the Island Highway.
If you go out there, take a look at the construction being done. You'll see that much support is needed in terms of ensuring that that work is done, and part of it is office equipment.
D. Symons: When I referred to cooking the books, I was under the impression, I think wrongly, that when you said you underestimated last year you therefore had spent more last year than was budgeted for. I'm gathering that was not the case. You spent what was budgeted for, realizing you needed to have budgeted for more. You sort of built in what you needed this year. I take back my comment, which was incorrect. That's been answered.
Does the TFA receive any recoveries from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways for the planning or other services they give to the ministry? I know that the Crown corporations secretariat basically charged for the services that it provided to them. In one sense we can say planning and other things are being provided by the TFA to this ministry. Do we pay money back to the TFA for that?
Hon. J. Pement: The answer is no, actually. We don't pay anything to the TFA.
D. Symons: So in one sense if we see a figure in the ministry recovery here of $409 million for capital projects from the TFA for the projects you're doing, indeed the actual amount spent on the capital projects can be more than that. The TFA is doing planning, so if they have a department in there and those numbers will appear under the Ministry of Employment and Investment or somewhere in the TFA books, they don't appear here.
So when we're talking about the cost of the Island Highway, we can't simply add up the figures that you might be able to give me through the ministry, because some costs are hidden elsewhere in other ministries and other departments that are contributing to Island Highway.
Hon. J. Pement: Again, when the finances of the TFA are under the Ministry of Employment and Investment, then that
[ Page 14867 ]
would be the best place to direct your question. Of the money we receive for capital, we show how we spend it with regard to our projects.
D. Symons: I appreciate the minister not wanting to speak for the other minister, but since the ministry takes ownership of the $1.1 billion they're saying the Island Highway is going to cost -- not counting the part out to Swartz Bay -- what I'm wondering now is: are there other costs that the TFA is putting out in planning and other services which are additional? When you have that $1.1 billion figure for the Island Highway, does that include the costs to the Transportation Financing Authority as well as the moneys that your ministry is spending?
Hon. J. Pement: Again, the overall budget for the Island Highway is inclusive of the planning, designing, property acquisition and construction from start to finish. That's the budget which I get to work with in my ministry, and that's the budget which I can answer to.
D. Symons: You have answered in the sense that you say: "That's the budget I'm working with in my ministry, and that's the figure that's been stated for the cost of the highway." I do believe there are other services that are coming from the Transportation Financing Authority. Even the people who are sitting there trying to figure out how we're going to bring in money to pay for the highway we're building today represent, in a sense, a cost.
[3:45]
It was interesting to listen to the minister responsible explain today that we're not spending money we don't have. Yet if I add up the amount of money that your ministry and the Transportation Financing Authority have spent so far on the Island Highway, and we look at the figures in the book here that are recoveries from the Transportation Financing Authority, the money they have collected through their 1-cent-a-litre gas tax and the $1.50-a-day car rentals don't match it.
Somewhere you're spending money you don't have. It's not your responsibility to respond to that, but I am concerned at the stories the Minister of Employment and Investment, responsible for TFA, is putting out when he says we are not spending money we don't have. It's quite obvious to anybody who looks at the funding source they currently have that it is not sufficient to pay for what you're doing day by day in this ministry.
Hon. J. Pement: I'll just be very clear that this ministry works within its budget and that we're doing so, and in doing so, we are constructing the highway. I think it's a plus to the ministry for the work they're doing and the time they're putting in. Any questions with regard to the financing for capital spending goes to the Transportation Financing Authority, and I suggest that when those estimates come up, that's the appropriate place to ask those questions.
D. Symons: I know I strayed beyond this ministry's responsibilities in asking those questions, but there's such a tie-in between the two. I think it's a shame, in a sense. When we passed the initial bill -- I think it was section 4 of Bill 3, the Transportation Financing Authority part of the Build BC Act -- the Minister of Transportation and Highways was to be the chair of that particular board. Unfortunately that seems to have changed. I think that's where it really belongs. Indeed, this is the ministry that's responsible for carrying out what they are doing, therefore I think they should be in charge in more of a sense than they currently are.
We'll leave that for a moment. I would hope that the minister, the deputies and so forth would not disagree with that. I wonder if I might have the total expenditures for the Island Highway. Recoveries, I think, would apply to other capital projects as well. I'm wondering if I might have the expenditures for the Island Highway, specifically, that are budgeted for this year, and then if we could go back and have it for the years since the Island Highway began....
The committee recessed from 3:48 p.m. to 3:59 p.m.
Hon. J. Pement: In answer to the member's question, $410.2 million has been spent on the Island Highway to date.
D. Symons: That's the total spent on the highway from inception until now? It's not just for this last year? I had asked specifically for spending this year, but I don't mind because that was my next question anyway.
[4:00]
I wonder if we could break that down. Maybe you won't be able to give it to me today, but what portion of that would be for wages and benefits? I suppose most of that might go through Highway Constructors Ltd. What portion is for the actual construction materials and other things that are related to it? Is it possible to have that figure?
Hon. J. Pement: If you want ministry employees, we can give you that answer fairly quickly. If you want the total, we would have to get back to you, because we would have to go through HCL.
D. Symons: I was after the total labour bill, so I had imagined that it would take some time. I wonder if I could just ask the cost of the $1.1 billion.... I'm using that because I'm leaving out the Swartz Bay highway portion of it. Does the figure that you're giving for the cost of the Island Highway include the expenditures that were made by the previous government? Or does this $1.1 billion refer only to the moneys that this government is planning to spend on it? I believe there are parts toward Parksville that were begun on the Island Highway. On some of the southern portions there was quite a bit of upgrading. It's a portion of the Island Highway that was done in previous years. I think the highway project has actually been around for quite a long period of time and has been picked away at.
Hon. J. Pement: Perhaps I'll just give the member a cost breakdown. Actually, it goes from 1988 to 1995; 1988-89 was $1.5 million. Can I round these off or do you want the full total?
D. Symons: General.
Hon. J. Pement: In 1989-90 it was $12.7 million; 1990-91, $50 million; 1991-92, $69.9 million; 1992-93, $28.7 million; 1993-94, $64.9 million; and 1994-95, $180 million. They may not add up to the full total, but that's a round number.
L. Hanson: Is the $410 million for contracts let, not necessarily complete?
[ Page 14868 ]
Hon. J. Pement: It's the total spent to date. In other words, some projects are complete and some contracts are in progress.
D. Symons: In giving me those figures, I assume what you're saying.... My question was: does that $1.1 billion cost of the project include what was done starting back in 1988 up to now? So the $1.1 billion is the total cost of all work done on the project that's going to be designated Island Highway. That's good. You've actually answered my next question.
I note on page 258 of Estimates -- not the supplement, but the actual book itself, which I will try to find a copy of here -- that the restated figure for '94-95 for total expenditure and authorized full-time equivalents is $685,071,000. But this doesn't tally with the restated figure of $684,648,000 on page 106 of the supplement book. I'm just wondering why this expenditure and FTE reconciliations figure for '94-95 out of the estimates book should be different from the total voted expenditure that's listed in the supplement book.
Hon. J. Pement: First of all, the supplement book is your budget, and the estimates book is your actuals. I beg your pardon. They're both the estimates. But if you look -- what are you on -- at page 258, what we're looking at there are the transfers coming in through the year, and then they're restated.
D. Symons: I was of the impression that the figures on the far left in the supplement book, where it says at the top of that column "Total 1994-95 Voted Expenditure," were also restated figures corrected for the fact that we might have voted a figure on the right from the previous year. But if expenditures were different during the year, that would show up on the left column. Is the assumption I've used over the past years when I was asking questions of the minister incorrect?
Hon. J. Pement: To try to clarify it, it's strictly the estimates that are down here, not the actuals. That's what you are seeing as the final figure -- an estimate.
D. Symons: I assume that you are referring to the supplement book. It is still an estimate from last year, and if I wanted the real figure that ended up, it's the reconciliation from the.... Is that correct? Or are both of these figures...? I'm beginning to think you're saying they are both estimates. I'm not quite sure on that.
Hon. J. Pement: I can simplify this, I think. Both books have estimates. The actuals you will find in the public accounts.
D. Symons: Okay. We're finding that the estimates differ from one estimate book to the next. There are some differences there.
Going back to that reconciliation page, are the three staff positions that are identified on page 258 the only staff changes that occurred in the ministry throughout the year? Were no positions closed because of downsizing and reorganization that resulted in a staff reduction or possibly in staff growth, other than these three individuals identified there?
Hon. J. Pement: In terms of the area of the estimates that you are looking at, Transportation and Highways total expenditures, the staff are transfers that were actually.... If you look at the top line, we have 3,748. You add those transfers -- there were three -- for 3,751. Actually, we have had a reduction this year down to 3,696.
D. Symons: Of the close to 4,000 full-time-equivalents, in a rough sort of way, how many would have received some classification or job change that would result in a wage increase? I'm wondering how much that wage increase might have affected the total cost of the wages and benefits for the ministry.
Hon. J. Pement: I think it would be better if we got you the full information. Could we get back to you with it?
D. Symons: I was a teacher for a good number of years before I ended up in this job; it's certainly no easier. For the first ten years as a teacher you were on a salary grid, and for each year of experience you went up a level in salary. I wonder if there are classifications within the ministry that allow automatic movement through the system or through merit or some other way so that even though you may not have an increase in employees or an increase through salary negotiations, other things kick in to cause an increase. I guess it's that sort of information I was seeking. You might be able to give me a general impression of how that might work.
Hon. J. Pement: They do move up a grid; I believe it's three steps. But they don't move classification; that's a different issue.
D. Symons: In year five and year seven, or something of that sort.
Hon. J. Pement: Yes.
D. Symons: I note that the total expenditure for the ministry was roughly $673 million. If we add in those projects financed by the Transportation Financing Authority -- $409 million -- we get a total spending in the Highways that adds up to roughly $1.082 billion. The figures are not that important to write down. I'm just getting you a figure; you'll see where I'm going here in a moment.
If we count the $678 million fuel tax collected in British Columbia, add in the motor vehicle licence fees of $297 million -- I'm just taking these figures for revenues out of the estimate books -- we get $975 million, which is getting pretty close to the $1 billion that the Highways ministry is spending on all its projects, including those funded by the Transportation Financing Authority. If we add in the $60 million collected through the 1- cent-per-litre gas tax and the $1.50-a-day car rental that's been added in to help finance the Island Highway, we get a figure that's extremely close to the total amount spent on the highways.
[4:15]
Maybe if we look at this.... The previous administration used to do a year by year payment. They ran the ministry on a year by year basis of what they could budget into it, rather than using a Transportation Financing Authority to use long-term capital financing. I wonder if we could not be in that category by simply taking the moneys we seem to be collecting through highways usage -- fuel tax and licence fees --
[ Page 14869 ]
and dedicating them to the highways. We wouldn't have to be borrowing money and paying on a long-term basis for the Island Highway. We could do it year by year, as was done in past years.
Hon. J. Pement: I guess it's a case of understanding how one arrives at their budget. Our maintenance program and rehab program are basically out of general revenue, and the TFA does the financing for the capital projects. If you want to go back to the general revenue pot for that money, then you would have to look at cuts in other areas.
I think what we've been trying to show you is that through the TFA we identify revenue streams and we finance the capital projects over time. If you want to go back to a general revenue situation, you're going to have to look at significant cuts either to the capital budget -- which you have been arguing that we need to do -- or to the rehab budget, maintenance, health and other areas as well. I think basically you have to see where that money you're talking about is coming in -- where it is put in terms of general revenue.
D. Symons: I'm leading up to what I think the minds of some might say: "Through fuel taxes, license fees and like things that we're paying as a result of using the roads and highways, in a sense we've paid for those services." If you're going out and paying for the Island Highway with some other technique -- as you seem to do, because you're financing it over the lifetime of the project.... I'm not too sure what figure you may be using for that lifetime if you don't do the rehab in a responsible manner, which doesn't seem to be done in the rest of the province. You could end up having a shorter life than anticipated.
I wonder why, if moneys are collected through fees, they can't be dedicated. They're collected from users of the highways, so let's dedicate them and use them for the building, maintenance and rehab of highways. There seems to be almost enough money there to do that.
Hon. J. Pement: Again, the revenues do go into a general pot. Some are dedicated to highways and capital projects through the Transportation Financing Authority -- one cent a litre on gas and tax on leased vehicles, etc. Remember that some of these licensing processes also have to be sustained. You have to give the licence out, you have to pay the clerk for paperwork, etc. It's not a full, easy road in terms of pulling the money forward and saying: "We'll put all our money in one given program".
I personally think it would be a great idea to get the tax on gas into the road system, but there's a federal side to it. There's a great amount of federal dollars on gasoline tax that we never see. We've had a decreasing amount of money coming in for the SHIP program, particularly in British Columbia where we have major work to be done in some of our national systems. We don't see that money. I would suggest that maybe you could help me lobby the federal Liberals on that issue.
The Chair: Before continuing, the Chair just wishes to caution hon. members that taxation policy falls within the estimates of the Ministry of Finance. To the best knowledge of the Chair, there is not a statutory tie to the matters being discussed on the revenue side here and the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. If a tie does exist that can link it to relevance for the estimates, it would assist the Chair in helping to keep the debate in order. The Chair does not wish to limit the generality of the debate but merely to ascertain that we do not get into taxation policy when dealing with Transportation and Highways estimates.
The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca, hopefully to assist in a point of order to clarify the Chair's remarks.
L. Fox: That's partially correct, hon. Chair. I want to say that I believe that the discussion is indeed relevant. I think the member for Richmond Centre was trying to take a philosophical approach to target revenues that would tax and collect them, initially at least, for the purposes of funding highway maintenance and other things. I think it's a general discussion around target revenue for those purposes -- a pay-as-you-go process versus a financing process. I would support the discussion continuing.
The Chair: The Chair appreciates the advice, and there's no intent to limit the generality of the debate but merely to remind members that there is a line there and that we should try to occasionally recognize it.
D. Symons: The Chair knows that I would never step over a line intentionally. I would continue for just a second on that line, although I will take it out of the realm where the Chair indicated his concern. I happen to be meeting with one of the assistants to the federal Transport minister tomorrow, and I will certainly bring this up, because I concur with you that for the amount of tax money they take out for fuel tax -- they take the same amount that B.C. collects.... We know the provincial money goes into general revenue, as we were discussing a moment ago, and eventually filters back through all the various government expenditures in the province. The federal money seems to go out of B.C., and very little of it comes back; I think about 5 percent of the money they collect in British Columbia comes back in the way of moneys that go into actual highways. It may be a little higher right now because of the federal infrastructure program, but not much. So I will bring that point up.
The other aspect of this, which is also out of the realm of the ministry but certainly related to it, and the minister is involved in it, is the national highway program. I know this minister has been working with the other provincial ministers of transportation and was rather let down by the federal minister. When you were given a challenge to come up with agreement on this issue, the ministers throughout the provinces did, then the federal minister backed down on making an agreement with the provinces on how they could work on a national highways program. Again, I support the minister in that, and we'll bring that topic up again. It is a concern that the opposition as well as the government has with the federal government.
Where was I? Last year or the year before, I found out during estimates that the Korbin study cost the ministry $3 million. I'm curious what benefits have accrued to the ministry as a result of the Korbin commission. It looked at other ministries as well, but can we find that the results of the Korbin commission study have brought some benefits to the ministry?
Hon. J. Pement: We're not aware of the costs that you are talking about. Perhaps you could be more specific.
[ Page 14870 ]
D. Symons: Well, I may be wrong on this, but I had a figure down for the cost of it, and I thought it was a cost to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways -- but it does seem high -- of $3 million. Maybe that was the total cost of that whole commission. I'll have to look into that and find out for myself, because I'm quite sure that for the one ministry it would not be that figure. It should be maybe 10 percent of it. So I will look back to my figures and see where I got that from.
I'm wondering if we can look back on a little of the history of the privatization of maintenance and its effects upon the ministry itself. I note that in 1987 there were 37 highway districts. That's now been downsized to 28 highway districts. I wonder if we might look at -- this may again be something you will do over the next few days rather than give me the figures right now -- how many administrative and clerical staff there were in each of those 37 offices and the grand total of those two categories. What I would like to do is compare those figures to what the staffing in the 28 districts is today, again on the administrative and clerical side. Could we tie in with that the administrative and clerical budgets for the year 1987 and the total for the 28 districts in 1995-96 or 1994-95, whatever current figures you might have? While we're on this, I'll lump it all together. It's something I'm sure you're going to be taking notes on or looking up in Hansard to see exactly what I asked for.
If we could have the figures for those two years, 1987 and 1994-95 or 1995-96 -- whichever is applicable -- could we also have the figures for the administrative side, the clerical side, at the head office in Victoria for those two specific years?
I'm trying to find what effects changing the number of districts had and what effects the downsizing that occurred because we've privatized maintenance might have had on the staffing of the ministry.
Hon. J. Pement: Obviously we'll have to go back and pull those numbers for you. We don't have them on hand.
L. Hanson: I'm not sure of the exact question that the member was asking, but I might ask a question that may clarify it a little bit. The minister can answer in generalities -- or at least ask her staff to advise her. It appears that there are now more administrative people monitoring the quality and work being done by the highways contractors than there were a few years ago. It appears that there may have been an increase in that administrative monitoring process. Perhaps the minister can comment. Is there any truth to that, or is it just critical analysis of the situation?
[4:30]
Hon. J. Pement: Let's not forget that when the maintenance was privatized, it was done without any prior analysis. The decision was made, and the process had to be developed afterwards. From my understanding, we started out with 144 area manager and trainees. We now stand at 156, and we are looking at some reductions.
L. Hanson: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. I guess I'm getting old, and my hearing is getting bad. Was that 156 or 166? It was 156. That's the supervisory personnel. Can the minister comment on the support people who are monitoring that? Does she have any numbers?
Hon. J. Pement: If you're talking about administrative and clerical support, we would have to get back to you with that number as well. We don't have that on hand.
D. Symons: The member anticipated my next question. That's where I was leading with the previous one, so I appreciate getting the answer to the question I was going to ask. I was going to ask about an area manager for each of the 28 districts, and certainly you've given me more than one who are busy monitoring the programs.
That was my concern also. It seems that the ministry now has a private contractor working in each of those 28 areas. The private contractor has somebody in charge of monitoring and administering the work that's assigned to them, and the ministry now is monitoring the work that the contractor's monitor is looking after, as well. We seem to have an overabundance of people checking up. I do see the need for the ministry to see that they are getting value for money and that the work outlined in the specifications is being done by the contractor. But if it takes more now than it did when the ministry was doing all the work itself -- which seems to be the figures the minister gave us before -- we have some serious problems, I would suspect.
On that same topic, these managers who are monitoring the work do a fair amount of travel, I assume. Could you tell us the total of the travel-related expenses of these managers that is above and beyond their salary and benefits package? I suspect they have out-of-pocket expenses that they're reimbursed for -- car expenses and so forth. Again, that may be not something you can pull out of the hat right now. If you could give me the figure that these other expenses might be over a year period, I would appreciate it.
Hon. J. Pement: We can certainly get you the data in regard to travel. We don't have that information on hand. May I remind you that if you look at where some of the area managers are situated -- I can think of some in my constituency up in Atlin, etc. -- and the distances they have to travel from a main office, you can expect to see some costs in regard to their duties.
I would also remind you that the auditor general's report was concerned about the supervision of the system and that there be enough resources to provide supervision and monitoring. On the whole, I think we have five or six area managers per district. Again, just take a look at the distances some of these people have to travel in order to do their jobs. I think you'll find a fair amount of distance travelled.
D. Symons: I guess I would expect the numbers to be somewhat like our MLAs' travel allowances. For me in the lower mainland, that's not a large budget item. For the minister and the much wider area of her riding, it's much more of a concern. So I'm expecting those figures to be that way, but I would be curious as to how much travel on the part of these area managers is taking place.
I wonder if we can go back to the estimates book. The last line in there, I believe, is the motor vehicle branch. STOB 82 lists $339,878 as a grant or contribution. To where does the motor vehicle branch make a grant or contribution?
Hon. J. Pement: The majority go to the safety councils.
D. Symons: I don't really intend to go into the motor vehicle branch. I didn't think you would have somebody from that branch present today, and certainly B.C. Rail and all these others.... I guess we can discuss when we're planning and
[ Page 14871 ]
getting to those so that the staff won't have to be here. There are just a few questions from the estimates book that I was going to ask today on that, and then we'll get into other issues dealing with these subdepartments, I guess, in future days.
Just a few more on that. I'm not sure whether you have the figures here, but I'm wondering what the revenues for the motor vehicles branch were for the '94-95 year, and where those revenues go. Do revenues all go into general revenue and then the figures we see in the book here are allocated back for operating that branch of the ministry? Or do they take out what they need to operate it, and the net amount goes back into general revenue? How does the system work?
Hon. J. Pement: All revenues received by the motor vehicles branch go to general revenues -- the consolidated fund. The budget for the motor vehicles branch is brought forward through the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to Treasury Board budget processing.
D. Symons: If I was to look -- and I won't take the time to search now -- on the revenue side for the motor vehicles branch, I could find the gross revenues from the motor vehicles branch and we could subtract the figures that we find in the supplement to the estimates under Motor Carrier Commission and find out whether indeed there's a profit or a loss from that operation. Would that be correct? If those figures are available, I wouldn't mind having them now, but I can look them up myself actually.
Hon. J. Pement: We don't subtract our operating costs from our revenues. For our operating costs, we put a budget into Treasury Board through the consolidated fund, general revenues. Revenues, fees and licences totalled $169.3 million, and fines were $80 million.
D. Symons: That's basically what I was trying to discover: whether the motor vehicles branch was a money-maker, a money-loser or a break-even situation. Obviously, from the figures you gave, and compared to the total in the book here, we find that we're not doing too badly on the revenue side from the operation of that particular branch.
We could move farther away from the book, then. How much does the ministry budget for the operation of its two seal-coat crews -- not only for the crews but for the total expense of operating those crews?
Hon. J. Pement: We don't have those figures here at this time. We'll get back to you with them.
D. Symons: I note that a study done by the B.C. Road Builders' and Heavy Construction Association indicated that private sector crews were doing seal-coating in a much more cost-effective way than the ministry's seal-coat crews. I believe they supplied you with the information from that study. I'm just wondering if the ministry has examined the information they've given you. Have you come to some conclusions as to whether it's worthwhile to do it in the ministry if it can be done less expensively in another way?
Hon. J. Pement: The particular report he is talking about did analysis on selective projects. Therefore it was difficult to compare. We are looking at it in terms of our overall program.
D. Symons: I was assured that they chose projects that were fairly comparable. I'm just wondering if maybe one way of determining this -- and you could tell me if maybe it is done -- is the Highways ministry seal-coat crews competing, in a sense, with the private sector. Do you put this out to bids and see whether your ministry can do it on an equal-footing basis with the private sector for the price? Do they win their projects, or is there some division line in the province where the ministry gets some and private firms get the others?
Hon. J. Pement: The majority of the work is really done by our highways seal coat crews. There's some work done by maintenance contractors, but very little. Most of it is done by our sealcoat crews.
D. Symons: Then my question is: do the ministry crews bid on a project against the private sector? The answer is obviously no.
[4:45]
Has there been any change at all over the last decade in the amount of work that might be done proportionately by the seal coat crews? I believe there's a north crew and a south crew that work in the province. The crumbs are left over for the private sector. Has it traditionally been that way, or has the private sector had, in the past, a larger portion of the seal coat pie, so to speak? Are they receiving a lesser portion now or has there been no change?
Hon. J. Pement: We don't bid on projects. Seal coat crews, as I said, do the majority of the work. Basically it's supported by private groups in terms of trucks and that sort of thing.
D. Symons: I suggest that if you tried setting them out for bids, we might find that we could save some money in that respect. If there is no bidding process and you simply give it to one group, you don't really have any idea as to whether they're doing it in the most cost-effective way. If you only have your crews doing it and they're not competing for that work, how do we know that we're getting the best value per dollar? I would suggest that one way of finding that out is to open it up to bids and see whether we are.
Since you say most of the work is being done by the ministry, how does the ministry determine which jobs are not done by the ministry? How can the private sector -- if there's somebody out there that does seal coating -- get an idea which projects they might be in line for if they talk to the right people?
Hon. J. Pement: Basically the program is set up is so that our crews do the larger projects. If they're smaller projects, we put them out to the private sector. Basically, from my understanding, there have been reviews with regard to looking at the private sector doing this work. But at this point we have the crews that are experienced and the equipment that we need, and we can provide the quality of work that we would like to see on the highways.
D. Symons: I might remind the minister that at one time the ministry had the maintenance crews, too, as well as the experience and the equipment, and that's no longer the case. Maybe it is something that should be looked into.
A month ago the Premier announced a study to look at the benefits of private investment in infrastructure. He indi-
[ Page 14872 ]
cated at the time that he was setting up a task force to study private-public partnerships. I thought that in a sense, when the TFA was set up, as far as the transportation aspect of it goes, part of the mandate of the TFA was to look at alternative funding. Indeed, they've brought in the 1-cent-a-litre gas tax and that sort of thing as a way of funding projects. Doesn't it seem to be a delaying tactic to have another task force, when we seem to have a group of people with the expertise and the experience to be doing what their Premier is suggesting?
Hon. J. Pement: I have to say to the member that, again, this question is not within my mandate.
D. Symons: Well, design-build is, because we've gone to design-build on the Westview interchange and the Johnson-Mariner, I believe. I note that on the Johnson-Mariner -- I believe it was that or the Westview; it was one of them -- the bids closed in February of this year. Yet it wasn't until extremely recently -- on the Johnson-Mariner, anyway -- that it was announced who got the contract.
It seems that design-build contractors are required by the ministry to follow extremely tight time lines as far as when the bid announcement goes out, when the bids must be in, when they're opened, and so forth. Yet from the time the bids are supposed to be opened and the time when it's announced who the winner of the project is, often those dates aren't held to by the ministry. What we then have is the fact that a contractor doesn't know at that point whether the project is one that he will get or one of his competitors will get, and he's tied up his equipment and everything else and can't accept another job if he's going to get the one that he's waiting for. If we take the Johnson-Mariner, we could have four or five rather large companies putting in bids. The bids are open. They know where theirs are in comparison to the others, but there's still a long process of awarding that bid to somebody. During that process, if it doesn't take place in the time frame that was initially announced -- and I believe these projects did not -- you put them in limbo for that period of time. It seems the ministry has penalties for contractors that don't hold to the time lines, but there's no such penalty for the ministry.
Hon. J. Pement: Again, the design-build projects were a new process, and they have taken longer in a sense, but we have built up the knowledge base in terms of working those projects through. The issue is the delivery of the project, and we expect them to be delivered at the time that we've indicated.
D. Symons: In speaking to some of the people involved in putting in bids, I get the feeling from them that there is, to an extent, a loss of confidence by the industry in the ministry from the uncertainty that is sometimes generated due to the delays that take place. There is some concern there. In the long term, when you create uncertainties in those who are going to supply the services you need, it can be harmful to the ministry. It may mean that some of the people who might put in bids say it's not going to be worth the effort, the strain and the worry they have during the time they aren't going through on the schedule that was assumed. As I said, because there are penalties for them but not for the ministry, there seems to be a bit of a double standard.
I'll just move on a bit from that to some of the projects. I note that the only partnership program that's been announced so far is really the Mount Washington Road one. That seems to be a partnership, whereas the Johnson-Mariner overpass and the Westview interchange are not in a sense the same types of project. There's not a funding return on those; they're design-build. They're put out to bid and that's the end of it, whereas the Mount Washington one has a financial sort of aspect to it as well. It's more of a public-private partnership than design-build is. Could the minister tell us: are there other projects now being considered that would be either the design-build type or more in the public-partnership realm of proceeding?
Hon. J. Pement: Those projects that may occur are really through the mandate of the TFA.
D. Symons: Well, we keep finding that the TFA seems to be making a lot of the ministry decisions.
Going to the Island Highway for a moment. I want to do the Island Highway as a unit later on, but there are some questions of a general nature that come up regarding it, so I'll cover those now. Are contractors or is a contractor -- I'm not sure whether this refers to one or to many -- offered a bonus for early completion of a project? If they have a bridge project to build and there's a set date on which this is to be completed.... I gather there's at least one where there's a bonus of $8,500 per day for completing that project. I find that figure rather astonishing if that's the case, because that bonus is available for each day of a 42-day period. That means that if they were to complete the project 42 days ahead of time -- if you multiply that out -- it works out to $300,000. I hope that I'm getting some misinformation there. Maybe you can tell me: are bonuses built into contracts commonplace? Are there any in the ministry?
The Chair: Hon. members, there will be a short recess until the division in the main House concludes.
The committee recessed from 4:56 p.m. to 5:05 p.m.
Hon. J. Pement: We do have bonuses for completion of contract work, but within the contract there's a penalty as well for work that is not completed on time. An example is Oak Street Bridge, which is specifically targeted for concerns that we have. The rehab being done on the Oak Street Bridge is an example because of the time line: we want to be finished by Labour Day. That particular contract will have the bonus, and the penalty in it as well.
D. Symons: I thank the minister for the reference she made to the Oak Street Bridge, since I guess she remembers that it happens to traverse into my riding and is of great interest to the people in Richmond. On the 10th of this month, I'm sure that I will receive a good number of phone calls regarding that particular project.
I'm totally off the topic that I planned on for a moment here, but since you brought it up, maybe we should explore it for a moment. I received a phone call regarding the timing of the project and the way in which it's being done. The press called me about it and, to be honest, I think they were hoping that I would end up jumping all over the ministry for that. I couldn't see myself doing that, because I wasn't quite sure what alternatives I could have offered to say: "Well, we should have done it this way rather than that way."
Since we're on the Oak Street Bridge at this moment, I'm just wondering if the minister might.... Just as an aside, I
[ Page 14873 ]
happen to have been there the day the Oak Street Bridge was opened. They had a dance on the bridge. I was one of the happy dancers on that bridge a good number of years ago when it opened.
I know there are major problems with the bridge -- the earthquake retrofitting they are doing on it as well as the deck work that is going to be done over this next three-month period. This addresses a good number of the issues with that bridge. Could you give us an idea of what options you had to face before you chose the one you are currently using for this work?
Hon. J. Pement: Interesting enough we did look through the different seasons and chose June to September because of the nature of traffic, although it is tourist season. Major traffic is when the universities are open and in recognizing that concern we felt that the better time was through the summer and have it completed prior to universities going back. I gather the volume of traffic is significantly higher at that time. We're trying to look at a time of year where we could manage it as best we could, recognizing that any time of the year is a difficult time for the commuter and also for visitors to the city.
We have done extensive work. We'll have brochures; we'll have signs; we'll do radio spots. We're also going to set up a process for MLAs to have a complete briefing so that they know what routes we have looked at and can give out that information to people.
We recognize that it is an inconvenience, but it is also an issue of getting a significant and necessary amount of work done on the bridge. Therefore we opted to do it. This was the best timing we could come up with regard to volumes of traffic.
D. Symons: My criticism on the minister's response that we'll be given information to offer to people as to what options they have to get across the water is that it's rather late. We are getting awfully close to that date. It seems there's been a delay in getting out information that could have prepared people well in advance of the event rather than just a few days prior to it.
What I was asking for wasn't only the days, and I do concur with the minister, having driven across the bridge for a good number of years. I knew which day UBC opened, not by the calendar but by the traffic on the bridge, and I knew which day UBC closed in the same way. You could definitely tell by how quickly you got across the bridge or did not get across it, so I concur with that aspect of it.
I wonder if the ministry had considered using two lanes in and one lane out in the morning and using the fourth lane to work on, and use three lanes of the bridge rather than closing two lanes as you are. You could close one lane, work on it, and then have a counterflow arrangement. Would that have worked as an alternative? It would stretch the program out a little longer but certainly would move more of the volume across.
Hon. J. Pement: We did discuss that option, the problem being that it lengthens the time for completion of work and then there are more disruptions for people. There was also an issue with regard to workers safety and being able to work on one lane while three lanes are going. Taking those factors into consideration, we decided to do the two lanes.
D. Symons: I think what I may do -- and maybe I will ask the minister's permission, which is unusual for what I'm about to do -- is take the Hansard record of this and fax it to the newspapers in Richmond. It will save some of the phone calls to my office, and maybe phone calls to the ministry as well, in that they'll see that you looked at these other options. I think your explanation of the three lane.... Working on one of those middle lanes with traffic moving on either side of the workmen could create a problem. I think it might alleviate some of the criticisms people are going to have as to why it's done the way it has been if we say: "Here's the process they went through to decide that."
Onto another project: the south perimeter road that could almost connect in with Highway 99 has been, in a sense, an on-again, off-again project as an announcement. I read in the most recent provincial chamber of commerce newsletter that the announcement had gone out on it. I thought: gee, I missed that, so I'm wondering. I don't believe it has gone out, because I don't think I would have missed that. I hope not.
Can the minister give us an idea of how close to "on" the project is? Would it be a design-build that the ministry may be considering? I know we're getting into the TFA again, or a public-private partnership. Is there anything still in the works? Is this still one that the ministry, along with the TFA, has high on its priority list and is going to consider in the near future?
Hon. J. Pement: There have been consultations with the communities involved with regard to the south perimeter road, because it really requires work with those communities in order to decide on designs, etc. We recognize it as an important infrastructure project, and we will be looking at further consultations and work in the future.
D. Symons: I believe that one of the communities that would be involved with the project had sought funding through the federal infrastructure program, and I'm wondering if the ministry was supporting that request as a way of the ministry also getting involved with it. I'm not sure if it was Delta or Surrey that was the community; I think it was Delta. Did Surrey go that route as well, and was the ministry supporting them? Is that still a possibility, or are all the moneys for all those programs now allotted?
Hon. J. Pement: We were aware that Surrey had an application in, and we certainly did support that application through our departments.
D. Symons: Does the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, or maybe the Crown, own some property in the Burns Bog? Is it in the hands of either the Crown or the ministry?
[5:15]
Hon. J. Pement: We don't have any property within that particular area.
The Chair: The Chair would just caution that there is a ministry responsible for lands, and questions regarding which properties are Crown lands might more appropriately be in order in those estimates.
D. Symons: I heed the Chair's caution. Indeed, the ministry does acquire lands for its highways projects, and the road
[ Page 14874 ]
that we're talking about could go through those lands. That was the tack I was taking, and indeed I won't take it now because the minister says they don't own land there. I was interested in whether there would be the possibility that land might be used for development other than just the highway, to help finance the highway -- which again gets into TFA, which the Chair would caution me of.
I was rather surprised that at the moment I mentioned Burns Bog the door didn't burst open, the two members from Delta suddenly appearing on my doorstep with great interest. That didn't happen. So we'll move on from the bog to other issues.
In 1992 I asked the previous minister about something that was brought to my attention. It was a project on the Fraser Highway from 208th to 240th Street that basically had to be repaved a year or so after the project had been done because the pavement became rippled. I was curious as to whether it was the fault of the ministry or the fault of the contractor and what happens in those circumstances. I did get a letter back from the minister, who explained that if it was the contractor's fault, then the contractor would be responsible for doing the repairs on it as part of the contract. In this particular case it turned out.... I just thought I would read:
"The ministry changed the type of liquid asphalt to be used from that which was specified in the contract so that longer-lasting but more rut-resistant pavement could be achieved. Unfortunately, an error was made in conveying the proper information regarding this change to the contractor. As a result, the pavement smoothness on this project was greatly affected because the contractor was unable to adjust his operation accordingly. In this case, the ministry was at fault and is responsible for the financial arrangements for this work."
That's basically for the reworking of that particular portion of the road. My question then is: what did that error cost? I know you won't have those figures directly in front of you, but would you mind looking that up and getting back to me on it?
I'm curious. Errors are faulted back to the ministry because somehow the contractor was not responsible and therefore the ministry had to pay for something being redone. Could you give me a figure for the years 1992 up to the current one of how much might have been spent redoing projects because there was some fault in the design or specifications that meant the contractor was not at fault but the project still had to be redone, and therefore was an extra cost to the ministry? I know you won't have those figures at hand.
One thing I would like to discuss, though, is the expropriation process. This goes back again to the Island Highway. I've had concerns expressed to me about other expropriations around the province. I think the Island Highway just exemplifies some of the problems.
I was speaking to a lady today who I've been in contact with for almost a year now about her real concerns over the expropriation of her property. You may look up Hansard last year and find I've asked these questions. It's up in the Buckley Bay area. She has a fairly large tract of land. There's going to be an interchange on that property that will lead down to the Denman Island ferry.
The tactics used by the people who are attempting to convince her to sell her property.... I think if it was anybody other than a government ministry, the police would be there and these people would be charged. She has been phoned by somebody who refused to identify herself. This is months back, not the last short while; they've calmed down recently. She was actually phoned and told that if she wasn't out of her house within three days, the police would be there to handcuff her and take her away.
This is the sort of thing they're using on an elderly lady who's alone in the house. She was offered in 1990 a figure of $80,000 for her property, which is acreage -- I wish I had brought those other figures with me; I don't have them here -- and which has an assessed value of almost double that. She was basically told: "This is the best offer you're going to get. If you don't take it now, we'll take the offer away, and you'll get something less at a later date."
That sort of approach to negotiations, which we should call it -- I certainly can't see the ministry condoning it, and I gather that some people who had been purchasing property on behalf of the ministry have been let go.
Still, it seems that there's not enough monitoring of the technique used by these people. In fact, I believe that one of the people who is still in charge of one of these things appeared on this woman's doorstep with a lawyer and basically tried to browbeat her into signing a document, which she was terribly confused over and did not want to sign. It wasn't until her lawyer -- she had phoned him, asking what she should do -- basically told them to get the hell out of there that they backed off. Again, it's this heavy-handed technique. Unfortunately she's not the only one I've heard of. People are given misinformation and are not being offered a price that in any sense of the word could be called fair.
During the problem with the Island Highway, one of the reasons mentioned for its downsizing was the cost of property acquisition. We certainly can't expect to do that on the backs of the homeowners. They must get fair market value for their homes. Why isn't something close to the assessed value of property offered as a starting offer?
Hon. J. Pement: First, I would like you to know that I've worked closely with our ministry in regard to property acquisition. It is a very difficult issue for people, in regard to moving and coming up with a different place to live and liking where they live, etc. It's not an easy issue to deal with. The appropriateness of our people working there.... Again, it's understood that a fair process has been set up, that negotiations do happen and that people are treated with respect. We understand the emotions that they may be going through at that time. There are times, I think, when particular properties are difficult and people feel that they are being put upon. We go by market value of the piece of property -- that's understood. Assessments are done in a very objective way so that we are sure that people do receive market value for their places and so that expenses, etc., are also met in that process. If any particular person feels that they have not been treated properly, I would expect them to get ahold of myself or my staff with regard to any complaints, and we would certainly investigate those complaints.
In regard to the piece of property you're talking about in general, the lady is to continue living in her house on approximately 15 acres, and the balance of her 75-acre property will be acquired at a fair market value.
Again, they are difficult. There are, I believe, 2,100 pieces of property that we will acquire in this process; 800 have already been negotiated. It really is a minority that have had these complaints. Any time someone raises the issue, we certainly look into it very closely, because we do want to have the process fair and equitable for all property owners.
[ Page 14875 ]
L. Fox: I'm pleased to enter into the discussions on this particular issue. I understand the complexity of the problem, and while I commend the ministry in trying to determine what fair market value is, I understand that each case has its own uniqueness. Each situation is one unto itself, and I don't know that we will ever -- no matter what government is in power of whichever philosophical bent -- be able to determine, with equal satisfaction in all these transactions, what is fair in terms of fair market value. There are those who would say the Speaker's residence, for instance, was beyond fair market value; others might say that it was below fair market value. It depends on how we view that particular property.
I'm not sure that's an objective that any minister or ministry will ever be able to satisfy in totality. I think it's always going to be a problem, because we each have a certain level of emotion around our property. One of the things that would help us do that is a protocol, which I know has been in discussion for years and years between Highways and Municipal Affairs, where we plan and identify through the plan and compensate through the plan in long-term planning for future needs for the ministry of highways and roads. So I wanted to ask the minister if she has had any ongoing dialogue around the protocol with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs or between ministries. I would think that the recent initiative.... I'm trying to quickly recall the name of the planning initiative by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, where we're broadening out with our community plan process to recognize a lot of complexities and difficulties in fast-growth areas....
J. Beattie: Growth strategies plan.
L. Fox: Thank you, hon. member. In the formation of that have there had been discussions around a protocol agreement between the two ministries? Could the minister answer that for me?
Hon. J. Pement: We certainly have had discussions with regard to this issue and the concern with planning in and around municipalities. I believe you're thinking of the growth management....
L. Fox: Growth strategies.
Hon. J. Pement: Okay. We certainly have had discussions in and around that program as well. Again, it's a case of identifying those corridors with the communities in terms of the planning processes that they have and being able to decide that that's where the root is. We have those ongoing discussions. Certainly it's an issue that we're concerned about. We would like to see corridors maintained for future transportation routes, and we do have those discussions, yes.
L. Fox: Perhaps I didn't phrase it quite right. I would suggest that we need to have a protocol signed and agreed to in terms of a process when a municipality, through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, plans to have a future corridor for Highways needs. There immediately should be a process for Highways to pay for and compensate landowners. Because once you've planned a particular landowner's property as being unusable for his or her purpose but in fact in need for future government service for the purposes of developing roads or other rights-of-way for the Ministry of Transportation -- certainly roads -- then you've rendered that property undevelopable. There's a certain value that goes along with that.
If there was a protocol so that at the time that planning process was being done there would also be a negotiation parallel with it in terms of developing or creating a value, I think we could do away with a lot of the conflicts that end up coming down the road, because we're then reacting to a decision that's been made earlier. That's had an artificial barrier in terms of creating actual value. The Assessment Authority recognizes future use today in terms of assessing property values, so then we immediately create a very large grey cloud around the whole issue of what actual fair value is.
My wish would be that the ministry would be proactive with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and other affected ministries -- but particularly the Ministry of Municipal Affairs -- in coming up with a protocol. I recognize the monetary considerations that would flow along with the protocol, but that should also be a discipline to us in the planning process: what is affordable along with what is desirable. You are always balancing the desirable with the affordable, so I would see it as a positive process rather than a negative process.
Hon. J. Pement: It definitely would be wise to look to protocols at this time, but we also have to look at the growth strategies and the official community planning processes. I think basically what we're trying to do is look at where communities want growth and where corridors are going to be necessary -- major corridors. We're also looking at ways in which we can obtain the properties.
There has always been the issue of the protocols. I recognize that from the past. Again, to get to the bottom lines on the funding side of it is an issue for the ministry as well. That's one area you pointed out. Again, those discussions are happening with Municipal Affairs and will continue to happen.
I think we are very proactive in trying to ascertain some corridor protection throughout the province.
I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:33 p.m.
The committee met at 6:41 p.m.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
(continued)
On vote 55: minister's office, $432,000 (continued).
L. Fox: I want to continue a little longer around the protocol issue -- the need for a connection between the respective ministries -- and the expropriation issue. After a
[ Page 14876 ]
three-quarters of an hour break, it's hard to remember where one question left off and the other one started. As I recall, the minister -- and maybe she can reinform us -- recognized the need for a protocol between the respective ministries. She also recognized the value that we might have in terms of qualifying the actual value of land that would be needed when planning for future roads or networks. If that is the case -- and the minister was nodding as I was speaking -- I want to go one step further and ask if there have been any recent meetings between the ministries around these issues. I don't want to get into future policy, but does the minister perceive that there would be some dialogue in oncoming months on how we might meet the challenge of developing a protocol?
Hon. J. Pement: The two ministries and ministers have had meetings in regard to the growth management strategy and the need to be inclusive of transportation in those strategies, recognizing corridors that are important to communities and regions in the province. The discussions have not gone into protocols per se. What has happened, though, is that when we are developing these corridors, we recognize the difficulties of acquiring land after settlement has happened and the need for recognizing ways to protect those particular corridors. It also has to be in concert with community and regional planning. Those are the particular issues that we are discussing at this point.
L. Fox: Just one last thing, and I won't belabour the point. I'm sure the ministry is well aware of the recent case in Maple Ridge and the precedent that flows from that. I'm sure the minister will also be aware of the property rights issues that flowed from that particular case and the need to come up with some kind of formula to address these issues, if indeed we're going to meet the challenges in the future. I'll leave it at that.
[6:45]
I have one or two questions, with the indulgence of the official opposition, around my local riding that I would like to talk about. Firstly, I want to put on the record the cooperation that I've had during my tenure as MLA from both the district and the regional offices of the ministry in my constituency. They've been very helpful and contact me on a regular basis to inform me of their planning initiatives, their projects once they are approved and their time frame for completion. As well, they have been very responsive to my phone calls in terms of dealing with constituent concerns. I wanted to say for the record and for the minister's awareness that we have excellent staff in the Prince George region -- certainly in the district and regional offices.
Secondly, I want to also put on the record, because I think it's important, that I've had excellent cooperation with the contractors in my area. They have been very responsive to my phone calls around a number of very sensitive issues, particularly one issue in the Vanderhoof district. I know the ministry would be aware of that, because I'm sure they've received a number of phone calls. It's tied up with the native land claims issue. It's the road in Fraser Lake -- and the name escapes me right now -- that is basically on reserve land. It has seasonal residential properties on it, not year-round residences. There's a real issue in terms of how that road is maintained. Cooperation between the band and the Highways ministry has not always been -- how shall I say -- there, and there have been some decisions made from time to time where ministry people have stuck their necks out in order to serve the best interests of those residents, and I certainly appreciate that they've done that.
Let me say this: there's one outstanding issue that continues to be a thorn in the side of many residents down east Francois Lake Road, and that's the ongoing dialogue that has from time to time stopped -- in fact, I'm not sure what its present status is -- between the Stellaquo band and the Ministry of Highways. Now, the ministry wanted to improve that road this year, because it's well travelled by the east Francois Lake residents. In fact, I received a letter dated May 30 -- the minister won't have seen it yet -- in which the residents of this community association are extremely concerned, because in their view negotiations haven't moved forward. I recognize the complexity and the difficulties of the issue, because it's very difficult in today's world to resolve one issue within the whole scope of the questions surrounding native land claims. I would ask the minister if she could give me any kind of status report on the negotiations that are, I hope, still underway between the Stellaquo and the Ministry of Highways.
Hon. J. Pement: I actually met with the Stellaquo band some time ago. I'd have to get the date for the member; it was some time ago. The issues were discussed with regard to the band's concerns, some of which were along the lines of the utility rights-of-ways as well as trespass concerns and those types of issues, after which I said we were open to starting negotiations. I don't believe we've heard back from the band since. From my understanding, some of the negotiators or those involved have been busy doing other work or other pursuits. Therefore there have been no negotiations since that time.
L. Fox: Just for clarification, then, at one point.... I'm trying to recall the lady's name. She was employed by Highways and was indeed spearheading the initiatives by Highways in discussions with the native band to resolve the issues around the road. Those are the negotiations I'm talking about here. I want to be sure that we understand one another. But as I understand it, the minister is saying that there are no negotiations presently taking place. That process is no longer ongoing, and we're waiting for the overall negotiations to start. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Pement: This has not become part of the overall land claims issue. This is a road issue that we have been discussing, and it has been focused on that issue. I met with them. I gather that our property persons also met with the band. But those sets of discussions have not gone further at this point. We're open to discussion. It's a case of the preparedness of the band.
L. Fox: I'm not trying to be difficult here, but if both sides are sitting down, waiting for the other, and in the meantime we've got east Francois Lake people and the Highways ministry staff wanting to improve this segment of road, and we're not able to do that, I'm a bit concerned. It seems to me that we could be a little more proactive in terms of trying to....
I understand the concerns and the problems. I'm not faulting anybody here, but I think we have to somehow try to continue to pressure the band into talking about the issues around that road. If they don't wish to negotiate because they
[ Page 14877 ]
want to deal with it in the overall land claims issue, I'll understand that as well. But we owe it to the east Francois Lake residents who have to utilize that road. If the minister were to drive through it, she would recognize what I'm talking about. We've done a lot of improvements out in that area on both sides of this, but we have a stretch there that.... I'm not sure; I drive it often enough, but I've never measured it out. There might be three or four kilometres of road that are extremely rough. We have a lot of tourism, and now individuals are refusing to take their rec vehicles over that portion of the road. Fortunately, there's another access for those folks. They go down the Endako Mines road and come around. It's not like they can't get in there, but it is a bit inconvenient. Not only that, I think the whole idea of designing and redesigning that corner and the turnoff could very well be dependent on whether we are able to resolve the issues around this other piece of road.
There's a need for us -- whether it's through property management or whatever -- to continue to prompt those discussions and resolve at least that portion. I'm more than prepared to play whatever role I can in that process without being political. I know it is often difficult in those circumstances. I too have talked to band members about it, but they know that at the end of the day, in the present situation, I am not going to be signing the paper. That's where political reality comes into it. I think we need some direction from government on that issue to move it forward so that we can resolve it. I'll leave it at that, hon. minister, unless you want to comment.
Hon. J. Pement: We certainly are open to approaching the band again to keep it more current. We will endeavour to do so with the understanding that initial negotiations have to be done. That is time-consuming in itself as well.
L. Fox: I thank the minister for her answer, and I look forward to seeing those discussions continue.
I have two more provincial issues. I suppose if there are two things causing me grief within the Highways ministry, they are not, oddly enough, the snowplowing or any of those things, although during the winter months the size of aggregate occasionally gets my phone ringing. In any case, I think two issues cause my phone to ring the most, and one is a lack of a consistent signing policy, or issues around a signing policy. I'll come back to the signing policy in a minute.
The other issue is the removal of roadside pullouts that weren't designated roadside pullouts, but were traditionally used by many locals as a resting area -- certainly along Highways 16 and 27. As insignificant as it may seem to some of us who seem to go from A to B non-stop because we're in a hurry to get there, to the individuals who routinely travel along those routes and are used to the old pullouts, which weren't, like I said, designed pullouts, but were just wide spots in the road.... In one case, it was a gravel pit that historically had been used by truckers.
My understanding is that there's been a policy now -- and I'm not sure whether this is regional or provincial policy, so I look for your guidance on that.... But the ideal is to have a recognized pullout between communities -- with toilet facilities, garbage disposal units and those kinds of things -- that is serviced every 30 kilometres. Subsequently, for whatever reasons -- some of them environmental, others probably just for practicality in terms of looking after them -- we've cut out all the other historic, non-identified resting areas.
This has caused many old-timers in my constituency grief. The ministry, I think, has received letters from the municipalities of Vanderhoof, Fort St. James and maybe Fraser Lake, but at least the first two, because I've had copies from them. For the record, the minister might want to elaborate on the why of the policy so that I can take it back home and make it available to residents in my constituency so that they understand why this is happening.
Hon. J. Pement: We have consolidated the rest stops between communities. It is a provincial policy. Basically we've looked at access as one of the issues -- safe access on and off the highway. We've also looked at the fact that the rest stops are serviced, have toilets and garbage, etc. There is also an issue of maintenance and less dollars to maintain certain areas. You know Highway 16, as I do, fairly well. There are some specific rest-stop areas along the way that have been upgraded in the last few years to provide those services. In doing so, the other areas were discontinued.
[7:00]
L. Fox: I'll accept that.
The other issue is signing policy. I know the Ministry of Highways has been wrestling with this issue for years. In fact, I think my colleague, back when he was minister, was wrestling with this issue. There is a jurisdictional problem in terms of the Ministry of Lands and the Ministry of Highways around the issue of leases on Crown land. There are difficulties.
I think one of the major problems that we have is with tourist-related services, particularly ones that are along the road and not part of a community. We can identify a community and what services are available within that community. I don't think you need larger signs to do that. For instance, I'll use two. These two have been front and centre, and I think one of them may be challenging the courts right now. I'm not sure about that. I just advise the minister of that so that neither one of us gets involved in affecting a court case. One is Bednesti service, which I'm sure the minister is aware of as she drives past and goes to Prince George, and the other one is Clucluz Lake resort.
Both of these rely heavily on recreational and tourism travel. The present signing policy, as I recall it, allows for the traditional provincial base sign which indicates services, and if I'm correct, it's only about 500 metres prior to the business. It's a very short distance prior to the business. What happens in these cases is that first of all, you've got to get very close before you can really see the content of that sign; second, it takes a little bit of time going down the road at 90 kilometres an hour, or perhaps a little more, before that all registers.
Given the traffic on that road, there is a need to know far in advance in order to safely pull into either of those, but especially the Bednesti one. It's right on the corner, and there have been a number of serious accidents there.
What I would hope is that the ministry would have two types of policy: one for signage for municipalities and one that's perhaps a little broader for resort or tourism-type businesses that are not located in the community but indeed survive very heavily on traffic. There is a need for them to identify themselves further down the road than the few hundred metres that's available under the signing policy. I would welcome a response from the minister on that.
[ Page 14878 ]
Hon. J. Pement: Certainly the signing is uniform. The policy that was developed with regard to the signage was done through a committee that had those industries on it as well. These different distances came through that committee process. I'll have a look at those particular signs that you point out when I'm next going down the road. I think that on the whole, what we're trying to do is get that uniformity, recognizing some of the nuances and concerns. But really, it was the industry that was involved in coming up with these different distances, types of signs and what goes on a sign, etc.
L. Fox: I don't want to belabour the issue, but I used those two as an example. I'm not expecting -- in fact, I don't want to see.... I myself have resisted trying to deal with individual approvals of individual signs. I think there's a real need for some kind of consistency and policy that would be fair and reflective of good sense throughout the province.
As I drive down the highway, you see all over rural British Columbia old hay wagons sitting in the fields with unmaintained signs on them. There are portable signs all over this province, and I recognize too that those are on private land. We need some kind of policy that would allow well-maintained signs and a mechanism for enforcing that -- for instance, it might be a two-year agreement with renewal subject to their maintenance or something along that line. It seems to me that the lack of a policy and the lack of flexibility are creating all these other problems in terms of the rest of rural British Columbia.
I see it every day travelling back and forth between my community and Prince George in order to come here or to my office. I really think we've got to address it somehow, and recognize the important role that those highway businesses play in our economy and for our tourist attractions, as well as the importance of a sign a fair way down the road so that people can understand that that service is coming up. I guess I'm not asking the minister to look at just those two sites, but to develop something that we can apply throughout and work towards that mechanism.
Hon. J. Pement: Again, we did develop that policy. The committee did look at the whole scope of the different signage issue, and it came down to the government blue-and-white sign with the different symbols on it. They also looked at the distances, and we're trying to keep consistent with those signs. The ones that are in fields are ones that we can't control, because they're not on highway rights-of-way. They're in an area of private property, so we can't really relate to those signs as much as we sometimes would like to.
I recognize the importance to the businesses, without a doubt. We continue to use the policy. It's hard to show that flexibility if you don't want to be specific on one particular issue. It's sort of contradictory, in a sense. We want to see that the signs are uniform and are at the distances that are within the policy. I think that on the whole, we're not doing too bad in the province.
L. Fox: Just one final attempt. I'm not disputing that the sign policy works in terms of the freeway, where you have Abbotsford or a community that you can access and show all these services on a great big board. But the next time you go down there -- because I hadn't paid particular attention -- look at the size of the sign that shows those two businesses. I'm only using those two because I'm very familiar with them; I've been front and centre. They're a lot smaller, and they're very close to the businesses. You don't get the warnings like you do along the freeway, where several miles back you see exit so-and-so and such-and-such. You're forewarned, and on the rural roads you're not. When I identified those two businesses.... They're roadside businesses, and we look at roadside businesses differently than we look at signing community businesses within there. That's all I'm asking: that we look at the uniqueness....
I don't want to destroy the sign policy; I certainly don't want to do that. But I think we have to look at whether or not it's effective in terms of applying the same standards down here as we're applying on those rural roads. If the minister really pays attention, I think she will recognize the argument I'm trying to make. I'm not doing it in any facetious way; I'm just trying to be very practical in doing it.
Hon. J. Pement: I'll certainly take a look at those particular signs in the context that you've pointed out.
A. Warnke: What I have is really one set of questions that essentially concerns something I'm sure the minister is aware of. That is the connection road service between Gold River and Tahsis. I apologize if I'm just focusing on one particular case. Perhaps I'm getting ahead of where our critic really wants to go. It's an opportunity for me to raise this.
Basically, the background that I'm familiar with -- I'm sure the minister and the member for North Island are, too -- is the linkage between Gold River and Tahsis. It's a concern to the people of Tahsis. All I want is a straightforward pursuit of the current state of the road between Gold River and Tahsis, considering its importance to the people of Tahsis, and the current commitment of the ministry for that particular linkage. Also, if the minister could elaborate as to any sort of future commitment or any prospects of developing a paved highway or something along that line. It's really quite straightforward.
Hon. J. Pement: That particular section of road is a forest resource road. We maintain that road and try to keep it upgraded to a certain extent. But there are off-highway vehicles on that road, and we cannot bring it up to the level of pavement under those types of circumstances.
A. Warnke: I think that pretty well sums up the current state. I would like to follow up by asking if the minister is considering perhaps altering the status. Is the minister in the coming year or down the road really thinking in terms of any sort of commitment to changing the status of road and trying to develop some sort of highway for the community of Tahsis?
Hon. J. Pement: Again, with forest resource roads and resource roads in general, it's an issue of concern to some of the communities around the area. To be able to do that, it would also have to be inclusive of the industry itself. They would have to look at the type of equipment that they're hauling with. A consensus would have to be reached with the industry in regard to what types of trucks are hauling and that sort of thing.
[7:15]
A. Warnke: I've also become aware of another alternative route, which is between Woss and Gold River. This is, I take it,
[ Page 14879 ]
perhaps even more of a restrictive road. I really don't know how much of the public uses that road. People have brought it to my attention. I know people in Tahsis use the road between Gold River and Tahsis. I suppose the people of Tahsis use it regardless of the state of the road, and that's the reason it's become an issue. But I have become aware of this other road, and I'm wondering if the ministry is thinking about developing any sort of highway system there.
Hon. J. Pement: I believe you're talking about the road from Tahsis to Zeballos. If so, it's an old resource road as well. My understanding is that it's for four-wheel-drive vehicles. There are sections that have not been completed on it, as well.
A. Warnke: That's my understanding as well. I haven't driven the road myself; I have driven the other one between Gold River and Tahsis. People have brought this to my attention. I think the minister is quite correct in her assessment of the state of the road. Nonetheless, I take it from the minister's answer that there's nothing really being planned in terms of developing that as a linkage between, I suppose, the Island Highway and Tahsis itself.
Hon. J. Pement: No, not at this time; there are no plans.
D. Symons: There are so many papers spread out on my desk that I've lost the one I wanted at this point. We were discussing expropriation earlier, and I believe the member for Prince George-Omineca raised the question of the cottonwood corridor out in the Maple Ridge area. I remember something -- and I don't happen to have the clipping for it -- very recently that stated that the ministry had intentions of doing land acquisitions in there. It was a news release, actually. The thing I had planned to ask when I could read the actual release was about the word "intentions." Is there any money set aside in this year's budget for any land acquisition for future highway developments in that area?
Hon. J. Pement: What you saw in a press release is that we did acquire some properties in the area; we have a number of properties. We recognize the importance of the corridor and will look to future acquisitions, but again it's an issue of acquiring the funding first.
D. Symons: Just a few miscellaneous topics. One of them that I read, which goes back more than a year, was about a project or study being done on traffic lights to try to determine whether having a larger-sized lens on the light and a background that was marked in some way might make them more visible and particularly help people who have colour deficiencies. I'm wondering how far along that project has gone. Will those types of traffic signals be slowly replacing the other ones as they need replacing? What's the object of that?
Hon. J. Pement: We have some test lights out there at this point, and we are still in the process of evaluating their effectiveness.
D. Symons: I have some concerns about high-occupancy-vehicle lanes. I will compliment the ministry on implementing some high-occupancy-vehicle lanes but when I read the announcement and discovered they're for a van with six or more people in, I thought it was not much of a commitment to high-occupancy vehicles. If you take the automobiles and watch them go by, they are about 70 percent to 80 percent single-occupancy vehicles. It's a rather strong stretch to have somebody look for five other people to join them and get a van through the van pool if they don't happen to own a van. But it's not that difficult for somebody -- at least it's in the reasonable area -- to consider maybe finding two others who work and live in their same general area and to triple up. That takes two cars off the road if they can do that. I'm wondering if the minister might explain why they chose such a high threshold rather than one that I think is more achievable and would work. I've watched the vehicles along Highway 99, and the reality is that the bus lane is still simply a bus lane.
Hon. J. Pement: The van-pooling lanes, or the lanes that have the vans on them, are actually bus lanes, and we opened them up to vans. Our concern was to not overcrowd those lanes. It's a case of capacity in those lanes. That's the reason, in those particular cases, why we chose the van with six occupants.
As to HOV lanes, that will be future policy, and decisions as to how many in a car will be decided when those lanes are available.
D. Symons: I can give an on-the-spot report as far as Highway 99 through Richmond goes. We don't have vans in any numbers going along there, and there's no way that the bus lane in either direction is at all congested. You see maybe one bus or one vehicle every five minutes going along there, so allowing others in certainly would not cause congestion or any serious safety hazard.
Along that same line, I've been asked by the B.C. motorcycle association on numerous occasions -- I bring it up each year again -- that when you are considering.... And eventually we will have an HOV lane on the Barnet-Hastings connector, when it's finally finished. Is there any consideration that possibly we can get motorcycles away from the real traffic rush and put them in an HOV lane as well, where there would be less chance of them merging with the traffic jams in the other lanes?
Hon. J. Pement: Certainly there's actually been two types of vehicles with regard to those lanes. Motorcycles and taxis have also talked about being able to use the lanes. Again, it's a future policy issue, and I've met with both groups and know the concerns, and at time of decision, we will take those concerns into consideration.
D. Symons: Good, I am pleased to hear that they are under consideration. I think it's something that deserves serious consideration and study. Apparently it is done in some jurisdictions and has not seemed to create any difficulties.
I'm wondering if we could just continue on a few other miscellaneous topics while we're at it. I noted that the vast majority of the maintenance contracts came due in 1994. Some of them were given a one-year extension, and it looks like roughly half of them were given a two-year extension. Was there an intention in doing that, whether it be one or two years, that you could stagger the period at which these things are going to come up for renewal? Was there some other reason why some got a one-year and some got a two-year?
If they're staggered, we can have problems with a contractor who has a contract that doesn't come up for another
[ Page 14880 ]
year, but wouldn't have the ability to bid on another contract that is coming up this year. If you don't have them all expire at the same time, it doesn't give them a chance to bid on two or three of the various contracts, and it rather limits the number of bids that the ministry may get.
Hon. J. Pement: The extensions were based on performance. There's a program of quality assurance that the ministry does with regard to performance, and that's how the extensions were meted out. Just for the member's information, a contractor can bid on no more than three contract tenures.
D. Symons: Then I can read into the renewal periods that the ones that got the two years were good, and the other fellows maybe had some shortcomings. Is that what you are basically saying?
Hon. J. Pement: Yes. From my understanding, those were very good, and some were satisfactory.
D. Symons: There are varying degrees of goodness.
Just going back to another topic I was asking about earlier, I came across some other information that I had neglected to ask about then. When I was talking about errors that the ministry was basically responsible for covering, I asked what something that had to be redone might have cost in excess of the regular program. What I noticed and should have brought up -- because, of course, I've asked questions in the Legislature about it -- deals with the Port Renfrew bridge. It appears that a contract was given to Pacific Pile Driving. Then, after they had started to move their barge and equipment in, the ministry realized that Pacific Pile Driving had not gone through the prequalification requirements yet. They were in the process of doing it, I believe. So they brought the material back, and there was probably a $20,000 charge for their out-of-pocket expenses that the ministry was responsible for. When they came back, eventually, I believe they did give the subcontract to the person who won the contract. Was there some charge to the ministry because of that mistake?
Hon. J. Pement: Certainly the company demanded compensation. However, we never paid compensation.
D. Symons: Well, I have to ask, I guess, if that's considered fair. You gave a contract and then realized that they didn't deserve it and took it back, but they had actually been awarded a contract and had out-of-pocket expenses because of it.
Hon. J. Pement: It was a case of any out-of-pocket expenses that occurred, and from our perspective, there were none.
D. Symons: I won't pursue it much further, but I suspect that if you move a crew and equipment to a site, there's some sort of expense involved. It might not have been the amount they were claiming, but there would be some expense, I'm sure. I'm wondering, then, how it happened. If you have a prequalification process, and if this company had not met all the requirements or had not been evaluated, how did they manage to get that contract in the first place?
[7:30]
Hon. J. Pement: The company did work as a subcontractor under another contractor and prequalified at that point, as well. It was a mistake through our staff in terms of the policy and in terms of the emergency of the situation.
D. Symons: I believe -- and I'm just looking for the appropriate paper -- there was a piece of property just outside Victoria where they began building a condo. They were about six weeks into the building process when the Highways ministry discovered that they would indeed need that land as part of the highway project at that point. I guess the concern that I have is that apparently they had gone through all the right channels. As a matter of fact, before they actually began the work they had asked whether there would be any problems with them going ahead with this project. At every stage they were assured that there were no difficulties, and told to go ahead. It wasn't until six weeks into the project that suddenly it was discovered there was a mistake, and that did involve an outlay of money. Can the minister explain why there seemed to be a lack of communication over the need for that property, and how much that cost the ministry?
Hon. J. Pement: In that particular case we did have the auditor general do a report on it. I don't know if you're aware of that or not. In that report it was expressed that in order to know exactly what properties were needed, the final designs had to be completed, and they were not complete. Therefore the ministry was proper in its process.
D. Symons: I guess it still doesn't answer the question. If they were indeed asking questions and the final designs had not been done, then to give these people assurances to go ahead seems to be premature or foolish. If the ministry knew that they hadn't got their plans finalized, I again wonder how they would allow this property, which was eventually going to cost extra money, to go under construction.
Hon. J. Pement: Again, it's a case of having the design ready. The designs were not completed at the time that the application was in. Unless we know for sure, we cannot say to any community or developer that they can't go ahead with their application.
D. Symons: I guess I'll leave it at that, but I do find that answer somewhat lacking, in the sense that the developer was attempting, I believe, to check things out in a responsible manner. When the minister says design, I'm assuming that in that response you mean the route. If the route wasn't in question, if you knew roughly where the road was going to go, you would know roughly that this property, at least, was very close to it. You could have told the person: "There may be some problems. We're not sure yet." That didn't seem to be the case.
Hon. J. Pement: If the member takes a look at the auditor general's report, he'll find it was very specific. Until a final design is in, we cannot say that the property is in question. We cannot until we know exactly what properties we're talking about and the sizes of the properties as well.
D. Symons: Related to the questions I'm asking on ministry errors, where there might be costs to the ministry for mistakes that have been made, the ministry is subject every so often to lawsuits because of an accident or something that's
[ Page 14881 ]
occurred: a rockfall -- I'm thinking of the rockfall at Laidlaw bluffs -- or an accident on the Upper Levels Highway due to a slick surface. I'm wondering if the minister can give us some idea of how many lawsuits there might have been in the last few years and just a rough estimate of what those might have cost to settle.
Hon. J. Pement: There are a number of lawsuits we are involved in because of the nature of the business that we have. If you're thinking in terms of civil lawsuits, we can give you the stats on that sort of thing, but we don't have those figures here at this time.
D. Symons: It was civil I was inquiring about. I gather that there is one lawsuit regarding the accident on the Upper Levels Highway caused by slick pavement somewhere around the Capilano overpass. Maybe the member there would know which accident I am referring to. I gather that there's an out-of-court settlement taking place on that. If you do an out-of-court settlement, is it an admission that the ministry is at fault? Or would you go to court?
The Chair: If we're dealing with issues that are before the courts or subject to court proceedings, I would caution the member very strenuously on this line of questioning. I would also caution the minister to guard her answers carefully on this issue.
Hon. J. Pement: We don't have any specifics on the case you're talking about, so it's very difficult for us to give an answer. If it is before the courts, we definitely cannot comment on it, as the Chair mentioned.
D. Symons: Just one more question in the realm of suits. The accident that occurred because of the rockfall at Laidlaw bluffs -- I think it was almost three years ago.... Was a suit initiated against the ministry on that? There was a woman killed when the ambulance slammed into the rock face. I'm wondering if there was a suit and whether it has been settled. I'll ask that to satisfy the Chair.
Hon. J. Pement: These sorts of lawsuits are done through the Attorney General's ministry, and there is a settlement fund in his ministry. Therefore we really don't track those particular cases unless they affect policy. It would probably be better to approach the Attorney General's department for those types of answers.
D. Symons: Just to "suit out" on this topic, does the ministry carry insurance specifically for the Highways ministry or does self-insurance by the whole government of B.C. cover such instances?
Hon. J. Pement: We self-insure.
D. Symons: I'm looking at some of the specific projects along on the Island Highway. I note that this goes back to March of this year, when the council in Campbell River was somewhat concerned about the downsizing of the project leading up to Campbell River and the cutbacks mentioned earlier this year. They were concerned because one of the reasons given was for changing some of the parts of the project.... One of them was in the Campbell River area, where one portion of the road was cancelled in favour of doing something else. I gather that the mayor of Campbell River and others up there were implying that these changes were imposed upon them and weren't done in response to local requests and so forth. They feel sort of hard done by, in the sense that the reason for downsizing the project wasn't their fault, yet they are suffering because of the change in the time lines and the size of the project. I attended the briefing session where the minister made the comment that rescoping was part of it. This would obviously involve that portion around Campbell River, because this complaint seems to come from that area.
Hon. J. Pement: Those were particular scope changes with regard to working within the budget; we deferred some areas and did minor reductions in others. Basically, there is work being done in the Campbell River area as well. However, we want to maintain our budget and therefore made those changes.
D. Symons: I guess the point of my question was whether the scope changes made in the Campbell River area were initiated because of concerns from the community that those changes be made and therefore, in a sense, they feel that trade-offs made because of those changes were partly their responsibility. Or were these changes imposed on them? That seems to be the concern.
Hon. J. Pement: Again, we made changes within the scope of the overall project, from one end of the project to another. It wasn't specifically in one given area. Again, it was to keep within the budget lines that we have to work with.
J. van Dongen: I would just like to ask you a few questions about the Highway 1 situation, as it affects most of the Fraser Valley including the constituencies of Matsqui and Abbotsford. I come from a basis where I know very little about the Ministry of Highways. This freeway was built in the early sixties, as I recall, and the Port Mann Bridge was built at that time. I think a lot of people feel that another two lanes are really the only appropriate option. First of all, are there plans on the shelf, and to what degree could they be implemented at some point in the future to widen the freeway and, possibly, twin the Port Mann Bridge?
[7:45]
Hon. J. Pement: We have been looking at that particular freeway, and we recognize the concerns with regard to the volumes of traffic. We are looking at the stretch from the Port Mann to Vancouver with a possibility of increasing the bridge structure -- twinning it has also been a comment. There has been no decision at this point. It's a case of looking at the options.
J. van Dongen: At this stage, would there be any estimates of capital costs in something like that, even if it's sort of a standard cost per running mile, or whatever, on additional lanes or possibly just some ballpark figures on doubling the bridge? I'm just interested in what kind of numbers we're talking about.
Hon. J. Pement: We find it really difficult to put a number out at this point if we haven't the full design and the scope
[ Page 14882 ]
of the project. Therefore it's difficult for us to really give you a good tag-on cost. It is a priority in the area, and we will be looking at it.
J. van Dongen: Certainly from having driven that freeway a great deal myself, I'm well aware of the volumes of traffic building up. The section of highway mentioned by the minister is probably a good start, although it's amazing how it's filling up even on the east side of the Port Mann Bridge. It really tends to peak out around the Kensington and Willingdon area.
What other options are being considered for that whole freeway section? Are there other options -- maybe even short-term options -- that could be considered, like HOV lanes or possibly other options that might be more short-term but could provide some relief at lower capital cost initially?
Hon. J. Pement: We have been looking at the HOV lane as a way to do the expansion. The concept of other transit opportunities in the future is something that one looks at as well, but at this point we are looking in terms of possible HOV lanes in that area.
J. van Dongen: With respect to the option of HOV lanes, are you looking at the whole length of the freeway from Vancouver to Chilliwack? Is there a fairly specific proposal on that for discussion?
Hon. J. Pement: Again, I guess the main issue that we're looking at is not only the HOV lanes from Port Mann to Vancouver but the fact that we have to deal with a crossing, which will be a significant cost factor, after which we can deal with the other parts of the system. We're looking overall throughout the lower mainland, where we can look at HOV lanes as a network type of situation so that as we interconnect with the different routes, we have the possibility of traffic moving faster in HOV situations.
J. van Dongen: Are there any other specific options besides, say, widening the freeway for regular traffic or widening the freeway for HOV lanes that are being considered or that might be considered? Are these the only two specific options that we're looking at?
Hon. J. Pement: Basically we are focusing on the section I have already repeated to you. What we're trying to do is look at how we can best use the transportation dollar as a whole. If we can encourage people to get their thinking into the mode of HOV lanes and transit situations, I think that's the direction of the future that we're looking at, further to other light rail types of transit options. At this point we're trying to deal with the main congestion areas, therefore the focus is on the particular section that I have been talking about, recognizing that there are other areas of concern as well.
J. van Dongen: Two comments. I just want to express a concern about what appears to be a lack of long-term planning in this area. I'm not necessarily faulting the current administration, but it seems to me that there hasn't been much foresight in this whole stretch of freeway.
I was in Sydney, Australia, about six years ago, and I saw the big eight-lane bridge that was built in about the 1930s. It really struck me that somebody there had a lot more foresight than we've had here. I think it's unfortunate, because very often when you're building anyway, the incremental cost of those extra two lanes is nowhere near what it is if you've got to add them on later, such as we're trying to do now.
The other comment I would make -- and this is a personal comment -- is that the real difficulty in long-term planning in transit is, just as you say, that we've got to get going on some kind of shift in thinking and a cultural change. As we may have a majority of people in Abbotsford, for example, who say we should have extra lanes, there are also a lot of people cognizant of the air-quality problem. The more cars we put out there, the more difficulties we have in that area. So I think it behooves us to look more aggressively at all options, including ones that might get us quicker into, as you say, some other forms of transit. But I really would like to see us at least actively planning and pursuing and finding ideas and options to deal with what is becoming a very, very serious problem.
If you have snow -- and we do have snow once in a while in the lower mainland -- or you have an accident or you have anything, you've got very, very major problems.
I would add that part of the problem I want to recognize is more and more commercial traffic -- the transition to trucks carrying more and more products. It's a cost to business to have trucks sitting in traffic. I know they try to sometimes steer around the rush hours, but the rush hours now are just about all day. So it's critical to all the people using that freeway that we at least hasten the planning process. I know it takes money, but if we're in a situation where we don't even know what our options are, then that really concerns me. But I want to thank you for your responses.
L. Stephens: I'm pleased to be able to participate in the Transportation ministry estimates. I have some questions for the minister around the Langley constituency and the letter that I received from the minister in relation to the transportation initiatives that are taking place in Langley -- really, the lack thereof. If the minister is not familiar -- and perhaps she's not, because there are a lot of initiatives around the province -- this particular one is the electrical project. It is on Highway 1 to 200th Street in Langley, to replace existing electrical service with current standard electrical service panels to improve traffic movement.
Anyone who's been out in the valley our way in the last year or so understands the tremendous growth that we have out there and the transportation problems that those of us east of the Fraser River are faced with every day. My friend from Abbotsford alluded to the Port Mann Bridge and the difficulties we have getting back and forth across that bridge and the 401 corridor.
The 200th Street interchange, a twinning of the overpass from 200th Street onto the freeway, is something those of us in Langley have been wanting for quite some time now. It is getting to the point where there is tremendous congestion around there, and the traffic is now backed up into the freeway traffic to get on and off. It's becoming a serious safety concern as well.
[ Page 14883 ]
A couple of years ago, 200th Street was made into four lanes. That has really helped a great deal, but those four lanes now come down into two to get across the overpass to go either one way or the other. It's becoming a really serious problem, and we really need to resolve this issue somehow. We could either twin the overpass or go down the road a little further and put in 216th Street, which has been something the ministry in past years has been considering.
I wonder if the minister could speak to both those issues: first of all, the 200th Street overpass, and secondly the 216th. Is that being considered, and if so, what kind of a time line would we be looking at?
Interjections.
The Chair: Would the committee come to order. Members should be aware that they should only be speaking from their chairs, not from the bleachers. If we could bring the committee to order and keep the noise down slightly.... Thank you.
Hon. J. Pement: As far as 200th Street goes, we have a conceptual design at this point. I gather we're looking at fairly significant funding to be able to do that project. Looking at today's dollars, we are really focusing on the freeway, as I was discussing with the previous member -- in terms of priority, to get the freeway more free-flowing so that the accesses.... If we widen those, we're just plugging the freeway more in terms of volume and capacity.
[8:00]
L. Stephens: I agree with the minister. That is a real danger, providing more access to a freeway that is already congested. I don't agree that we should be widening the 401, frankly. I think we should be looking at rapid transit down the middle to access the outlying communities all the way to Chilliwack. That will very likely come -- in how many years, I have no idea, but I suspect that is what will happen. Whether or not the minister is looking at that initiative as well as speed lanes or high-capacity lanes.... As the minister is aware, I'm sure, the upkeep, initial construction costs, continuing maintenance costs of pavement, the expropriation of land and all the costs associated with it don't seem to make sense to me. I wonder if the minister would comment on what kind of efficiencies of transportation up that particular corridor would be most appropriate.
Hon. J. Pement: Again, looking at the freeway and the congestion on the accesses, particularly at the peak hours, I think our focus is really to try to expand that capacity and recognize the congestion that's there and look at HOV lanes, which encourage fewer cars in the system. Light rail transportation is a future range plan, but I think we have to deal with the issue that we have a freeway that is up to capacity and has to have the expansion.
We can also look at traffic management in terms of signalization and how we deal with something like accidents on a system -- getting vehicles and people off the road and getting emergency vehicles in and out quicker. There are other things which we can do that we are looking at in the ministry with regard to those types of initiatives, which aren't high dollar situations but can also increase the capacity and keep traffic moving quicker.
L. Stephens: We are situated at the end of the line, so to speak. There is a desire for the metropolitan Vancouver area to become more livable. The GVRD talks about the livable regions and the strategies around whether you manage growth by transportation systems and various other factors. We all care about clean air and getting the cars out of this lower mainland area, but the fact remains that people need to get back and forth to work and so forth. In North America we are wedded to our cars, it seems unless there are some serious sticks and carrots to encourage people to find alternative forms of transportation. It just seems to me that building roads or facilities for cars to move on is not in our best interest in the long run. It seems to me it's throwing money after bad and that we really need to look at light rail transit, as the minister has said, and expand those kinds of opportunities for more communities up the valley that come into Langley.
We have the SkyTrain into Surrey, and I had the opportunity to ride that thing a couple of times in the winter. It was really effective; I think it's a good system. And it was busy, too, by the way. The only difficulty was that it is not monitored. I know we're losing thousands and thousands of dollars. I think I rode it ten times, and only once was there anyone there to check if you had a ticket. It just seems to me that that should be looked, because we are losing lots of money on that.
[L. Krog in the chair.]
There needs to be a way to get people out of cars. The ministry, I understand, has a ten-year transportation development plan. I wonder whether or not that includes some concrete initiative to somehow stop building roads and to expand the light transit or the bus lanes or whatever it takes to try to take some of this pressure of communities such as Langley, which are really growing quite quickly. Frankly, our vehicle transportation is getting very congested.
Hon. J. Pement: With regard to future planning, we have been looking, through our ministry and also through the TFA, at overall strategies to get people out of cars and onto transit systems. Certainly there are many different ways. HOV is one, in the sense that you do get people out of cars. There are also express buses, which in other jurisdictions work very well. They are also cheaper than light rail transit, but are scheduled in a timely manner. Light rail transit is, of course, another option. We have definitely been looking at those types of strategies, and certainly we'll be bringing them forward in the near future.
L. Stephens: I will leave that for the moment. The 216th Street interchange is one that has been suggested for quite some time. I wonder if the minister would comment on that.
Hon. J. Pement: For 216th Street, I can't say at this point that we are actively pursuing that particular access. We certainly can contact the region to see if there has been any past information, but at this point it isn't being pursued.
L. Stephens: The 216th Street interchange was proposed to provide access down to Zero Avenue and into Aldergrove, and to try to alleviate some of that congestion around 200th Street. I believe there was also a suggestion at that time that
[ Page 14884 ]
north of the freeway there would be the ability to connect to the other side of the river. There was a new highway proposed, known as the Cottonwood corridor, from Maple Ridge to Langley. I wonder if the minister could update us on that.
Hon. J. Pement: The Cottonwood corridor has been recognized as a very important transportation corridor. What we have been doing is acquiring some properties, as funding is available, to try to protect that corridor.
L. Stephens: Does the minister have an idea of the time line that may be set out to accomplish this particular corridor construction?
Hon. J. Pement: At this point I can't give you a time line on that particular corridor, only the fact that we have identified it as an important corridor for transportation.
L. Stephens: One other issue that is important to Langley city is the railroad that runs all the way through it. We have five rail crossings in Langley city, and they are causing quite a bit of difficulty. The railroad was kind enough to schedule their trains at times that were more convenient, but it's still a serious concern. A road-rail grade separation study was released in 1992. It identified the issue of public safety at the existing at-grade road-rail crossings as a major concern, as well as the long train delays through the city. Would the minister comment on what plans may be in place or on what you may be looking at to alleviate some of this? We were talking about overpasses or underpasses in the past. Is that something the ministry will be considering in the near future?
Hon. J. Pement: There certainly was, I gather, a fairly good study done with regard to looking at the different types of grade separation that are possible -- significant dollars, again. It also requires federal funding for the railroad portion, and again, that would require the federal government coming up with a significant amount of money for us to be able to cooperate and work towards getting those grade separations into place. So at this point, they are not in the plan, but they certainly have been identified.
L. Stephens: Perhaps I could ask the minister whether the Transportation ministry is following loosely or closely the rail-road-air initiative that the former Socred government initiated. I can't recall the name of it now, but it was a significant plan that the Socred administration brought forward to integrate road, rail and air transportation corridors. Is the ministry proceeding down those lines or has it completely changed? A lot of what I'm talking about was included in those plans. They were identified as a five-year time line, a ten-year time line, and so on and so forth. But the plan was there and recognized the growth in regions, the communities of interests, the transportation patterns and what needed to be done to integrate the transportation system to serve these regions. We have those plans there. I would like to know whether this is something we can look forward to or whether there's going to be some radical change. When the minister says that this has been identified as a concern, I ask the question: is what we had previously something that the ministry presently is taking into consideration?
[8:15]
Hon. J. Pement: Certainly those regional committees that met did identify a number of priorities within a given region. Also, since that time there has been the transportation plan, Transport 2021, that the GVRD and the ministry did. So those two, in concert, are basically what we are looking at. We have actually followed a number of those initiatives and projects. To be upfront, we also have to look at the funding concerns and the spreading of a dollar in a given region -- what we can do with that dollar, where best to put it -- and those priorities are made. Certainly, in many cases throughout the province, we have continued to use that information that was worked on by regional committees.
L. Stephens: I do want to ask a few questions around the Transport 2021 study or initiative that was a medium-range plan for greater Vancouver and talked about the interplay of growth management and transportation investment in the region. This was one of the three key areas that the group felt had to be addressed. The others were the introduction of transportation demand management and the supply of new and enhanced transportation facilities and services. So those were the three areas identified as needing key decisions made around them.
As the minister knows, local government and the province were the partners, if you like, in deciding these priorities. Are there ongoing joint discussions with the local municipalities around land management and transportation management, and does the ministry support the introduction of transportation demand management?
Hon. J. Pement: I was just discussing what kinds of consultations we've had since the study. To begin with, once the study was presented, we did do a round of work with the communities to get feedback and further information and such. In concert with the different communities, we have also looked at some of the main concerns that were pointed out to us from that study -- the Westview interchange, Johnson-Mariner and those types of projects -- and we are working through those.
In the area of demand management, we have to look at a system with the HOV lanes. We have to look at some of the alternative types of transportation for people to access -- transit being one, rail services being another, and HOV lane networks. Then your demand management can work in that type of system.
L. Stephens: I presume the ministry does consultation and planning with the municipalities that's always ongoing, as the minister has just said. Is there mutual agreement to...? Of course, there is some cost sharing, depending on what road it is. If it's a provincial road, there's a percentage of money due from the province and a percentage from the municipalities. Is the ministry working on a regional basis with municipalities and integrating the regions' needs with the provincial network?
Hon. J. Pement: In terms of transportation, we are always inclusive of regional needs, whether it's the lower mainland or other areas of the province. We certainly have our discussions on the community level as well, but we have a regional consideration, recognizing the impacts from one community to another.
[ Page 14885 ]
On provincial highways in the lower mainland, we fund those totally as a province. Certainly in the lower mainland, the GVRD always works with us with regard to what they see as collective group priorities, and we try as much as possible to harmonize with the issues that they bring forward.
L. Stephens: Just before I forget, I'd like to go back for a minute. We were talking about federal money, and the minister's answer reminded me of that. Could the minister tell me how that works and what projects federal money would be available for -- what kind of money and how much? Is there a percentage-sharing arrangement?
Hon. J. Pement: The member raises an issue that's a bit irksome to a Minister of Highways. With regard to funding from federal government, it is on a very ad hoc basis, not particularly focused on any overall strategy or plan. We have had $30 million over a five-year period for the province to work with. As you know, with regard to the projects we are looking at, particularly British Columbia and the terrain that we have, the costs of projects are pretty high. We really do not receive from the federal government any significant dollars with regard to national highway systems.
L. Stephens: The 401, I presume, is federal?
Hon. J. Pement: No, it's provincial.
L. Stephens: The minister says it's provincial. Does the minister have any amount in the budget this year that she anticipates receiving from the federal government? Is there any money coming into the ministry this year for joint projects? If so, how much is it?
Hon. J. Pement: There's a program called the SHIP program, the strategic highway improvement program. We're receiving $7 million this year from the federal government.
Where the problem lies is that the federal government takes over $500 million in gas taxes from this province, and we receive a $7 million allocation for the SHIP program. It's an issue of concern.
There are no federally owned highways. There are the national highways like Highway 1, the Trans-Canada, and that's where we look to get assistance, but $7 million.... Again, we match that, but it does not go very far in terms of projects.
L. Stephens: The infrastructure program didn't include the money that came from the federal government for the infrastructure program. That was primarily sewers and water and so on; it didn't include any kind of transportation at all. Was it up to the different municipalities to apply for transportation projects if they so chose?
Hon. J. Pement: There were transportation dollars in that infrastructure program money, but that was through municipalities and went on municipal facilities, not on provincial highways.
L. Stephens: Back to Transport 2021, will the ministry sustain the introduction of both incentives and disincentives to change travel behaviour? Are you looking at that combination of sticks and carrots that I talked about earlier -- tolls or whatever? Is the ministry looking at a plan to introduce some initiatives to encourage travel in a certain fashion, aside from the HOV lanes that we talked about earlier?
Hon. J. Pement: Tolls have certainly been discussed as a future option, but again, it's a future policy decision, and no decision has been made.
L. Stephens: One further question. Will the province provide a workable financial framework for major transportation investments?
Hon. J. Pement: Yes, member. The Transportation Financing Authority is the financial framework from which we work with regard to initiating projects and the finishing of projects as well.
L. Hanson: I heard when the minister was mentioning some of the capital programs that Highway 97 was on that list. Can the minister tell us what projects she anticipates might be part of the capital program on Highway 97?
[8:30]
Hon. J. Pement: We're continuing and completing projects such as the interchange at Osoyoos. However, the capital plan has not been completed for Treasury Board, and we will have that in the near future.
L. Hanson: Until Treasury Board approves it, I suppose it's difficult to get very specific. But are there major projects on Highway 97 that are being considered, or are we talking about finishing the intersection at Osoyoos only?
Hon. J. Pement: We recognize that there is some work that needs to be done on that particular system, and we certainly have been working with the region to prioritize some of those projects. The capital plan will be public in the near future.
L. Hanson: That's future policy, thank you.
Some time ago we started on a program looking at that section of Highway 97 between Oyama and Winfield, which is the last at the north end that hasn't been completed. There was some property acquisition negotiation that went on as well as some preliminary design work. Has anything gone past the status that it was at four or five years ago?
Hon. J. Pement: We have acquired some property and have moved it along as far as our funding has allowed us to date.
L. Hanson: I guess I can appreciate the minister's position, and I can appreciate what she isn't telling me. Acquiring some property could mean that there has been an awful lot acquired or that a two-foot-square section has been acquired. Really, I haven't learned an awful lot, and by the looks of the minister, I'm not going to.
Let me deal with another issue on Highway 97. There has been some study, and I think a fair amount of work, on the options as far as the Kelowna bridge is concerned: looking at twinning it, looking at extra lanes, looking at another structure and looking at rerouting the highway to handle that difficulty.
[ Page 14886 ]
It is a bottleneck, there is no question of that. Again, we're going into future policy, but what options have appeared to be worth considering?
Hon. J. Pement: Certainly there have been a number of studies. Some geotechnical studies have just been done to look at what we can do with the bridge, and there is the possibility of quite safely expanding that bridge further in terms of lanes. Again, we have to take that information into the communities and do the proper consultation with regard to types of impacts. Whatever option we choose, communities must be involved in recognizing how the traffic comes through and what types of impacts there are on the particular communities.
I was in Kelowna and met with some of the community associations as well as with the city council, and I certainly recognize the need to get on with the project. There is a problem there with regard to congestion. I also heard from community association members that they're concerned about how designs are made with regard to the impacts on their particular residential areas. Those are some of the concerns that came forward to me as minister.
L. Hanson: In those discussions with the communities and so on, did you offer them any options?
Hon. J. Pement: Certainly we talked about expansion of the bridge, and we talked about another possible crossing. Those are the types of scenarios we looked at. It a case of: what's the best we can do in terms of alleviating the traffic? Where are the dollars in terms of the best project to get on with it? Again, there is concern from the communities with regard to the impacts and where particular systems go.
Further to that, in terms of looking at another bridge, does that mean a different route? We looked at different routes. We went with community people to look at other routes in and around the Kelowna area as well, so there were a number of options. I think the member probably has that information as well.
L. Hanson: I can understand the difficulties. I understand the financial problems and so on, where commitments sometimes lead to expectations that you're not able to live up to. But I suspect that the Okanagan Valley, with the traffic increases that we're experiencing, would at some point in time appreciate learning something about how Okanagan Highway 97 fits into the priorities of the ministry's planning. It's nice to stand here and smile at each other, but I suspect that somewhere there has to be some pretty serious consideration of what the future of that is. I say that only as a passing comment.
I would like to know from the minister if there has been any further planning on Highway 6 as it goes out to Lumby. There's one particularly bad section that has been a problem for a long time. At one time it had progressed to a point of some planning, but really only to that point. Has there been anything done since, and where does it sit on the minister's priority list?
Hon. J. Pement: I would have to say to the member that at this point it is only at the planning stage.
L. Hanson: I guess I'm not getting very far, but I'll keep trying. It's at the planning stage. I guess there are all kinds of planning stages: thinking about planning about it, actually starting planning about it and actually doing some planning on it. Has it progressed any further than thinking about it?
Hon. J. Pement: It's at the preliminary design stage.
The Chair: Thank you, minister. An excellent answer.
L. Hanson: It depends on where you're listening from, hon. Chair.
I'm going to change the subject just a bit, and I'm sure the minister will be happy with that. The ministry still has responsibility for subdivision approval. Over the years situations have developed -- some in the Okanagan and some in other parts of British Columbia -- where subdivision developments that had the approval of the planning officer created drainage problems as a result.
It is very difficult to get a policy out of the ministry as to where responsibility may lie to rectify some of these things. I'm not being critical of how the ministry has dealt with it. I'm simply saying that it's such a nebulous and unknown sort of situation that you almost have to negotiate on each particular instance to see what you can get to happen. Has the minister given any consideration to two things: developing a policy that may give some direction to your field people, and giving some consideration to having a different process? The subdivision approval process may rest with one of the local governments, with the caveat that the ministry has to approve before it can....
I recognize the need to plan roads and highways and different things, and the need to plan for the rights-of-way for those roads and highways. This could be neglected or avoided under some circumstances. I'll listen for the minister's reply.
Hon. J. Pement: First of all, on the issue of subdivisions, we have a paper out that has gone through UBCM to the regional districts particularly to look at evolving that to the regional district stage. We'll be doing a follow-up at the next UBCM convention in October to look further at how we can manage that -- the best implementation process to do that kind of work. That is seriously under discussion with regard to local governments working on it.
In terms of subdivision applications, we do require studies on drainage to be done prior to that application being approved.
L. Hanson: I recognize that today that is recognized as a problem. Most of the things that I have been talking about are problems that have been created in the past before that understanding or recognition. I, quite frankly, have had some success in negotiating with the local Highways people to rectify the problem. It is a challenge every time it happens.
I suspect that your field people may have some limits to their budget capabilities to look after it. They're reluctant to come to the table, too. It really is doing a disservice to the people who are experiencing the problem. I really think it is government's responsibility to look at it seriously.
I see the minister smiling at me and nodding yes. Does the minister have any plans that she might consider to help with this situation?
[ Page 14887 ]
Hon. J. Pement: Certainly I recognize the concern for individuals when they are in those situations. The issue is that the responsibility, as seen by the ministry, does not rest with the ministry. However, as you say, in some cases there has been some work done to assist. Again, it's an issue that we have no policy on at this point.
[8:45]
L. Hanson: I won't press any further, but I would suggest that the minister look at that fairly seriously, because it is a problem. I think it wastes an awful lot of time, and not only for your staff in the field and the local government people. We run around questioning each other, and after some long discussions, we end up sitting at the table and resolving the issue. We probably could have done that in the first place if we'd been serious about it.
I have a couple of other questions. There was some talk earlier about maintenance contracts. I believe the minister issued a press release not too long ago on the changing of the contracts from three years to five years, I think. I have some questions surrounding that. I heard the minister mention earlier that the extensions were given for one year and two years, depending on the level of performance that they had been rated at. I'm asking this without any ulterior motivation: was the reason that some got one year and others got years discussed with the contractors so they knew where their shortcomings were when those decisions were made?
Hon. J. Pement: There's ongoing discussion between the district managers and the maintenance contractors, as they're doing the quality assurance with them. So because of that discussion into the contract extensions, certainly they were well aware of where some of the concerns lay. Part of the tripartite discussion was to look at that program so that there was a better understanding both on the contractor's side and on the ministry's side with regard to how that program was developed and maintained.
L. Hanson: In some of the original and secondary contracts, there were some conditions on day labour and the requirement for contracting out. Because the minister has made the announcement of the decision to go to the five years, I would imagine that within the ministry there has been discussion on whether those sorts of conditions would carry forward into these new contracts. Maybe the minister could....
Hon. J. Pement: Definitely, those types of conditions will still exist within the contracts.
L. Hanson: I suppose when I mention this, certainly the staff members will know what I'm talking about right away. In your press release, there was a suggestion that there was a holdback for wages that may not have been satisfied in difficult circumstances. Is it a condition of those contracts that there may be a holdback to look after some of the small contractors that may contract to the contractor?
Hon. J. Pement: What we tried to do in the tripartite talks was identify some of those concerns, and, particularly for the small contractors, we tried to incorporate into the contracts a process so that there is continuity and we can ensure that those outstanding debts are met.
L. Hanson: I won't pursue that any further, because I think the minister and certainly her staff know what I'm talking about. I don't know that you can build everything into any contract, and I recognize that difficulty.
Just one last point, I guess, and it isn't really even a point. It's a question or some advice. My understanding is that the motor vehicle issue involving ICBC and B.C Rail will be discussed on Tuesday. Is that correct?
Hon. J. Pement: Yes.
L. Hanson: Well, with that, hon. Chair, I really don't have any further questions as far as Highways is concerned. Maybe the official opposition...
Hon. J. Pement: For Tuesday, we have made arrangements for B.C. Rail in the morning and ICBC in the afternoon, but we haven't contacted those people yet. I'll get back to the members to verify. Motor vehicles will probably fall before that or just after. We might be able to arrange that. We'll let you know as quickly as possible.
K. Jones: Thank you very much, minister, for your kind cooperation when we had the opportunity to meet a while back and talk about some of the concerns we have in Surrey-Cloverdale and Surrey as a whole. We appreciate the opportunity we've had to work with your staff at various times. We have found them very cooperative and understanding, and we are looking forward to getting down to the real resolution of some of our problems. I know that they are faced with a limit to their financial capability, and that's one of the biggest frustrations for all of us in this whole area.
I would like to start with one question, hon. minister, and that's in regard to the policy of removing the grass at the edge of the roads. In particular, the one that I've had experience with is Highway 99, in the centre lane. When I travel down it on a rainy day, I sometimes hit a puddle of water that has been banked up against the sod at the edge of the pavement next to the median. The next thing I find is that I'm out of control. Is there some policy established to have that bladed out or anything?
Hon. J. Pement: There is certainly the ability to do that, through the maintenance contract.
K. Jones: But is there something in the contract that specifically identifies that type of work? If that is the case, then what monitoring process is there to see that it's done? I remember that it used to be done when Highways crews were doing it, but I haven't seen it done lately.
Hon. J. Pement: It's certainly within the contract to have it done. It is monitored by the area manager to ensure that it is happening. If there is a particular area, I would suggest that you inform your district manager, who will assist....
K. Jones: I'll inform them right now through the method of Hansard. It's Highway 99 from the Oak Street Bridge to the U.S. border. I think that's a fairly easily identifiable area.
Hon. J. Pement: I will certainly check into it, member.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what the billboard signage policy and regulations are on the highways?
[ Page 14888 ]
Hon. J. Pement: We have a signage policy -- a book of the different types of signs that we use on the highway system. We look for the uniformity of signs. Definitely, billboards are not allowed on the highway right-of-way.
K. Jones: I wasn't too clear on what the last few words were. Did I hear that they are not allowed on highways?
Hon. J. Pement: Highway rights-of-way.
K. Jones: On highway rights-of-way, okay. What is the situation with regard to these billboard signs that have various features off the highway? How are they determined, and what are the regulations governing those? I think some of them have gas stations and indications of some activity, event or something that says where people can turn off.
Hon. J. Pement: I believe the member is referring to tourist attraction signs, and we do have a complete policy on that. We'd be happy to give you our booklet on that particular issue.
K. Jones: How are the determinations of what goes on those signs made? Is there some process that decides what is allowed and who is allowed?
Hon. J. Pement: Again, there's a full signage policy with regard to the different symbols on the signs for tourism. Just for the member's information, this policy was developed by a committee with tourism industry members on it. A number of symbols were discussed; examples are gas stations, particular restaurants and particular accommodations. I believe those accommodations are registered with the tourism associations. It's limited in the sense of how much is on that sign.
K. Jones: Is there any fee for a commercial operation to have their symbol put on that sign?
[9:00]
Hon. J. Pement: There is no fee to the particular businesses, but in some cases they will supply the symbol to put on that particular sign -- as an example, McDonald's.
K. Jones: Say it's a sign where we're coming up to an interchange that has six gas stations on it, and you've only got room for four logos for those gas stations. Who decides which four get on?
Hon. J. Pement: Again, if it's a case where there are a number of gas stations at a particular intersection, we will go to the one symbol. If it's a case of too much information on the sign, we have the uniform signs that we work with. Therefore we've put on one symbol, the gasoline symbol, and it becomes fairly obvious to the traveller at an intersection that there are a number of gas stations in that sort of situation.
K. Jones: I noticed that some of them have "Sleepy Hollow Hotel" on them, and then there will be "Hummingbird Sleeping Accommodations." How do you determine that those people get it? Is it first come, first served? Do they pay some fee for getting their names on there?
Hon. J. Pement: There's no fee to have the signs there. First of all, the businesses will apply. They are registered.... I have to correct myself. I said they were registered with tourism associations. That's not right; they're registered with the Ministry of Tourism. There's a particular criterion for certain types of accommodation through that registration, and I think they have qualifications to get their name on the sign.
K. Jones: I have an area in my riding, or the adjoining part of my riding, that has a whole series of hotels on it. They'd all like to have their sign up on that billboard. How is it that some get it and some don't? They would all like to be registered. Is it first come, first served in terms of who registers? How is that dealt with?
Hon. J. Pement: The accommodation business is registered on the basis of criteria. I don't have that information at this point. It's difficult in terms of knowing what type of signage we're talking about. If you have a specific one that you're concerned about....
K. Jones: Hotel-motel.
Hon. J. Pement: On a given highway system?
K. Jones: It happens on many of our different roads. We have Highway 99 coming in from the U.S. border, and we need to service all of the businesses in White Rock, basically, from that point, plus the south Surrey businesses. But there are only about two signs that are available to people for that purpose.
Are they able to...? Perhaps you'd like to address that.
Hon. J. Pement: Again, it depends on a number of given issues -- first of all, the type of highway. If it's a freeway system, there is a limited amount of signs put on a freeway system. It depends on the distance from the access roads, etc. There are a number of conditions when we look at where we're going to put the sign. That's why I think it would be better if we were able to give you an overview of the whole policy rather than trying to find sort of a generic situation.
K. Jones: I want to go away from the hotel, motel and gas station area to the areas of major-attraction signage and identification, such as a large internationally known softball centre called Softball City in South Surrey. It's in my colleague from Surrey-White Rock's riding, but it requires access off the Highway 99 freeway in my riding. This facility is open year-round and has multipurpose usage. It has batting cages, a number of softball facilities and volleyball. It has a restaurant and space to hold concerts and related activities. It also adjoins other municipal sports complexes that are available.
People come from all over the United States up that highway, and people from other parts of British Columbia come down the highway. They want to find this facility, and we'd like to be able to advertise it. We'd like to be able to have one of those generic signs on the highway that tell people where to turn off so that they can get to the right place. Otherwise they'll end up in Richmond before they find out that they've gone an hour's drive there and back past the site. Is there some way we could get this resolved?
Hon. J. Pement: Again, it would be a case of that particular business registering with the Ministry of Tourism and meeting the criteria that they have set up.
[ Page 14889 ]
K. Jones: We've tried to get that worked out. I've talked with one of the staff, who said that there was some question of classifications of activities or something like that. It seems to be kind of hard to understand. Something like this, being a sports activity, they consider to be municipal or local interest.
This isn't a local interest situation. This whole facility is sponsored by Softball B.C. It is the provincial centre for their operations, and they bring in tournament teams. We're going to have the Canada Cup in the next couple of weeks with teams from Japan, China, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, the eastern United States, California and many other places. Of course, this will also include the Canadian women's national softball team. This is all women's fastball, by the way. It's the best championship fastball tournament that you can find anywhere in the world. In fact, the U.S. intercollegiate women's fastpitch all-star team plays only at this one place. Once the team is selected, they have no competition tournament to play in the United States, so they come up here to South Surrey and play at the Softball B.C.'s Softball City facility.
It's really important that we get some signage on the highway for that facility. I hope we could have some consideration and changes in some of the regulations that are presently preventing this from occurring.
Hon. J. Pement: I guess, again, it's a case of meeting the criteria of the Ministry of Tourism with regard to being a tourist attraction. I guess that's what the member was talking about with regard to types of classifications.
On special events, there are areas that we can take a look at. Let me take a look at it in terms of the overall issue. We try to keep to our policy, the concept being that a number of signs on any given system distract people from the job of driving, and we don't want to see that happen. We try to give out information on gas, tourist attractions and groceries -- that type of facility -- or on accommodation, but it's a case of trying to be as uniform as possible. Again, on this particular facility, it just may not meet that classification on the tourist side of it.
K. Jones: I think that's really what the problem is: the criteria. I fully concur with the minister and the ministry's concept that there needs to be a limitation on the type of signage that we have along our highways. I think the least the better for most cases. In some case like this, where it is a major facility and people need some guidance to get to it, perhaps we need to modify the regulation to accommodate something like that. If we possibly could, I'd certainly like to talk to the minister and see if there's some way that we can accommodate it. It's more than just a tourist attraction; it's a major sports facility as well.
I'd also like to put in a pitch for the situation on Highway 15, where we don't have much in the way of large-sized signage to identify two major tourist attractions in Cloverdale: the Cloverdale Raceway and the Cloverdale Rodeo and Exhibition grounds, which are right on Highway 15, the Pacific Highway, with a lot of traffic being generated from the U.S. We want to attract and generate a lot of traffic from the United States, because that's a good tourist dollar for us.
[9:15]
We also want to identify other facilities such as the Northview golf course, where next year we'll have the only PGA tournament in British Columbia, and I think one of only two in Canada. There's a real need to identify that for our visitors from the United States as they come up Highway 15, which would be the most likely route they would come on because that's the closest location to the golf course. I wonder if we could get some special consideration for putting some proper-sized signage. I don't mean just the wee signs that currently identify some of the local tourist attractions, but some full-sized signs maybe at the appropriate places along the highway where the turnoffs for them would be.
Hon. J. Pement: Again, the signage depends on the type of facility that we're trying to advertise on the highway, and a golf course is just not a facility that we do signage on. There's a possibility that we could take a look at some of the other facilities you were talking about. I will take it under advisement and will have the ministry look at it in regard to the public facilities.
K. Jones: I might point out that Northview is a public golf course and is going to be handling possibly up to 100,000 people for the PGA event. It's a big-time event. So would that possibly be given some special consideration, even for temporary signage just leading up to the time the event was coming up? Is that possible?
Hon. J. Pement: We usually work with communities on special-events signs, and we really appreciate working with the community with regard to the type of signage that is put up.
K. Jones: I'm sure that the city of Surrey would be very cooperative in working with the ministry in getting such a facility, and I would certainly give my full support to any activity in doing that.
I'd like to thank the minister for giving us the advisement of some of the projects that are going on in our riding, and I'd like to note that the major one that is going in is the expansion of Highway 15 -- the Pacific Highway -- from 59th to 64th Avenue up to four lanes. Could the minister give us an indication of when the start of construction is expected on that and which side of the highway the road widening would be occurring on? There's some concern that there was some brand-new housing built just on the south side of 60th Avenue on the west side of the right-of-way there.
Hon. J. Pement: We don't have the full details here, but I'll get staff to get you that information with regard to the schedule and the location of the lane.
K. Jones: But do we have assurances that construction is expected to be finished within this fiscal year?
Hon. J. Pement: I believe we'll finish it within the year. This is a rehabilitation project.
K. Jones: The real reason to meet that scheduling is that, as you're probably well aware, the fiftieth anniversary of the Cloverdale Rodeo was cancelled this year. They will be wanting to go ahead with a major event next year, and that section
[ Page 14890 ]
interfaces directly with the Cloverdale Rodeo and the raceway. There's a real need for not having that under construction at a time when they're having the event, which will probably be next May. So having it finished before the end of the fiscal year would be a great advantage to the community, and certainly it would be a great disadvantage if it was under construction in the midst of the next big event.
Could I also ask if, in the design, an advanced left-turn lane southbound would be included at 60th Avenue so that traffic moving onto 60th Avenue, which is the feed for the parking at the Cloverdale Raceway, could be properly facilitated? We have a serious problem there with traffic backing up all the way up past 64th Avenue as people come to the Cloverdale Raceway. That's primarily a result of not being able to break traffic northbound, as people are trying to do left-hand turns southbound at that intersection.
Hon. J. Pement: In terms of the detail that you're asking for, I would really like to have our staff meet with you with regard to the scope of this particular rehab project and also on some of the signage issues that you've expressed.
K. Jones: I'd be only too happy to meet with your staff -- and yourself, if you feel you'd like to be involved with it. To get some of these problem areas resolved would certainly be to the advantage of everyone.
Could the minister tell us, with regard to planning, what plans have been done in the north-south transportation area in the lower mainland?
Hon. J. Pement: Again, a Transport 2021 plan was developed between the GVRD and the ministry in consultation with the communities. In that plan, there was certainly a concern about particular corridor areas that were identified but which did not have a high priority in the overall expansion of the system, other than through HOV lanes. It also looked at river crossings and those types of issues.
We are looking at a full strategy with regard to transportation. We are looking at the regional aspects of the system, identifying corridors that are major corridors and identifying corridors for future transportation needs, whether they are highways or transit types of corridors. It's an overarching plan and view with regard to transportation into the next century.
K. Jones: At this time, we would all be very happy to hear that result.
Hon. minister, with regard to north-south transportation needs, one of the major transportation needs is the fact that we have a very large amount of traffic coming from the U.S. on a daily basis. Certainly when you look at it on a yearly basis, it constitutes humongous numbers -- over 300,000 trucks coming north and 300,000 trucks going south through the Pacific crossing, plus 400,000 cars going both ways at the Pacific crossing, and another 800,000 going north and south at the Douglas crossing, plus buses. But there seems to be no work being done on Highway 99 and, even more importantly, on the Pacific Highway or Highway 15, which is where the major trucks are coming through. The road is showing depressions from the loads that are coming up and just the general wear and tear. In fact, the intersection at Highway 10, with all the trucks going east, west, south and north, looks like a railway crossing because of the ruts that are channelled into the road there.
There seems to be something very drastically needed, and it's going to be needed very, very soon. We're getting to the point where maintenance won't be able to even maintain that road because of the roadbed breakdown from all this loading. There's going to be a need for a plan. I would think -- and I only have a limited engineering background -- that a plan is going to be needed almost immediately. The construction is probably going to need to be completed within the next five years. What is being done to address that?
Hon. J. Pement: The issue that you raise in terms of the pavement-rutting is a problem throughout the province. We're firstly looking at better paving methods in terms of dealing with that issue as we upgrade our systems. Certainly for the areas that you have mentioned, we do have overall five-year plans that we're looking at to try and address some of those concerns, but I always have to caution members that it is subject to funding, to the dollars we have to work with. Some of those areas are certainly priority areas in the region.
With that, I'd like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 9:28 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]