1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 1995

Afternoon Sitting (Part 2)

Volume 21, Number 10

[ Page 15923 ]

The House resumed at 6:34 p.m.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 49, Royal Roads University Act. I also call Committee of Supply in Section A for the purpose of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Investment -- which could present a challenge, at the moment.

ROYAL ROADS UNIVERSITY ACT
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 49; M. Farnworth in the chair.

On section 3 (continued).

G. Wilson: When I was on my feet just before the break, I was talking to the minister regarding the designation of Royal Roads University as a corporation and what that meant with respect to the university as an agent of the Crown. There was an explanation at that point that because it's federal land, the university effectively would have the right with respect to its proposed leasing of the land to act on behalf of the Crown.

I notice that if it is a corporation, it says under section 3(5): "The Company Act and the Society Act do not apply to the university, but the Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by rder, direct that the Company Act or the Society Act, or any provision of either" -- and this is the point that I have some concern about -- "applies to the university." My question to the minister is: what is meant by "any provision of either," and how does that tie in with the fact that it's a corporation? I'd be happy to go through that whole scenario again, if the minister needs me to do that.

Hon. D. Miller: I don't want to stand here and ask people to repeat the question -- and I apologize for being just a few minutes late -- but perhaps the member might put the question to me again.

G. Wilson: It's kind of too bad, because the Minister of Employment and Investment might have given me a much different answer, and it would have been nice to sort of compare the two answers. But there we are.

My question is fairly simple. Section 3(1) establishes it as a corporation. I now understand the relationship with respect to the lease and the fact that you've got federal land; that makes some sense. But under section 3(5) it talks about the Company Act and the Society Act not applying, even though the employees of the Royal Roads University Society, under section 3(6), continue on as employees of the university -- I have a question regarding that -- unless the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council orders or directs that the Company Act or the Society Act or any provision of either, applies to the university. My question is: if Royal Roads University is established as a corporation, what is the purpose of section 3(5)? I would have thought that it would have acted as any agency of the Crown, much in the same way that the University Act would apply to the four universities that already exist.

Hon. D. Miller: The section really just gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the right to direct that the Company Act and the Society Act, or the provisions of those acts, can apply to the university if required. Neither of these acts applies to the university, but if necessary, certain provisions may be required in the future. It simply gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the opportunity to do that.

G. Wilson: I don't want to belabour the point, but because it acts as a corporation, if the Company Act would be made to apply by order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.... Is it anticipated that, in fact, Royal Roads, through its research activities, may directly engage in research for the purposes of marketing, for the purposes of acting in the capacity of a company or for working with other established operations as a joint venture or whatever? Is that what's seen with this?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, that could indeed be the case. There could, for example, be companies spun off. That's not untypical. The University of British Columbia, for example, does the same thing. It simply gives us the opportunity to use those acts if required by the institution.

G. Wilson: My last question on this section. Given the minister's earlier comments with respect to no tenure -- that the faculty will not be tenured -- I note with interest that it says that the employees of the Royal Roads University Society, coming into force with this act, continue as employees of the university. Does "employees" exclude faculty, or does that include those that are already faculty?

Hon. D. Miller: No, the society is the vehicle that we're currently using now to carry on the work. For example, we have people in place, and we are organizing activities to present classes in the fall. There needs to be an authority to do that, and currently we have a registered society. This will simply allow the work of that society and the employees of that society to be transferred to the university.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

On section 5.

Hon. D. Miller: I move the amendment to section 5 as follows. I gather the amendment is in the possession of the Clerk. I'll just read it out:

[SECTION 5, in the proposed paragraph (e) by deleting "a person" and substituting "an employee who is not a professor".] The explanation is that the amendment clarifies that the person elected to the board by employees who are not professors is an employee who is not a professor. This is the intent. Without the amendment, the section could be interpreted to mean that the employees who are not professors could elect anyone to the board.

On the amendment.

A. Warnke: Actually, it was that section that I was just including in my remarks, as well. I would like to support the amendment.

Amendment approved.

On section 5 as amended.

[ Page 15924 ]

L. Fox: Just very briefly, I make reference to section 5(c). I would have hoped that we could have found a different process for putting lay people onto this board. It seems to me -- and I've argued this before in the Legislature -- that what we have happening on all of these boards is that the government in power nominates or puts forth individuals and appoints them to these boards, and when we have a new regime come in, those ones are all let go, and we have another group appointed to the board. We saw it in 1992, and I'm sure we'll see it again whenever the next election comes forward.

I think lay individuals are of real value on these boards, but I'd like to see us consider a process -- and it may not be as indicative in this case -- where perhaps respective municipal leaders could suggest names for appointees, rather than.... I know the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council would still have to appoint them, but I would like to see us get away from that particular scenario and into something that has more longevity and more consistency, so we don't see those situations where individuals are released from duty, so to speak, by a successive government.

Hon. D. Miller: I guess I beg to differ in some respects. I think that if you look at the composition of boards appointed by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, across the spectrum of appointments that I'm responsible for, at the colleges and universities, you'll find that in fact there has not been that wholesale throwing-out, if you like, of that previous....

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: 1982?

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I'll venture to say that if you do a cross-reference -- I've never taken the time to do this -- and see what the politics are of people who are appointed to those boards, and the makeup of the boards, you'll find, first of all, many people who were on those boards prior to our party becoming government. Secondly, you'll find many people who have been appointed to the boards -- and I know, I've made those appointments; or I have recommended them to cabinet, at least -- who don't have as their first qualification that they're a member of my party.

In fact, it's important to understand that when you're looking at the composition, particularly in colleges or universities, the board should be representative. In a college, you obviously want the geographic representation and a diversity of skills, and that has been the way that we have handled those appointments. I would recommend that that continue.

[6:45]

In the political realm, people are free to make political allegations, as they do, and I know that there have been allegations about the appointments of friends and insiders, for example, but when you look at the number of appointments and the process that we have, you'll see that the reverse is true. It's representative of the community as a whole, and there is a variety of skills, for example. Clearly, in all of the cases we want to have someone with financial expertise, and we try to do that on college and university boards. On this one particularly, there will be a real need to ensure that the people who are appointed by government reflect the need of this institution to be based on that partnership I talked about. By necessity, there will have to be people from the business community, the labour community and other communities who can contribute to the operation of this institution. I think even our initial appointments.... For example, the chair of the board, Mr. Gordon, is someone with a very outstanding reputation in private business. Those are the kinds of people we're looking for.

L. Fox: I recognize in the minister's words that I'm going to lose the debate; however, I just want to put on record that indeed it did happen. I saw evidence of it in the CNC board, and I called a previous minister to task around the firing -- for the lack of a better word -- of an individual who had been recommended by the council of Vanderhoof to sit on the CNC board. The previous minister fired him, along with a number of others, upon taking over the ministry. So, in fact, what I'm presenting happens in reality, and it's unfortunate.

I'm not suggesting by any means that any of these board members are not valuable assistance for the respective university or college. All I'm stating is that it would be nice to see a process whereby municipal leaders or school boards were involved in selecting a community person to serve who respects and understands the needs of that community and that institution, so it's not such a political process. Perhaps we wouldn't see those kinds of things done that happened in 1992.

A. Warnke: Just a bit of a follow-up on this, as well. Up to six persons may be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and then in subsection (f), it's "up to 2 persons, who are not employees of the university, appointed by the board." I guess there is a suggestion that...here we're pretty top-heavy anyway. Up to six members out of a potential board of ten are appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and they, in turn, are in a position to have the balance of power and to appoint two more. I'm just wondering if the minister could give a brief rationale as to whether the relationship of the persons associated with subparagraphs (c) and (f) has been discussed, to anticipate the criticism that the board might be top-heavy with people outside the university.

Hon. D. Miller: I don't think it would be top-heavy. Going back to the makeup of the board, the whole rationale for the institution is to have that partnership that I talked about. I think it's important for the board to have the ability to appoint up to two persons with particular expertise that they might require or think would round out their board.

Section 5 as amended approved.

Sections 6 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

A. Warnke: Again, this may be fairly straightforward, but subsection (2) says that five members of the board constitutes a quorum. That's easy enough to understand, but I guess "...for the transaction of business" is the cute one here. This may be very normal, but I suppose it has raised a possible speculation that you may have five members of a possible 12 

[ Page 15925 ]

conducting the transaction of business on behalf of the university. I'm just wondering if the minister would comment on how the percentage or the figure was arrived at, and whether there was another option considered, such as seven, which would constitute the majority.

Hon. D. Miller: Section 9 is identical to section 26 of the University Act, the difference being that under the University Act the size of the board is larger. The quorum is larger in the University Act. So there's a real consistency, with the understanding that the sizes of the boards are different in terms of the quorum.

A. Warnke: Also, I'm just wondering, in terms of the five members of the board constituting a quorum, whether it was contemplated to include either the president or a key member of the board such as the treasurer, or anything like that.

Hon. D. Miller: It's not required. Again, the consistency is there with the University Act.

Sections 9 to 11 inclusive approved.

On section 12.

G. Wilson: There are several questions around the president, because section 12(2)(a) through (h) and section 12(3)(a) through (c) provide enormous power to the president. I understand that there's a consistency here with respect to the chief executive officer and what the chief executive officer has, and that it's recognized that.... Just to give you an example, in section 12(2)(c) it says: "...within priorities established by the board, to set curriculum content for courses of study, instruction and educational programs...." It is assumed that there is a broader curriculum process, and that the president effectively is only acting in a capacity as a CEO and isn't actually empowered to do all the things they're there to do.

I find it interesting that it talks about all of the powers that the president has. I notice that in the first subsection there is no general parameter within which the act would specify who this successful individual should be, in terms of the kind of person who would be empowered to do that. I wonder if there was any consideration given to that. Mostly, in the universities, for example, the presidents are people who have some expertise at least in education. But more importantly, given that there is nothing that spells it out and given the kind of detail described in section 12(2) and 12(3), I wonder if the minister might tell us what kind of provisions there are going to be to provide direction, guidance and some assistance to this president in making these rather sweeping decisions.

Hon. D. Miller: The current University Act provides the board with the ability to hire the president. In fact, the member may have noted that the University of Northern B.C. has recently announced the hiring of a new president to replace Geoff Weller. It is a power of the board, and a duty, to engage an individual. Throughout the section, you'll note not only that there is the ability but that the president has power of consultation with the academic council, and throughout that section there are references to consultation. In fact, under 12(3) and (4), the president may delegate a power under subsection (2) to the academic council, so I'm not necessarily concerned.

We obviously had to bring forth legislation that was different than the University Act, to try to parallel in some way the functions that take place under that act, and I think there is consistency. For example, section 12(1) is identical to section 56(1) of the University Act, so there is that consistency. But there has to be the ability to recognize that it is somewhat different, and that the bicameral governing structure, the board and senate and the senate's influence on the academic side in this institution is not in the same form, but rather is within the.... It is different, but we think the relationship between the president and the academic council mirrors some of those provisions in the University Act.

G. Wilson: I guess we'll talk a bit about that when we get to section 15, which describes what this academic council is going to be. There is always some concern, however, when looking at.... I speak as somebody who comes from a perhaps biased point of view. I have been a faculty member at an institution for a long time, and I've been somebody who has been actively involved in faculty associations. Those associations seek to have as much input as possible.

Now, I recognize that there isn't the same kind of tenured faculty envisaged here, and I think that's an important distinction to make. This is unlike the universities or some colleges, where there are people who have long years of service, and therefore established procedures, particularly with respect to curriculum development. But we might also talk about things in terms of academic qualifications, admission to students, conditions for examinations -- all of those kinds of things on which the academic council is presumably going to be providing advice to the president. It's always a concern if there isn't something that stipulates that the president must consult. If the minister is essentially saying that he's comfortable that it's only discretionary in consultation with the academic council, I'd be prepared to pick up that section for debate under section 15, the academic council. But I would like to hear from the minister that he is not going to have serious top-down administration of what could be an exciting new facility, only to be frustrated by a chief executive officer who simply doesn't see it that way.

Hon. D. Miller: Of course, the member should bear in mind that the board obviously has a strong influence over who they hire as president. Presumably, if they're not satisfied with how that president is functioning, they have the ability to deal with that.

But again, just for the member's ease in going through the section, I'll cite the references in my notes that are parallel to the University Act to hopefully give him some comfort. I've already indicated section 12(1) is identical to 56(1) of the University Act. Section 12(2) provides a list of the academic matters on which the president must consult with the academic council. It is the president who makes the decisions, and as I indicated, generally these matters are within the powers of the senate under the University Act.

Moving on, section 12(3) is similar to sections 56(2)(a) and 56(2)(d) of the University Act. Again, section 12(5) is identical to section 60(c) of the University Act. Section 12(6) references sections 57 to 59 of the University Act. So all the way through, there really was an attempt to, if you like, mirror provisions contained in the University Act -- which has been in place for some time -- but tailor them to the specific needs of this institution. I think we've done that under this section.

[7:00]

A. Warnke: Under subsection (3)(a), I just wanted to explore one thing with the minister. It says that "the president 

[ Page 15926 ]

has the power (a) to recommend appointments, promotions and removal of professors." What this invites is, in such an attempt to remove a professor.... I would like to know just exactly what the appeal process that follows from there might be, and in that context, what might be the president's role in that kind of an appeal.

Hon. D. Miller: The president recommends.... If you look at (3)(a), for example -- "to recommend appointments" and so on -- the recommendation is to the board. The board has final responsibility for actions in that regard. I don't know the answer. If there is a complaint, presumably people have redress through the courts or whatever.

A. Warnke: The various universities have different appeal processes, but it may well be that under the board, the board, in turn, might formally -- pro forma -- instruct the dean or whoever, and then the dean goes ahead and sets up the panel that hears the appeal or whatever.

The Chair: Shall...? The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: Thank you, hon. Chair. You'd best not ask that question; I might not like the answer.

I want to clarify something I thought I heard the minister read out with respect to the.... I'm not sure if it was subsection 12(4) that he was reading from, but I thought I heard him say that the president "must" delegate a power under subsection (2). But it says "may." So if there was a "must" delegation there for the power.... I don't see anywhere in this section that there is a provision that the president "must" do anything. Am I wrong?

Hon. D. Miller: I think I indicated... If you read the wording in 12(3), "the president has the power" to make recommendations. In other words, not the power to appoint but to make recommendations to the board.

G. Wilson: Well, thank you. I really don't want to belabour this point, because it might be just a moot point. But as we review Hansard, I think that when reading out the parallel commentary in the University Act, there was a reference to the "president must consult." I don't think that exists in this act.

Hon. D. Miller: Again, the wording isn't "must consult," but if you read section 12(2), it says: "Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the president has power, in consultation with the academic council...." That is, he must consult.

Sections 12 to 14 inclusive approved.

On section 15.

G. Wilson: I didn't want to belabour the debate on section 12, because it was a moot point, but I don't necessarily agree with the minister's interpretation of "must consult" by a long stretch, certainly. However, since he said so in Hansard, we'll take that as gospel and send it out to all prospective candidates for president.

Having said that, the academic council, I think, is going to be a very important body in the university. I just want to talk about section 15(2): "Subject to subsection (4)" -- which we've already canvassed and know about -- "the academic council consists of persons elected in a manner specified by the registrar to represent professors, students and other employees of the university." We go back to look at that and we see that there is a composition of the convocation with respect to how that would be. But it doesn't really stipulate how that procedure is going to take place.

I wonder if the minister might enlighten us as to how this academic council is going to provide that kind of broad base of representation. This is going to be a critically important council, in order to have this university do what it's intended to do.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm not quite sure of the question. In terms of how it would take place, the manner or process is specified by the registrar, really, after consultation. Was that the question?

G. Wilson: Well, that is the.... Yes, that's exactly the question. The question is under 15(1). They talk all about this in terms of subsection (4), composition of convocation, which is fairly straightforward; I don't think there's an issue there. But then it goes on to say that subject to that, "...the registrar, after consulting representative groups of professors, students" and so on, "must establish the size and composition of the academic council and the length of term" of the members. Then it goes on to say: "Subject to subsection (4)" -- which is the convocation -- "the academic council consists of persons elected in a manner specified by the registrar to represent professors..." and so on.

My question is: does the minister have some idea of how this consultation and elective process is likely to take place? This council is going to be critically important. For example, prospective professors are obviously going to have some concern with respect to how this institution is going to function, given that there are no tenured positions. Having a long labour history, the minister knows that people who enter into academic work are not immune from wanting some kind of security of employment, especially if they're going to enter into research projects or into instructional programs at an institution such as this.

Hon. D. Miller: That may be. The section is pretty straightforward. The registrar will develop processes in consultation, as it is under the College and Institute Act. In legislation like this, I don't think that we need to.... Maybe I'm not getting the member's question straight. We've conferred upon the registrar certain obligations, if you like, one of which is to develop processes to ensure that persons are elected in a manner specified by the registrar to represent professors, students and other employees of the university. It's a matter of setting up a process. Typically, we wouldn't lay out in absolute detail every single process in the legislation; not that we are lax, but there's simply not a requirement for it. We simply have to accept that in certain situations -- for example, in an institution like this or under the College and Institute Act -- when people are appointed to positions of responsibility, it is laid out in the legislation that they will carry out those duties in a responsible way. I think that's generally how things move along.

G. Wilson: I do want things to move along, but I take exception when the minister says that this is consistent with 

[ Page 15927 ]

the College and Institute Act. It clearly isn't. We're talking about unionized faculty and staff in those areas, and there are very clear procedures with respect to legislation that this very minister brought into this House, establishing what I called, I think, an unfavourably received, middle-management level of authority. And it was clearly spelled out how those academic councils were going to work.

Obviously this is a new institution; we're trying to get it up and running. I can see that you want to convey powers to the registrar. I don't have a particular problem with that, but is it envisaged that these councils are going to be at the discretion and whim of the registrar? Or is there anticipation that these councils are going to take on a much broader and more representative nature? If it was something that was going to happen in the first year, that might be something we could accept. But if the size, composition and so on is going to be largely at the discretion of the registrar through this act, I think people might take some exception. That's all I'm saying.

Hon. D. Miller: I think I have responded to the question. We're also mixing up two issues. One is a process whereby people are elected from various constituent groups as laid out in the act, and that's simply a process issue. The other is: what's the function of the council? I think that's spelled out fairly clearly.

Sections 15 to 19 inclusive approved.

Hon. D. Miller: I would move the following amendment, and I think the Clerks have a copy:

[SECTION 19.1, by adding the following section:

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act

19.1 Schedule 1 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.B.C. 1992, c. 61, is amended in the definition of "educational body" by adding the following paragraph:

(b.1) Royal Roads University.]

It's pretty self-evident. It's simply adding the institution under the act.

Section 19.1 approved.

On section 20.

G. Wilson: I wonder if the minister could just explain what the consequence may be of that. This is clearly not going to implicate those who may be carrying forward degrees, because I understand that there are a number of students that will not actually complete by the termination date, and therefore will be carrying forward degrees. Will they be able to have provision for completion? We're not going to be cutting people off who are carrying forward degree programs. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Miller: Those leaving or those who have left are presumably going on. They have either completed or are going on to other institutions. If they're going on to another institution and completing a degree, then the degree will be granted in the name of the institution they go to. This section really repeals the Royal Roads Military College Degrees Act, which provides that the Royal Roads Military College, which was established pursuant to the National Defence Act, could grant degrees in its own right. Again, it's pretty self-evident that that institution ceases to exist. The new institution that we're talking about here takes over.

Sections 20 to 23 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Miller: I thank the members for the debate. I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 49, Royal Roads University Act, reported complete with amendments.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. D. Miller: With leave of the House now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 49, Royal Roads University Act, read a third time and passed.

Interjection.

The Speaker: A point of order on the procedure?

L. Fox: Hon. Speaker, with all due respect, we didn't have the vote on the third reading.

The Speaker: Hon. members, there was an understanding that we would proceed as reported, but the question needs to be put now.

Shall the bill be read a third time now? All those in favour, please say aye.

[7:15]

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

The Speaker: Those opposed say nay. Carried.

Just for the record, we did it over again.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I call committee on Bill 40.

HEALTH AUTHORITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

The House in committee on Bill 40; M. Farnworth in the chair.

On section 1.

L. Reid: I welcome the minister's colleagues to the chamber this evening. I would simply ask for clarification in terms of section 1 on the definition of a public body to include a 

[ Page 15928 ]

government corporation or a designated corporation. It refers to section 17, which we will come to, but I do think it's important to seek clarification at the first opportunity, which is under section 1. Could the minister kindly comment?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm just making doubly sure that my understanding is accurate. The list of public bodies in section 1 of the Health Authorities Act captures all organizations that deliver health services that might fall under the auspices of a regional health board or community health council. By adding "government corporation," we capture some bodies that were inadvertently left out of prior legislation. An example that staff have provided me is Riverview. Clearly the functions of Riverview are something that we might wish to place under the control of a regional health board.

L. Reid: I would simply ask the minister to hark back to the debate during the estimates process, where I was seeking clarification regarding health corporations. It was the minister's sentiment at the time that we were not looking to see a vast new array of health care corporations being created. I posed the question a number of times to the minister, because I had serious concerns about a proliferation of new entities that would have the ability to do things well beyond the original mandate that was explained to the public regarding the creation of health councils and regional health boards.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me try again. The definition of a public body in section 1 of the Health Authorities Act of 1993 refers to a variety of institutions and bodies that govern health facilities currently, such as health districts, regional hospital boards, regional hospital districts, a hospital, mental health facilities and others. By adding a government corporation or a corporation designated under section 17, it captures other existing organizations within this definition of a public body. Public bodies are those whose functions may be transferred to community health councils or regional health boards.

This does not contemplate adding any new corporations. What it does is make sure that all existing health care providers and organizations are captured under the definition of "public body."

L. Reid: Perhaps this is just one of the many areas where this minister and I will disagree this evening. It seems to me that capturing organizations, capturing agencies, is a separate issue from expanding the definition to allow for the creation of a corporation. It seems to me that we have had this discussion around the terminology. Certainly the minister's comments have not responded to the necessity for the creation of health corporations. Could the minister could kindly comment?

Hon. P. Ramsey: A third try here; no new corporations are being created. Existing corporations, government corporations or other corporations that deliver health services are being captured by the definition of "public body." That enables the transfer of the health services that they operate to a community health council or regional board under the Health Authorities Act. I repeat: no new corporations are being created by amending the definition of "public body."

L. Reid: Then perhaps the minister would be so kind as to list the existing corporations, so that we have a point of reference for his statement that no new corporations will be created.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Earlier I gave the member an example of one such corporation that was not captured by the definition of "public body"; that was Riverview. There are others. I'll be glad to see that the member gets a list of other corporations, government or otherwise, that deliver health services.

L. Reid: I will accept the minister's offer to provide that list, because without it, the minister's comments are somewhat meaningless. If we do not know what exists as a health care corporation today, we cannot ever determine if, indeed, the list is being expanded.

In terms of the second part of section 1 -- " 'service providers committee' means a health care service providers advisory committee established under the regulations" -- I would certainly ask the minister to comment. I do believe that this is probably the only useful aspect of this particular bill and that the minister is more than aware that the Liberal opposition never understood the thinking which excluded professional health care providers from any health care decision-making that was undertaken in this province. In fact, it appears that the minister has seen the error of his ways and has come back to the table with this inclusion. If that is the case, I will commend the minister on that, but I would simply ask him to comment.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I shall eagerly await the commendation.

The health care service providers' committee will be formed by health care providers in a council region or a health board region. It will include all those who are engaged in the delivery of health services: administrators in the system, physicians and other independent practitioners, as well as direct employees -- nurses, paraprofessionals and health care workers. The ministry is currently engaged in consultation with community health councils and regional health boards about the structure of these committees.

The principles are clear. The committee will have a seat and voice at councils and boards that have health care service providers' committees. The membership on these committees will be selected by the health care providers themselves, not appointed by the board, and they will have a clear responsibility to advise the board or council, on matters of interest to the board or council or matters simply of interest to the health care service providers' committee.

L. Reid: I would simply ask the minister what transpired to allow him to come full circle in his thinking. Why was all the acrimony allowed to unfold over the original discussion when they were excluded, if it was this minister's intention to bring them back to the table? Certainly I think the minister has a lot to be accountable for around this particular decision, because it didn't do anything for the patients in the province, and it certainly didn't do anything for the level of morale around health care decision-making. It seems to me that there must have been some event or activity that allowed the minister to come full circle or to do an absolute turnabout in terms of ensuring that there is reasonable representation now. Would the minister comment on what that particular activity might have been?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It looks like I'll wait awhile for commendation.

We have always said that we were going to strike advisory committees to boards and councils and that we want 

[ Page 15929 ]

to have advisory committees. The member can look this up in the guidelines for development of community health councils and regional health boards over the last year and a half. Medical advisory committees representing the views of physicians in the operation of health facilities are important, obviously. Indeed, they are part of certification under the Hospital Act, so they must be provided to community councils and regional health boards. We've said that union-management committees, which offer advice to councils and boards, should also be struck and that health care providers should have their voice heard.

I would submit that the real difference that we've made here -- and it wasn't done without a great deal of thought -- was to provide this committee of service providers with a voice and a vote. Obviously the requirement is that the person sitting on a council representing the service providers' committee would be subject to conflict-of-interest guidelines and would absent himself or herself on matters that might constitute a conflict.

L. Reid: It appears that the minister and I still disagree on this particular aspect. It still concerns me that this minister would attempt to justify the fact that health care professionals are being excluded from full membership. It seems to me that the weight of their experience and their knowledge could certainly come up against a conflict-of-interest allegation and win out. There may be cases where they need to stand back from the table for particular discussions, but it doesn't mean they cannot be part of the overall decision-making.

It still concerns me that we are having membership on councils and regional boards that excludes health care providers, which is a separate issue from the minister's remarks on advisory committees -- an absolute separate issue. It still concerns me that the decision has been taken to exclude that professional level of expertise, and the minister can make no bones about the fact that they have been excluded. This amendment act does not bring them into the decision-making yet.

Again, when we think of being taxpayers in the province and having a health care budget of approximately $6.5 billion, we are still not allowing the people with the most expertise to be part of those decisions, other than in an advisory capacity. That is not a defensible position from the perspective of the official opposition. If we're going to spend that amount of taxpayers' money, there needs to be some commitment on behalf of this government to ensure that the people making those decisions are the most qualified. It seems to me that this is another rendition of continuing to exclude individuals from the discussion. Again, I appreciate the minister's remarks on the advisory capacity. We don't differ on that; we differ on full membership on a council or a board, and that is where I believe those individuals need to have representation. Would the minister comment?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This is a matter that's somewhat apart from this proposed amendment. I think it may be a very frosty day before I get commendation on introducing an amendment which this member would be prepared to applaud. This amendment recognizes the valuable voice of service providers and provides a means for their voice to be heard in deliberations of councils and boards. The general principle of democratic decision-making is that those who benefit financially from tax dollars don't get to make the decisions on spending them. That's true on school boards, that's true on municipal councils, and it's going to be true on community health councils and regional health boards.

[7:30]

L. Reid: We need to talk about the calibre of decision-making and to perhaps bring it in line with what happens on schools boards in this province. There are teachers and administrators who sit on school boards. My riding is a very fine example of that, with all due respect to the minister's level of knowledge. In terms of whether they can perform that task without being in conflict, yes, they can. The examples are clear and evident today. So for the minister to somehow submit that anyone who is a health care professional is going to be subject to bias, and not able to divorce themselves from the issues and events from which they may directly benefit, is wrong and completely unfair. It seems to me that if we are entrusting these people with our lives, we can entrust them with some decision-making around how those dollars are spent. It seems to me that that closes the loop in a much more coherent fashion than this minister defending the fact that we can't have them that close to this level of decision-making.

I frankly want those people involved in decision-making. I want very much to have health care professionals render decisions based on some level of expertise in terms of being involved in the delivery of that service. It seems to me they have the most at stake in understanding whether the allocations for particular activities within hospitals or communities are a legitimate expenditure -- whether a reasonable sum of dollars has been allocated. The other discussion rampant throughout this bill is that of continuing to isolate and fragment people away from the decision-making.

We don't support this bill, as this minister well knows. We didn't support it in principle, and the discussion -- the clarification I'm seeking from this minister -- doesn't allow us to reach a different conclusion. This minister is still standing today to suggest that these people should not be part of the process in any aspect other than advisory. That is not in the best interests of British Columbians. Frankly, I submit to this minister that it's not in the best interests of health care. I ask the minister to comment.

Hon. P. Ramsey: We do have a clear philosophical disagreement. The member opposite seems to believe that clinical skill equals management skill, governance and policy skill, or the ability to represent community. We fundamentally disagree on that. We believe that the spending of tax dollars and the allocation of them must fundamentally be made by those who do not benefit financially from them. They must also clearly do that decision-making with the best professional advice they can get. We've established a service providers' committee, among other advisory committees, to make sure that the governors of our health system have the best possible advice. Other than that, the member and I will have to agree to disagree.

Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

[ Page 15930 ]

Motion approved on the following division:

The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.

Bill 40, Health Authorities Amendment Act, 1995, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Clark: Mr. Speaker, just before I call business, I can't help but inform the House of a pressing and urgent matter -- the election in Saskatchewan: 45 NDP elected, seven Liberals and two Conservatives, and 57 percent of the vote for the NDP. Let's go!

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Perhaps we could have order.

Hon. G. Clark: All members are off to see the Premier tonight to tell him to go for it.

I call committee on Bill 37.

VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT

The House in committee on Bill 37; D. Lovick in the chair.

On section 1.

J. Dalton: Under the definition of "victim," in paragraph (b), can the Attorney General advise what an example of "significant emotional trauma" might be? I'm a bit troubled by the adjective "significant," because I think the court might have trouble with such terms.

[7:45]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think it's a judgment call, and I'll leave it to the member to make his judgment. It seems to me that it's something you can't define. It depends on the circumstances, the degree of pain and trauma, the degree of emotion -- a whole bunch of things like that.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

M. de Jong: As I understand the section, the Attorney General is making provision for victims to avail themselves of legal aid representation. I think I'll start there. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is yes.

May I take this opportunity, now that I'm organized, to introduce the two people who are with me, so members of the House know that this Susanne Dahlin and this is Judy Klima.

M. de Jong: The Attorney General has in the past articulated forcefully his concerns relating to the increasing cost of the legal aid system. What comfort can the Attorney General offer us that the resources are there for what could ultimately become a significant part of the legal aid service?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The Legal Services Society has already budgeted for this kind of provision. It's my understanding that they had put $50,000 aside in their current budget and in the year before, and the anticipation is that we're looking at numbers in the range of $100,000.

M. de Jong: I presume that those are best guesses, and that a year from now we will look back and determine how accurate they are. My gut reaction is that in perhaps as many as 50 percent of the cases where the accused is availing himself or herself of legal aid representation, we may see application being made by victims who will require assistance. Can the Attorney General indicate if there is a tariff in place, or what the remuneration would be and how that is going to be calculated? Will it depend on the nature of the crime? What will it be tied to -- how badly a victim has been hurt or how much work has been done on the victim's behalf?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't think there's a schedule or a particular agreement reached with the bar in respect of how that might be arranged. Given the limited nature of this representation, it's not going to happen in the overwhelming number of cases that have to do with privacy and disclosure. Because of that, it is mostly in sexual assault cases, so it's a limited application. It is my understanding that there were discussions between the ministry and the LSS about whether a protocol was required to assist them, and they said that this was not going to be a major cost item.

M. de Jong: I think the Attorney General raises a good point, and I want to clarify it. Is it the Attorney General's understanding that if there is a tariff or a schedule, it will be set by the LSS, taking into account their global budget and the other demands? Or will it be something set by the ministry in regulation form?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: They're independent; they make their own decisions, including that kind of decision.

K. Jones: In the same vein, if a victim who is being served by, I presume, a legal aid lawyer finds that that legal aid lawyer doesn't appear to be moving along on their particular 

[ Page 15931 ]

case, is there some way that the victim may apply to find out just how much is being charged to legal aid by that lawyer in order to find out whether they're getting any active service from that lawyer?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That has nothing to do with this legislation; that has to do, in the final analysis, with the act that provides legal aid -- whatever it's called -- and the arrangements that are made between legal aid and its lawyers. I can't answer on behalf of legal aid. They are independent; they have nothing to do with this section.

I would say that if a client being represented by a lawyer who was being remunerated by legal aid -- whether by way of tariff or a staff lawyer -- was unhappy or curious, they could ask questions of the Legal Services Society. It has nothing to do with the ministry; it's a completely and statutorily independent board.

K. Jones: If one of these victims who's asking for this aid is unable to feel satisfied that their case is being proceeded with properly, are they able to change their lawyer under this legal aid process without being prevented from having legal aid?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Let's just back up a little bit here. First of all, this is a question of advice to victims. Victims may not be -- and often aren't -- happy with the way in which the court process unfolds. We have delays that we don't want; there are other issues that occur. Adjournments occur on occasion, and there are decisions during that process that victims may not be happy with. The victim is, in a sense, still a bystander to the trial and is not....

Let me put it another way. What this legislation is designed to do is ensure that the victim is provided with information and advice. This section deals particularly with issues around privacy, sexual assault and disclosure, and not with the pace or the conduct of the trial by the prosecutor or the defence. It's to do with ensuring that the victim's rights to privacy are protected. Their lawyer may be provided by Legal Services -- or may not be, if they're not financially eligible. It doesn't do anything more than ensure that those rights are protected. That lawyer doesn't have a responsibility or a role in conducting the trial or the pace of the trial.

K. Jones: If the victim were having some difficulty in obtaining disclosure of information and they felt that the legal aid lawyer assigned to them was not doing a suitable job, is it appropriate for them to ask for another lawyer? Would they be able to do that without any complicating factors, such as being cut off from legal aid, as has been done in other cases?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Answering it backwards, first of all, they wouldn't be cut off if they're eligible. Secondly, if they feel that they're not being represented appropriately or effectively, they have the right to go the Legal Services Society and make that complaint. The Legal Services Society does have the opportunity or the option of providing alternative counsel.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

J. Dalton: This section, of course, deals with victim impact statements. I guess my first question will be, given that these are often introduced into court today: is this section saying that Crown counsel has more influence in the presenting of -- and hopefully the court listening to them -- these victim impact statements? Really, I guess, I'm asking: how is this changing the current circumstances dealing with such statements?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is to make sure there is consistency across the province in respect of the format of victim impact statements, to be sure that everybody is enabled to approach the court in terms of a victim impact statement in the same way, wherever they are in the province. We have victim impact statements now, obviously, but there isn't a consistency, a pattern and a common approach. Both the victim services division of the ministry and the criminal justice branch are in the process of developing a form that will standardize this arrangement. That's what this accomplishes.

J. Dalton: I have one other question; then perhaps my colleagues have some. Will the court be obligated in any way to hear these victim statements? Quite often I hear reports where they may be introduced, but they don't seem to be paid any heed. What assurance is there, even with this format and consistency, that the statements actually will get before the judge, who in all cases should hear these things?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, the impact statement would only be presented or admitted if it was admissible. Second, the ultimate decision would be up to the judge. This doesn't in and of itself require the court to hear a victim impact statement. That decision, in the final analysis, is made by the court.

M. de Jong: I wonder if I can ask the Attorney General: is there any contemplation here about moving beyond victim impact statements to a regular presentation of viva voce evidence? Is that something in the government's or the Attorney General's mind, in presenting this section as part of the act?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's a question that occurs, but it's not a question that is being pursued at this time.

M. de Jong: I only raise it. It's one of those concepts that, on the face of it, one is inclined to support as giving an opportunity to a victim to say to the court, the person or the trier of fact who's going to deliver sentence: "This is how this crime has impacted on my life." I think that was the logic behind developing the victim impact statement as a written document that can be presented.

I just draw to the Attorney General's attention, and I'm sure others have done this, that though we want to give an opportunity to victims to play a more meaningful role in the sentencing process, there is some concern that perhaps a trier of fact or a sentencer.... It's not the most appropriate time for the victim to be on the stand delivering an impassioned plea about what has happened to them. There is a downside to that as well.

I don't envy the Attorney General for having to make that balance. Perhaps I'm influenced overly by not being able to divorce myself from my previous job and being on that side of the fence. But it's a concern that exists at the bar, the judiciary and the bench as well, as to how they confront that scenario.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, the impact statement is at sentencing rather than at trial. The member conveys the 

[ Page 15932 ]

concern of the defence bar, and these are issues that we have not.... Like so much of what we do, it is one step at a time.

[8:00]

Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.

On section 6.

J. Dalton: In section 6(1)(c), I'm concerned about "the reasons why a decision was made respecting charges." Given the delicacy of privacy -- and of course the prosecution doesn't want to tip its hand -- could the Attorney suggest what the likelihood is that reasons will, on a commonplace basis, be provided on charges that may or may not go forward?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the charges are not proceeded with, then a full explanation is provided. If the charges are proceeded with, then judgment is taken as to what can be conveyed without jeopardizing the trial.

M. de Jong: Can I just ask the Attorney General how, at a very practical level, this is going to be administered? Will it be the responsibility of Crown counsel in the various offices? Will court clerks be providing this information? Where are victims going get this information from?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If he's asking about 6(1)(c)....

Interjection.

The Chair: Excuse me, hon. member, I'm having difficulty keeping up with the tennis match.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Just leave the microphones on.

Let me just back up then. In terms of 6(1)(c), it would be the Crown, because it's a question of charges. In other cases, it could be the police-based victim services worker, or it could be the Crown-based victim services worker. It depends on what the particular information is. But I want to emphasize that if it's to do with the charges, I think that's a matter for the Crown to convey directly.

M. de Jong: I offer this more by way of suggestion. Most victims' contact with judicial officers will generally be Crown counsel. They will be notified of court dates by Crown counsel and subpoenaed by Crown counsel. Except for determining the status of police investigations, it strikes me that most of this other information might logically -- except for parole information -- flow out of the Crown counsel. My expectation would be that procedures would be developed so that victims could be advised by private counsel as to where they can go, or even that some of this information, I would think, would go as a matter of course. I know the act says that it is by application. I think the Attorney General's intention here is that much of this information would flow automatically.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm just trying to think of a short and simple way of saying this. In the early going, the matters that have to do with the police and whatever would be automatically provided to the victim by a victim services worker. As you move further into the system, through charges and through the corrections side of it, it will be on request. But let me just back up again to the beginning and say that protocols with respect to all of this are now being developed. Let me just add one thing that I wasn't aware of: if a victim makes a request at the beginning of the process that he or she be advised throughout the course of events, right through to the corrections end of it, then that one request at the beginning serves as a request that has to be followed by the system.

M. de Jong: Referencing subsection (2), it occurred to me that it doesn't include a provision for where a victim might suffer financial prejudice. I notice that in section 1, the definition of "victim" includes someone who has suffered economic loss. I wondered when I read section 6(2) whether an argument might be made by a victim that they should be provided with information, copies of orders, permits and conditions that are relevant to the victim's financial health.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I need the member to help me with this. We're talking about provisions under the Young Offenders Act, so we're talking about criminal events. If I hear the member, it sounds more like civil or family matters that he is referring to. So the financial impact under the Young Offenders Act.... Maybe the member could help me.

M. de Jong: I read this to mean that subject to the provisions of the Young Offenders Act.... So there are some limiting features in the Young Offenders Act that might preclude the release of copies of orders and permits. For example, a victim, under this legislation could be.... It's any provincial offence; we're not restricted to criminal activity here. I can't think of an appropriate example, but I can certainly see where an argument would be made by a victim on the basis that they have suffered financial loss as a result of a corporation's activity, perhaps, that constitutes an offence, and therefore they are a victim and might have an interest in obtaining information, orders or copies of material that relates purely to financial matters.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know the answer, but I want to clarify the question. If the member, for example, is talking about.... The way the bill is designed, it deals with victims of criminal offences that have more to do with violence, sexual assault and those kinds of issues. What the member is asking, I think -- let me get this clear -- is: if someone is a victim of a commercial fraud, let's say, can they then, because of the limitation about safety, get copies of orders and permits? That's the question?

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Now that I understand the question, I'll find out the answer.

I think the answer is that it's as it reads. It's safety, and it's not financial security or financial difficulty.

M. de Jong: The Attorney General has correctly identified my issue, as I clumsily tried to define it. In fact, I think he has hit it head-on, and as he put it, I can see circumstances where a victim in that sense would want that information and would be very much a victim within the meaning of this act. Does the Attorney General see any wisdom in extending the provisions of that section?

[ Page 15933 ]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Not tonight, hon. member.

K. Jones: Attorney General, can this section be set aside by a judge responding to a petition of the defence to not disclose either the names of the defendant or certain information about the case?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: On its own motion, the court can always restrict publication and restrict information, but those issues are there for counsel to argue on respective sides. I think the basic answer to the member's question is yes.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

On section 8.

M. de Jong: I'm referencing paragraph (g), and in asking the question I'm aware of the provisions of section 11. I just want some assurance from the Attorney General that he's confident we are not creating an expectation that might be followed up through some sort of action. The Attorney General is dealing with limited resources. Under paragraph (g), are we setting in motion the possibility of actions being brought for the Attorney General to start pouring concrete that he can't afford to pour at the moment?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the member is asking specifically about paragraph (g), I need to be sure about that.

M. de Jong: Yes, paragraph (g).

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The court services branch of the ministry is already working toward meeting these goals. We have seen these as important goals, even before defining them. Does it create expectations or demands that the system can't meet, financially or otherwise? I think the reason that this is titled the goals section is that this is where we want to get. Some of these issues are going to take a long time.

I think I mentioned earlier in second reading the issue of design of courtrooms -- that obviously we're not going to tear them all down and rebuild them in the short term. But with respect to physical disabilities, there are still courthouses in British Columbia that are not wheelchair-accessible, I believe. We're working on it, but there are still some that are not. Those of us representing rural ridings understand that.

Interpreters. I don't know whether it's universal now, but that's certainly something we.... You can't have an equal opportunity in the system if you don't have the appropriate interpretation.

Culturally sensitive services. We work at it. I think we've still got some distance to go on that, throughout the system.

M. de Jong: The purpose of my question was simply to seek assurance that by virtue of the inclusion of section 11 -- which states that nothing in the act creates a cause of action -- we're not going to see lawsuits by special interest groups to the Attorney General about why there is a courtroom that doesn't have special access.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member is trained in the law and he knows the answer to that -- there will be no cause of action.

K. Jones: What is meant by culturally sensitive services? Could you give us examples of that?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Different ethnic and cultural groups have different histories and different understandings of the law. It's as simple as, for example, the difference between France and here, where you have a different kind of law in place in terms of guilty and innocent. As I understand, at the end of a trial, a conclusion can be that you're innocent. That doesn't happen in North America. Those are those kinds of issues.

[8:15]

For native people, the concept of guilt and innocence is not one that has historically been part of how they've spent thousands of years dealing with each other. People from other parts of the world come from different traditions; you have to be sensitive to those. You have to try to make special efforts to ensure that our peculiar system.... We don't think it's peculiar -- we white guys -- but lots of other people do, and we have to make every effort to find ways of ensuring that people can be comfortable with it and can understand it. The most important thing is that at the end of the day, they feel satisfied that what happened to them, directly or indirectly in that system, was a result that they can live with, and they can sleep at night as a result.

K. Jones: What kinds of services would be provided to do what you're talking about? I'm kind of unclear on the form of services that you would be providing.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The system already has, for example, native courtworkers who play a role in respect of this kind of objective. The same kinds of services are provided in communities, for example, with a high Indo-Canadian population; there are services that are particularly addressed to people of that culture. We're not going to be able to do it for every single soul in British Columbia as effectively as each person might want, but we can certainly figure out where the priorities are and which communities require particular services.

I think everybody saw in the paper the other day that somewhere around 30 or 35 percent -- I've forgotten the number now -- of kids going to school in Vancouver speak Chinese as their first language. Obviously, in the court systems in Vancouver you have to pay some attention to those issues. The ministry has been doing that; it was doing it before we were the government. It has accelerated recently, and we're now establishing it as a legislated goal to continue those initiatives.

K. Jones: Since it describes this as being only available for minorities, what is classified as a minority in that category? Would a person who is from a low-income, white Anglo-Saxon background or a person who has maybe a grade 3 education and is a white Anglo-Saxon also be classified in that category of ethnocultural minority?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's less an ethnocultural issue than an issue that relates to a need on the part of the people delivering the service to deliver it in a way that the information is heard. It's the outcome that's important. It's an attempt to begin to put more pressure on the system to make sure that everybody is equal and everybody has the same set of rights in front of the courts. If they're disabled or handicapped by 

[ Page 15934 ]

one factor or another, the system needs to take that into account and address it. We make specific reference to language and to culturally sensitive services. That doesn't mean that the system doesn't also ensure the provision of information in a way that someone with a grade 3 education can understand it. Obviously we have to do that; that's just part of the way of doing business.

K. Jones: If that's the case, if that's the intent of it, why don't we just say that? Why do we get into culturally sensitive...? Why don't we just say that we would provide sensitive services for those persons who need them and eliminate what appears to be a discriminatory clause in here, which is restricted only to aboriginals and ethnocultural minorities. It is thereby saying that anybody else who doesn't fall into those categories isn't going to be provided with those services.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This is designed to deal with people who come from different cultures, different ethnic groups who perhaps have a different justice system and who require some additional assistance, and our people require some additional training to help them bring people to an understanding of our system. Those of us who grew up in this country -- poor, rich, whatever -- have grown up with it. People who come to the country, or people who were here before we got here and imposed our system, require some special attention. And more importantly than focusing on the victim, for me anyway, the import is to say to the people who work in the system: "You better pay some attention to this; you better understand that these are issues." You just have to read the Sarich report out of the Cariboo-Chilcotin to see the gaps that exist between cultures -- between races, if you want to use that term, or between ethnic groups, which isn't the appropriate term in that case. I would have thought that it's just self-evident.

K. Jones: I'm sure the minister feels that it's self-evident, but I have people coming into my constituency office who would not fit into this category but who are not able to understand the legal processes. They are victims and are trying to deal with the bureaucracy, the court system and the various claims systems. They would not be given any guidance because this is restricted to a certain class of people. I think that it would be a great improvement to this bill if it were identified that a sensitive provision of services would be given to all people, regardless of their ethnic, racial or economic background, so that they would all be treated equally and would all have the same opportunity to be availed of these services provided for victims.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is yes, and the member can find the answer in paragraph (a).

J. Sawicki: I, too, want to pick up on paragraph (g), but before I do, I just want to make a couple of general comments that pertain to the entire section. I represent Metrotown, and unfortunately, of course, it is a rapidly growing area, with the SkyTrain, etc. The concern about safety and crime is a high priority for my constituents. I just want to congratulate the Attorney General for bringing in one of the most comprehensive and extensive victim assistance and compensation bills in Canada. We have in Burnaby, of course, a very active victim assistance program through the RCMP, and I personally have been down to talk with them many times. So I know that the issues and goals set out in section 8 really do meet the issues that they've been talking to me about for the last number of years.

My specific comments on paragraph (a), developing victim services and promoting equal access.... If I could make a special plea to the Attorney General, as far as the budget will allow: I know that our victim assistance program in Burnaby does need extra resources to be able to expand its work and give the support to victims of crime in our community. So I'll use this opportunity to put in that extra plug.

Now to my question on paragraph (g). I have to say that I categorically disagree with the position that has been taken by the member for Surrey-Cloverdale. Fifty percent of my constituents speak English as a second language, and while some of them may well also be wheelchair-bound, perhaps, or have a low education, as the member suggests, it is a fact that they do come from a different culture that makes it very difficult for them, as victims of crime, to be able to access the support systems.

My question to the Attorney General is: in providing victim assistance services that are culturally sensitive, does he have any plans at this point to perhaps utilize the non-profit agencies -- that now do have core funding, of course, I'm very pleased to say -- to provide workshops and language banks, etc.? Is this the kind of tool that the Attorney General is planning to use to make sure that we could meet these goals?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The basic answer is yes, but in different ways in different communities, depending on the groups that exist and on the needs and the like. Public Legal Education did a survey recently to look at new patterns, new needs as a result of immigration issues and settlement patterns, too. That will result in focusing on how we deliver the kinds of services that the member talks about. I'm a great believer in using community groups and organizations that already exist in the community that do a wide variety of educational programs with their own ethnic or cultural group. Adding to that some component of victim services is, I think, an appropriate thing to do, but those....

Again, it depends on local circumstances, on how it gets organized, on what the demands are, on what the needs are and on the role that a group would want to play in the community. It's all coordinated through victim services. We don't have a cookie cutter; I think that's the most important thing. That's something that I stress throughout the ministry: there are no cookie-cutter solutions to any community issues or community problems. They all demand and require separate community responses, and we try to make our system work to fit that.

R. Neufeld: I have a number of questions. First off, I want to qualify that the interpreters you speak of in paragraph (g)(ii), and the culturally sensitive services.... And I'm not disputing the fact that that should be there. Let me make that clear to start with.

But what I want to refer the minister to -- and he answered briefly -- is paragraph (g)(i), which is: "...courtrooms and prosecutors' offices that are designed to be used by persons with physical disabilities." The minister is quite aware that we have a travelling court through a good part of rural B.C., specifically in my constituency and also in that of the Minister of Transportation and Highways, which I'm speak-

[ Page 15935 ]

ing of because it's serviced out of the Fort Nelson-Fort St. John area. How do we go about...? Does that put us in a position where government is going to have to fund a lot of expenditures to be able to provide those services? I'm just hoping that it doesn't back us into a corner. Although I understand and appreciate that those services should be made available to those people, it's very difficult in some of the areas in the north that you're talking about. Court is not consistently held in the same building all the time; it moves around. It may put us into a bit of a corner. I just wonder how the Attorney General's ministry is going to deal with that.

[8:30]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The first part of the answer is that wherever court is held, interpreters are provided if required. You couldn't conduct a trial if that didn't occur, so that is the case. We obviously try to minimize costs in that respect, and a way of doing that is to use local groups that may be available and that may have people who can provide that kind of interpretation. You're not going to bring somebody along on this travelling court who works full-time for the ministry and speaks a particular language but may only be required for two hours out of a six-day trek. That's not what we're talking about here.

This is still a goal for victims. That's important to remember. For the accused and for witnesses in the trial, interpretation is provided, and it's done in the most cost-effective way. We use local resources when that's possible. A goal here is to try to ensure that victims are also provided with that kind of resource, and the way we try to accomplish that is by using local resources, if they exist. They are more obvious in the lower mainland than they are in the member's riding and in my riding, but some of these resources do exist.

R. Neufeld: Actually, I almost put both questions into one. Maybe the Attorney would answer the question about getting into a corner by making all courtrooms and prosecutors' offices, wherever court happens to be held in the travelling court, accessible for people with physical disabilities. I appreciate that it should be done. If it's a goal and an intent, that's fine, as long it doesn't back us into a corner where all of a sudden we have to do these things. I'm sure that's going to take place in time.

The second part of my question is about (g)(ii) and (iii). I want to be clear that I'm not saying that it shouldn't be, but there probably should be a responsibility or maybe something in the legislation that says "upon request" for a special interpreter, or something of that nature, so the system knows ahead of time that it has to supply that person.

I'll just give an example that happened just recently at a pulpwood hearing in Fort Nelson. It was within the last year and a half. It was a public hearing. Nobody was aware.... I was part of the hearing, and the member from Penticton was chairing it. We had everyone there. It was a set-up meeting that had been advertised long ahead of time. Some native people came and were quite upset because there were some elders that could speak nothing but Cree. There were no interpreters -- none. That particular gentleman brought that forward -- to everyone's surprise, to be perfectly frank. I thought: should you be expected to go to all of those hearings anticipating what language is going to be spoken?

In that case, maybe the gentleman who brought the issue forward that no one was there to interpret to those other people in the Cree language should have had some responsibility to say: "We would like some interpreters there, or we would like someone there who is culturally sensitive to our needs." It just puts a little more of the responsibility on that person to make sure that when the time comes, those services are provided in a timely and efficient manner.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That would become very evident long before the trial. We're not talking here about witnesses, but if we are talking about a victim, they will probably have been dealing first of all with the police-based witness program, depending on the community and what resources are available. But they will have been dealing with somebody, and if it turns out that that person doesn't speak English, that will be determined pretty quickly. As they're preparing people for trial -- and the trial isn't going to be for some months, usually -- they will know right off the bat that there's a language requirement, and they can prepare for it. This doesn't require that the victim be provided with that kind of interpretation. This simply says that's a goal we want to achieve.

If the member's question is: can somebody suddenly show up at the last minute and demand it, and the whole thing falls apart until it happens...? Logically this is going to occur earlier, not at the last minute. The concern the member has, I would have too. You can't expect to not have anyone be aware that there's an interpretation requirement, then when the trial begins suddenly say: "Wait a minute now, I need an interpreter." That's just not going to happen under this system.

R. Neufeld: I accept the Attorney General's explanation, and I know what he is saying. But I can tell you that on the issue I brought forward of the pulpwood hearing in Fort Nelson, the whole hearing knew that Treaty 8 was going to make a presentation. It was written a long time ahead. They knew that the Fort Nelson Indian band and the Prophet River Indian band were going to make representations; that was known months ahead of time. What I'm saying is that it still caught someone short. I don't think it was a surprise as much as an oversight, in a way. I can understand what the Attorney General is saying about a court -- that prior to going into court everyone will know that someone doesn't speak the language. That could possibly be; it was just a thought I had that possibly some responsibility should be on the victim to make sure that they may need that help.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The victim services worker will very quickly determine whether or not they can communicate with this person. If they can't because of a language difficulty, they'll address that long before the trial. It's different than the public hearing that the member talks about.

K. Jones: I'd like to correct the impression given by the member for Burnaby-Willingdon as to my previous questions on paragraph (g). Where practicable, as stated in the first sentence of section 8, I fully support access for persons with disabilities to interpreters, and services to aboriginal persons and members of ethnocultural minorities. What I was asking for was inclusiveness, so that not only those persons will be provided services, but any persons, no matter what their circumstances, who require special services would be provided those special services. I don't think that message was clear.

Section 8 approved.

[ Page 15936 ]

On section 9.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment to section 9 that's in the possession of the Clerk, and I trust that members have been provided with a copy. There are amendments -- (a), (b) and (c) -- and I think I'll just wait until members have an opportunity to look at what's being circulated.

[SECTION 9,

(a) in the proposed subsection (1) by deleting "the place" and substituting "the time and place",

(b) in the proposed subsection (2) by deleting "section 14 (7)" and substituting "section 14" and by deleting "the place" and substituting "the time and place", and

(c) in the proposed subsection (6) by deleting "Sections 72 (6.2)" and substituting "Despite section 11 of this Act, sections 72 (6) to (6.1)".]

The subsections of section 9 that are being amended are (1), (2) and (6). I think we should take our time. This is something that just came up today, and members have not had an opportunity.... I assure members that these are technical and do not change anything about the bill.

The notes I have.... I'll just read them. The amendment ensures that the government can enforce the victim fine surcharge if payment is in default. The amendments are also intended to address potential difficulties created by Bill 25, which is the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1995, and which allows government to impose interest on outstanding fines. Obviously, if there's interest, then how is that dealt with in terms of the surcharge?

As I said earlier, my notes conclude by saying that the amendments are minor and do not change the intent of the sections. It's just to make sure that they are legally intact. While ordinarily one would consider them as a package, if the Chair decides to do these separately, that makes sense too.

The Chair: Given the minister's explanation that these are technical and that we all now have them, I'm wondering if we could deal with them as a group, en bloc. Is that a problem?

Interjection.

The Chair: In that case, I'll simply pose the question. Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment approved.

On section 9 as amended.

J. Dalton: A question about the surcharge: does the ministry have some projected figures as to what revenue is expected to be generated from this levy?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Our projected revenue is in the $3 million range. We don't have hard figures at this time, but that's what we project.

M. de Jong: With respect to subsection (3), can the Attorney General indicate...? Are there constitutional impediments to applying the surtax to young offenders' legislation? Or was it just a conscious decision to exempt those individuals?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: This was an attempt to be consistent with the federal legislation in respect of surcharges. Fines under the Young Offenders Act are exempt under the federal legislation. We wanted to be consistent with that.

M. de Jong: At the risk of getting the same answer I got on an earlier question, did the Attorney General see any merit -- at a perhaps reduced scale -- in rendering young offenders subject to a similar provision, notwithstanding that the federal legislation doesn't do so?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I haven't really put my mind much to that question, frankly. Collection becomes an issue for the most part with young offenders. So it is fair to say that it's simple for us to follow the federal lead on this, given that we probably wouldn't get very much money out of it in any event.

J. Weisgerber: I'm interested in the process, the application. If one appears before a magistrate and is fined, does the magistrate fine and acknowledge that indeed there will be a surcharge applied? Perhaps I could find out that to begin with.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I hope this answers the member's questions. Let me just pick a hypothetical.... The court will say the fine is $1,000. When the person who's guilty gets the notice, they will have to pay $1,100 or whatever the amount turns out to be, because the court services branch procedure will add the surcharge to it.

J. Weisgerber: I'm not often in the courts, but it seems to me that I recall fines being levied and costs announced in conjunction with a fine, so this will be different. The fine may be levied -- the $1,000, for example -- plus costs, and then a surcharge would come at a later date.

[8:45]

I'm curious to know.... I've got a couple of questions, so I'll kind of work my way through them. The federal experience has been that there hasn't been any change in the sentencing pattern by judges. I'm thinking, for example, of where the judge sees someone standing in front of them, decides on a penalty.... Do they kind of decide that, hey, we're going to hit this -- you know: "It's going to be a thousand-dollar fine, but he's going to have to pay a $90 surcharge, so we'll fine him $900 plus costs"? I wonder if the federal government or anyone has done any study to know whether, indeed, that experience has occurred in the courts.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The problem with trying to answer that question is that under the federal system, the judge has to make a conscious decision; it's not an automatic procedure federally. Ours is an automatic procedure, so we don't have that kind of evidence. In the final analysis, the judge is going to impose the fine that he or she decides is appropriate, and if they do a conscious reduction of 10 percent, I would be surprised.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Ten or 20 percent -- whatever the number happens to be, because that hasn't been determined. But if they do a conscious reduction of, say, that amount, then 

[ Page 15937 ]

they are defeating, I think, a purpose that I would be surprised they'd want to defeat, which is to assist victims in the whole court process. We'll see.

J. Weisgerber: Could the minister confirm whether these surcharges will apply to fines across the board, with the exception of those for young offenders? If someone is charged with a non-criminal offence -- for example, a violation under the Environmental Assessment Act; someone appearing charged under the Forest Practices Code; someone charged with a violation of the Motor Vehicle Act, a weigh scale infraction.... Would all of these be subject, even though they are arguably not criminal offences? All fines, with the exception of those for young offenders, apply?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Those decisions will be made subsequent to the passage of the bill, in respect of whether or not all provincial statutory offences are included. They could be. Motor vehicle infractions, the environment act, hunting regulations, or whatever -- all of those issues could be included. But those decisions have not yet been made.

J. Weisgerber: I assume the minister has given this some thought, but I'm not sure why, for example, someone who has committed an infraction under the Forest Practices Code -- or a trucker who finds himself in the misfortune of having overloaded an axle -- rather than the rest of us in society should be asked to pony up not only for the offence they have committed but also for the surcharge added to that.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I won't swear that was the first question I asked with respect to this legislation, but it was certainly one of the more important questions I asked. I don't have a clear answer in my own mind yet about what the policy should be. In simple terms, you want people who commit violent crimes to pay for the impact of violent crimes. The member's question is a very legitimate question: why should somebody who is in breach of the Forest Practices Code, let's say, and let's say there is a million-dollar fine...? Why should they pay additional money to help victims in the rest of the court system -- victims of criminal offences?

It's an excellent question, one that I haven't concluded in my own mind what the answer should be, and one that -- because I haven't done that -- I haven't taken to cabinet recommendations. The staff who advise me say that this is a difficult question, one that has to be resolved. One of the things that I hope happens as a result of the hoped-for passage of this bill in the Legislature is that there will be some public discussion around these issues. I very much want to be guided by that.

But I guess the other side of it is that if you are in violation of the law, rather than just having the $10,000 fine for a breach of the riparian zones or whatever go into general revenue so it can be spent willy-nilly by the Minister of Finance, if we could have a chunk of that coming into providing service for victims, then I'd be pretty happy. So if I can -- as this act does -- take some control out of the Minister of Finance and put it into our ministry and provide a very direct service for victims, maybe that's a good thing to do. It might tie into the earlier question that the member had about what judges might do with respect to the fine. So who knows where we're going to go with this.

J. Weisgerber: As the minister was going thorough his explanation, I thought we were almost getting around to arguing for kind of a checkoff on fines. But this is an important question. I think members on all sides of the House would like to support the legislation but may find it uncomfortable, when faced with this particular problem, to have it said: "Gosh, Mr. Member, you supported that legislation in the House. You either should have known or had an obligation to know before you went ahead with the legislation whether or not these were going to apply." I think that the question raised is an important one, and on a personal note, I think there should be some very clear parameters. There should be some very clear limitations on the areas where these surcharges may apply. I would be very much opposed to fines for non-criminal activities being subject to the surcharge.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I take the member's point. We all worry about the consequences of our actions in here when we go home to our constituencies. This isn't to prejudice the outcome, because I don't know what the outcome is going to be, but let me just tell members what other provinces do. Since 1989, in Saskatchewan it's all provincial offences. In Manitoba, since 1987 it's all provincial offences except parking -- and no parking in Saskatchewan either. Most of them don't have parking. In Ontario, it's all provincial offences, including all ticketable offences, since 1995; in New Brunswick, all provincial fines, including tickets, since 1991; in Nova Scotia, all provincial offences except parking, since 1989; in Prince Edward Island, all provincial offences; in the Yukon, all territorial offences; in the Northwest Territories, all provincial fines except bylaw; and Alberta, Quebec and Newfoundland have no surcharge. So that's the national survey. Whether that leads the member to think where this is going and has a consequence on how he votes on this section, that's for the member.

M. de Jong: I thank the Leader of the Third Party for raising the point, in that I had made an assumption based on my reading of the act that may now prove to be incorrect. I wonder if the Attorney General can indicate.... When I read the act I took the definition of "offence" as being a contravention that harmed a victim. When I read that referencing who a victim was, and then, in dealing with this section -- deemed the "Victim surcharge levy" -- I assumed that this would be restricted to those offences where a victim could be identified pursuant to the definitions that existed in the act. If that's not the case -- and the Attorney General seems to be indicating that section 9 may have a much wider application than I first assumed -- then I'd like to hear about that now, as well.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That is why we have 7,000 lawyers in British Columbia: to make arguments of this kind. If the member reads subsection 9(1): "If a fine is imposed on a person under a prescribed enactment of British Columbia...." I think that could include the issues that the member for Peace River South and I have been talking about.

K. Jones: In section 9(3), with regard to whether the surcharge would not be imposed upon a fine imposed under the Young Offenders Act.... This would be rather disconcerting to those persons like Chuck Cadman, who lost a son as a result of the actions of a young offender and would feel that it would be only appropriate that that young offender, now an adult, pay something towards the costs of victim support or the victim program. If not that, what about the case of having the parent of the young offender be responsible for that sur-

[ Page 15938 ]

charge? Surely there has to be some connection for these cases of violent crime, whether they're committed by a young offender or not, to make some of this contribution towards the cost.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm sure Chuck Cadman would be more offended by the guilty party in the death of his son being assessed a fine rather than a jail sentence. I don't believe that in a case of that kind, where we have horrendous crimes which end up with long jail sentences, the member would prefer that a fine be imposed instead. I know the member wouldn't want that. There's no fine in that case; therefore this doesn't come into play.

If the member is suggesting something else -- that we should move to a system which not only includes a jail sentence but a payment toward victim services programs -- we haven't got that far in our system yet. Should we? It's a good matter for discussion. At this point it's simply a surcharge on fines that are charged; it is not an assessment for reparation against people who are sentenced without fine. I happen to personally believe that the system should move much more toward reparation, whether individual -- in some cases that's appropriate -- or collective, as the member is suggesting now. But the justice system is a little bit like a big battleship: it's slow to turn; we're taking this one step at a time.

K. Jones: I'm glad to hear the minister say that he's leaning towards this kind of thinking -- reparation along with the sentence. I didn't suggest any possibility that there would be no sentence, and a fine instead of that; that would be the most unacceptable proposal that we could ever consider. Certainly along with their sentencing there should be a means of reparation to support this kind of funding that's necessary. Either the person who has committed the crime or the parent of that person should be held liable for that. Therefore there should be a vehicle established to provide for that.

I'd like to ask the minister if photo radar fines, when they're brought in, would also be part of the surcharge source for this funding.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member makes his point. We're simply talking here about fine surcharges. Should we enact all the legislation that everybody can think of all at once so we have nothing to do for the next ten years in this Legislature? No, we're going to do it step by step and do it right and do it carefully. In the very unlikely event that the member's party were ever to be government, I'm sure he wouldn't want us to have done everything, so that there was nothing left for him to do.

K. Jones: Thank you to the minister for making the suggestion for the possibilities of the future. I'm sure that's future business he's talking about. I'm surprised that he even brought it up, but we'd be happy to test the process.

[9:00]

J. Dalton: I believe I heard the Attorney, in a response to a question from the member for Peace River South, say that by regulation, or something to that effect, certain offences will be caught by this surcharge and some will not. It would be my reading of subsection (1) that all enactments of British Columbia would be caught, other than.... I think he's talking about parking fines and things. I would suggest -- for example, the question that my colleague just raised -- that speeding offences and, I suppose, bicycle helmet offences would be caught as well, would they not?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member would be correct if the word "prescribed" weren't in the section; if it said "under an enactment of British Columbia," then the member would be correct. But what we've said is a "prescribed enactment," and that will come by way of regulation.

Section 9 approved on division.

On section 10.

J. Dalton: Anyone who donates to the Crown is entitled to a tax receipt. Would someone who makes a donation to this surcharge account under sub-subsection (3)(c) be entitled to a tax receipt?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I don't know. That's a good question, one that has not occurred to me. But it might be an interesting question for us to take up with the federal tax department, and I thank the member for his suggestion.

Sections 10 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

M. de Jong: If I could just ask the Attorney General, it is obviously a purposeful decision to exclude the special prosecutor's function from the possibility of review under the Ombudsman Act. Could the Attorney General just provide me with the reasoning that went into that?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member is asking why a special prosecutor is exempt from the ombudsman's attention. It's for the same reason that the entire activities of the criminal justice branch, in respect to prosecutions, are exempt. The special prosecutor is simply an independent person performing the same function as a prosecutor who works within the branch. It's not appropriate for the ombudsman to review charging decisions and the like.

Sections 13 to 20 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.

Bill 37, Victims of Crime Act, reported complete with amendment.

Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: With leave of the House now, hon. Speaker.

[ Page 15939 ]

Leave granted.

Bill 37, Victims of Crime Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call committee on Bill 38.

CRIMINAL INJURY COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

The House in committee on Bill 38; D. Lovick in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

J. Dalton: I have a question on section 4, and I think the question that I would have raised later under section 13 may perhaps be answered at the same time. So we'll see; this could be a two-for-one special.

I'm looking under section 4(b), which is the amendment to section 5(3)(a) in the actual act that we're amending. Let me give an actual case as an illustration; we'll see how the compensation factor kicks in. All members will recall that over two years ago -- I guess it was on March 18, 1993 -- when the doors of this building were broken in, one of the employees, Gary Miller, was quite badly injured -- his hip was broken. Happily, he's back at work. I talked with Mr. Miller the other day, and he raised an interesting point. Given the cutoff date in section 13 of June 1, 1995, is it correct -- this is his understanding -- that he would not be entitled to pain and suffering compensation, because he is collecting workers' compensation? Would he not be entitled to the pain and suffering compensation that this act is bringing in?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Gary would not be eligible now; but if what happened to him and to us on that day happened after June 1 of this year, he would be.

K. Jones: Could the minister tell us why pain and suffering is provided for in this particular case, yet under a Workers' Compensation Board case, which is being administered by the same process, persons are not able to get compensation for pain and suffering?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We're not here debating the Workers' Compensation Act, but the principle of that act does not include pain and suffering. It includes lost wages, therapy and whatever is required to bring the worker back to a position where he or she is able to go back to work, but pain and suffering is not a feature of the Workers' Compensation Act. If the member thinks it should be, he should probably write a letter to the Minister of Labour.

J. Weisgerber: I must confess that I'm nervous about the extension of coverage for pain and suffering for mental and emotional trauma. I'm not for a moment suggesting that those situations don't exist, but I've grown up watching U.S.-style justice and the effects of claims for pain and suffering, inflated automobile settlements and those kinds of things, which have become very much a part of that situation.

I'm wondering: can the minister tell me what kinds of constraints the government intends? The act certainly doesn't give us much sense of how that quite significant new feature is going to be administered. It's one thing to extend injury compensation from a dependent to one's immediate family; that's very much consistent with the changes in this act. I would like to have some pretty clear sense of how the minister sees the Crown administering this.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I need the member's help in this. The section simply extends to individuals who are criminally assaulted -- if I can put it that way -- at work the same right they would have if it happened at home or on the weekend or on the street. There are not a lot of people who are victims of crime at work; it's not a common occurrence.

The limitations are the same as they are for every other person who's eligible. The total amount available is set out in section 13 of the act. It can't exceed $50,000, and that's all found: that's pain and suffering, an award, rehabilitation and any other cost. The average pain and suffering amount is between $2,600 and $2,700.

J. Weisgerber: Just for my clarification, the compensation for pain and suffering, mental trauma, etc., is in place now for victims of crime, and this extends it, as the minister indicates. Indeed, the average award, the average compensation, under the existing act, is running in the $2,600 to $2,700 range. Perhaps to save me from going to section 13, is the limit of $50,000 set out in section 13 now in place for persons other than those injured at work by a criminal activity?

[9:15]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer is yes, that limitation does exist. All this section does -- this section, anyway, because there are other changes later -- is to extend that option to people who have been criminally injured at work.

Sections 4 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

J. Dalton: Of course, I got the one question, about June 1, answered earlier. The other aspect of this -- and I think that there was some comment in second reading.... Perhaps we can have it on the record: why was the date January 1, 1991, picked? Also, why do we have two different dates in here -- January 1, 1991, and June 1, 1995 -- for when this act was first introduced?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, the June date is for a program that did not exist, had not existed and had never been interpreted to be existent prior to now, with this change. The January 1, 1991, date was picked because prior to then, the adjudication process responded positively to people who had made applications and who were immediate family members of victims who were murdered. In and around 1991 the adjudication board paid more attention to the act and realized that, in fact, the act did not allow for family members of murder victims to be covered.

That became clear to me in my term as AG. I made public comments, the member may remember, in respect to a neighbouring constituent of the member in North Vancouver, when Dr. Flather's children and family were not considered to be victims by the legislation as it stood. That was just bizarre. So I determined then that we needed to amend the legislation.

[ Page 15940 ]

We then had to work out: did we just do it from then on and say "tough luck" to those people who'd been treated this way over the last four years? Even though I'm not a great fan of retroactive legislation, there are occasions when it's appropriate. I felt it was appropriate in this case to go back to the time when the adjudication board began to exclude people who were in that situation. That's why the January 1 date was picked. We were sure to go through to.... In fact, we talked to the people who could have been affected, and while things are never perfect, this was seen to be the most appropriate date.

Section 13 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 38, Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act, 1995, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's my understanding that I'm calling second reading of Bill 33, which is the Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1995. The minister, I hope, is noticing that I'm on my feet saying this.

The Speaker: We can take a moment until the minister has had an opportunity to arrive.

FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1995
(second reading)

Hon. E. Cull: Bill 33 proposes amendments to the Motor Fuel Tax Act, the Social Service Tax Act and the Tobacco Tax Act. These amendments are designed to clarify existing tax applications, to strengthen existing tax enforcement measures and to protect the existing tax base. Three of the amendments contained in this bill counteract the potentially significant negative revenue impacts resulting from court decisions over the last year.

First, the Social Service Tax Act is amended to clarify that tax applies to containers such as beer bottles, pop bottles and pallets that are returned and reused. By longstanding tax application, manufacturers and sellers have been required to pay tax on their purchase of such containers, because the container can be used several times to deliver a product to different customers. However, this tax application was successfully challenged through the court because the statute does not contain an explicit provision imposing the tax. The proposed amendment counteracts this court decision and thereby protects over $2 million in annual tax revenue.

Second, the bill amends the Motor Fuel Tax Act to provide explicit provisions imposing a tax liability where lower-taxed coloured fuel is used for unauthorized purposes. The tax rate on coloured fuel is 3 cents per litre, while the tax rate on clear fuel is 11 cents per litre. Coloured fuel may only be used for specific purposes, such as the operation of industrial machines off-highway or family farm trucks. Where coloured fuel is used for unauthorized purposes, an assessment is made for the difference between the lower and higher fuel tax rates. The province has received an adverse court decision which undermines its ability to make such assessments and to enforce the limitations on uses of coloured fuel. This decision places at risk over $6 million in past and future fuel tax revenues. Bill 33 addresses this problem by establishing an explicit provision to impose a tax liability where coloured fuel is used for unauthorized purposes.

Third, the Tobacco Tax Act is amended to clarify that only dealers who hold a permit under the act are authorized as agents for the minister to collect and remit the tax. This amendment counteracts the court decision that severely hampers the province's ability to collect the outstanding tax liabilities, where purchases are made from non-registered sellers who do not collect and remit the tax due to the province. The potential impact of this court decision is a serious escalation of illicit tobacco sales with resultant revenue losses in the tens of millions of dollars.

These amendments to the Motor Fuel Tax Act and the Tobacco Tax Act not only protect provincial revenue, they also promote equity and fairness by ensuring that persons who contravene the provisions of the statutes are not provided with a competitive advantage over those persons who comply with the legislation. For this reason, as well as the potentially significant revenue impact, these amendments are being made retroactive to April 1, 1989, within the six-year statutory refund and assessment limitation periods.

This bill also proposes amendments to both the Motor Fuel Tax Act and the Tobacco Tax Act to provide legislative support for the existing fuel and tobacco tax precollection schemes. The precollection scheme has been adopted administratively by all provinces for efficiency and convenience; however, because there are no specific legislative provisions supporting this scheme, it has been the subject of court challenges. An adverse court decision could jeopardize fuel and tobacco tax revenues in excess of $1 billion annually.

Bill 33 addresses this issue by establishing a system of security payments. Under this system wholesalers pay the Crown a security equal to the tax due on the taxable retail sale of fuel or tobacco that they import or acquire for resale in the province. Wholesalers are reimbursed for the security by charging a security to the retailers to whom they sell their products. The retailers reimburse themselves for the security from the tax collected on the subsequent retail sale of the fuel or tobacco. This security system avoids the expense of establishing and maintaining separate registration and collection systems for the thousands of tobacco and fuel retailers operating in the province.

Bill 33 also proposes amendments to the Social Service Tax Act to consolidate and clarify the application of the tax to telecommunication services. The existing legislation imposes the tax by simply defining telecommunication services to be tangible personal property. With the rapid, far-reaching technological advances in the telecommunications industry over the past several years, this is no longer an adequate basis for 

[ Page 15941 ]

the imposition of the tax. As a result, tax applications have had to rest primarily on administrative policy and interpretation. This has resulted in uncertainty in the industry and leaves the province vulnerable to court challenges.

The proposed amendments do not create a new tax burden; they simply provide explicit provisions for the imposition of the tax consistent with the existing tax application. The amendments, again, promote equity and fairness by bringing certainty to the application of the tax and by ensuring that taxpayers know when they have incurred a tax liability. By strengthening the legislative basis for imposing the tax, the amendments also protect this source of provincial revenue, which is estimated at up to $100 million annually.

Bill 33 also amends the Social Service Tax Act to remove an inequity in the timing for payment of tax on purchases and leases. The existing provisions require that the tax due on a purchase be paid at the time of purchase, even if credit is extended; however, the tax on lease payments is only due at the time the lease payment is made. This creates an inequity, because lessees are provided with a greater amount of time in which to pay the tax. The proposed amendment corrects this inequity by requiring that the tax due on leases be paid at the same time the lease payment is due.

[9:30]

Bill 33 also amends the Tobacco Tax Act by establishing a number of provisions in support of recent operational and legislative initiatives aimed at combatting tobacco smuggling and at protecting the integrity of the tobacco-marking program. Illicit sales of untaxed tobacco are serious threats to tobacco tax revenues and the integrity of the taxation system. Provincial tax revenue losses from tobacco smuggling are estimated to be at least $50 million annually. Without strong enforcement mechanisms, revenue losses could escalate to as high as $140 million. Four amendments are proposed in this bill to enhance the province's ability to combat illicit sales of tobacco.

First, a provision is established to prohibit counterfeiting of the unique British Columbia tobacco mark. Contravention of this provision is made subject to a fine of up to $50,000 or imprisonment for up to two years, or to both a fine and imprisonment.

Second, the bill establishes provisions to permit seizures of illicit tobacco by ministry officials where the quantities to be seized do not justify the diversion of police resources. Under existing legislation, only police are authorized to seize improperly marked tobacco. However, it is often impractical to divert scarce police resources to seize small amounts of tobacco. As a result, when ministry officials find improperly marked tobacco, they are enabled to take any action to ensure that the tobacco is not sold on the black market. Seizures of small quantities of tobacco by ministry officials reduce the demand on police resources and ensure the integrity of the tobacco-marking system.

Third, the bill establishes provisions to allow for forfeiture of tobacco by a person not entitled to be in possession of it. This applies to unmarked tobacco, counterfeit marked tobacco, tobacco bearing the mark of another jurisdiction or tobacco held for resale by a person who does not hold a retail dealer's authorization under the tobacco act. Forfeiture is necessary because in some cases a conviction under the act may not be successful, due to some legal technicalities. As a result, tobacco that was illegally held by an individual must be returned to that individual, who can then sell the tobacco on the black market. This amendment reduces the profit incentive from dealing in black-market tobacco.

Fourth, an amendment is proposed which prohibits British Columbia wholesalers from selling B.C.-marked tobacco to a dealer outside the province, unless that dealer holds a valid B.C. dealer's permit. Without this prohibition, British Columbia-marked tobacco can be sold to a wholesaler in another jurisdiction at that jurisdiction's lower tax rate, and then smuggled back into the province and sold at a lower rate than legitimate tobacco. There is no way of identifying such tobacco, because it bears a legitimate British Columbia mark.

Finally, Bill 33 proposes two housekeeping amendments to the Tobacco Tax Act. First, the act is amended to clarify that the existing provision allowing peace officers to conduct a search for unlawfully held tobacco without a warrant applies only where it would be impractical to obtain a warrant. Second, the definition of tobacco is amended to clarify that tobacco subject to the tax under the act includes raw leaf tobacco.

Hon. Speaker, I now move second reading of Bill 33.

F. Gingell: I appreciate that this is an important bill. The amounts of money that the minister has listed as being at risk would surely jeopardize our credit rating if we didn't move, and I can appreciate that the minister believes this is important.

Every year we go through a whole series of amendments because, it seems to me, when this legislation is originally drafted, they never really get it quite right, and we have to come back year after year and amend it. I accept my responsibility in doing my part to help this government fix these things up. They don't have a balanced budget; they just pretend they do. But if we don't do this it will be even worse than we expected. It's clearly a bill for debate in third reading, and I look forward to that discussion.

R. Neufeld: I will speak briefly to Bill 33, the Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1995. As the critic for Finance for the Liberal Party stated, this is a bill that deals with many sections of different acts that will take, I think, a tremendous amount of time in third reading to go through.

The minister talked about the hundreds of millions of dollars that are at stake here, so I agree that it's obviously an important act. But I noticed that some of the changes, specifically in the Motor Fuel Tax Act, will be predated to April 1, 1989. It's amazing. I guess that in the collection process the government is trying to go through now, they've found that they were able to go back that far and pick up some money. It will be interesting to see the explanations for some of that and whether we have been illegally charging people in the past for some things.

I look forward to third reading, to go section by section through Bill 33 and get explanations on each and every one of the items.

G. Wilson: Whenever one gets a bill such as Bill 33, the Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1995, and talks about amending a process in a number of bills 

[ Page 15942 ]

for the streamlining of tax collection, and when one rises in second reading to talk about it in principle, there is a great temptation to get into a rather long and detailed discourse on the whole process of taxation generally, and what the government is doing. I'm going to resist that temptation tonight, partly because of the lateness of the hour, but also because I would prefer to concentrate my comments on one particular section of this bill to do with the amendments to the Tobacco Tax Act with respect to the tax collected on tobacco and the attempt to try to eliminate or reduce the black-market sales.

I'm not going to get into too long a discourse on this tonight, but I think it's important for members of the Alliance to put on the record that it's somewhat ironic that we spend a lot of time in this House debating a bill brought in by the Minister of Health with respect to the restriction in provision of tobacco sales and how bad it is for our health, and how important it is that we try to limit, if not reduce, tobacco sales. Then we have Bill 33 which talks about the importance to the ongoing operation of government of the revenue we collect from the taxation of the sale of tobacco and how we should make every effort we can to tighten the loopholes, where they exist, to make sure that government doesn't lose that most critical and important revenue. I can't help but to very briefly comment on the great irony of the discourse that goes on in this chamber. On the one hand, we have admonition from the Minister of Health, saying that we ought to be doing everything we can to get rid of tobacco sales, and on the other hand, we're saying government depends on the revenue we get from the retail sales.

I think it bears suggesting that that kind of contradiction hasn't escaped the notice of the general public. When we deal with this bill in principle, I think we have to ask ourselves what government ought to be doing to try to get itself off the dependency on tobacco retail tax income, and we ought to be looking at what we can do to curb the sale of that product, period, in British Columbia.

I don't want to stray too far, but there was a great deal of discussion around whether or not we should be encouraging gaming, and proceeds from gaming, in order to look after the legitimate needs of Social Services and to have those proceeds go forward to look after charities, various other social organizations that depend on those charities, and those who, for reasons beyond their own control, cannot look after themselves. I find it absolutely ironic that we look toward the ongoing provision of income from tobacco taxation in order to provide revenue to government, and that the revenue largely goes to general revenue, which may then be funnelled off, in fact, to fuel the ongoing costs of health care -- much of which is driven by the sale of this product in the first place. One could make the same argument for government-run liquor stores, where people are spending a lot of time trying to tell us that we shouldn't consume alcohol; by the same token, it's a principal source of revenue for government.

That's a contradiction that all of us, as legislators, ought to deal with and tackle, because I don't think that we can have much credibility in the eyes of the public when we look at taxation reform -- and it's something that is going to be a major plank in the platforms of all political parties, I would guess, that contest the next election. If we're talking about the reduction of taxation and demand on taxation, this Bill 33 becomes a relevant issue. Our dependency on those incomes -- the income from tobacco tax and alcohol tax -- becomes a relevant issue because of the social cost of those products, in terms of what it costs us in ongoing service with respect to the abuse of alcohol, which creates not only health problems but also a myriad of social problems within the family, and in ongoing health costs of the abuse of tobacco. We heard a very long and eloquent discourse from the Minister of Health about youth and the addiction of youth. That has to be seen in light of what the government is putting in place today; it is tightening the net to secure its revenue.

There is one other issue with respect to this that I think needs, and bears, comment, and it has to do with black-market tobacco and the actual amount of tobacco that can be held at any one time and transported into British Columbia, and with the authorization this provides for peacekeeping officers to seize and not return. In the last year, I have had three constituent issues that surround this particular problem. Two occurred with people who were involved in the purchase of bulk tobacco and who have been prosecuted, in both cases now successfully so, by virtue of the fact that they were involved in buying bulk tobacco for people in their community -- who had asked them to purchase on behalf of, basically, a club, I guess, is the best way to describe it -- and upon doing so found themselves in violation of the statutes. One individual who was warehousing this product was charged with the illegal sale of tobacco.

The law wasn't clear. Hopefully, this is going to address some of those ambiguities, because I don't think there was an intention -- at least in one of the two cases -- for there to be any deliberate breaking of the law. But an unclear description of what is permitted in terms of bringing in this tobacco unmarked for sale in British Columbia caused the prosecution to go forward and to be successful. Now one person is without appeal, even though they're only one of five people who were involved in that process, four of whom now are walking away uncharged but are equally as guilty of consumption of that product -- only one, because it happened to be their residence that was used as warehousing.

When we get to committee stage on this bill, I really want to go through some of this with the minister, because in drafting legislation we have to recognize that it often has an effect on people, or people may be affected by it in ways and manners that we are not aware of. So we do have to look at those kinds of things.

The third and the last of the issues came about with respect to aboriginal sale. I caution the minister, in the introduction of these amendments with respect to the tightening up of tobacco taxation regulation, that there is going to be -- my guess -- a greater shift toward aboriginal sale of tobacco as a result of what the minister is proposing. My guess is that it's likely to happen because it is going to provide an avenue for sale for people already in the business of black-market sale of tobacco. They are now going to be able to use aboriginal retail outlets, or those retailing or bulk-selling through aboriginal communities, to move what would otherwise be a black-market product, because -- unless I'm wrong, and the minister could correct me if I am wrong -- this will not apply to aboriginal people, some of whom are suggesting that tobacco is a part of an aboriginal right -- which it may be, in its raw form. However, I would argue that once it's rolled or processed, it certainly is not.

This whole business of taxation on tobacco is a big issue. It's an issue that I think warrants careful discussion; it war-

[ Page 15943 ]

rants a great deal of care in committee stage. In principle, I want to reiterate how contradictory and ironic it is that on the one hand, we stand up and admonish the question of cigarette smoking and, on the other hand, how addicted the government is to the revenues that it gains from it. That's something I think we should try to get away from so that we really can become restrictive with respect to the provisions of legal sale.

[9:45]

The Speaker: The minister closes debate.

Hon. E. Cull: As a number of members have already said, this is a bill that is probably better debated in committee stage than in second reading. But I did want to just take a minute and respond to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast with respect to the comments he made on the tobacco tax.

I don't think that there is a contradiction in what we are saying from the tax point of view and what we are saying from the health policy point of view when it comes to tobacco taxation and the use of tobacco. I can quite honestly say that if tobacco revenue dropped as a result of a drop in use of tobacco by British Columbians, I'd personally be very pleased to see that happen. I think that the government would find ways to deal with its revenue loss and would count that to be a positive net economic contribution -- putting aside the health concerns -- because if people stopped smoking tobacco in this province, our health costs would go down dramatically and far more offset the tax costs.

The issue that's inherent in this particular piece of legislation is not a matter of less tax revenue being collected because people are wisening up to the fact that tobacco is very dangerous to their health, but it is a fact that people are smoking and avoiding paying the tax through illegal means. The federal government cut the tax unilaterally against the advice of our government, against the advice of the Health minister, in fact against the advice of all the Health and Finance ministers in western Canada. What we have learned since the federal government dropped the taxes, dramatically reducing the cost of tobacco in some of the other provinces, is that the rates of smoking in those provinces have increased, whereas in British Columbia it has continued to drop. We had the lowest rate of smoking in the country, and I believe we continue to do so.

I think there is both a health reason and a revenue reason to keep a fairly high tax rate on tobacco products, because the number one group that is starting to smoke with an alarming increase is young girls, and price is definitely a barrier to that age group. The more expensive the product, the less likely they are to be able to afford it and to consume it in large quantities. I understand the point that the member is making, but I don't think there is an inconsistency.

In fact, if we were to drop the tax and thereby reduce our revenue for tobacco products, that would have a negative health impact. That is why the four western provinces plus the two territories all got together immediately after the, I think, poorly motivated and poorly considered action of the federal government and decided on a united action to combat tobacco smuggling while maintaining the tax structures in those provinces and territories. So there was no cost incentive to encourage people to take up what is clearly a very unhealthy habit and one that is very expensive to our health care system.

With that, I move second reading of the bill, and we'll continue the debate in committee stage.

Motion approved.

Bill 33, Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes 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. E. Cull: I call committee stage on Bill 44.

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1995

The House in committee on Bill 44; D. Lovick in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

G. Wilson: I want to talk about the investor relations activities section. I wonder if the minister might want to talk just a little bit about section 2(a) with respect to the dissemination of information provided or records prepared and about the distinction here when it says "to promote the sale of products or services of the issuer," and then it says "that cannot reasonably be considered to promote the purchase or sale of securities of the issuer." That seems to be an item that.... Notwithstanding the fact that I think it's fairly consistent with what has appeared in the past, it seems to be an item that warrants some debate as to whether or not it's possible to actually make that distinction with respect to the dissemination of information provided that cannot reasonably be considered to promote the purchase or sale. The minister might want to explain that.

Hon. E. Cull: As I think the member knows, this definition is here to provide for regulation of a type of activity which many, including Jim Matkin, have pointed to as being a source of problems with the securities industry. This particular definition will permit the regulation of promotional activities related to the trading of securities.

Interjections.

Hon. E. Cull: I'm sorry, hon. Chair; I was just letting some discussion take place on the other side of the House. I'm sure that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast could not hear the answer.

This definition permits the regulation of the promotional activities related to the trading of securities, while not interfering with activities that are carried out in the ordinary course related to promotion of products, compliant with regulatory instruments or journalistic commentary. We're trying to define more accurately what it is that's trying to be regulated here without casting a net so broadly that it takes in things like journalistic commentary, which, of course, would not be the type of thing we'd want to regulate.

[ Page 15944 ]

G. Wilson: I think we need to have it a little bit more clearly spelled out than that, because if I'm reading this correctly -- and the minister might want to correct me if I'm wrong.... What it says is:

"...the dissemination of information provided, or records prepared, in the ordinary course of the business of the issuer

"(i) to promote the sale of products or services of the issuer, or

"(ii) to raise the public awareness of the issuer,

"that cannot reasonably be considered to promote the purchase or sale of securities of the issuer."

The commentary I'm hearing from those in the industry is that that's such a grey line that it really is very difficult to define. It's so open to interpretation that they really question the wisdom of putting this in as a definition.

Hon. E. Cull: Again -- and I give this information now just because it will be information that I'll have to give consistently throughout this bill -- these amendments were published and were discussed extensively, as is the normal course of practice with the B.C. Securities Commission. In fact, the wording that is here has been based on advice that we have received as a result of that consultation. The earlier draft was criticized as having cast too broad a net, and this is as a result of the work that has been done and the consultation that we have received.

In terms of interpreting it, in the end it will be a case-by-case basis determined by the Securities Commission.

G. Wilson: The people who have provided advice to me on this bill don't come from the Securities Commission, but they have been actively involved in reviewing it, making comments on it and have a profession with respect to activities within it, so we may come at this from a slightly different perspective. It may be that the Securities Commission is providing advice, but there are others who are users, or people who are in the system, who are questioning the wisdom of it.

I guess the minister is saying that that's a decision that's taken which is going to then be used with discretion -- or not. Is the minister not saying that?

Hon. E. Cull: I did not say that the B.C. Securities Commission had advised on this language. I said that they have published it, and it has been reviewed -- perhaps by the same people who have advised you on this. But it is out there in the public realm so that those who are involved in the securities business can take a look at it. So it includes everybody from the lawyers to the accountants and the brokers themselves. Anyone who has an interest can take a look at this. Many people did take a look at this and provided us with extensive advice on what should be changed. I think the member misunderstood me. The circulation has been much broader than the commission. It has been into the public, if you like -- maybe not the general public, but the public that is interested in securities regulations.

F. Gingell: The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has understandable concerns, because we're dealing with an absolutely new issue. This has not been part of the Securities Commission's responsibilities before. I'm sure we all agree that it is really important for the Securities Commission to have some tools to regulate and to ensure that the activities of promoters come under their jurisdiction. If you look through all the problems that have raised their ugly heads over the last few years, the majority of them start with unreasonable, improper, inflated promotions. But there is naturally a concern that there is some kind of definition of what is promoting a product or service the company wants to sell, and what is promoting a share or a security of the company.

What I would like to see from the minister -- and perhaps it will deal with the member's concerns too -- is that as some experience comes about in the first year in this specific area, there be a report available in some form to members of the House. My own feelings about this issue -- and I don't think it's partisan; I think it's non-political -- is that I basically support the proposals that Bill 44 puts forward. But I do that because I really don't know whether they're going to succeed. We're entering into new territory, particularly in the area of investor relations activities and how well all this works and what effect that has on the reputation of the VSE and the securities industry in British Columbia. It really has nothing to do with Bill 44; it's going to have to do with the way these tools are used by the officials and the people whom you have designated to fulfil these functions.

So there is going to be this issue, and I think there are going to be some more that will come to us as we go along. Perhaps the minister would like to respond to the thought of some process by which, in a year or whatever is an appropriate lapse of time, these items can be revisited in a manner where members of the Legislature who take an interest in this subject can get an understanding of what's going on.

[10:00]

Hon. E. Cull: With respect to the overall implementation of the Matkin commission, I have said on a number of occasions that I see this as a continual process. We have made some changes as a result of the recommendations, and we will monitor those changes. If they prove not to be effective, we will make other changes. I'm in tune with the recommendation of the member, if what he is saying is that we keep a close watch on this, and that if it doesn't do what we think it should do, or if it does something we don't think it should do, we will then make adjustments accordingly.

I will also point out that the B.C. Securities Commission can publish an interpretation to provide greater refinements or definitions -- a working operational definition -- to the industry should the case arise. Paragraph (d) of the definition of "investor relations activities" -- in section 2; there are four paragraphs -- also provides that you can prescribe activities or communications for the purpose of the definition. So we have, without having to go back and amend the legislation, two means of providing greater clarity. But in principle, I accept the spirit of what the member is discussing.

G. Wilson: I think that is going to be useful for us to watch as time progresses. I have only two other fairly quick questions on this section. Depending on how the minister responds, they may be quick -- or not.

It would seem also, and I think the minister alluded to this earlier.... It is suggested that under paragraph (c), "communications by a publisher of, or a writer for, a bona fide newspaper, news magazine...." It says here that where.... Then it says: "...(i) the communication is only through the newspaper, magazine or publication, and (ii) the publisher or writer receives no commission or other consideration other than for acting in the capacity of publisher or writer...."

[ Page 15945 ]

What I'm assuming here is that a publication that may in fact.... Let me use Vancouver Stockwatch as an example. Does that qualify under this? If so, where does somebody who has been involved in putting that together fit in with respect to the remuneration that may be considered? If fact, they may be contracted by individuals to look into matters and to use that documentation as part of their research to be published, which may be either to the advantage or the detriment of somebody who is listing. I wonder if the minister could tell us how that kind of activity, which I think is fairly common, would fit into (c) -- if it fits into (c) at all.

Hon. E. Cull: Stockwatch would fit, I believe, under the definitions in (c), if that's the example the member wants to use on this. Again, it's trying to avoid capturing journalistic commentary but also to provide some safeguards so that someone can't appear to create a newspaper or newsletter that is really just a vehicle for promotional activity, unless it is a bona fide newspaper, newsmagazine or financial publication. The prohibitions about commission and other considerations.... So Stockwatch, to my understanding, would qualify with the definition under (c).

G. Wilson: I have just one more question on the same theme. It's a question of who determines.... What's been brought to my attention.... I've really taken a long time to get my head into this bill, because, as I confessed to the minister before, this is not my area of expertise, and I've really worked overtime to try and understand its complexity.

I'm told that a measure of this section is the expertise of the writer and how the writer presents that expertise -- as to whether or not they consider that that person is an expert. Therefore the commentary on it would be deemed to be by a person who has expert knowledge -- I don't want to use the word inside knowledge, because that's not what they use, but they talk about expert knowledge -- as opposed to somebody who is simply writing general commentary with respect to that product. I wonder if that's been discussed.

There is some concern with respect to new publications that may be forthcoming in light of this legislation, where people would be contracted and who have expertise in a particular field -- mining, for example -- may therefore use that expertise and the letters to be able to effectively promote, in the name of journalism, new product or new stock that's coming on market. I wonder if there's been any discussion around that, because that would be quite different than somebody who is a journalist by trade, as opposed to somebody who is a geological engineer by trade.

Hon. E. Cull: The expertise of the writer is not an aspect of the definition, so that advice is not correct in this situation. The definition speaks about bona fide newspapers, news magazines or business or financial publications that are in regular and paid circulation, distributed to subscribers, and for which there is no commission received by the publisher or the writer. So that should capture all of the legitimate journalistic publications that contain this kind of information.

I guess it's not outside of the realm of possibility that someone wanting to find a hole in the regulations that will restrict promotion may try to invent a publication that fits this description, which is just a disguise for promotion. We will have to pay attention to that as we work with this section, and if necessary, use the provisions that I've just spoken about -- either the interpretation that could be published by the Securities Commission, the powers that are given under paragraph (d), which would allow further definition of the activities, or even, as the member for Delta South suggests, perhaps coming back again at some subsequent time and looking at the legislation. It's a tricky matter, as I'm sure you can appreciate. You don't want to create a definition that pulls in legitimate publications, but you also have to make sure you define it tightly enough so that it's difficult to abuse the section. I don't know whether you can absolutely get it watertight so that someone who is bound and determined to break the law does not do so. All I can say is that this should leave the legitimate publications where they should be, and we have some other tools at hand that we can use to close any loopholes that appear through living with this section.

G. Wilson: I have one comment, with a question at the end of it. As the member for Delta South just commented to me in an aside, it would seem that one of the issues that might clarify this in the minds of the legitimate individuals -- and they're the ones I think we're seeking to protect here -- is the question of who pays for this. Under subsection 2(c)(ii), where it says that you can't receive any money, it says: "...the publisher or writer receives no commission or other consideration other than for acting in the capacity of publisher or writer." So that presumes salary, I think, as opposed to somebody who may be contracted to provide an article.

So the question is: who contracts them to write? Who pays that individual? Would it be appropriate to have some kind of designation? As the member for Delta South mentioned, there are times when you'll find in a publication, for example, that it will have "advertisement" on the top. That makes it very clear to anybody who's looking at it that that person has been paid to present that material, but the material is, by any definition, advertisement.

Hon. E. Cull: I think you have to read the definition all together. I think the member is suggesting that it is conceivable that a company could decide to hire a writer or a publisher and pay them as a writer or a publisher, essentially to write stuff that would be a promotional activity. However, the printed material wouldn't be a bona fide newspaper, newsmagazine or business or financial publication that is in general and regular paid circulation. It wouldn't be a bona fide newspaper, newsmagazine, etc. So the whole has to come together. If somebody had hired a writer to write something simply for promotion, you would then be able to argue that you're not simply paying them as a writer for writing; you're paying them for promotion. I think this definition captures that.

G. Wilson: I have one very quick question on this before we proceed. Maybe I should have done my homework on this, but I just noticed tonight that in the definition of "spouse," it does talk about a relationship between members of the same sex. Is that consistent with the existing definition, or is that new? If it's new, are there implications? I'm thinking particularly of tax and investment implications.

Hon. E. Cull: It is a new definition of spouse. It's consistent with the definition for spouse that we have been using when we have been either introducing new legislation or amending existing legislation, bringing all the definitions of spouse into consistency with one another and ensuring that same-sex marriages are recognized as a spousal relationship in these cases.

[ Page 15946 ]

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

G. Wilson: Just a quick question with respect to "private mutual fund" under section 3(a)(ii), where it says that "it does not pay or give any remuneration for investment, management or administration advice in respect of trades in securities or exchange...except normal brokerage fees...." That is, I understand, determined by some form of schedule.

Hon. E. Cull: I'm not sure what the member's question is. Is he asking about the normal brokerage fees -- whether they are determined by some schedule? They are determined by the broker.

G. Wilson: So they're deregulated, but they would appear in some form of schedule in terms of the fund -- in other words, they're reported, right? Yes?

Hon. E. Cull: I see my critic assisting the member over there with the definition. I'm puzzled by the question, so I may not be providing the answer that he wants. But this is a definition of a "private mutual fund" -- in other words, an investment club that does not have administrative fees or anything else, but the members of the club would pay the normal fees that an individual would pay to a broker when acquiring shares and securities.

F. Gingell: I know it's getting late, but I was surprised that you went through the exercise in 3(a)(iii) of moving the words "to make contributions" from "all of its members are required to make contributions...for the purpose of financing...." You've moved those words down to the second line after "financing its operations." Was this just to improve the flow of the English, or was there some other reason for this?

Hon. E. Cull: The language is the same. We didn't change it; it is the same. Yes, I see you had the statute there, which leads me to believe that you may be correct. What I've got here is the.... Oh, I'm sorry, just let me turn the page.

No, you are correct. The language has been changed around, and I assume that this is on the advice of legal counsel in terms of greater clarity. This is an existing unproclaimed section, and I guess because the opportunity of review occurred in redoing the act -- I don't know the age of that particular section; it wouldn't be that old -- legal counsel would have advised as to the wording.

[10:15]

F. Gingell: I don't want to waste the committee's time, but I didn't realize that you could take one definition out of a series of definitions and not proclaim it. Is that so?

Hon. E. Cull: I think you can take any part of an act and not proclaim it.

G. Wilson: I beg your pardon. In my zealousness to make sure that this bill does get full scrutiny.... Actually, I've finished with section 3.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

G. Wilson: I guess I have to ask for the minister to once again explain -- and I know she's already done this -- the rationale for the move toward the 11 members as opposed to nine members. One of the things around which there's obviously going to be considerable discussion is the Securities Commission's policy advisory committee, and we'll deal with that when we get to section 9. But also around the whole structure and makeup of the commission now, could the minster reiterate -- and I know it's late, but it's the government's call to keep going and not ours -- what it is that prompted that? I understand the Matkin report; I've read it. And I understand the criticisms of it, because it's the structure and makeup of the commission that has caused some people some concern.

Hon. E. Cull: The increase in the number from nine to 11 came about as a result of extensive discussions after the Matkin commission report was released -- many discussions with Mr. Matkin himself, but also with others who had an interest in this matter.

For reasons that I'm sure we'll get into during this debate, the proposal by Mr. Matkin -- in terms of restructuring the Securities Commission along the lines of the Workers' Compensation Board model, which is how he described it -- was rejected because it took people who might be perceived by the public to have a conflict of interest, in that they were active, engaged participants in the industry, and put them onto the Securities Commission -- in much the same way that you can imagine a WCB model, where you have employers and employees who obviously have conflicts of interests in terms of how that legislation would be administered. The concept in both cases was that they would somehow balance each other out and that some public interest would arise as a result.

There was not very much support for that model, for many reasons. My main reason was that I didn't think it would provide the security to the public that was needed. There was also extensive representation made, from securities commissions right across the country, that the model would create problems for national securities regulation. I had the opportunity to discuss the matter with people in England, as well as to have my staff discuss matters with the United States regulators.

We then attempted to salvage the principles from the recommendation. I didn't want to just reject the recommendation because, overall, Mr. Matkin gave a very good report, with many things that we have followed up on. So we went back and tried to get at what the principles were that led to the recommendation.

One of the main principles was concern about the commissioners, because of the structure of the commission, because of the part-time versus full-time commissioners and because of the responsibilities involved in some hearings, which, as the member is probably quite aware, can go on for months, or years in some cases, and involve extensive amounts of time. While the commissioners have served us very well, I think, there was some concern that that could be improved upon, and that we could broaden the expertise of the commissioners. One way of doing that was to bring in commissioners who would not be hearings commissioners, so that there was the ability to have the expertise of somebody on the commission who might not be able to have the time to devote to doing a lot of hearings.

[ Page 15947 ]

There were a number of changes. I'm giving a bit of a broad perspective at this point, which I hope will be useful to the member. But one of the things we sought to do was make it possible for more expertise to be represented at the commission table. One thing that would contribute to that, we felt, was adding an additional two commissioners by expanding the board from nine to 11 commissioners. With the existing nine commissioners, given the time and the number of cases, it was felt that there just weren't enough of them. There weren't enough resources to deal with the issue, particularly if we increase our regulation and enforcement and therefore hold even more hearings.

This particular one is part of the response to Matkin. I believe it responds to the principles behind the recommendations, and they were, of course, discussed with him extensively before we made the announcements.

G. Wilson: I thank the minister for that very broad explanation. I think it's useful, because one of the issues that I think is important or somewhat relevant to the people who have concerns is that, in fact, there be a broader base of expertise and an opportunity to have at least the appearance of -- in fact, I would argue, the practice of -- a more broadly based commission in place. That's something that I think is desirable and that we might want to support.

Under section 4, there's a change, then, to move to a second-vice-chair model. I wonder if the minister might want to suggest why there was a decision to do that. Is that simply a structural matter with respect to absentees, and therefore an opportunity to have the commission exercise somebody else in the role of chair without the intervention of the minister, or is there some other reason for that?

Hon. E. Cull: The second vice-chair, again, enhances the ability of the commission to deal with the matters that are in front of them. In this case, the second vice-chair will provide additional adjudicative capacity to the commission by having two vice-chairs plus the chair. That's, again, the decision to provide for a second vice-chair.

F. Gingell: At the moment, the commission has a chairman and a vice-chairman. Is it the intention for the chairman, who presently has some adjudicative duties, to continue in that role?

Hon. E. Cull: One of the commitments and recommendations flowing from the Matkin commission was to reduce the hearing capacity of the chair so that the chair could have a greater role in terms of the overall management and direction of the Securities Commission.

G. Wilson: I'm not sure that it was to reduce the hearing capacity of the chair as much as it was to reduce the number of hearings. I think that is.... Just to let the minister know that we are listening attentively to every word she says.

Under section 7, I understand that that is really just a very minor amendment, and I would gather that in section 9 there are very minor amendments in language with respect to "must" and "shall." I don't know if there are any other differences there. It would seem that they just bring it into consistency with section 4(4). Is that correct?

Hon. E. Cull: Sections 7 and 9 are just consequential to providing for the second vice-chair and also to providing gender-neutral language.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

G. Wilson: I think there's a general agreement that we're going to try to wrap up. From my own point of view -- I can only speak for myself -- I'd be prepared to move through to section 7, where I have further questions. If the member for Delta South....

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I'm not quite so accommodating.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

Hon. G. Clark: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. G. Clark: I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:28 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Schreck in the chair.

The committee resumed at 6:39 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT AND INVESTMENT
(continued)

On vote 24: minister's office, $375,615 (continued).

D. Symons: As we broke, I posed a question about looking over the long term at the costs of SkyTrain and the fact that there is an operating profit, compared to rapid transit of other sorts or rapid buses. I asked whether there has been any study looking over a 20-year period or whatever -- maybe SkyTrain does not end up being the expensive investment as suggested.

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, it does not make an operating profit, although it is quite close. I think the subsidy per ride is 

[ Page 15948 ]

about a buck on the operating side. If you include debt service which, of course, is the only prudent way of doing it, it is $9.29 every time someone steps on a SkyTrain car, which is a fairly hefty amount.

Here's what is interesting about SkyTrain, as someone who tended to be a critic at the time. First of all, ridership is about 50 percent higher than projected. One can't dismiss that. Secondly, it works extremely well, it's very popular and it clearly has fed densities -- the kinds of densities that we need for the livable region plan. I'll cut it short; the Chair is, correctly, already exerting the hook.

Let me just say this. If you get 20,000 passengers per hour -- in other words, max out on SkyTrain -- as opposed to LRT, which maxes out at more like 10,000 to 15,000, or rapid bus, which is 5,000, then the cost per ride to SkyTrain is very competitive with rapid transit. That's why Kuala Lumpur has chosen it -- in part, at least. On the other hand, we're getting, right now, 10,000. We are getting half the capacity of the SkyTrain system today, and that is why our cost per ride is significantly higher. If it gets to 20,000 and you start weighing in that advantage, then you have a system which is, in fact, competitive with any other system.

D. Symons: I keep reading from clippings, because that is where I get a lot of my information from. I've got a clipping from the April 15, 1995, Vancouver Sun. It talks about the transit problem and studies being done. I'm wondering if the minister might be able to give me a little more information on these. It says that there have been 200 studies or more. "Since 1970, the Greater Vancouver Regional District has produced 255, some just a few pages thicker than the lower mainland telephone directory, on transportation. More than 100 of them deal with transit issues." They ask: "Do you know that a rapid transit link between Vancouver and Richmond is still a matter of lengthy debate" -- which I have debated with the minister also -- "and was suggested back in 1970?"

I'm concerned that we've had these problems around for a great deal of time. The most recent ones, the 2021 study and The Liveable Region study, are worth about $400,000, yet we still seem to be doing studies. I'm assuming that the plan you're coming out with will finally put some of these studies to rest, in the sense that they'll be putting something into action. I'm just looking to see if that will be the case, and the minister has indicated that it will be.

Hon. G. Clark: Let the record show.

D. Symons: Yes, let the record show. We have a problem, I guess, with what is referred to as a two-line transit plan. It has angered some of the mayors in the Vancouver area. Coquitlam is somewhat concerned about it because of the possibility of something going through Broadway and connecting to a connector that will go to the Coquitlam area. This seems to be the most recent transit initiative, which only surfaced, I think, recently. When we were first elected, there was only one rapid transit initiative on the drawing board. In fact, I went down and visited B.C. Transit as soon as I became critic and was shown a model of the plan to take rapid transit out to Richmond. Richmond's advisory board got together. They came up with a recommendation, passed it on and completed their work. Coquitlam's advisory board apparently fell apart very quickly. They didn't complete it until the minister sort of jogged them back to life a few years ago.

[6:45]

It seems that when there was one plan on the table, there was something to do. Now we have many plans, and each one pre-empts the other. As soon as it looks like there might be a consensus coming, we find another plan thrown out that throws everything back into the problem of: "Nothing is getting done. We're waiting for this new plan to settle in order to see what happens." Are these all trial balloons? As soon as the GVRD comes to something, another organization will put out a different plan. It almost looks like a concerted effort to keep the pot boiling, in a sense, so that a decision won't be made.

Hon. G. Clark: No, we'll be making a decision.

I might add a couple of points. One is that the decision made by the previous administration to build a rapid transit line to Richmond was a political decision. I would not quarrel with that political right to make a decision. All we did was say: "Okay, let's review it and see whether it's the best use of scarce resources and the best decision." So we put it into a rational planning process. Coincidental with that was the GVRD Livable Region Strategic Plan, which pointed out that we needed three rapid transit lines. Now we're doing the analysis on the three to see which one makes the most sense.

I might remind the member that his leader, when he was mayor of Vancouver, denounced the rapid transit line to Richmond. He said he would not allow the rapid transit line to Richmond through Vancouver and that buses were more appropriate. I might ask my colleague what his leader says now about the rapid transit line to Richmond.

D. Symons: I'm aware of what the member says about mayors of Vancouver, and I don't think you can quote a particular mayor. I think this has been a historic stand on the part of Vancouver mayors. I suspect they were looking at avoiding what we'll call the Seattle experience -- an I-5 through the middle of town in Vancouver. I think they quite rightly avoided that.

I'm not quite so sure of rapid transit. Some sort of transportation into Vancouver is going to be necessary if the core of Vancouver is going to stay a live city, and not move to some other area. Mayors past, present and future in Vancouver are going to have to wrestle with that problem.

One thing that is of concern to a number of people, though, is the idea of using the bait -- I guess you could call it that -- of transit and rapid transit as a means of levering people into a high-density community plan or as a driving force to bring about regional developments. This is what bothers me about the decision dealing with Richmond. Indeed, the GVRD uses this in their argument. I sat in a meeting with some of its members a while back. I'm not disagreeing with it, but the problem I have is that Richmond is in the unenviable position of having done that. Richmond has an official community plan that fits that model exactly. They worked toward it for a few years and put it in place.

There are other areas where we're saying: "We'll put transit out there in order to have them come around to this point of view. We'll use it as bait to have them pass official community plans that will fit the high-density needed for rapid transit." In a sense, if Richmond had been slow in doing this or hadn't done it, they'd be in the same boat as the others and able to argue: "You offer us an incentive, and you'll get rapid transit."

[ Page 15949 ]

Right now we seem to be punished for the fact that we've done exactly what the GVRD and the Transit people are suggesting needs to be done in order to warrant bringing rapid transit in. It's of concern to me that Richmond has done this. They've fulfilled the necessary hoops, so to speak, to go through. The other areas haven't, yet they're more likely to get it, from all the words coming from the people involved; Richmond is not.

Hon. G. Clark: I don't think it's accurate. The GVRD pointed out that we need three transit lines to achieve the goals of the compact metropolitan region, and I agree with that. I know that some people say this, but no one should say that the government is opposed to the Richmond line or opposed to this line or to that line. We are in favour of three rapid transit lines. Given the debt management plan and scarce resources, which line should we start on first and how should the phasing go? That's all we're debating. We're not debating that Richmond doesn't deserve rapid transit; I'd be delighted to provide rapid transit to Richmond.

There's a complicating factor in Richmond: the sort of technology and route and the Vancouver problem. I'm sympathetic to Richmond on this, notwithstanding that I'm from Vancouver. We will likely have to go underground in parts, likely down Cambie, and probably with conventional LRT technology. The government hasn't said that, but I'll just state that my view of it is that you're approaching the billion-dollar range, and then you start looking at that as opposed to the other two routes, the cost per ride and all those questions. That's exactly what we're weighing now, and we will make a decision very shortly.

D. Symons: The other route that seems to be in favour right now is this Broadway route. I was in Calgary this summer for the first time in a very long time to see the light rapid rail they have there, which works very well. When you get right outside the downtown core, there is a lot of space where the rail can go in without really conflicting with road traffic, buildings and what not.

That's not true of the Broadway route at all. Once you get on Lougheed you're fine, but when you're going out to Arbutus from Renfrew Street, you're in trouble. You've got city streets all the way.

In the Calgary one there are maybe seven to ten blocks in the downtown part, and at either end of that you're out of it along 7th Street or 7th Avenue -- whatever it is there. I did notice that that street is not much of a thoroughfare anymore; it's used primarily for the light rail. The other streets on either side of it are all one-way streets, one way or the other. That seems to have taken all the traffic that would normally be on the other ones.

There was very little traffic along the street where the rail was, but there was a fair amount of foot traffic. West Broadway doesn't have on either side of it -- East Broadway, either, for that matter -- streets that are going to be suitable as alternative one-ways or both-ways to replace the traffic that will be displaced from Broadway. I know the minister would like to think -- we'd all like to think -- that these people are all going to hop on the rail line and take rapid rail down Broadway. I think the reality is that it's not going to happen.

The other side of this is that a lot of businesses there are very concerned about what is going to happen to them. It's really going to involve taking parking away from the street, which will impact quite heavily on them. How are these issues going to be addressed?

Hon. G. Clark: Those are good questions. First of all, let me say that it is possible to do, as a phase, Commercial Drive to Lougheed Mall. It doesn't have many of the impacts the member is talking about when linking downtown in that way. That's not the West Broadway piece, but the member would probably agree that the Calgary system might work very well down a very big street like Lougheed. That would help, and that has some real attraction. Then you have the section from Lougheed to Coquitlam Centre, which likewise would be fairly inexpensive in conventional rapid transit work. From Commercial Drive west, even if this line were chosen, there's still debate as to how far the line would go. That has to be worked out. If we were to do it in consultation with the merchants, the city and otherwise.... From a B.C. Transit perspective, frankly, you could probably go all the way to Arbutus and justify it.

Here's the situation: it's six lanes on Broadway, and it's very congested. The densities are significant on Broadway, and buses at rush hour go every one and a half or three minutes. I don't know if the member has been to city hall and tried to get on a bus at rush hour. On Broadway I had the misfortune of doing that about four years ago -- it's worse today -- and four buses passed me. I waited forty minutes to get on. It's now to the stage where quite often there will be five transit buses within ten metres of each other. It's almost bumper to bumper. There's no parking, and they just fly down there, although it's very congested.

We have a very serious congestion problem. To say that six lanes of traffic at rush hour is not challenging for the merchants, now that parking is gone, is simply incorrect. I would say that if we were to do that, we'd move very carefully. There's a logic to hooking up with Commercial Drive station. The farther you move east.... I think you work that through in a consultative way, not in a heavy-handed provincial government way.

An interesting dilemma, which the Finance critic would appreciate, is that this is a profitable bus route. Because of the densities, it has by far the best economics for rapid transit, but it certainly would not be profitable. It would have the ability to provide significantly superior service and to continue to support the kinds of densities and livability we've been talking about. Again, even with the three lines, the Broadway-Lougheed line in particular, I think there is a phasing question as to how you'd start. I think the prudent approach would be not to do anywhere near what Arbutus did, and that would be lots of consultation. You could profitably or productively look at something much shorter than that.

D. Symons: Just one more kick, since I am the member for Richmond Centre and want to make sure that I express the views and concerns of the Richmond City Council, and my own views and concerns as well.

At a city council meeting on May 18 of this year, council ratified the acting committee of the whole in declaring the conclusion of the report by the GVRD:

"The staff concludes that capacity transit system studies do not provide sufficient information to identify rapid transit priorities be endorsed, and that the GVRD and B.C. Transit be advised accordingly; and that B.C. Transit, the Crown corpora-

[ Page 15950 ]

tion secretariat and the Transportation Financing Authority be requested to initiate a more comprehensive, open and participatory process for expanding these studies in cooperation with the GVRD and affected municipalities within the context of the GVRD regional strategic plans."

I'm simply passing along to the minister that that was passed by Richmond council approximately a month ago. I assume that that information has now been forwarded to the minister, and I would ask his consideration of that.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm just a little puzzled by that remark, because I'm sure I recollect the member demanding that we stop all these studies. I gave confirmation that the transit plan we announced would bring these studies to some conclusion. Now I think I heard him demand that we do more studies. Having said that, I'll certainly give it due consideration.

D. Symons: I catch the drift of the minister's comments. Maybe I'm practising being government by saying one thing and doing another. Maybe I'm just learning as the system goes along. I may be a slow learner, at that.

Has B.C. Transit looked at other jurisdictions to see how private funding might have been used for rapid transit? You mentioned you can't afford to put three lines in. Might there be some deep-pocketed people out there looking at the possibility of investing in transit in Vancouver as an investment, yet doing it so that we'll provide a service at a reasonable cost? Has this been investigated to any real extent?

Hon. G. Clark: Look, there's no free lunch. If someone comes up with $1 billion to build a transit system and we commit to providing a stream of payments, as a subsidy to that, then we have to put on our books $1 billion worth of guaranteed debt. Your Finance critic will tell you that. Sure, we're quite open to being pragmatic and looking at private sector-supported financing, but no one should assume that that alleviates the burden on the taxpayer of having to book it as an obligation of the Crown.

D. Symons: Just a quick question for my information. I think B.C. Transit is involved in a partnership with Bombardier in the Kuala Lumpur project, through the SkyTrain connections. Is that project funded by the government there, or is it the private sector that's considering building the line in Kuala Lumpur?

Hon. G. Clark: In some countries, including Malaysia, it's not always clear. The distinctions are less finite. My suspicion is that the funding will come as it would here. Even if you used the private sector, there would be some form of government guarantee which would be required to make it work.

[7:00]

The joint venture is required by law in Malaysia. A bumi putra partner, which means people-of-the-soil partner, is an affirmative action program which requires a partnership with a domestic entrepreneur. That company is named Renong, and it is the joint venture partner in this arrangement. Financing would likely be part of the package, and Bombardier may well be participating in that. At the end of the day, there still has to be some kind of guarantee, and with heavily, heavily subsidized operations, they're not profit-making. Therefore any government guarantee requires us to book as if it was borrowed money.

D. Symons: Just one last comment before we go into another area. When you talk about these things being extremely expensive, be they SkyTrain or something else, and the fact that they need subsidies, the alternative is putting in more traffic lanes. When you add up the cost of that -- the cost to the environment, the cost of parking and all the other things associated with accommodating the automobile -- I would suspect that the amount of money that is used for building SkyTrain and other alternative transportation modes may not be nearly as great as we pretend. In the long run, we may end up being on the plus side if we could end up putting in those systems sooner rather than later.

Hon. G. Clark: I couldn't agree more that it's an unequal playing field and that we don't capture the externalities of the automobile. If we were to do so -- and we actually do that kind of modelling now -- you could clearly justify significant investment in rapid transit. Having said that, it's not a bottomless pit. These are very expensive in real terms, and we have to be very prudent and careful in how we proceed.

F. Gingell: If I may, I will move to the Transportation Financing Authority. In 1995-96 you intend to spend a little under $400 million through this organization. Could you give us a rough breakdown of that?

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, let me reintroduce Frank Blasetti, who is now assistant deputy minister responsible for the Crown corporations secretariat, but who was the VP of TFA. On my right is Blair Redlin, CEO of the TFA. Prior to that, he was ADM of policy in the ministry. To his right is Doug Hibbins, vice-president of the TFA. For a long time he was assistant deputy minister in the Ministry of Education for school capital construction -- among other things, I'm sure.

Let me just give you a rough breakdown from memory, as opposed to the details. About half of the money goes to the Island Highway -- $201 million. Then there's the Westview interchange in North Vancouver. The Chair, of course, was instrumental in convincing the government to proceed with that very expensive proposition. There is the Mary Hill bypass, which is a very significant project in the northeast sector, the Johnson-Mariner overpass, the Barnet-Hastings people-moving project, and the Broadway connector. Those are four northeast sector projects. There are many others, but these are the major ones.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Those are lower mainland congestion.... We're talking about expenditures now. In addition to that, there is significant work now being started, which I know the member will appreciate, on the north end of the Alex Fraser Bridge.

This year, on what we call the lower mainland congestion relief program, which is what I've been largely describing, we will be spending roughly $100 million. Then we have priority corridors, which I mentioned already, the Island Highway being one of them. We're doing corridor planning studies now in the Okanagan, on the south perimeter road and on the east-west connector. Highway 1, of course, is a big one. Those require significant investments over time.

Then we have what we call major highway sustaining activities, and that's dealing with some expansion of the 

[ Page 15951 ]

Trans-Canada Highway around Kamloops. There are some big projects that are attractive, but very expensive. We're trying to look at moving incrementally on them, if not in a major way: Kicking Horse Pass, four-laning the Trans-Canada from the Alberta border and a few other projects. We'll be spending about $50 million this year on what we call major highway sustaining projects. There are quite a few actually, like passing lanes, the general program, etc. What we're trying to do for the first time is coordinate the passing lanes so that at the end of the day you're moving incrementally on a project, which makes sense.

There are some smaller projects which have a big economic impact, and some which are cost-recovered. You've heard of the Mount Washington Road, where we have a fee on the ski development to pay for the road. I think we've also announced the Finlay Navigation project, which is building some barges for chip transportation. There will be a fee put on the chips to pay for that. We just recently announced Quinsam Coal -- an excellent project, in my view -- which helps to pave the road to Quinsam Coal and new port facilities there. It has dramatically increased the productivity of that mine. We're sharing in the increment that we're creating from that, and it will pay for the project. It also creates about 100 union jobs in Campbell River. I think that gives a broad, general sketch of the allocation.

F. Gingell: The grouping of $100 million for the lower mainland congestion relief program -- that includes Westview, Mary Hill....

Hon. G. Clark: Cash flow, too, don't forget -- this year.

F. Gingell: But that's all in Westview, Mary Hill, Johnson-Mariner and the Broadway connector. There was one more that I didn't mention.

Hon. G. Clark: Barnet-Hastings? Let me just give you a bit more detail, then.

The Chair: Order, hon. minister.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry. That's the Barnet-Hastings people-moving project, the Pitt River counterflow, which ties in with the Mary Hill bypass -- it will be three lanes one way at peak periods -- and the Broadway connector, which is a short little two-lane stretch between Coquitlam and Burnaby. It moves the congestion up the hill, and we then have to build down to the new Hastings people-moving project.

We have major studies, as you know, and some expense associated with the Lions Gate Bridge renewal project. I mentioned the bridge work on the north side of the Fraser River. We are just beginning work.... The member from Richmond might be interested in what we call the Sea-Island connector. It's a rather small project.

F. Gingell: There were a lot of discussions, as the minister appreciates, when the TFA was created. One of the concepts for moving it out of the consolidated revenue fund -- in my mind, a critical matter in this area -- was that these projects would be self-supporting. We expected to see a series of projects like your Quinsam Coal project -- that's an excellent example -- where fees or some other forms of revenue that were directly related to the use of that roadway would fund the project. Have you changed your concepts?

Hon. G. Clark: No, we're still working very hard on those proposals. I guess the big leap is into tolling, and we have not made that leap, to be candid. We have dedicated funds from the existing gas tax base to carry us for a while, but as we move forward we have to examine those. On the south perimeter road, I think a good case could be made for some kind of truck fee, because it will be such a dramatic improvement. We are looking at some cost recovery on a variety of areas. We're moving in that direction.

We do have a small challenge the member might appreciate: how the auditors or financial agents will treat the debt associated with the Quinsam Coal project. Is it government debt? If it is, does it count in the debt management plan? If it does, then we're in a position of doing the Quinsam Coal project, even though it's fully self-financed, at the expense of needed congestion relief programs in Vancouver, which is not what we really intended. My view would be to draw a box around the self-financing ones and say: "Those are self-financing and should be treated differently than the projects we're pursuing which are not self-financing, but are paid for through tax revenue."

These are some of the challenges we're working through. We wouldn't want to do the Mount Washington ski hill. It's a great project, but it would not meet the public-interest test, even with the economic development advantages, as opposed to doing the Mary Hill bypass. You just wouldn't make that trade-off. But we were able to expedite those projects, because they're self-financing, and that's been part of my intent.

F. Gingell: It seemed to me that the intention originally was to try and do these things, as it were, off balance sheet; that was the object of the exercise. So what are the needs for that? The first requirement is that the projects have to self-funded without taxation, and the only source of revenue that the TFA has at the moment is taxation.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Yes, which are a very, very small part of the project. You're talking, at the end of this year, of having the funds that are borrowed by the TFA in excess of $600 million. You've got a revenue stream at the moment, from my memory, of $55 million to $60 million. With interest rates where they are, the $55 million to $60 million doesn't sustain a debt of $600 million. So what does the minister have in mind for dealing with that issue?

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, there would be a reallocation from the existing gas tax base. The TFA, by law, can't spend money that doesn't have a financing source. Either we get new financing sources from other revenue, like tolling or like these projects, or we get them from an existing dedicated gas tax base. There's no free lunch on these questions.

Now, we do have a challenge. I don't think the member would disagree that you wouldn't toll the Mary Hill bypass or the Westview interchange. These are incremental additions to make the existing system more efficient; they don't lend themselves to tolling, even if you want them to. There is always a place where you're not going to go to a fully self-funded system unless you move to a different source of revenue, like a motor vehicle fee or something, to pay for it. As soon as you start doing that, you start blurring the question of tax or user-pay. So it gets very messy.

[ Page 15952 ]

It's clearer where we have to look at project-tolling. We have to look at project-tolling where there is a discrete entity or a new addition and where there's an alternative route that's free, I believe that would be important. We might be able to do it with the private sector.

There are some really interesting ideas which we're exploring. One example is a Coquihalla connector that bypasses Merritt, with a separate toll on it. So you can still go around with the current system, which is quite good, or you could save half an hour and cut off before Merritt and go across the Douglas Lake Ranch up there. That's been proposed to us by the private sector; it's purely incremental. It's something we might not do necessarily, weighed against other things, but if we can do it with private sector funding with a toll and with the alternative of going around half an hour longer for tourists or people who don't want to pay, my own view is: "Great, let's do some of that." Those are the kinds of things we're exploring and looking at, but no decisions have been made.

D. Symons: I'm reading from Bill 3, the Build BC Act, part 3, the Build BC special account. Section 18(5), financial administration, says:

"The authority must, at the times specified by the minister, submit to Treasury Board for review and approval a business plan with respect to projects to be undertaken by or on behalf of the authority that includes (a) revenue, expenditure, borrowing and lending proposals, (b) a statement of assets and liability, and (c) such other information as Treasury Board may require."

Subsection (6) goes on to say: "If a business plan submitted to Treasury Board under subsection (5) contains expenditure proposals, the plan must" -- and I emphasize the word "must" -- "also include revenue proposals indicating how the expenditures will be funded."

[7:15]

It seems from what you've been saying now that you've got the plan to do certain projects well underway -- the Island Highway being a grand example of that, plus some other projects you mentioned -- but you seem to be deciding how you're going to fund them after the fact. You haven't got a funding plan in place. You've hinted at some things you might be doing, but as I read the act that set up this Transportation Financing Authority, you must include the revenue proposals along with your proposals for what you're going to be expending. You're expending money without having that in place. You seem to be in contradiction of the act.

Hon. G. Clark: No, actually, this is the business plan right here.

D. Symons: Where is the funding?

Hon. G. Clark: There are options for funding it, which are Treasury Board decisions, and they are now before Treasury Board. I can tell the member that the option which has been chosen for the interim is reallocation of the existing gas tax base to the TFA. We have the funding through either retained reserves or through.... To carry on a program this year, it's not really a problem; it will become a problem as we move forward. We present our funding options to the Ministry of Finance, Treasury Board and cabinet, and it is decided at that time. What I'm saying to you is nothing different than what I say to them. We have options. Some of them are toll options, some of them are increasing gas tax and some of them are taking the existing gas tax base.

I think it might have been the Liberal member opposite who actually raised a leaked document that talked about options for the Island Highway or something, and those are all options. Believe me, all those options are canvassed. Then the government makes a decision, and we carry on. The salient point is that we are not allowed by law to commit to building a project -- nor would we or the staff of the TFA -- where there is not the requisite Treasury Board or cabinet approval for the funding source. That's not allowed under the act.

D. Symons: Subsection (7) says:

"The authority must prepare and deliver to the minister, after the end of the fiscal year of the authority, (a) a report of the authority on its operations for the preceding fiscal year, and (b) a financial statement showing the revenues, expenditures, assets and liabilities of the authority at the end of the preceding fiscal year and the operations of the authority for that year in the form required by the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations."

Subsection (10) goes on:

"The report and financial statement referred to in subsection (7), must be laid before the Legislative Assembly by the minister as soon as is practicable."

Maybe I have not been observant, but I don't believe I've seen that. Are you about to table those?

Hon. G. Clark: This is the report of the Peat Marwick auditors to the directors for the last year. It's usually tabled with the annual report, and I intend to do that.

F. Gingell: Just a quick response to that. I think the act calls for it to be tabled as soon as is practicable. That doesn't say to table it when the other report happens to be ready. Has the minister had this in his possession before this evening?

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, I have, and I've been remiss. I assure the member that I will promptly, forthwith, bring it in and table it in the House.

F. Gingell: I'm most gratified by that response; I'm getting my faith back in the system. The issue still remains that by the end of this year, you have to have funding in place that reasonably supports $600 million in debt. Clearly $55 million or $60 million in 1-cent-a-litre gas tax doesn't do that. This government has made commitments not to increase taxes. At the moment, all the gas taxes that are presently assessed and collected by the government are included in this year's budget.

Could the minister please advise us where this is going to come from? I don't understand how you could suddenly take gas tax revenues that have been included in your so-called balanced budget and suddenly divert them to the Transportation Financing Authority.

Hon. G. Clark: We do have resources to continue to commit for this fiscal year; we have the resources to the end of the fiscal year. If we don't, then we slow down the capital projects accordingly. My understanding is that we have the 

[ Page 15953 ]

resources with no further addition: 1-cent-a-litre gas tax, plus $1.50 on car rental. We have the resources to complete to the end of the fiscal year, and we have cash reserves from the first year before they were spent. Our cash reserves are sufficient to meet our requirements until the end of the fiscal year.

At the end of this fiscal year, clearly we have to make some decisions. If the Minister of Finance wants to reallocate some revenue from her base, she obviously would have to make sure that she has a corresponding cut in expenditures or that revenues were higher than expected in other areas in order to compensate. I'm sure she'll do that.

F. Gingell: I don't intend to spend a lot of time on this, but I am willing to spend a little. I would refer the minister to page 90 of "Budget '95 Reports" which details the net debt summary and shows the anticipated budget estimate of the Transportation Financing Authority to be $612 million at the end of the fiscal year. That takes into account the money that is already in your bank account or that was in the bank at the beginning of the year.

To remind the minister of the original discussions, it seems to me that the minister made it very plain that the TFA was going to be a one-man operation and very, very small.

Hon. G. Clark: I never said that.

F. Gingell: I think you did. The intent was that it would be purely and simply a shell, and a means of financing these infrastructure projects or these major works over a long period of time. All of a sudden we have a staff of three here, two of which are with the TFA, I think. It would seem that there are other staff members, so perhaps the minister could advise the committee what the current staffing level of the TFA is. How many people do you anticipate having by the end of this year?

Hon. G. Clark: I think there's a lot of revisionist history going on here. I never said that this is going to be a shell company just to facilitate the capitalization of highways. If you read the act -- and members have been reading the act -- it has very bold and significant requirements for the TFA. Let me read it: "...to plan, acquire, construct, improve or cause to be constructed or improved transportation infrastructure throughout British Columbia...." It has a very significant mandate to do integrated resource transportation planning, which has never been done before.

I'm sure I did say that we don't anticipate this having a large staff. I think I said something like 12 to 15, and we're at 20 staff people roughly, and we have a budget of about $4 million. Most of that work is contracted, as you can imagine. In addition to that, we do have Highway Constructors Ltd., which wasn't contemplated at the time. It has eight or nine staff, because it's training 200 people as we speak, and it has a big mandate to fund highway construction. HCL is a subsidiary of the TFA. As you know, HCL is not just a shell, either, in the sense that it does the payroll and labour relations. It significantly alleviates the burden on the corporation to do those things, and there are some significant savings to the overall system to construct a highway in that fashion.

If you go back and check the Blues, I've been very consistent. This is a major initiative, and not just one to capitalize highways, although that has the effect. It's to look at private and public partnerships, and we are doing some for the first time in history. You've mentioned three, and there's a few more to come. It does integrated resource transportation planning, because it's never been done before in this province. I'm pleased to say that ferries and transit and highways are now part of an integrated transportation plan, and that's never been done before. It has a big mandate, and it's going to do that with a fairly small number of staff, albeit -- and the member should be aware of this; I don't want to hide anything -- it has a significant consulting budget. A lot of this planning work is done with contracted services, and we intend to continue that.

The transportation policy unit, which looked at air, rail and ports policy, etc., has been moved to my ministry to complement this initiative. One could argue -- in fact, I may have argued this -- that it could actually also go into the TFA, because that really helps to give it the.... Even though we're doing highways, ferries and transit, we are increasingly looking at ports policy and airport policy, particularly as the federal government devolves some of this -- or privatizes or municipalizes it. We're trying to integrate that and rail policy into our transportation plans. We're doing that, albeit in both the ministry and the TFA, and there is a case for bringing that under one house as well.

F. Gingell: As I said, from the beginning in 1992, I was always a supporter of the Crown corporations secretariat. I could have some discussions about staff choices, but that is a secondary issue, yet clearly important. Now I see you taking almost all of the planning process away from the Ministry of Highways and moving it into your control. Is this getting to the point where one should consider renaming the Ministry of Highways?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm not going to comment on that; it's not my prerogative. I don't mean to criticize the Minister of Transportation and Highways over the years, but don't assume that there was a transportation planning function being conducted historically in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. There is a large unit called highway planning, which still exists. It is largely an engineering question, and this is not insignificant. The Highways ministry has to deal with geotechnical questions and how to construct the highway, and it still does that.

But what was lacking is any economic analysis, cost-benefit analysis, multiple cost-accounting, looking at how to measure whether you should do transit versus roads or how the ferries fit in with the transit system. That was entirely -- and I say this not with happiness -- lacking. Ferries did their thing, Transit did their thing and Highways built highways. A lot of the decisions were political. They went out and got lists of demands from people, and then they tried to fund them. Obviously they made some judgment calls, but there wasn't the kind of rational, tough economic analysis or planning you might assume was being done -- I assumed it was being done -- before we took office. I don't mean to criticize them. I don't want you to assume that the kind of work we are doing in the TFA is work that was moved from MOTH. In most cases it wasn't really being done.

F. Gingell: When one looks down this list of projects, some of them are relatively small in the total scheme of things -- the Castlegar bridge, a passing lane on Highway 3 and 

[ Page 15954 ]

those kinds of things. Is it the case that all of the transportation planning, whether it be highways or some of the integrated systems, is now being done within the TFA and the ministry has different responsibilities?

Hon. G. Clark: It's a good question, and there is a sort of demarcation line which, to be candid, we are still working on.

F. Gingell: Well, what is it, then?

Hon. G. Clark: What I mean by that is: who decides where the passing lane goes, which is a couple of hundred thousand dollars? It is done by MOTH with the support and approval of the TFA, because we are funding it. They are on the ground, and they have the staff. A lot of the incremental questions are done by people in the field, making recommendations to us. We don't get in and.... We actually do get in and ask the broader macropolicy questions: does this make sense? Is it part of a bigger plan? Would it make more sense to...? At the end of the day, we devolve some of the smaller decision-making down to the.... We don't get in to micro-manage the technical questions around that.

[7:30]

There's always a bit of debate on that. The biggest debate, frankly, ends up being rehab. Rehab can be, like the Oak Street Bridge.... One could argue that it should be done by MOTH and the rehab budget, not by the TFA. These are the debates. But it's a $10 million project that is of great significance in the lower mainland. It's part of our corridor plan, etc., and it ended up being a TFA project. There are some challenges to get this right. We're constantly reviewing, we have protocol arrangements and we have steering committees. But in general, we are doing the higher-level planning, the integrated planning and the corridor planning. We are also the funding source, so we have MOTH prove to us, almost like Treasury Board, on some of the smaller questions, and then they manage those projects.

F. Gingell: It was interesting that you talked about the Oak Street Bridge. I believe my colleague discussed the Oak Street Bridge issue earlier, because there perhaps was an opportunity for B.C. Transit to encourage people out of their cars and onto buses. The big communication problem was within your ministry, not outside it. Is that a fair statement?

Hon. G. Clark: No, it's not. I think they've done a reasonable job on that question and on the Oak Street issue. There is a big transit push with respect to the Oak Street Bridge. One can always quit challenges and tough questions, but at the end of the day, I think it's.... We have a very good relationship with MOTH; it's working well. I just meant to point out, to be candid, that some of these protocol questions are debatable, and we try to resolve that. We think it is critical to have this kind of overview planning, and I'm very pleased with the work that has been done. We also don't want to undermine the excellent work and quality that MOTH does on the ground, which is where a lot of it is done.

F. Gingell: I presume that the minister has the list he sent me of the projects in progress at this time -- the completed projects for 1994-95 and the other investments you have made for future things or things that have been done. I wonder if the minister could just turn to the second page where it says, "Completed Projects '94-'95," and advise me which of these projects that are completed.... Rather than read them off, perhaps the best way, because I will want to mark them off as I read them out....

Hon. G. Clark: I'm just going to go and get a copy of what we gave you.

F. Gingell: Oh well, there are only 12 items, so don't worry about it.

Hon. G. Clark: It's clear; it's okay.

F. Gingell: Okay, never mind. Which of these projects are actual tangible construction jobs and which of these are design plans which haven't been finished? The Christian Valley Road at Westbridge.

Hon. G. Clark: Completed.

F. Gingell: That is an actual job of paving....

Interjection.

The Chair: Hon. members if you want your comments recorded in Hansard, we are going to have to find a more orderly way of one or the other echoing the heckling across the floor, or else recognition through the Chair.

F. Gingell: Heritage Highway at Tumbler Ridge.

Hon. G. Clark: It's a completed project. It looks like you're looking at.... Let me give you the list of our completed projects; that means not just planning, but completed. Pat Bay Highway improvements; McKenzie interchange, just over toward the ferry service; Highway 1, Afton brake check, construction; Christian Valley Road, widening and paving; Heritage Highway, gravel and sealing; Highway 16, Kitseguecla underpass, construction; Tuya West hill alignments.... It sounds like you've got the list. These are actually completed construction projects.

The Chair: Hon. members, the bells signify a division in the main House. This committee stands recessed until after the division.

The committee recessed from 7:35 p.m. to 7:48 p.m.

Hon. G. Clark: I have the material the member wanted.

The Christian Valley Road, Heritage Highway, Highway 1, Afton brake check, Highway 16, Highway 19, Telegraph Creek Road and Tuya West hill are all completed projects. Construction was absolutely finished.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, new construction finished. Some of them need seal-coating, etc., but they're completed projects.

Interjection.

[ Page 15955 ]

Hon. G. Clark: Oh, I see. Let me just finish this, then.

The Warfield hill near Trail is survey and design. The planning has started now and will be completed at a later date. Oak Street Bridge is partially completed and, as everybody knows, will be completed this year. Highway 6, from 3A to Nakusp, is substantially completed; and Highway 16, Domano-Prince George, is substantially completed.

I'm not sure what question the member wants answered. If he wants details, that's exactly what they are.

F. Gingell: I was trying to get a feel for how many of these are rehab, how many of these are survey and design, and how many of these are brand-new highways that did not exist before the project.

Hon. G. Clark: None of them are brand-new highways or greenfields projects. If you're trying to get a flavour for them, all of these are relatively small projects, but that's why they're completed. The challenge in this TFA, as in any capital project, is to manage the cash flow. A $100,000 commitment to a planning study leads to a couple of million dollars the following year, and often $20 million, $30 million or $40 million a year or two later. That's how they work.

As you can see, even though our capital spending is at $400 million, we have a plan to manage the cash flow to stay around there; that's how we balance these. Sometimes, unfortunately, you complete a planning study but don't move directly into construction, largely because you're dealing with cash-flow questions associated with completing projects which you committed to at a previous time. That's how we try to manage that.

One of the advantages of capitalization in the system we have now is that we can actually plan to manage a project to completion over a five-year time horizon, provided we have the dedicated revenue sources. Historically, there's been this sort of electoral up-and-down cycle. Finance ministers, myself included -- maybe particularly -- see that as one of the few areas of discretionary spending in government. It's not program delivery spending or a statutory obligation like education, so you can cut it fairly easily as you get into fiscal difficulty. With this approach, we have a rational approach -- or closer to a rational approach -- and can plan over time. You can manage your cash flow in such a way that you can give some predictability and planning. I think it's a significant improvement.

Staff just asked me to ensure that we make the appropriate distinction. The capital is really of two forms. We call it capital if it's expanding capacity, improving service, enhancing the existing road service or better utilizing existing infrastructure. Rehabilitation is to restore it to the original service level. That's the distinction we use to decide whether it's a rehab project or a capital spending project.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

D. Symons: I have just a few more questions. I didn't take notes when the hon. member for Delta South was asking questions.

What is the estimated budget for the TFA for 1995-96? If you could give me the actual for the last two years, I'd appreciate it, if they're handy. If they're not, I'll take them later.

Hon. G. Clark: I'll ask the CEO of the corporation to answer these questions.

Interjections.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please, everyone.

D. Symons: Yes, the operating budget.

B. Redlin: For this year, it's $4.1 million.

D. Symons: It's been three years since the TFA has been in place, so there's 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96.

B. Redlin: It was $500,000.

D. Symons: I was getting slightly different figures than the minister gave for the number of employees in the TFA. I had a figure of 24. My authority is Vaughn Palmer. He said that included two vice-presidents, five directors and three managers. Does that seem approximately correct? I was going to ask if that includes those working for HCL. The answer was no; you said eight. Vaughn Palmer says nine....

Hon. G. Clark: I think it's nine.

D. Symons: So these numbers are fairly close, then. Apparently the minister agrees with Mr. Palmer's figures. According to Mr. Palmer, who seems to know what he's talking about, 11 of the roughly 24 employees of the TFA were seconded from MOTH. Are their salaries and benefits pretty much identical with what they were receiving when they were employees of MOTH?

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, most of them.

D. Symons: Are their job descriptions basically the same? How many of these people are involved in planning? How many in the TFA are now involved in planning and how many are involved in policy?

Hon. G. Clark: I don't mind giving the member the actual operations staff list, although it has changed just a hair. Generally, what we try to do -- and I'll say this carefully -- is recruit from MOTH some of the best talent they have that might have been underutilized, because they weren't doing the kind of higher-level planning work that they had hoped to do. I think we have some very good staff from MOTH. They were doing good work at MOTH, of course, but they're doing slightly.... I don't think it's fair to say it's the same work. They're doing the work they were trained for. We have, obviously, financial operations and financial analysts, but most of it is economic analysis, as well as project evaluation and planning work. What I'd rather do for the member, if he is interested, is give him the list of staff and their duties.

D. Symons: Would that include, then, the others that weren't from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways? I was going to ask what their job descriptions were, but you have volunteered to give them to me. I wonder if we might have the salaries, too. Is that asking too much?

Hon. G. Clark: No.

[ Page 15956 ]

D. Symons: Along with that, I'm wondering which of the new staff who weren't MOTH employees came into their positions through competitions.

Hon. G. Clark: I don't know the answer to that, actually. I'm not sure that many of them were filled by competition, although maybe they were. I'm just looking at the list here. Norm Mogensen is the director of project administration. He was in Finance when I was in Finance, and I'm sure we recruited him over there, where he did special projects. Mike Renaud is the director of project development; he was a B.C. Ferries engineer. I think what likely happened is that we recruited different individuals because of their expertise or interests. I don't think there were civil service competitions, but there might have been. There are some secondments, and sometimes secondments are competitions. I'll give you the details. I know there are several people here who we actually went out and tried to get. As I say, 11 of them -- the majority -- are secondments.

D. Symons: I gather from the minister's answer, then, that 11 are from MOTH. If Vaughn Palmer is correct, you hired others from other government ministries, as well. The actual number of people from outside government who helped in the formation of the TFA is very small. That will show up in the figures you're going to give me. That's good.

The CEO -- it's a new person now -- of Highway Constructors Ltd. has, if he's the ninth person, eight employees. He seems fairly well paid for having just eight people under him, although he might, as you suggest, have a responsibility for all other workers in the field. But they have employers that they're working for, and it's a rather indirect relationship he has with them. I'm wondering if any of the remaining staff, other than the CEO, are labelled as managers, assistant managers, department heads or some other sort of title. In that staff of eight, do we have more managerial staff? Just to finish it off, how many of that staff are involved in labour relations and how many are involved in payroll?

Hon. G. Clark: Mr. McVeigh earns $90,000 on contract, and that includes all expenses. We don't anticipate he'll be there full-time, although it might end up working that way. Wayne Morris is the general manager. He was seconded, or we took him from Hydro, because it was a Hydro structure we were setting up, and he managed some of the big Hydro projects earlier on. We have a personnel director, a labour relations manager, a labour relations officer, a labour relations officer, a labour relations assistant, a payroll clerk, an employment equity coordinator and an aboriginal employment coordinator.

[8:00]

Essentially it is a labour relations, training and payroll exercise. They are almost all labour relations equivalent; that's why Chuck McVeigh was so helpful. Mr. McVeigh also has a lot of responsibilities -- for instance, in contract relations, community relations, city councils and others -- in the management of the project.

D. Symons: Again, staying with Highway Constructors Ltd., I'm gathering from the answer you've given, describing the people who are employed, that they're almost all excluded staff. Or do you have some union members working for Highway Constructors? If you do have any bargaining unit members, which union do they belong to?

Hon. G. Clark: All the administrative staff I mentioned are excluded staff.

D. Symons: Okay, that answers that one. The TFA was created by the ministry two years ago, and we were debating what the minister might have said. I do find things in there indicating that this was a very small organization. If we go back in Hansard, I think it will indicate that -- and he used the words -- it's largely a vehicle to capitalize highways, which is true. I think tied in there were words to the effect that it was primarily a vehicle for financing. I think he used the word vehicle with no pun intended, or something to that effect, indicating that it wasn't really into anything other than financing or that that was the main purpose of it. You mentioned a great number of other things that they're very involved in. I remember, during the debate of that particular bill and those sections, raising the issue of what we're doing in the way of duplication of efforts between the ministry and this new body that was being formed, and I was assured by the minister that there wouldn't be duplication.

Interjection.

D. Symons: It seems there isn't, because you've taken it all over, as my honourable friend here has said. That is a concern to me, because I believe some planning was done under the previous Highways ministry, and it would have been quite possible to do it within that umbrella. I had those concerns about that.

If it's a financing authority, why then is there a need for the TFA to be doing planning and policy? I guess you've explained that. We get into the money here, which my hon. member has asked about, so we're getting further along.

I think I've had the answer to this, but I'll just ask. Does the TFA have taxing authority -- except for this 1-cent-a-litre and $1.50-a-day car rental fee. Shouldn't these revenues that come in go through consolidated revenue fund? Has the auditor general expressed reservations about the financing arrangements of the TFA?

Hon. G. Clark: First, it does not have taxing authority. Second, I believe -- and maybe this is a philosophical question -- that increasingly you want to link access to the product you are delivering. I think it is a public policy improvement to have a dedicated revenue source go directly to road construction and then people can decide whether or not they think they should do that. I think, generally speaking, that that improves accountability and helps to, I think, support or not support particular initiatives.

I just want to reiterate that the act is clear and the requirement under the act is to plan, acquire, construct, etc., highways. We have four major objectives to fulfil the mandate: one is planning, another is financing, another is project delivery and another is project monitoring and review.

F. Gingell: I just want to take this opportunity to direct the minister's attention to an article in last week's Economist on actions being taken by the International Monetary Fund in relation to highway issues in Africa. I know I'm a little off the subject; African states like to go and build lots of roads, but they don't like to maintain them.

The reason this came to mind was because you talk about the need to tie in road-funding resources with road expendi-

[ Page 15957 ]

tures. You are at odds with the International Monetary Fund on that issue, because they believe the governments have to make decisions about their priorities. The moment you start carving off revenues into this stream, into that stream and into the other stream, you substantially reduce the options that may be available. If you can't find a copy of the magazine, I'd be happy to photostat the article for you.

D. Symons: I'm just going back to the auditor general, if I could. I suppose the mandate of the auditor general does not include the TFA, but I would strongly....

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, it does.

D. Symons: I would strongly suggest that the auditor general be asked to look in here and give his stamp of approval -- look at the operations and report back to the Legislature so we can all have the auditor general's opinions on this so that we can be assured that everything is copacetic. Do the liabilities of the TFA show on the government books? And where, if that is the case?

Hon. G. Clark: The short answer is yes.

F. Gingell: The issue that the auditor general gets involved in is the issue of whether the TFA should be consolidated into the consolidated revenue fund. Seeing that this government doesn't take much notice of the opinions of the auditor general, even when they are concurred with by the comptroller general -- they get two and they go out for a third opinion -- is it the position of this minister that the opinion of the comptroller general and the opinion of the auditor general should be overruled by some opinion from Peat Marwick on these kind of issues?

Hon. G. Clark: Not generally.

D. Symons: Other than the $409 million listed under capital construction as recoveries in the Transportation Financing Authority, does any other TFA money go to the Highways ministry in other ways? Is that $400 million that is listed as recoveries the total amount the TFA supplies to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways?

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, $17.1 million is the imputed overhead which the TFA carries in MOTH to manage projects that the TFA has. We try to hold them accountable. That was a Treasury Board decision. That's expense, not capitalized.

D. Symons: Last year during the estimates debates with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, I was lamenting the fact that they were underspending what I considered was necessary for maintaining the highways in rehab. As I was digging away at this for quite a period of time, the minister indicated to me that there was another $60 million coming, beyond what was in the ministry's budget for that particular one, from the TFA to do some projects.

In the process of asking how this is possible, he said there were major rehab ones that could maybe be classified as a capital project. They were very strong ones. So I had problems.... It didn't appear in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways figures last year. Where did those numbers appear? Was it under the moneys that you put in there under capital projects, or is that something separate from the numbers in last year's Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates?

Hon. G. Clark: We sort of canvassed this, and there is a fine line between rehabilitation and capital. Often it is associated with the magnitude of the project. When we do a larger rehab project, there are often additional lanes, additional capacity or improvements. So the Minister of Transportation and Highways is quite correct: there is $60 million worth of our.... Four hundred is in what could be called rehab and what we classify as capital. There are large rehab projects, and I think we canvassed that. We have this demarcation line I discussed earlier, and it does do that.

I will say, however, that our work on transportation planning does show some concern -- and I will be quite upfront about that -- over the size of the rehabilitation budget. The cost of rehabilitation rises dramatically after a pavement age of 12 years.

We really are doing more refinement about that. You can always defer maintenance, but it always catches up to you in the end, and we have to find a balance there. I think historically.... Sorry, rehab, maintenance -- same kind of thing. There's been an underfunding of rehab traditionally, and we're trying to access the financial impact of that in the future and how we might plan a more rational rehabilitation budget.

F. Gingell: The minister made my ears perk up. You talk about this $17.1 million. These are the funds that the Transportation Financing Authority received from the Ministry of Transportation.

Hon. G. Clark: The other way around.

F. Gingell: They are funds that you pay to the ministry.

In the accounts of the Transportation Financing Authority, do you intend to compromise that or write it off?

Hon. G. Clark: It's not capitalized; we expense it.

F. Gingell: Do these earlier projects that we discussed, which you would describe as rehab, get expensed or do they get capitalized?

Hon. G. Clark: They get capitalized. Our contribution to the MOTH is because we draw on MOTH resources to support our initiatives, so they charge back to us for planning initiative support, including collection of baseline information that they have people on the ground do, and capital plan development and support, including developing standards. When we did the design-build projects, they were the key element in terms of deciding who received those projects. Their staff did the technical work.

Essentially they are billed back to the TFA. We expense them but we do.... There are the regional advisory committees, the RACs, and technical support for them. So Treasury Board said to TFA: "You're increasing the burden on MOTH because of all this planning activity, and you're drawing on their resources. Therefore we're going to assess you a percentage of their overhead to compensate them for the extra challenges that we put on them." That's how it works.

F. Gingell: There are a whole series of projects going on. Clearly some of the projects and some of the work that the 

[ Page 15958 ]

B.C. Transportation Financing Authority is doing is going to be expensed in the TFA, as you've just responded. When you look at the deficit of the province, these are expenditures that, without question, would have been included as expenditures within the consolidated revenue fund.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: He would have expensed them there. From what I'm hearing the minister saying, he's indicating that they're going to get reimbursed for them, and it will appear as part of somebody's vote. If that's the case, could he advise us of the amounts of money that are involved in this year's and where we can find them in the budget?

Hon. G. Clark: It's $17.1 million, and it's in MOTH's vote, STOB 99, Recoveries. It's included in there.

F. Gingell: I'm not talking about the funds that you pay them to reimburse them for the expenditures; I'm talking about the costs that you are incurring that are clearly write-off costs. It seems to me that they're not going to get written off anywhere; they're going to get capitalized.

Hon. G. Clark: I'd rather have the chief financial officer answer that question directly, if it's okay with the committee.

Interjections.

The Chair: Could you tell me what title we address you by?

D. Hibbins: Doug Hibbins, vice-president of financing for the BCTFA.

The Chair: Mr. Vice-President, proceed.

D. Hibbins: The operating expenditures of the BCTFA that are expensed do not show up in the consolidated revenue fund of the province. They are expenditures for the Crown corporation. However, when the province consolidates our financial statements into the consolidated financial statements of the province, those expenditures then appear as operating expenses of the provincial Crown.

F. Gingell: I'd like to suggest to the staff that even your capital expenditures made through TFA, in consolidation for the summary financial statements, also appear as expenditures. That will change if the comptroller general gets his way.

[8:15]

What I'm concerned about -- and I may be off base, because these are very complicated accounts -- is that when the TFA was set up, there was a great deal of talk about capitalizing roads and bridges. In our minds, a bridge is a brand-new bridge that wasn't there before, going over a river. When you talk about roads, you're talking a brand-new road that probably connects the bridge on both sides -- although the ministry has some problems on occasion with making those things work out.

A whole series of other expenditures, which in the old days would have been written off under anybody's accounting practices because they are purely and simply bringing assets back to their original standards, are now being capitalized -- except that, in an earlier discussion, I heard you say they were being expensed, and I'm not exactly sure how you're going to treat those things in your accounts.

When we got to the year ended March 31, 1994 -- and I have your financial statements here -- in your fixed assets you talked only about work in progress, roads and bridges. Roads and bridges fits the description that I have spoken of before, but now you've got a whole bunch of projects in there, and I'm interested in how you plan on planning for them.

Hon. G. Clark: I understand what the member is saying: that if we're simply adding a lane to an existing bridge, we should expense it, not capitalize it. I think that is what he's saying. Here's a description, and I'll just say it again: rehab is resurfacing highway, reconstruction of roadbed and erosion containment. That's not capitalized. Capital is construction of new highway, construction of additional lanes on existing highway, construction of passing lanes, realignments and upgrading gravel to paved surface. That's the general description we use. There's sometimes a fine line between rehab and capital, but we try to follow that. That's why there's a rehab budget in MOTH, which is expensed, and then there's the capital budget in the TFA, which is capitalized.

F. Gingell: So I take it, for the year ended March 31, 1994, that there were no expenditures that fitted that rehab write-off classification.

Hon. G. Clark: Staff indicate that last year, which was the first big year of the operation, we were a little looser on that question. So there were two or three projects that we would now classify as rehab which were capitalized, particularly the first phase of the Oak Street Bridge, which was $4 million. It was capitalized last year, but this year it's taken by MOTH as a rehab project, which is where it should have been. So it is a bit of a grey area. We now have a much more definitive description that we stick to, but in the first year there was a bit of rollover, I guess.

F. Gingell: When you refer to last year, I presume that you are referring to the year ended March 31, 1994. In the 1995 report you had in your hand earlier this evening, which you anticipate tabling tomorrow, this matter has all been sorted out.

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, that's true.

D. Symons: Just a few more to go. When the minister announced the Island Highway project, this was, I guess, the time of the formation of the TFA and HCL. Most of the reason for setting up HCL was that they wanted this project to be built on time and on budget. We now know from the Minister of Transportation and Highways that indeed it's not going to be on time, because some of the projects have been slowed down in order to give more financing time for your arm of this project.

In effect, as far as I call it, it's not on budget either, because in order to keep it within the monetary frame that was set by the minister when you were announcing the project, it's had to scale back from four lanes to two and from overpasses to intersections, and things of that sort. There have been quite a few changes made in the highway in order to 

[ Page 15959 ]

reduce its scope to make it stay within budget. Granted, I will say that you're on budget. But when you have to go that way to stay on budget, I think you would have to admit that there have been cost overruns. If you've had to scale the thing back, it's a bit of a stretch to say: "Well, we're within budget." But I guess there are semantics involved there.

When all of this was being set up in that way, the minister kept referring to the Coquihalla Highway. I've been asking this for two years and have yet to get an answer. So maybe I'll just take one more fling at this question: will somebody please tell me the number of work days lost on the Coquihalla Highway because of labour disputes?. I think it was a spurious argument put out at that time, and it was basically a misleading statement to imply that this was why we had to go the HCL route and why we had to have union-only work on this particular project. I am of the firm belief that there were not any labour disputes, and indeed that the cost overruns involved with the Coquihalla Highway had a lot more to do with political interference in how that highway was built -- very, very much like what is happening with the Island Highway project. It's the same sort of scene happening, where rather than have the project go ahead as planners, engineers and people within the ministry should have done, there are other people pulling strings and other agendas are taking place. So if the minister could please get me the information on that, I would very much appreciate it.

Just carrying on from that, could the minister please give me some idea of when the labour agreement with HCL comes up for renegotiation. I believe it's after a two-year period, and we should be getting somewhat close to that.

Hon. G. Clark: It's a project agreement which means it's for the length of the project. There's a two-year wage reopener. That's coming up, but I'm not sure when. So I'll get you the answer to that.

I do want to say that it is, in fact, slightly under budget or on budget on the labour component. The bids are coming in slightly under what were projected for labour costs. There are rising land acquisition costs, but the HCL concept is working very well in terms of cost control for that aspect of the highway, which is a big part of it.

I just want to make one other point. I won't debate all of the points you've made tonight, but one that you've forgotten is that it is also training 275 people in 1995-96. It would have been much more difficult to organize such a labour pool and training effort under the traditional way we build highways. It would have been extremely challenging. I'm not saying you couldn't do it other ways, but you certainly couldn't do it as effectively.

D. Symons: The labour agreement was challenged by two firms before the Labour Relations Board last October, I believe. I wonder if you might give us the Labour Relations Board ruling on that challenge.

Hon. G. Clark: We're waiting.

D. Symons: It seems that from October until now is an awfully long time. That's an unusual length of time for the Labour Relations Board to come down with a ruling. They must have a real decision to make.

Because of the HCL agreement, how much has the necessity of paying the GST on the Island Highway project cost so far -- until the end of last fiscal year?

Hon. G. Clark: It's recoverable, so there's no impact.

D. Symons: From the federal government?

Hon. G. Clark: Yes.

D. Symons: Last year during the estimates I asked for a list of the projects and costs that were being funded that year through the TFA. The minister replied: "In due course." I'm still waiting. Maybe I'm going to find those in the report you gave us -- would that be true?

Hon. G. Clark: Yes.

D. Symons: Great. Will the minister release last year's projects, respective costs and the proposed figures for this fiscal year? All of that, I assume, will be in the documents you supplied to us. I thank you for that.

F. Gingell: No, they didn't give us that. They only gave us the list, no money.

D. Symons: Then I would like figures, if you could. You must have a budget, as we do, through the budget process each year.

Hon. G. Clark: I am reminded that the annual report is just waiting for a board meeting to get approved. I'll try to get that as fast as I can. It has all that information.

D. Symons: Could I have the total figure on the Island Highway financed to date by the TFA and a breakdown of that figure in wages and non-wage expenditures? Again, you may not have that available.

Hon. G. Clark: I think it would be better for me to get that. I'll certainly have that information for the member.

F. Gingell: Earlier when we were discussing the role of the TFA, the minister mentioned its role in the issue of airports and seaports. As we all know, the seaports are all under the control of the federal government. Many of them are managed by commissions that are federal government and local council appointments.

There was an issue two years ago about a port authority or harbour commission being put into operation in the Inner Harbour here in the city of Victoria. I wonder if the minister could bring us up to date on that issue, if it's within his ministry's jurisdiction.

Hon. G. Clark: It's a bit complicated here in Victoria. We're very supportive of the commission concept. There are a lot of political nuances around that, and I don't have an update for you here. I could try to get it, in terms of the Victoria project, before estimates are through. It's kind of stalled, I think, in the federal morass.

F. Gingell: The federal morass is actually trying to get sorted out with proposed new government systems. There's been a great deal of discussion.

[ Page 15960 ]

Did the province make any submissions to Minister Young's House of Commons committee that was coming around to encourage the inclusion of provincial representatives on harbour commissions and port authorities?

Hon. G. Clark: Generally speaking, the province doesn't make interjections at parliamentary committees -- not as a junior level of government, but actually as a sovereign level of government. We don't generally go and appear before Members of Parliament. Having said that, B.C. Ferries made a brief interjection in that process.

I've had many discussions with Minister Young on this question, particularly around governance and concerns that he has -- not to impute words in his mouth -- and that I have, as well, about the Vancouver airport and its governance structure, and about its accountability. So he's very supportive of devolution; I'm very supportive of devolution.

I think the idea of moving the Vancouver Port Corporation, even more devolved, has lots of merit. I think Minister Young is sympathetic to that, but he wants to make sure there's an accountability process in place that doesn't just privatize the airport, which in some respects, one could argue, is the case.

They're doing outstanding work, so I don't like to criticize. But have we got the structural question right before we move farther?

I have said, much to the deafening silence of the Vancouver airport and others, that I'm sympathetic to what Doug Young said about having a provincial government rep and a federal rep, or two reps each, on the Vancouver International Airport Authority and at least some accountability mechanism. Right now one or two of the board members at the Vancouver airport were nominated by the previous administration. They are on because they were recommended by them, and there's no mechanism for removing them, nor is there any mechanism, really, for electing them. It's quite an interesting structure.

[8:30]

I'm actually sympathetic, not with fettering devolution and all the benefits of moving into local control, but with actually having some positions there which give at least some level of accountability, if we move in this brave new direction of radical decentralization. We've had a lot of discussions about that, and I'm quite close to Doug Young's view on some of these questions, which is not entirely consistent with many of the views of some of the business community and others in Vancouver, but it's not that far apart, either.

F. Gingell: In the ports, of course, the governance systems are already there. The Vancouver International Airport Authority is a done deal, but there are a whole bunch more coming up. Would the minister like to expand, if there is anything to be said, on what may happen in the future with some of the regional airports that are looking at devolution?

Hon. G. Clark: The Minister of Transportation and Highways and I have been meeting with the mayors and the communities affected by the devolution, and it doesn't appear that we're going to have a nice, neat answer to all the problems. But we have been working very hard with the mayors on how to deal with this question.

Everyone agrees that we want to minimize the subsidy; the subsidy is very high. I think everybody agrees, as well, that some of these airports are not going to be profitable. My position -- and I would encourage the opposition to support this position -- is that Vancouver International Airport is paying rent to Ottawa, to the tune of over $30 million a year, as part of the devolution agreement. The subsidy for all the other airports in the entire province of British Columbia from the federal government is $30 million a year, roughly. I say to the federal government: "You cannot take the revenue from a profit-making airport, but not continue to subsidize the regional airports."

F. Gingell: They all feed into it.

Hon. G. Clark: They all feed into it. And if you jeopardize the regional airports, you also start to undermine the viability of the Vancouver International Airport.

My general view is that there should be a provincial airport authority of some fashion, and the $30 million should go there. It should not be the province that governs that, but rather a sort of co-op of the regional airports, which would then allocate some funding on some rational basis.

I think that would be rational, and it makes sense. It gets the federal government out of the business, which they want, and they don't profit from one airport at the expense of the others. I don't think we have a really high chance of success there, but I think we have a very good argument.

The federal government knows they're going to have to continue some subsidies on this question. They know that at the end of the day, but they want to drive down those costs. We've been working with the mayors and others. I'm concerned, frankly, that some municipalities are in a better position than others, so they're keen. They like this idea, because they're close to being economic, and they can pick it up. They want to cut timber on Crown land, and other ideas, to try to break even.

Others, however, have huge problems, and they don't have any Crown land or any timber on it. So we're trying to come up with an overall framework, which is fair and which tries to be sympathetic to local efforts, to turn something into a break-even proposition, but there's probably not going to be a cookie-cutter answer to the whole thing other than the broad question. We are still exploring with the mayors and others on the Aviation Council the idea of a provincial council to look at these questions.

One last point. As the members know, we have something called the ATAP program, the air transportation assistance program, funded by the TFA now, and it has traditionally given small capital support to non-federal airports. Clearly we now have to rationalize this and say that we've got this other problem of regional airports which were funded by the federal government. We still have this problem of the small airports, and there may be a role to play for capital for the province on the airport question. But we're not inclined to pick up any subsidy off-loaded from the federal government to subsidize those airports.

Anyway, that's the broad question; we're grappling with it as we speak. I actually have Chris Nelson, assistant deputy minister, trying to drive this, because it requires a fairly senior staff person just to work with all the mayors -- coming down here with all their different demands. We are certainly making 

[ Page 15961 ]

progress. It's a little signal about what we might face with the sea ports, if he moves in this direction fairly quickly as well. It's not quite as dramatic.

F. Gingell: Just one word in relation to the years I spent on the Harbour Commission. Harbour commissions are viewed somewhat differently. They are seen as a western Canada facility, whereas airports.... It's very difficult to build ports in Alberta.

Could you advise how much funding is going through the TFA for the support of small community airports for this year? If there's a briefing note that lists them, perhaps you could make that available to us at a later date.

Hon. G. Clark: We haven't finalized a decision or made the announcements yet, but we have an allocation of $2 million to the ATAP program this year.

D. Symons: Just a few more questions here. While the minister keeps referring to the Island Highway as costing $1.2 billion, and that's the budget figure, I assume that's neither '93 or '94 dollars. I'm wondering what projected costs they have when you take in the financing and other charges. What are the total projected costs going to be at the end of the day for paying for the Island Highway? When you take your financing costs and everything, what figure have you come up with for the cost of the highway?

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

Hon. G. Clark: I certainly don't have that. I guess we can make some assumptions around interest costs and inflation over time. You have to make quite a series of assumptions around that -- what the interest rates are going to be, the pace of construction and what inflation is going to be -- before you can estimate it. I suppose we could look at it, but we haven't done that.

D. Symons: Just a couple of final questions here. Going back to the act that set up the TFA, section 10(2) says that the minister is the chair of the board. Section 9 defines the minister as the Minister of Transportation and Highways. I gather the Minister of Employment and Investment is sitting as the chair of the board. I'm wondering by what authority that has occurred. When we sit in the Legislature and we pass legislation, we assume that what we are passing is what is going to happen.

Hon. G. Clark: There's been an amendment.

D. Symons: I don't remember an amendment for the TFA coming before this House and being passed by the House. I'm wondering if you might explain how that happened. Did it go to the House and go by me?

Hon. G. Clark: I was appointed to this portfolio by the Premier. The Constitution Act allows the Premier certain prerogatives, and one of them is to say that for the purposes of this act, I'm the designated minister referred to in the act. When I was appointed in the order-in-council, for the purposes of that act, I'm the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

D. Symons: I guess that still raises the question I asked before. When we pass a piece of legislation such that the Premier has the authority to redefine things, it does create the question that whatever we agree to in the Legislature can be changed the day after. In a sense, it makes a mockery out of what we debate in the House.

Just one last question, then. You mentioned one of the projects before. There are very few projects that have been done as a partnership. I think you have two: Quinsam Coal and the Mount Washington Road....

Hon. G. Clark: Finlay Navigation.

D. Symons: Finlay Navigation and the barge up there -- that's correct.

Interjection.

D. Symons: That may be the problem: it will run dry.

There was to be an announcement last December or January, I believe, in Campbell River on Quinsam Coal. As a matter of fact, a press conference was to have been held, and there was a last-second cancellation of the project. Obviously you were ready to go ahead with it, so I've been dying to know why there was a last-minute change.

I'll tell you why I have a concern on this. We have a large pile of preload on the Westminster Highway in Richmond near No. 5 Road. It was put there by Atsugi Nylon, which was going to build a plant in Richmond. It was going to hire 500 people; it would have been fantastic for the community. Unfortunately, during the very last bit of negotiations, I believe, our city council tried to change something about the daycare centre and so forth. There was just a slight change, but basically the Atsugi Nylon people said: "That's the last straw. You're going to change the conditions in which we started out negotiating, and now you are adding little things in there. To heck with you." I'm wondering if something similar had gone wrong with the Quinsam Coal situation. I don't know if you would care to admit that that was the case, but what happened that made that announcement, which was about to take place, take place roughly five months later?

Hon. G. Clark: The member is correct. We thought we were very close to having a deal -- in fact, we thought we had a deal -- and it didn't work out.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, you're right. These are three-corner deals with Marubeni Corp., the Canadian company and ourselves. We weren't about to risk tax money without everybody simultaneously moving on the deal. At the last minute, one of the potential players indicated that it wanted the province to put its money in first, I think, and we simply said no. I'm giving you a very crude and vague conclusion to a complex deal. But at the end of the day, we had more negotiations, and we were delighted to have them successfully concluded, albeit a few months later. It's not at all like the situation in Richmond, though; I want to make that clear. We now have a contractual relationship. It's a signed contract, and our money was contingent upon other money. All of that has happened. There should be no fear -- other than Marubeni I guess, going bankrupt or something -- of any changing of the rules now that the deal has been cut. Are we now finished with the TFA?

[ Page 15962 ]

J. Tyabji: It's okay, I'll only be about an hour or so.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: I am pulling the minister's leg.

As the minister is aware, there was an announcement last week. Although the announcement came in a news release that mentioned the Minister of Transportation and Highways, the funding is coming exclusively from the Transportation Financing Authority. I'm not sure whether the minister has seen the public response to the announcement. If I could summarize it, they are not very happy, and I think that is being kind. The announcement was for $580,000, and I'm not sure if the news stories are correct -- not that I'm one to question media stories -- but they are saying that this is the seventh study of the situation in the central Okanagan.

Given that we are, at the very most, a year and a half away from the next election -- actually it is less than that now, more likely one year away from going to the polls -- could the minister explain why there would be such a large expenditure of money when clearly there won't be a commitment for capital expenditure, whatever the outcome of that study, until after the next election?

Hon. G. Clark: The last thing that we would do, of course, is act in such a political fashion that the member is alluding to. The timing of the election has nothing whatsoever to do with how we might operate the Transportation Financing Authority. These are purely coincidental arrangements.

I want to make it clear that this is not a planning study. This is design and engineering work around adding another lane to the bridge. I know there's controversy around this question, and the project cost is about $60 million at the end of the day. We anticipate another $1.2 million or $1.5 million next year. The following year it goes to about $6 million, then it escalates. That's the nature of these capital projects. They take some time, and we're busy working on it.

[8:45]

There are other options; I know the member is interested in them. We continue to explore the Okanagan corridor, but the decision was made that we have to get on with the engineering work around this. We're at a very critical time in the valley, and particularly in that area, as the population increases.

J. Tyabji: I'm not sure if the minister remembers. I know he has a very good memory, so let's assume that he does. A year ago, when this government published their mobility study, which was actually initiated under the first Minister of Transportation and Highways of this government, who's now the Minister of Education, and was brought in under the current Minister of Transportation and Highways, one of the options of the study was for widening of the bridge, I approached this minister and specifically said what I thought about that: I'm totally opposed to it. Notwithstanding that, I asked him of the likelihood of his government pursuing that option.

Although this was not on the record, perhaps the minister will assist me by remembering. He said: "There isn't any chance that we will expand that bridge. That is not one of the options we're pursuing. We don't feel it would be a worthwhile expenditure of capital dollars. So it will have to be another one of the options." In fact, the minister at that time indicated that some of his staff were exploring the Westside Road as an option. The minister is nodding. Could the minister tell me how it could be that a year later, his ministry -- not the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, but his ministry -- is now looking at 60 percent of $1 million, basically, in what he's calling an engineering study to expand a bridge, when he agreed with me a year ago that it was not the logical choice?

Hon. G. Clark: We've done some work. First of all, I don't recall the discussion, and I can't believe that I said that. But we have done a year's worth of work in the area. We do have this Okanagan corridor study. The alternatives of other bridges.... We have been looking into those questions and continue to look at them, but they are prohibitive in terms of capital costs, even when looked at broadly.

In addition, and I think this is important and why we are moving on this expansion to the bridge, the counterflow lane and the congestion is such now that we believe there are some serious safety and other concerns, along with the status quo. In any event, we have to make some improvements to that bridge, in my view, in the short run. We can't wait for the kinds of huge expenditures of another bridge, not to rule out another bridge as we continue looking at the whole corridor, but we believe the $0.5 million in design engineering is critical to get moving on this, because we're reaching a critical stage in the Kelowna area.

J. Tyabji: Could the minister explain how this work that he's done in the last year has convinced him that expanding the bridge will do anything other than hasten the flow of traffic into and out of the bottlenecks on either side of the bridge?

Hon. G. Clark: Part of the design work that we've just commissioned is to figure out how we deal with the bottlenecks through the town.

J. Tyabji: On the minister's preliminary inquiries into Westside Road as a possible bypass, the majority of that road is paved -- there's only one section that's not paved. He and the Minister of Transportation and Highways have recognized how dangerous that road is -- someone was killed there just a few months ago -- because there is some residential development and the road has not been properly upgraded. To what extent was the minister taking that into account, given that there has not been a death of a pedestrian on the bridge because of the safety situation on the bridge? Has he also allowed for some capital expenditure on Westside Road to make it a safer road?

Hon. G. Clark: At this point in time, we haven't budgeted anything for Westside Road. With some of the preliminary work we've done, my staff just advised me that only something like 10 percent of the traffic is going all the way through the Okanagan Valley. That's why the Westside Road option doesn't capture the kind of volume which obviously assists us in dealing with the congestion on the existing bridge. That's what the preliminary review of the situation suggests.

I know the member has raised this in the past, and I certainly don't mind undertaking to take a look again at 

[ Page 15963 ]

Westside Road, at least in the short-run but not at the big solution the member suggested. Rather, I will look at the safety concerns she's mentioned. I do recall the recent tragedy, and we want to make sure that we certainly take a look at that portion again.

J. Tyabji: I want to canvass some of the structure of Westside Road vis-a-vis the southern crossing option. Right now I'd like to go to the capital expenditure. I'd like to let the minister know that the studies he's commissioning for an expansion of the existing bridge may not reduce the traffic flow by 10 percent. Obviously they can't -- there will be no other option for that 10 percent. They may make that a safer corridor. Without some capital expenditure, there will not be an easier flow of traffic. However, Westside Road is not paved, so that means whatever study was done to assess how much traffic is heading north -- other than the fact that they were stopping people and asking people....

I should put on the record that I've been through that mobility study with a fine-tooth comb, and the minister will know that there are people in one's riding who are experts at one particular thing. They will take one particular thing, and they will know it inside and out. I happen to have the advantage of....

Hon. G. Clark: There are MLAs like that.

J. Tyabji: Yes, I think the member for Surrey-Cloverdale is usually mentioned as one of those people.

I have the advantage of having in my riding a person who is an urban geographer, who actually worked on some large engineering projects in the prairies and has retired in the Okanagan. So when I bring these comments forward, it's not my own expertise I'm bringing forward. I'm bringing forward the expertise of somebody who's spent his entire career studying traffic patterns, engineering and the kinds of government policy options that are available. I take his analysis very seriously, because we've had a number of public meetings where other people have come forward. I've been over the mobility study, but he's been through it with a fine-tooth comb in terms of the methodology, the conclusions reached and all of these things.

The mobility study was a good starting point; we needed the mobility study. Having said that, I don't think that is actually an accurate analysis to stand up and list a number like 10 percent and then say that 10 percent are heading north, therefore even if we developed Westside Road to a level of safety and as a bypass, it would only address 10 percent of the traffic. I think the member for Okanagan-Vernon might even have something to say about that. I know of people who actually choose to go through Kelowna. Because there isn't a bypass, there isn't that option. In order to drive from the west side to Vernon right now, you have to have a pretty good car or be prepared to have a lot of banging on some washboard for a few miles.

When the minister is saying that the study may look at an expenditure of up to $60 million to address traffic problems, I would submit as enthusiastically as possible that a lower expenditure on Westside Road will provide us with a bypass. Whatever is left from the amount of money put into Westside Road for the bypass could be used to do the kind of upgrading that is needed in the synchronization of lights and the closure of some of the crossroads. Those are the small, tiny, little arteries that have been there for 40 years. People say: "No, don't close Abbott Street; I remember when my grandparents used to take the horse cart across Abbott Street." Some of those things can be closed. The lights have got to be synchronized; they are just a mess. It takes a long time to get through town for just that reason.

That's what I would recommend. If this minister is going to look at something, rather than looking at expanding the existing bridge, why don't we look at taking that capital expenditure, which would be less, and putting it into Westside Road, which must be upgraded anyway because it's a dangerous road, and having whatever's left over put into the improvement of the Highway 97 corridor? I would wager that there will be some money left at the end of it, so it would actually come to a smaller ticket price than the $60 million.

Hon. G. Clark: I don't disagree with everything the member says on this question. I just want to make it clear that the mobility study is not adequate, in our view, because it was largely a Ministry of Transportation and Highways study. I don't criticize that per se, except that it was looking at a construction solution to a problem. I think I mentioned this, but I'm not sure I did when the member was here. We have now engaged a valley-wide corridor study to integrate land use planning questions as well as transportation questions, and to look precisely at some of the solutions the member is talking about. So we're doing that.

Having said all that, the existing bridge and the counterflow are very, very unsafe. The bridge is three very narrow lanes. The traffic in the summer is prohibitive on the one lane, and they're lined up. The member knows this, I'm sure. There are some very serious safety questions. We are proceeding with the design and engineering work on the expansion of the bridge while we're undertaking a broader review of the valley and trying to have a more holistic transportation and land use planning approach to it -- which is the mandate of TFA -- as opposed to the more old-fashioned question of just where we build the highway. That's the kind of work we've been doing. I don't think they're mutually inconsistent, and the member thinks that they are. I guess that's where we disagree.

Just to clarify, the last point I want to make is that when I said 10 percent would use the Westside Road, it's not because 10 percent are using it now. It is 10 percent who are using Highway 97 now without stopping in Kelowna, so that's all it would take. Even at best, it would only take 10 percent of the traffic if we upgraded the bypass.

J. Tyabji: I have already mentioned why I disagree with that analysis. If there is no option, then people aren't going to put that into their plans. Also, I'm not convinced that the methodology of the mobility study was an accurate reflection of where people were going. A limited number of people were canvassed, and I believe it was done in the middle of winter. I'm not sure, but it was done at a time when it wasn't going to be peak time for people heading north without stopping in Kelowna.

How much money does the minister plan to spend in the central Okanagan, if this minister receives the trust of the electorate in the next election and his government is returned to power? Would they envision upgrading Westside Road, expanding the existing bridge and putting in place a second bridge?

[ Page 15964 ]

Hon. G. Clark: Yes. The corridor planning study is.... We're spending about half a million dollars this year on the corridor planning study, and if it points to that solution, then, sure, we would move in that direction. We're doing some other work in the area -- you know, the Glenrosa interchange and some other highway work. We can't stop the world while we review these questions, but I'd be delighted if there are more cost-effective solutions coming out of the broader study.

Just incidentally, if the member has individuals who have made it their purview to become experts in this subject, I would be happy to have my staff meet with them, talk to them about their concerns and go over it with them at their convenience.

J. Tyabji: Sure, great. I thought there might have been another concern about the Westside Road.

I would thank the minister on record for offering to allow his staff to meet with some of my constituents. I'll certainly commit to setting that up, because I know this person will take advantage of that meeting and will probably provide a very constructive exchange.

Having said that, I don't think the minister answered my question. How much money are they prepared to spend in the central Okanagan? If this government is returned to power, would this minister see a second bridge, a widening of the existing bridge and the upgrading of Westside Road?

Hon. G. Clark: When we're returned to power, we'll have the benefit of the studies that we've just been talking about, and we'll be able to make an intelligent choice. At this time, I would see continuing to proceed to the expansion of the existing bridge. We talked about that. We have to have some design engineer work done. We will proceed to construction, subject to the review of the broader review we're talking about.

[9:00]

I can't look ahead four or five years on this question until we do this kind of integrated planning, which has never been done before.

An Hon. Member: It will be outdated by then.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: That's true. There's a very interesting off-the-record discussion going on here.

Is this minister telling me that the study that the Minister of Transportation and Highways, in conjunction with the member from Okanagan-Penticton and the chair of the regional transportation committee announced last week, with the financing coming from this minister's portfolio...? Is he saying that that study may actually come up with a recommendation not to expand the existing bridge, and this minister may not expand the existing bridge after the expenditure of this money?

Hon. G. Clark: We have detailed design and engineering work being done on the expansion of the bridge lanes. We have the broader planning initiative, which I've talked about. Our view at this time is that we'll proceed to the expansion of the existing bridge. That's our view. That's our best intelligence at the moment, and that's what we're planning to do.

If the broader review suggests otherwise, then clearly we won't proceed. We will readjust our plans accordingly, based on the review undertaken. At this time, it's our judgment that the safety concerns are such that it would be prudent for the government to proceed with the design and engineering work associated with expanding the bridge by one lane. It's subject to continual review, particularly in light of this broader planning initiative we've announced.

J. Tyabji: The minister continues to talk about the existing bridge being unsafe. I just wonder if he could provide, for the record, what he is drawing all these safety hazards from. Having grown up using that bridge, and certainly having used it in all the time that it was expanded to three lanes, yes, the traffic gets very frustrating, but I'm not sure that I share his perspective on how dangerous it is. Maybe I need to be educated on that point.

Hon. G. Clark: Essentially, the lanes are narrow; they're substandard. They're not to provincial standards for highways carrying this volume. They are narrow lanes with sharp corners. There's a steep downhill grade, limited sight distance, sharp corners, narrow lanes and increasing congestion. That's a recipe for a very unsafe situation.

J. Tyabji: Could the minister tell me if the entire bridge is substandard, or just the lift span?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm advised that it's the approaches and the bridge.

J. Tyabji: If there are any details on that, I would be most interested in them. To me, the bridge certainly appears to only be narrow in a couple of small places. I don't know if it's been that much more difficult than some of the other bridges.

It can be a bit disconcerting to come down the hill and have to go onto the bridge, or merge. I think that's the most dangerous part. Adding another lane to the bridge wouldn't address that at all. If the minister is saying that the safety concerns are more in the approach to the bridge from the west side, then that's a different issue from the expansion of the bridge.

Hon. G. Clark: The design and engineering work is looking at realigning the approaches as well as the expansion of the bridge.

J. Tyabji: Is part of the purpose of the report, then, to be in negotiations with the Westbank Indian band for land acquisition on either side of the approach from the west side?

Hon. G. Clark: No.

J. Tyabji: Is part of the mandate of this study to make recommendations for movement that may include movement within the band lands? I mean, it would have to. The approach on the west side would have to go onto band lands.

Hon. G. Clark: It may impinge upon band lands, but we won't know until we have a design.

J. Tyabji: The minister may not be aware, but the last time they widened the approach from the west side to the 

[ Page 15965 ]

bridge, which was around the same time they put a third lane in, the negotiations were so sensitive.... There was such a successful position on the part of the Westbank band that we now have another situation on our hands, which is the Gallagher land dispute. The minister has already said that the study that they are doing, which costs roughly $600,000, will be making recommendations to change the approach on the west side. This will impact Indian band lands, because the band has the land on either side of the road. The last time there was what I would term a marginal widening of the highway, several thousand acres of land had to be provided to the Westbank band on the other side of the valley. We are stuck right now in the Gallagher lands controversy, because at that time the federal government made a commitment to possibly allow the land that was traded for the expansion of the highway to have reserve status.

The minister might say: "Well, this is not in my jurisdiction." I know I'll be asked about this once Hansard circulates in my riding. My concern is that if the minister is going to provide a document, which I know will be a public document, at the end of these studies showing a redrawing of the approach, it will inevitably show potential acquisition of land from the Westbank Indian band. The community was up in arms over the debate over reserve status the last time that was done. It seems to me that if the minister is saying they are not even talking to Westbank band right now, then that is going to give the band a pretty strong hand at the negotiating table if a $600,000 report is published, showing their land affected by the movement. They would be in the driver's seat. I wonder if the minister has taken any of that into consideration in providing the parameters of this study. I'm going to be asked that question, and I want to be able to tell my constituents.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm tempted to say that we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. Oh, it's late.

Look, it's very hard to enter negotiations or discussion with an aboriginal band when you don't know what -- or whether or if -- amounts of land you need to acquire. First we do the detailed engineering design work, showing what the optimum transportation solution is, and then we sit down as reasonable people and attempt to negotiate a solution. If it's not acceptable, then we continue to look to see if there are other design options.

It's not a perfect world; these are challenges. We understand that. They'd be challenges if it wasn't a native band, but private ownership. People don't want to accede to highway development, but you have to carry on. You have to move forward prudently and do the engineering work, show the optimum detailed design and then move forward to public discussion with communities and affected landholders, including aboriginal communities.

J. Tyabji: I'll certainly provide that answer to my constituents. I'm not sure how happy they'll be with it, given that there are a lot of debates going on right now. As the minister is aware, you can't compare the possible design over private land, where the government may have the power to expropriate, and the possible design over aboriginal land, where we're in a totally different ball game as far as how we acquire the land and what kinds of negotiations we get into -- especially right now, given all the other processes that are underway.

With respect to the community corridor process, I can't remember what the minister referred to it as earlier, but he was talking about all the different bodies of local government and the regional land use planning process that's in place. I'm assuming that the one he's referring to is chaired by Robert Hobson. Are you talking about the regional transportation committee? What are we talking about? Who's on it? How is it going to work?

Hon. G. Clark: We haven't made an announcement yet with respect to how we plan to proceed. We have a budget of $500,000 for the Okanagan Valley transportation plan. This is not Mr. Hobson's chairing of the regional transportation committee; this is a technical transportation planning exercise that we're about to initiate in the Okanagan Valley to do many of the things the member has alluded to.

J. Tyabji: Who is steering this plan? Is it going to be staff from this minister's office? If so, is there a provision for...? Is it going to be a committee, or will it be staff holding public hearings? Are they interviewing people? Is there the ability for local people to be part of the planning process or a steering committee -- anything?

Hon. G. Clark: If I can get leave -- if it's required -- I'll ask the former vice-president of planning at the TFA, Frank Blasetti, to answer that question.

Leave granted.

F. Blasetti: We propose to engage in a technical planning exercise involving the three regional districts and the three major municipalities in each regional district. We do not intend to create a valleywide steering committee. We want to deal with the individual regional districts individually. We feel that would be the most effective way to proceed. At the end of the day, we anticipate producing a series of technical studies which will provide a list of strategic options in terms of how the Highway 97 corridor could be developed over time. The studies will outline the advantages and disadvantages of each and hopefully lead, at that point in time, to an informed public debate of what our choices are and which ones we should be selecting.

Right now, as the minister has mentioned, one of the difficulties we have with the mobility study is that it did not take this approach to try and identify options. It basically went straight to a highway construction solution for dealing with the congestion that currently exists in the central Okanagan, in and around Kelowna in particular. One of the concerns we have is that other options were not sufficiently canvassed. That's what we want to do through this process.

We ultimately want to link this process, down the road, to a group management strategy exercise, when the regional districts in the valley are prepared to proceed with that type of exercise. We believe fundamentally that if you're going to have a transportation plan in the Okanagan, you have to deal with where residential development is taking place. You have to link those two decisions if you're going to have a comprehensive and realistic plan at the end of the day.

J. Tyabji: I need some direction from the Chair. Am I allowed to ask questions directly of Mr. Blasetti?

The Chair: No. Through the minister, obviously.

J. Tyabji: Thank you, hon. Chair. I have a few questions, then. In the discussion of the technical planning, is it a technical planning committee or a technical planning process?

[ Page 15966 ]

Hon. G. Clark: It's a process, not a committee. We're doing the transportation plan, and we are then liaising and working in technical groups with the various municipalities, etc., and then overlaying provincial objectives as opposed to municipal ones onto that. So it's not a committee. It's a study, likely with contracted services engaged in that. We'll be doing an overall Okanagan corridor plan.

J. Tyabji: So is this going to be a staff-to-staff process? When the minister says that they will be liaising with the three regional districts and the three municipalities in the area, will it be staff-to-staff, as in technical staff to technical staff? Will there be involvement of the locally elected representatives?

Hon. G. Clark: Only through the directions they give their staff. This is a staff working committee.

J. Tyabji: In regard to the series of technical studies that were referred to, will those be published at the same time, or will one lead to the other, with discussion on one?

Hon. G. Clark: Likely they will be published at the same time.

[9:15]

J. Tyabji: What will be the forum in which the public debate will take place? I'm assuming that there will publication of the technical studies with the strategic options that were mentioned and the outlines of the advantages and disadvantages. Then will there be a period of time and then a public forum. At that public forum, will everyone have equal opportunity? Or will there be some intermediate process between the publication of the studies and the public consultation?

Hon. G. Clark: We haven't got that far, but I assure the member that I'll keep her abreast of the discussions, and if she wants to have input into them, she can. We've established a budget, and now we're beginning a process.

J. Tyabji: I appreciate that. I would certainly like to have some input into the public process, and I would like to follow up on the suggestion that some of my constituents could meet directly with the minister.

The minister should be aware that....

An Hon. Member: Not the minister; the staff of the minister.

J. Tyabji: The staff of the minister. That's right; the people who really know what's going on. That's just a joke.

The minister should be aware that we in Kelowna actually have the advantage of having had quite a few residents' associations formed in the last few years. In my assessment, anyway, that was in response to the rapid growth, because there was never anything.... When I was growing up, there were 23,000 or 25,000 people. Everybody knew everybody, and people talked a lot about how they wanted things done. Then, somewhere in the middle, we somehow ended up with 100,000 people; it seemed almost overnight.

Not only do we have neighbourhood residents' organizations, but we also have an umbrella organization, which is a very effective organization for carrying forward these kinds of studies. In the determination of the process, I would highly recommend that those people be resource people for the staff, because within those groups are people who are fairly specialized. They are the people I certainly rely on for a lot of resource material and for feedback on policy initiatives.

Lastly, I committed to briefly go over with the minister some of the demographics of the area. I just want to do that quickly, because although I've done it with the Minister of Transportation and Highways, I've never done it with this minister in any detail, and certainly not on the record. Tonight I've learned that whenever I have a discussion with this minister on transportation in the Okanagan, I should do it on the record.

In Kelowna we have only one real option to get from the west to the east or vice versa. It also happens to have been the main drag as the town was growing up, so we've got the city centre right around it. Coming off the bridge, you move straight into what used to be the downtown core. As I said before, it was fine to have lots of little arteries when Kelowna was a small town, but now we have very serious congestion in that corridor.

In addition to that, something that is often not mentioned in Transportation estimates, because it is not within their mandate, is the problem we have with air quality. The member for Chilliwack is here. The Fraser Valley has some similar problems. They have the problem of the mountains holding the air in from Vancouver when it blows over; our problem is that the traffic is currently funnelled down the middle of the inversion. If you can imagine an upside-down bowl, that's what we have in the Okanagan. The lake that runs through the middle defines how the valley is shaped, and because we've got all that traffic going down what would be the lowest point of the valley, it's right in the middle of the inversion.

When I first came up and proposed a south-end connector or an extension of the Coquihalla, the reason for that was that we need something to take the focus away from what we call the valley bottom, the lowest point of the valley. The city of Kelowna and the regional district have enormous expansion plans for the south end of the valley. In setting up these studies, the staff and the minister should realize that there are roughly 5,000 homes currently on the drawing board, just for the south end. There are no routes there. There is no east-west route in place to take that traffic.

Kelowna is designed almost as if.... If you can imagine a bicycle wheel, the centre of the town is there, and it has always been there. Because it was rural, they drove out spokes from the wheel. So our spokes are in great shape, but there is no rim. That is one thing that came up in the discussions that we've had. They've designed it so that it is great to get from the centre out, but if you are actually on the end of one of the spokes, it's very difficult to get around town. A bypass or a Coquihalla extension would not only divert traffic, it would also provide a much-needed road system, which is something that is long overdue.

That is something that I wanted to mention to the minister. What we are asking for is the rim of the wheel. In addition to that, the Westside Road runs north. I think the minister may not have understood that when we were talking. The Westside Road runs north, and the south-end connector is on the other side, and that is where the biggest growth in the next ten or 20 years will take place. It will all be in the south end. The south 

[ Page 15967 ]

slopes are currently in a logging plan. At the end of that logging plan, much of that land is going to come out, and it is all slated for development. It fits in with the push to get off the agricultural land and away from the valley bottoms. We have some beautiful agricultural land still left; the development will be happening right at the bottom of the tree line, basically.

That is why, in terms of a long-term vision, if we do build that rim, it will serve that area for another 100 years. We're not talking about a ten-year plan or a five-year plan. The day you expand that bridge, the traffic is a problem. You can expand it to four lanes, and you still have a problem, because no one has anywhere else to go.

When you upgrade Westside Road, you've made a vast improvement for the people who live there, because it is not safe, and we've funnelled some of the traffic away. So it's a good short-term solution. I would hope that in the long-term we will build the rim. We need it. We needed it ten years ago; we needed it 20 years ago, probably, but only as a service route. Now we actually will need it. For people going to the Kootenays, it would be an excellent way to access Highway 33.

R. Chisholm: I have one question that I discussed with the minster earlier, and I'd like to pose it for him. I thank him for addressing it now, considering the constraints on the time when we can ask it. I'd like to quote from two letters before I pose the question.

In the first letter I wrote to the minister, I said:

"I have recently been made aware of a horrific situation that has been allowed to occur in the West Arrow Lake community. The issue at hand is the obvious mistreatment of the residents of West Arrow Lake by the officials of the B.C. Hydro Corporation, who confiscated a substantial amount of land in this area, and by elected ministers who were notified of the situation and refused to acknowledge the residents' concerns.

"As can be seen and understood from the enclosed documents, the land was expropriated by B.C. Hydro in the 1960s. Family lives and a way of life were destroyed because of this action, and thirty years later, with most of the former residents waiting in the area for a decision, it was sold to a wealthy developer at a fraction of the value of the land. Is this the kind of treatment we afford to people who have contributed greatly to the agricultural success of British Columbia? Can these people be compensated for the anguish they have endured over the past 30 years?

"Ms. Janet Spicer has outlined very clearly what can only be described as a terrible injustice. The corporation of B.C. Hydro has been allowed to operate in a questionable manner regarding the West Arrow Lake community. Mr. Witzke, the aforementioned developer, seems to have prospered at the expense of the men and women who made West Arrow Lake a viable community.

"According to Ms. Spicer's letter, B.C. Hydro stated that a substantial amount of land was given to Mr. Witzke to be used as agricultural land to plant orchards, thereby providing employment opportunities in the community. The same Mr. Witzke whom she understands is leading a campaign since acquiring the Arrow Park agriculture holdings, to have the agricultural land reserve abolished. It seems as though Mr. Witzke is more interested in subdividing the land for real estate purposes."

The second letter comes from the Friends of West Arrow Park. I'll just quote a bit of it:

"The office of the ombudsman considers this matter to be of grave enough concern that they have opened an investigation. Ted Hughes, the conflict-of-interest commissioner, agrees that this is an important issue, but he must be directed by the Legislature to look into it."

I will now quote the question I gave to the minister:

"I've provided you advance notice today of questions regarding a sequence of events that took place in the Nakusp area prior to your government taking office during the late 1980s. The event referred to is the sale of B.C. Hydro-owned lands as West Arrow Park. I've written to you about this issue but, unfortunately, have not received written reply prior to the start of your estimates, so I'm forced to deal with the issues in this fashion.

"We are dealing with the sale of some 700 acres of land in 1990 to an individual who not only seemed to acquire the land without public tender or notice but who also was able to persuade B.C. Hydro to provide the bulk of the financing for the deal. This arrangement was never made available to some earlier 70 local residents who had expressed interest in buying the land. For some five years the stink around this arrangement has gotten worse. Now local residents have decided to push for an investigation from your office. The reason they have chosen me to put the question during your estimates is because I learned of their problem some weeks ago and wrote to them about their concerns, so I now have more material.

"I would like to ask you if you'd be willing to launch an inquiry, through your ministerial office initially, to get to the bottom of this situation and see if there is not some basis to consider ordering B.C. Hydro to re-obtain the control the land and settle this issue."

Hon. G. Clark: I should say that I'm quite familiar with this issue, because the member for Nelson-Creston has raised it repeatedly with me as well. I think the member probably knows that. It does give me concern. There's obviously concern out there, and, as I say, the member for Nelson-Creston has repeatedly raised it.

What I've done about it so far is this: I basically asked B.C. Hydro for an investigation and review of this matter. I just want to read you what B.C. Hydro says in their response:

"The original sale of the property was a public competitive process and reflected Hydro's best efforts to achieve a financial return while supporting forestry and agriculture in the region. Mr. Witzke is complying with the conditions of the mortgage, the logging was completed in accordance with an approved plan, and net proceeds of the logging on the property are being applied to the mortgage. The damage to the road is an issue that is being resolved between the logging company and the Ministry of Highways."

Hydro has reviewed it at my request, and I made the request as a result of intervention from the member for Nelson-Creston. That is their response. I made sure I got their response, and I reviewed it again as a result of your concern being raised here. At this point that's where it stands.

I'd be delighted to have the member meet with Hydro staff if he wants to pursue this with them, because there are certain allegations that the member is raising. I don't mind asking. I can instruct Hydro to meet with the member and go through their rationale with them, to see if Hydro can convince the member that everything was acted on prudently.

Beyond that, I have to advise the committee that the member for Nelson-Creston is not particularly satisfied with the response to date. I see the member nodding, so perhaps he isn't, although I hope he avails himself of the opportunity to meet further with B.C. Hydro. I am going to continue to look into the question and see if there are other actions we can take. But at this time, it would be appropriate to go back to Hydro. They've now responded, and we'll see where it goes from there.

R. Chisholm: I'll gladly take the minister up on his offer to go back to B.C. Hydro and talk to them about this situation. 

[ Page 15968 ]

But if the situation is not resolved from those talks -- and the member for Nelson-Creston doesn't seem to be too satisfied, either -- would the minister be willing to open up an inquiry from his office into this situation? If the two MLAs -- one from the area and the one that has been approached -- still have not come to a satisfactory answer in the given situation, would he, as the minister, be willing to open up an investigation from his ministerial office?

Hon. G. Clark: Frank Blasetti here is the assistant deputy minister for the Crown corporations secretariat, acting as deputy. Subject to a bit more work with Hydro and yourself and the member for Nelson-Creston, I don't mind saying that we're going to review this matter further. It's a challenging problem in many respects, however. This is not Hydro's contention, but even if there were some improper dealings with respect to Hydro and the individuals involved, the individuals involved currently own the property; it's no longer Hydro's. Even if we exposed the problem, it's not clear what the remedy would be -- if there was a problem. So it's a bit murky. I am considering asking the Crown corporations secretariat to review the matter further, in light of some of the concerns you and the member for Nelson-Creston have raised.

[9:30]

K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what TFA funds have been allocated to Surrey-Cloverdale? While I'm at it, could he also indicate what funds have been allocated to all of Surrey?

Hon. G. Clark: The latter may be easier, because the last thing I would do is allocate capital investments on the basis of constituencies or political boundaries. That would be far too political, and we would never even review spending on that basis. We review spending on the basis of the most need and the highest and best use for tax money; it's limited tax money. I'm sure we don't have the statistics by constituency. If we did, of course, my constituency would probably receive less than anybody.

With respect to Surrey, we'll review some of the projects. The main investment we're doing for Surrey -- it's not in the construction phase at this point -- is on the south perimeter road and on Highway 1 improvements. Those are two corridors which are critical. I think I talked yesterday about the south perimeter road and the commitment the province has in that regard and how we are negotiating now to see if we can get some of the infrastructure money to kick it off, as we continue planning and working on the broader one of dealing with Burns Bog and the alignment.

Highway 1 is another challenging question around HOV lanes and the new bridge across to Surrey, which is or will be required. Design questions are very tricky in terms of how we move forward. We will be spending over $1 million this year just on design work on the Highway 1 question.

I'm just looking at the list of projects. We are doing work on the 88th Avenue underpass as well -- the 88th Avenue underpass with the Trans-Canada, where it interchanges.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: The Trans-Canada is under the overpass. I'll just review it. There are probably some other projects.

K. Jones: Could I get a clarification of this 88th Avenue underpass on Highway 1? I'm not aware of an 88th Avenue. Is this a new one?

Hon. G. Clark: Well, 88th Avenue is not continuous across Highway 1 at the 200th Street interchange, and local traffic uses the freeway rather than the local road system. East-west traffic directed through the interchange rather than over the highway conflicts with highway traffic using North and South Highway 1 on-ramps and off-ramps. The double-loading of the interchange and conflicting turning movements result in reduced highway safety operational performance within the interchange, mobility along the highway and accessibility to adjacent land use. We were completing detailed design and engineering work this year to review the construction of an underpass at Highway 1 along the 88th Avenue east-west alignment. It will ultimately be a $13.5 million project. We have budgeted $500,000 this year for the detailed design and engineering work, because we've identified it as an important project to proceed with.

K. Jones: Is that located at 200th Avenue? If that is, it would be in Langley, not in Surrey. The eastern boundary of Surrey is 196th. I think that's probably outside the Surrey area.

You mentioned the south perimeter road. What will the TFA do if there are no federal funds with regard to the south perimeter road?

Hon. G. Clark: We will proceed without the federal government, but we are engaged in discussions with the municipalities and the Fraser port commission around possible contributions that they might make to expedite the project.

K. Jones: If the TFA would be providing funding in this coming year for the south perimeter road, how many dollars would be assigned to that? I presume that's for design. Is there actually some capital construction that could get started? I understand the right-of-way is already available for start of construction over parts of that road within Surrey.

Hon. G. Clark: At this point, I can't give you a definitive answer, because we are negotiating, as you know, on the infrastructure for some federal contribution. That's not out of this budget, but it is something else I'm responsible for, which is kind of fortunate in this regard. So that money is potentially allocated and levered with municipal as well as federal funds. If that disappears, then it is unlikely we'll have major construction this year. We do have some funds set aside for proceeding with the detailed work.

The reason I'm hedging a bit is that we're looking at the questions of having a possible truck toll, for example -- things like that. We need lots of consultation and discussion before we proceed. We're not going to build a road and then see whether people want to help finance it. More likely, we will get some commitments on financing from Surrey, Delta, the province, perhaps the truckers or the Fraser port. With those commitments in hand, it would allow us to expedite the construction. We're in the consultation and discussion phase. We're doing detailed design work as well as negotiations with all these different players before we can proceed with actual construction -- unless we can get the infrastructure work done, which would allow us to do all this work simultaneous with a nice piece of construction.

[ Page 15969 ]

K. Jones: With regard to the second bridge crossing in the area east of the Port Mann Bridge, I presume, what plan is there now to link into the south perimeter road -- if there is a plan -- and how does that fit into the whole time scale?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm not trying to avoid the question, but it is part of the analysis that we have to do. The twinning of the Port Mann or a bridge that cuts off the Cape Horn interchange from Coquitlam to Surrey, and how it connects up with the south perimeter road -- these are big questions. They are precisely the questions we have to do the detailed work on before we can answer them. Clearly we're doing the integrated planning for the first time, and it's important.

K. Jones: Are there two crossings under study? Is there one that aligns to the Cape Horn interchange along the alignment of the Port Mann Bridge, as well as the cottonwood or Derby Reach proposal, which would be closer to Port Kells, the Fort Langley area or the Albion area?

Hon. G. Clark: No, that one has not been announced. There are really three things we're looking at: one is the diagonal one I mentioned earlier from Coquitlam to Surrey; the other is a twinning of the Port Mann Bridge; and the third, actually, is some work on whether we can add lanes to the existing Port Mann Bridge.

K. Jones: Are these combined projects, where both bridges would be built? Or is it the case that if one goes, the other would not go? Is it a situation such that if we connect to the Albion side or the Haney side, we would not connect to the Coquitlam side or the New Westminster side, paralleling Highway 1 into Vancouver? It seems like they are going in different directions. Is one able to take the place of the other, or are they both going to be required?

Hon. G. Clark: I'd like to ask the committee to have Mr. Frank Blasetti answer some of the questions, if that is okay.

Leave granted.

F. Blasetti: In terms of the area of the Port Mann Bridge, we are looking at the three options the minister referred to. If we build what we call the secondary-crossing option, to use our terminology, which is from Coquitlam to Surrey, that would likely defer the need for a crossing at Langley for some years. The planning work that we haven't done is to figure out how long that pushes that off.

Alternatively, if you put a bridge connecting Haney to the other side of the river, that would likely result in a different strategy. That would not make any sense with the secondary crossing, but it would put a lot more pressure on Highway 1 for traffic heading downtown. They would come across the bridge, and they'd want to head downtown on Highway 1, and it would push us more toward a twinning or expansion of the bridge.

That work is still at the conceptual level. We have to do the detailed planning to figure out overall what satisfies the movement requirements of the region over time in the most cost-effective way. We actually don't have that answer, because the work that has been done to date has not tried to look at these projects in a system. They have not taken the system planning approach; they have concentrated on designing individual components. In these very expensive and complicated systems, you have to take into account what it means to the rest of the system. If you don't do that, you are always trying to catch up with the next problem you have created by a particular project in the system.

K. Jones: That is the reason I was asking the question, because they do create their own problems, their own traffic flows. We were hearing reports of these individual projects, but we weren't looking at how one would impact on the other.

Could the minister tell us what plans there are for looking at Barnston Island as part of one of these crossings, or whatever other alternatives they have planned for servicing Barnston Island?

Hon. G. Clark: You mean with a little ferry?

K. Jones: Yes, there is a ferry there now, a little one.

Hon. G. Clark: There are no plans at the moment for utilizing Barnston Island for the crossing. I'm somewhat familiar with the ferry problem because Lucille Johnson lives on Barnston Island, and she's apprised me of the challenges. I don't mean this to be....

Let me give you the formal explanation. The existing barge-and-tug arrangements provided by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways must be replaced with ferry or fixed link. So we've agreed to look at these questions now in more detail. We say the provincial contribution may support 50 percent of the costs, and we've been discussing with property owners about whether they are prepared to fund some of the remainder. There's been a meeting with Surrey, GVRD, aboriginal people and island residents. MOTH has been to meetings on this question, and there are some further concepts developed for the east end of the island.

[9:45]

I think another public meeting is being scheduled to keep residents apprised of it, and we're reviewing ways to approach the Agricultural Land Commission to address land use. So for the next little while, we're going to have further consultation with property owners, and we're awaiting a response from the Barnston Island Residents' Committee about whether they are prepared to contribute to the cost of a solution.

K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what was intended with that reference to further concepts at the east end of Barnston Island? Also, with regard to the planning, the agricultural land reserve, in talking with the CEO of the Agricultural Land Commission, tells me there is no intention of taking that out of the agricultural land reserve.

Hon. G. Clark: At this stage, the east end development is really a question of where the bridge would go and what the configuration would be, so we are looking at concepts around that. Any application to the Agricultural Land Commission would be from the property owners themselves. I can't judge. I don't know the views of the Agricultural Land Commission at this stage. We recognize that there needs to be something done here, and we're engaged in a consultation process with a variety of people around the question of a bridge solution and the cost contribution toward that.

[ Page 15970 ]

Clearly, I've indicated that we'll be discussing it with the Agricultural Land Commission as well. We aren't far enough along to have explored that with them. I know they'd be very concerned, as they should be, about these questions. I can't really enlighten you any further in terms of the status of this particular project.

The Chair: Hon. member, I'd just like to caution you that we're going to have to wind up very shortly.

K. Jones: The local people on Barnston Island have indicated to me that rather than having a bridge, they would just like a larger ferry that would be able to hold a B-train truck on it so that they wouldn't have to back on. They could drive on and off straight away. It would make it a little safer for them and provide them with hours of service that would, like most other communities, give them the ability to go to a show in town, come back and still get a ferry ride.

Hon. G. Clark: We're certainly looking at the ferry option; I think I mentioned that. I think it's a $5 million solution, although the operating costs are significantly higher.

K. Jones: I'd like to address one final area. Is TSA doing any work on upgrading Highway 10? Maybe I'll add in one other area -- the Fraser Highway.

Hon. G. Clark: Not at this time.

K. Jones: I would like to emphasize to the minister that both those roads are severely overtaxed, probably far more than any other location in the province. There is an inability for the traffic flow to be dealt with. There is a serious accident incidence all the way along that route. Running up side streets and bypassing the route that is causing a lot of trouble in the community neighbourhood adjoining those roads, because there has been a failure to make proper widening and proper turning lanes at some of the more important intersections along that route. These things are causing a lot of serious problems.

Just to give you an example, if you want to turn left into one of the subdivisions along Highway 10 just west of Cloverdale and you have a transport truck coming up behind you and oncoming truck traffic is flowing steadily, you have to wait in the traffic lane. You have this large series of transport trucks coming behind you, and they're going at 60-plus kilometres. The speed limit is 60 kilometres -- and I can assure you that they're very seldom travelling at that speed -- and you feel pretty vulnerable sitting there in a car. There is no place for that truck, or even a car, to pass you on that highway, yet they try to do so. Something has to be done about this.

Hon. G. Clark: I agree with the member, and we have in our plan here some investment in the expansion of Highway 10 -- a widening of Highway 10 -- in years two and three from now -- not this year, but the year after and the year after that.

Of course, that's assuming we get re-elected, because if the members opposite get elected, they're committed to dramatically slashing any investment in this area. I hope your constituents are aware of that.

I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 9:50 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1995: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada