1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, JUNE 29, 1995
Afternoon Sitting (Part 2)
Volume 21, Number 19
[ Page 16471 ]
The House resumed at 6:35 p.m.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Hon. G. Clark: In Section A, I call Committee of Supply for the purpose of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services; in Committee B, I call the estimates of the office of the Premier and cabinet office.
The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.
ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET OFFICE
(continued)
On vote 8: office of the Premier and cabinet office, $4,365,000 (continued).
G. Wilson: Before we adjourned for the supper hour I was asking the Premier questions with respect to trade. In particular, I had an interest in the group that went to India. Over the supper hour, his able staff promised to set up a meeting with that group, so I think I will take the opportunity to meet with them directly and educate myself as to what is going on in that most fascinating and very lucrative part of the world.
The second of the three principal headings I gave the Premier when I stood up was the question of first ministers' conferences and the relationship between the provincial and federal government. As this is clearly within the mandate of the Premier, I draw the Premier's attention to remarks he made in response to a question directed to him by the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, who said that one of the things that the Premier can assure us of is that there will not be a conference on the constitution, to which I think I said, "Shame," and he said that most people don't want to hear any more about the constitution. That may be true, but I am not sure that we are going to have that luxury, because clearly there is going to be some kind of a vote in the province of Quebec this fall. It would seem that that vote, no matter how they amend the wording of the question -- and the wording is likely to be amended -- is going to be more palatable to that group that the Premier outlined were interested in some form of sovereignty-association with Canada. If indeed the question is worded as it would seem that Mr. Bouchard would like it to be worded, it would be very difficult for the people of Quebec to vote no. In fact, they would argue: yes, we do want to have sovereignty-association with Canada if the alternative isn't spelled out.
I wonder what discussions are underway with respect to this administration and the Premier's involvement in those discussions as to what the British Columbia position may be as we head into that vote. I don't want to precipitate discussion on a lot of hypothetical results from that vote, which we could do, but I think it is important to understand what process there may be with respect to eventualities that might come out of that referendum vote. Either way, Canadians as a whole.... I take the view -- and I think the Premier knows my views on this subject well -- that the rest of Canada, so-called English Canada, is not one of two nations. In fact, we are a part of ten equal partners, and now with settlements in the Northwest Territories, soon to be 12. I take the view that one province doesn't have the constitutional authority or right to arbitrarily step out of this Confederation, by referendum within that province. I wonder what the Premier's thinking is with respect to that, given that this is the mandate within his ministry, and what steps he is taking to prepare a British Columbia position.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I have already expressed the B.C. position. I think it is widely shared in this Legislature that we want to see Canada remain united. We want to wish the people of Quebec well when the referendum comes forward this fall, and we hope they'll vote yes for staying in the federation of Canada. As we have shown, there is a great deal of flexibility in Canada for change within the federation. Status quo Canada isn't what British Columbians want. A lot of Canadians want to see change within the federation.
I am certainly not going to get involved in any hypothetical discussions of the various options that could happen if certain things occur in Quebec. As a matter of fact, I have spoken to Daniel Johnson, who is leading the debate on the federalist side -- voting for Canada, for federation. I have told him that I'm going to be.... All the other Premiers have said that we're going to be a positive part of this question; we're not going to give any fodder for the separatist cause by making inflammatory statements or by answering hypothetical questions which then get distorted through the media in the Quebec debate. We want the people in Quebec to decide to stay in Canada; and it's a very simple choice between separation and staying in the Canadian federation -- the other alternatives either aren't understandable or aren't acceptable. That is, I believe, the position of the vast majority of British Columbians. I think that most British Columbians are prepared to say: "It's a choice of whether you're in or you're out, and we hope you're in." That's as far as I think we should take it.
G. Wilson: Fair enough.
One of the approaches that is being taken now with federal-provincial relations is to try to remove duplication, which is something that I think all of us would support; certainly I support it. The Premier spoke in favour of it in response to questions raised earlier on in these debates. I note that yesterday there was a meeting between the new Premier-elect of Ontario -- or perhaps Premier by now; he's probably sworn in, I think -- and the Prime Minister with respect to the removal of the Ontario obstacle to the blending of the PST and the GST. It was interesting that the comment from the Prime Minister was that if Ontario gives up its objection, the rest of Canada will be simple -- it will be easy, I think he said; they'll just fall into line.
There's an implication for British Columbia of a blended PST-GST. I think we have to recognize that British Columbia is in a rather unique position with respect to federal taxation and the amount of money we send to Ottawa in relation to the amount of money we actually get back, especially as we're getting fewer and fewer dollars returned because of the federal government's decision to cut transfers to B.C. I wonder what the Premier's position is with respect to this. Is there an intention within the Premier's Office to take a position on this question? Is it something that he is actively spearheading in B.C.? I ask these questions in an honest spirit; I'm not one to
[ Page 16472 ]
try and find future policy, but to simply find out what the thinking of the government is with respect to that whole question of blending.
Hon. M. Harcourt: That's the billion-dollar question. That's really what the challenge is that the federal authorities have not been able to resolve -- either the previous Tory government or the present Liberal government. The proposals we've had from the federal Finance minister, when you strip it all down, have one essential component, and that's a billion-dollar shift from business to consumers.
We have, through the Minister of Finance, who has just returned from Edmonton, where she was meeting with Minister Martin and the other Finance ministers.... She has been, I would think, grappling with that issue. I'm certainly pragmatic about it. If we can cut down bureaucracies and have one tax-collecting agency for PST and GST, if we can get rid of the complexity of the system and the anger Canadians feel toward the GST -- which was such a badly botched tax.... I think that, as British Columbians and Canadians, we'd like to see that resolved, but not if it's a billion-dollar shift to consumers.
[6:45]
We're certainly open. We're carrying on a discussion with the federal Minister of Finance about ways we can cut down the bureaucracy between the PST and the GST collection. What is it -- 8,000 to 10,000 people collecting the GST? That's just a monster. We'd like to see a solution that doesn't transfer a billion dollars of extra tax onto consumers.
G. Wilson: I just suggest that, as the Premier heads toward the Premiers' conference later on in the summer, which I understand is in Newfoundland this year, he may want to take a firm position with respect to British Columbia's views on this matter. It would seem to me that that shift is inevitable if we're to follow up on the current thinking and writings of the current federal Minister of Finance.
Similarly, what that is effectively going to do is take a very unpopular federal tax and nicely blend it and dump it into the provincial purview, where it will become an extremely unpopular provincial tax. It seems to me that there was an election promise made by the federal Liberal Party -- part of their little red book -- that they were going to do something about the GST, and that didn't include dumping in onto the provinces and trying to blend it into a provincial tax.
I would hope that the Premier will take a very strongly worded message from British Columbia that we won't accept that kind of off-loading. It is a big issue, even in the question of the bureaucracy surrounding tax collection. I'm told that even on the GST rebate we are looking at, I think, in excess of 2,600 people who were hired just on the rebate provisions alone, which sounds like an astronomical number of people to handle what is a rather peculiar system of tax collection -- where they take it from you only to assess how much you have given in order to give it back. It's mind-boggling.
Having said that, let me move on then to one other area of the first ministers'.... It has to do with the notion of constitutional reform around first nations negotiations and agreements. As the Premier knows, I've taken a particular interest in the Canadian constitution and the responsibilities, particularly the fiduciary obligation, of the federal government with respect to aboriginal people in the province.
I'm of the view that under the current minister, there is an enormous amount of off-loading of obligation and responsibility by the federal Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This department is spending $5.4 billion in this year's fiscal budget -- the largest single departmental expenditure increase of any; in fact, only two got an increase: old age pensions and the Department of Indian Affairs -- some $5.4 billion, which is half of what we spend on Canadian national defence.
Yet we are seeing in the treaty negotiation process a reluctance to give a mandate to negotiate. We are seeing a dumping of responsibility with respect to the interlocutory process on reserve boundaries and roads. We are seeing an almost belligerent -- and I choose my words carefully -- attitude with respect to provincial matters, which effectively binds the hands of the provincial Minister of Aboriginal Affairs because the federal minister refuses to take action. Adams Lake is one clear example. I mean, this is not a provincial problem; it's a problem that rests solely in the hands of the federal Department of Indian Affairs.
It seems to me that the Premier must recognize the constitutional and fiduciary obligation of the federal government, which is not being lived up to, in relation to the powers of the province in the settlement of those kinds of aboriginal questions. Notwithstanding the fact that we are into a treaty commission process for some aboriginal communities -- not all -- and that we have legally binding agreements between the federal and provincial governments on that Treaty Commission process, it seems that those interior bands in particular, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, that have refused to participate in that statutorily established process are the responsibility of the federal Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
I wonder if the Premier can tell me the thinking on that and what communication is taking place between the Premier and the Prime Minister. Quite clearly, it's at that level that we're going to have to get some ground rules established here, before we find that there is a very convenient off-loading of responsibility and obligation with respect to the first nations question.
At the same time, of course, fishery matters are dealt with by the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, while matters of funding for aboriginal communities rest with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In effect, it's saying: "Where there's a problem, we'll throw it to the province. But when there are moneys to be controlled, we'll manage and handle that federally." That's something the Premier needs to take up directly with the Prime Minister, who himself was at one time the federal Minister of Indian Affairs and knows only too well what those fiduciary obligations and responsibilities are.
Hon. M. Harcourt: There were a number of issues that the member raised there in regard to first nations, constitutional reform, the problem of federal off-loading, and a variety of ways...or a thousand nicks that add up to a lot of nickels and dollars. In very short order it comes back on the provincial taxpayers. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has just returned from Ottawa, where he was meeting with the federal minister. These are some of the issues they were sorting out.
As you know, we have been meeting with, writing to and urging the federal minister to deal with the Adams Lake road situation for a long time. Now the chickens have come home to roost. There are solutions if people want to sit down and
[ Page 16473 ]
come to solutions for this situation. Our courts here in British Columbia.... The judge just ruled very clearly that this land is owned by the aboriginal people because the federal authorities didn't act for a long time.
It's particularly a problem that the two-thirds of the aboriginal people in this province who want to be in the treaty process and to establish a new relationship.... As Chief George Watts of the Nuu-chah-nulth said: "We want to enter Canada; we don't want to leave it. We want to be part of Canada. We want to be self-sufficient. We don't want to be under Indian Affairs. We want to run our own communities, and we want to be partners in the areas of British Columbia where we live together. We want to be friends."
The problem is that the nations with whom we're having a number of these difficulties don't want to be part of the treaty process. They don't accept the concept that the province is sovereign within section 92 of the constitution in our federation, and they will only deal nation-to-nation -- i.e., with the national government, not with the province -- which creates a real challenge. The sooner we can have the one-third of the aboriginal people who are outside the treaty process at a treaty table, the better, and if the member has some ideas about how we can do that.... The bells are....
Interjections.
Hon. M. Harcourt: Okay, that's the last question finished. Please call the....
But it's something that does preoccupy me. How can we find a way to create a treaty table that is satisfactory to a bilateral relationship with the province? Also, they're in our area of sovereignty, and that's part of the tension. That's where part of the conflict comes in.
Then there are some people who are non-aboriginal and some who are aboriginal who don't want the treaty process to succeed, and they are out actively trying to sabotage it. That's another major problem. They really want to see incivility, conflict, bitterness and anger between the aboriginal and non-aboriginal people, not to move on to new relationships.
We're at a very trying time in our history. I hope we come through it successfully, and I think we will. The treaty process is not a perfect approach, but I think it's the only approach. Litigation in the courts, tying up land like Meares Island for years so nobody can utilize it, roadblocks and confrontation don't work.
G. Wilson: I have one more question on this line, and it has to do with a comment the Premier made. I think I recorded it accurately, and I think it was a response to a question from the Leader of the Third Party, but I could stand corrected on that.
The Premier suggested that, other than the Nisga'a, he didn't see that there was going to be a final resolution to a treaty within this particular term of the estimates debate -- i.e., within this year -- and therefore didn't want to speculate on how the procedure might work with respect to ratification. I think I'm accurately paraphrasing what he suggested.
I can't let this set of estimates go by without pointing out to the Premier that two days ago, or maybe yesterday, the Sechelts received the federal mandate. There is now nothing stopping them from resolving their comprehensive claim. They have the provincial mandate, they finally have the federal mandate, they are at the table and they have had eight years of very successful self-government that has worked extremely well with local government. To be sure, there are some areas where we don't agree, but it has been very successful. I think the dollar figure being discussed is not unrealistic. Although there may be some give-and-take at the bargaining table on that question, it's not unrealistic; and their comprehensive claim is documented absolutely specifically.
It would be a very real opportunity to demonstrate that this process can work. In fact, I believe that it's the best opportunity the government has to demonstrate that this process can work. We have already put in place the provincial statutes required to allow the self-governing process to be a reality. Federally, the same has been done. We've successfully had this in place for some time.
Where there is going to be a sticking point.... I believe there is a constitutional problem that the government is going to have to deal with on this question, and that's why I take it to the Premier. Ultimately there is going to have to be some understanding between the federal and provincial governments with respect to their ability to acquire fee simple property as a part of the settlement. I don't mean to get it as part of the comprehensive claim; I'm talking about their ability to take, as a proportional amount of their income, the opportunity to purchase fee simple lands, which will then become a part of that overall jurisdiction. Can they continue to buy, add onto their land through fee simple purchase, which then alienates that land from the normal Crown base or the normal fee simple base that would be registered under land title in the province?
This is going to be a very controversial issue, and it's a difficult one constitutionally. I am not sure that the law as it is currently drafted.... In fact, I'm reasonably sure it doesn't provide for us to enter into those kinds of agreements. It would strike me that one of the potential solutions for this with respect to the government position on negotiation.... I don't want to give away what might be a good idea, but I do put it out in this debate. If we tie the prospect of representation in government.... One of the big problems I have -- and, I think, others have -- is the fact that in these self-governing propositions, the Canadian Charter is going to be challenged. Non-aboriginals who reside on those lands will be denied rights, because they can't vote, they can't run for office, and yet they're taxed. And there will be other Charter provisions that will not prevail. So if one ties the opportunity for that representation -- even if it's proportional, to provide for a balance, so there is always majority rule by aboriginal people -- to their acquisition of additional land, I think we may be able to find some solution.
I offer that to the Premier, because I wonder if the Premier has discussed this with his federal counterparts. I believe there is a very serious constitutional difficulty that this province will have if it doesn't work out how it's going to deal with that very difficult problem.
[7:00]
Hon. M. Harcourt: I think it is very encouraging that the federal government has finally given a mandate to the federal negotiator at the Sechelt negotiating table. We have both -- the Sechelt and ourselves -- been waiting for
[ Page 16474 ]
many weeks for that to happen. As you know, for months the province has been more than prepared to start the negotiations, and we can now get at it.
The issue you talked about is an interesting one. We are hoping that these sorts of questions can be sorted out through the treaty process. One of the goals of the treaty process is to regularize relations, to bring certainty, to bring predictability and to get rid of these areas of fear and concern. You've presented a very interesting idea about tying non-aboriginal representation for the people that live on the aboriginal communities' land to the question of alienation of private lands and how that relates to the Indian Act, and all those kinds of questions.
I don't have an easy answer, and I wouldn't pretend to. Those are some of the questions we hope to sort out through the treaty-making process. I will certainly accept the idea in the spirit in which it was offered, which is to see this process succeed.
G. Wilson: I have just a couple of other questions, which relate to personnel considerations. However, the Leader of the Third Party indicates that he has a couple of questions that relate specifically to aboriginal affairs. While we're in that discussion, I don't mind giving him that opportunity, provided he has those couple of questions.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I have a practical time problem in that Brad Stafford, who is from B.C. Trade, has to catch a 7:40 p.m. helijet. I understand that the member for Delta South has some questions on B.C. Trade. If there are some questions that members would like to ask about B.C. Trade, I'd be more than glad to clear those off; and if I don't have an answer here, I'll certainly make sure that Brad and I get back to you on the question or comment that you may have. Could we deal with that and then come back to the Leader of the Third Party on the aboriginal issue?
F. Gingell: To make the 7:40 p.m. helijet, he's going to have to get away in a very short period of time. There may be other members who wish to ask questions.
Anyway, just to start with, I note that between your 1994 financial year and the 1995 financial year, the B.C. Trade Corporation changed auditors. Can the Premier tell me if that change took place with open tender, and what process was entered into?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The answer is yes. The five-year contract terminated, and it was then put out to tender. Five or six firms bid on the contract, and it then went through the normal process of selection and up to the board of directors.
F. Gingell: In financial statements, when there is an expense category called "professional fees," that normally refers to fees that a corporation or a business pays out for its operations, rather than to professional fees that might be described as part of programs or things. I notice that the professional fees in both 1994 and 1995 are somewhat high; they're up $1.5 million the first year and $2 million the second year. Can the Premier advise the committee on what kinds of matters are included in those professional fees?
Hon. M. Harcourt: That is part of the change -- and, I think the member would agree, a good change -- of changing the international office personnel from junior diplomats and agents general to trade reps, and of bidding on contracts and providing good, quality service based on performance criteria and results. So they are now professional fees that are paid to agents. In Singapore, Taiwan and in most of our areas we have trade reps where we used to have agents general, and so the amount is now described as professional fees.
F. Gingell: I'd like to suggest, through the Premier to B.C. Trade, that that's not an appropriate description. We think of professional fees as fees for lawyers, accountants and engineers, and if these are part of the programs and responsibilities, which they clearly are -- they're just a different form of salaries and benefits -- we could perhaps find a little better descriptive word.
One of the important roles of B.C. Trade is in the area of guarantees for export sales. The annual report shows the amount of guarantees that are standing at the end of each year, and the amount of guarantees that are in default or in question. I wonder if, in your briefing notes, you can advise the committee about 1993-94 and 1994-95 -- and we're really pleased to get these; it helps -- if you could give us the figures for the amount of guarantees given in each year and the amount of guarantees released in each year.
Hon. M. Harcourt: As of February 28, 1995, the guarantees in place were 25, for a value of $10,591,400. Guarantees that had expired were 84, for a value of $41.381 million. The guarantees in default were eight, for a value of $6,061,250. The total of guarantees issued is 117. The value of that was $58,033,650. The export sales proposed and incremental that that created was approximately $400 million -- $397.265 million. The number of job-years proposed and incremental that was involved in that was 2,275.
F. Gingell: Are these the figures for the fiscal year April 1, 1994, to March 31, 1995?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Those are the historical figures from the beginning of the program to now, as of February 28, 1995. The 1994-95 figures, adding in the March figures, are approximately 18 guarantees, valued at $8.9 million.
F. Gingell: The financial statements we got for this year and for last year tell us the gross value of the guarantees that are outstanding, for which the provincial government -- through B.C. Trade -- has given an indemnity as at the last day of the fiscal year 1994-95. In 1994 the amount was $19.4 million; in 1995 it was $15.8 million. It gives us the information as to the amount of guarantees in default and on which you may be called to make good, but it doesn't give the information that I think is the most useful in trying to measure the usefulness of B.C. Trade: the value of the new guarantees given in the fiscal year. You take the value of the guarantees outstanding at the end of last year, the new guarantees given and the guarantees released as the transaction is completed, and that would give you the value of the guarantees at the end of the year. I want to get a feel for the annual volume of throughput.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I think you can see the historical figures that are mentioned there. There were about 117, going back to September 1989, which was when the loan guarantee
[ Page 16475 ]
program was introduced. You have approximately six years of history and a total of 117 loan guarantees, so you have approximately 20 per year -- 18 this year -- at around $10 million a year on average. This year it was $8.9 million.
F. Gingell: So if the volume of new guarantees for 1994-95 was just under $9 million and the amount of guarantees that were outstanding at the end of the year was $15.8 million -- in accordance with the statements -- that sort of indicates that the average life of a guarantee is going to be more than one year and a fraction less than two.
Hon. M. Harcourt: The age varies; it is usually from one to two years. At the beginning of the year there was $19.4 million outstanding. You add $8.9 million to that and then you deduct those guarantees of $12.5 million that expired, and you end up with the figure of $15.8 million that is listed here.
F. Gingell: That little schedule in which you showed the guarantees might be a useful addition to make in the presentation of the financial statements. But this does indicate that these guarantees are given for relatively long periods of time. There must be some that are quite short-term -- i.e., the movement of a product that is going to be manufactured reasonably quickly and is going to a customer that is waiting for it. That transaction, if payment is against certified bills of lading or whatever, would take place reasonably quickly. Are there a whole bunch of old guarantees that have been outstanding for a long time, sort of five-year projects that are still awaiting completion?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The simple answer is no; the turnover is relatively quick, from around a year to two years. There are no long-term, five-year loan guarantee periods.
F. Gingell: Perhaps we could finish this subject with a commitment from the Premier for B.C. Trade to send me an analysis or a listing of the guarantees, so I can get a feel for the turnover time.
[7:15]
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'd be glad to do that, and if you want to meet with Brad and the staff at B.C. Trade, I'd be more than pleased to arrange that.
F. Gingell: B.C. Trade entered a new area last year; they made some investments. I was wondering if we could have a quick, brief understanding of what International Geomatics Services Corp. does.
Hon. M. Harcourt: It's one of the 16 strategic alliances that I talked about, where we brought in a number of the firms that deal in mapping and information systems about land and resources. International Geomatics Services Corp. is a number of firms -- and I can send the member a list of who they are -- who have come together and undertaken three contracts. I will at least give you an idea of the kind of activity they are involved in. They are, for example, involved in the Philippines, mapping and surveying a gas pipeline route. In the second area, over the Andes between Chile and Argentina.... Thirdly, they're assisting with oil exploration in West Africa. So this is a new strategic alliance that has come together, and it is starting to have some success by bringing the best talent we have in B.C. together in one presentation of this talent, rather than having ten or 12 firms bidding against each other and not winning the contract.
F. Gingell: I hope the government doesn't get into any problems about issues to do with the restriction of trade, creating cartels and those kinds of issues.
IGS has just started off. B.C. Trade invested $75,000 -- two-thirds of which you lost. The company has suffered a loss, I presume, of $150,000, and B.C. Trade's investment in it has a book value of only $25,000 at the end of this year, three months ago almost. One appreciates that often these things -- the investment in developing marketing programs -- cost money to get started, but I wonder if the Premier could advise what he anticipates this partnership may require in the way of further resources from B.C. Trade in 1995-96.
Hon. M. Harcourt: The budget for this year doesn't involve any increased investment. We try to have seed money, startup funds, to launch these strategic alliances and then have them be self-financing, with us at a certain point, within a year or two, putting in our staff time and the prestige of the province and B.C. Trade Corporation in partnership with these industries.... They become self-financing industry alliances.
F. Gingell: I presume -- it doesn't say so here, but I made an assumption, which perhaps was not correct -- that B.C. Trade's partners who own the other two-thirds of the partnership or corporation contributed similarly to the financing of this marketing operation -- i.e., the province put up $75,000 for a one-third interest. I presume the people that have the two-thirds interest, Underhill and Underhill, put up $150,000.
Hon. M. Harcourt: That's correct. One-third of IGS is owned through B.C. Trade on behalf of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, and the other two-thirds is owned or contributed to by B.C.'s private mapping and surveying companies.
F. Gingell: Moving on to Northstar Trade Finance Inc., of which B.C. Trade.... I'd like to suggest to the Premier, on his previous answer, that the investment in International Geomatics Services isn't recorded in the accounts of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. It's recorded as an investment of B.C. Trade Corporation, and I would imagine that it belongs to B.C. Trade Corporation. Presuming that is correct, could the Premier please tell me what Northstar Trade Finance Inc. does? I didn't see any reference to that in my quick scan of this document.
Hon. M. Harcourt: Northstar Trade Finance Inc. is, I believe, a very exciting and unique joint venture between B.C. Trade, the Bank of Montreal, the Ontario Ministry of Economic Development and Trade and Dalhousie Financial Corp. We also have the western diversification fund involved, with a $150,000 no-interest loan to help with the startup and first-year operating costs. What it intends to do is give a complete package of financial services to exporters, and have a smorgasbord of services tailored to the individual small or medium-sized B.C. firms that want to export.
So it's an example of B.C. Trade not growing larger but, like MacDonald Dettwiler, spinning off companies at a certain
[ Page 16476 ]
point to be self-sufficient -- as we did with the trade training program, which has been highly successful in taking people who are rookies in international trade and running them through a basic ABC course. It's a self-financing course. This is another example of an idea that started in B.C. Trade, and then there is interest in the private sector to have it go outside B.C. Trade and be self-financing in a short period of time.
F. Gingell: I just mention in passing, so it is recorded, that again this company has lost $200,000, $210,000 or $220,000 in its first year of operation, one presumes from these numbers. Is it envisaged that with Northstar Trade Finance Inc. you have privatized your export loan guarantees? Does it cover that field? Will B.C. Trade be phasing out of the loan guarantee field?
Hon. M. Harcourt: No, we're not anticipating phasing out of the loan guarantee area. We've got a good, stable track record in the loan guarantee area. But we're experimenting with other forms of taking talents that may not exist in B.C. Trade and supplementing them with our private sector partners. So it's an interesting new experiment that we believe has some great potential. No, we're not anticipating getting out of the loan guarantee program, because our small and medium-sized business partners in British Columbia see the loan guarantee program as a very effective tool for them, to help them to get to the contract. Then, of course, the federal program helps in the bridge financing between getting the contract and getting paid.
F. Gingell: As I said at the start of this discussion, this is something brand-new. B.C. Trade hasn't been in the investment business before. I can understand that both these functions are related to projects that government has agreed they can proceed on.
I know the amount is very small, but why does B.C. Trade have portfolio investments of $30,000? It's a negligible sum, and it just seems to me to be absolutely and completely outside the role of B.C. Trade.
Hon. M. Harcourt: That is a $30,000 investment by B.C. Trade that was made in 1994 to become a member of the Interhealth Canada organization, which is a cross-Canada company established to promote the sale of health care products and services internationally. In other words, it's the strategic alliance idea. We've got 16 strategic alliances here in British Columbia that.... Actually, we've expanded in the wood products area to include companies from Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario. Well, this is the same thing in health care, except that the company is in Ontario. So we are part of this opportunity to take Canadian health care skills and suppliers of equipment, and look at marketing opportunities internationally.
F. Gingell: So this $30,000 is in fact a strategic investment, exactly the same as IGS or North Star. I presume that the reason it's put in as portfolio investments is that the company happens to be public. Is that the reason?
Hon. M. Harcourt: It was put in that way to give us, we think, more clout across Canada -- again, to take the best companies.... It's described as an investment. I'm not an accountant. I used to be a lawyer, so I understand the importance of these words being, hopefully, accurate in the professional sense. You're saying that this should be a fee rather than an investment, but it is a.... It makes us a player. It's an initiation fee to become part of this organization, which provides services to help Canadian companies sell health care services and goods abroad.
As a matter of fact, In February of this year we followed up on that with, I think, a very exciting experiment tied in with Capilano College, having student researchers stationed in China -- Dalian, Shanghai and Fuzhou -- preparing some research on a market for medical services. So we're doing some pilot projects to test what we think is a potentially very large market for Canada. We're joining this pan-Canadian organization and also initiating some of our own activities.
F. Gingell: The point I'd like to make is that I think this is a strategic investment. I think you should have said what it was; you should have shown it. I don't know why you suggested.... It's been put in there as portfolio investments at cost. The fact that you don't take up your share of the profits and losses is really irrelevant. The point is that what you've done is suggest to the public that B.C. Trade has gone into the business of speculating in the stock market, and you haven't done that. It's poor presentation. It should be described as what it is. These financial statements are an important tool for B.C. Trade to let people know what is going on. Just as I had a minor criticism about an earlier description in the financial statements, I think this could well have been better described. I'm pleased to see the official from B.C. Trade nodding his head.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I agree with our officials in B.C. Trade. I'm very proud of them. I think we have an excellent staff at B.C. Trade, and they serve particularly our small and medium-sized companies extremely well. There are 500 very constant clients in strategic alliances. There are around 2,000 other companies that we're involved with in one way or another.
This is described as an investment because Interhealth Canada is a company and this is a $30,000 investment in that company. So it's described as a portfolio investment.
F. Gingell: I note that in this last financial year B.C. Trade spent $600,000 on furnishings and equipment. I wonder if the Premier could advise us whether that was spent to replace stuff that was getting old and tatty, and whether it was spent overseas or in Canada. Was it just for the purpose of upgrading furnishings, or was there some new organization that required furbishings?
[7:30]
Hon. M. Harcourt: That was a combination of furniture and equipment, leasehold improvements and others. But most of it was a conversion over to the Windows program. It involves both the hardware and the software.
F. Gingell: If I could just go back to the investments with one last question that I didn't ask.... When we discussed IGS, the Premier indicated that there would be no further investment required in the year '95-96. You haven't put anything into this year's budget for it. Does B.C. Trade anticipate further capital being required in this current year for North-
[ Page 16477 ]
star Trade, for this portfolio investment? Do they have any other planned strategic investments that will take capital in this coming year?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I've been informed that we, B.C. Trade, are considering another $50,000 if the partners to this joint venture also will put in $50,000.
F. Gingell: More such.
Hon. M. Harcourt: More, yes.
F. Gingell: That's it? So at the moment $50,000 is the total amount that's anticipated being spent on strategic investments in '95-96.
They had an accounting practice in previous years in which they appropriated resources for programs in process that they had set up. There was $135,000 at the beginning of '94 and $125,000 at the beginning of '95. These were basically just a mental note to say: "We're in the midst of this program. This is what it's going to cost to complete. Let's put these funds on one side to ensure that we don't spend them on something else." I see you've wiped that out in '95. Is that because you don't have any more ongoing programs? Or is it because you've decided it's not an appropriate accounting practice?
Hon. M. Harcourt: That was set up to market government services internationally, whether it be land registry systems, the Assessment Authority.... That program has been completed. So $75,000 was returned to unappropriated equity and $50,000 to appropriations utilized during the year.
F. Gingell: If both the B.C. assessment and land registry programs are complete, have there been any resulting sales?
Hon. M. Harcourt: No sales. There was a very good potential for a sale in St. Petersburg. Unfortunately, a U.S. company of very deep pockets and substantial alliances with both hardware and software in computer systems won that bid. But there is, we think, still tremendous potential for a number of the new economies that are converting over to market and private property economies.
I'll just give the example of a friend who is the major shareholder in ABB, Stephan Schmidheiny, who was looking at a major project in St. Petersburg for his company, which is in Europe the equivalent of Westinghouse. He was in St. Petersburg looking at some land that was.... He was thinking of building an industrial plant. He said to the person in St. Petersburg he was talking to: "Well, who owns that land out there?" The general manager or president of the state or municipal corporation said: "Well, I guess we do, because we cut the grass." They had no system of registering the ownership or of defining it -- of doing surveys and registering them, and then registering charges. So I think there is a tremendous market and need for this service. B.C., fortunately, has one of the best land registry systems in the world with our modified Torrens system. It's computerized and available instantaneously. We have the superb B.C. Assessment Authority, and a number of others who are in operation -- mostly in the private sector -- that could go into a consortium. That was the one hot one we were looking at. We were looking at one of the Baltic states in central Europe, and we are talking to some of the authorities in China.
F. Gingell: Did people who were on contract to you, or did staff of B.C. Trade, ever travel to St. Petersburg and present the proposals over there?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Yes, they did. As a matter of fact, we also had the deputy mayor come to Victoria, too. I met with the officials from St. Petersburg, and they were very intrigued by our system. We just didn't have as deep a pocket, or whatever it takes, to do business in St. Petersburg these days, but we were very close. It was down to the last decision, to two of us, and I think we have very good prospects in the future.
F. Gingell: I did, through freedom of information, get the invoices that had been rendered to B.C. Trade by Chateau Enterprises Inc., which is owned by Mr. Robert J. Williams. Is it "J"? Bob Williams, anyway. When I sent the FOI in, I had asked for all fees and all expenses paid for, or on behalf of, and the $52,000 for the four months' work did not include any overseas travel. It included some internal plane fares -- Vancouver to Victoria -- but it didn't include any overseas conduits, and I wondered where those bills had been paid from. What corporation paid them?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Those figures are contained in the British Columbia Trade Development Corporation's consolidated statement of revenues, expenditures and unappropriated equity for the year ending March 31, 1994-95. It's in the centre part of the B.C. Exporter: Partners In Enterprise; you'll see it under the expenditures: "Programs: $3,745,000." The cost of the subcontractors who were part of this are contained in that figure.
F. Gingell: So I take it that Mr. Williams did travel to St. Petersburg on behalf of B.C. Trade Corporation in the development of this program and the presentation of it to the potential Russian customers, and that the costs were paid for by B.C. Trade Development Corporation and are included in here under programs.
Hon. M. Harcourt: No, Mr. Williams had a two-year contract and was paid a total of $167,668, which covered fees, expenses and air travel. That's all-inclusive.
F. Gingell: I guess what I should do is find out how I go about complaining about my FOI response. The FOI response included only four invoices. The FOI was asked for late last summer -- very late last year -- and it was specific, and all they included were four invoices from Chateau Enterprises Inc. which totalled $52,000. So I guess the answer is that something has gone wrong, or that something is happening. Maybe the Premier can explain it.
Hon. M. Harcourt: As I have just had it explained to me, the explanation is that a significant part of that travel and expense has happened in the last six months since the request for the FOI.
F. Gingell: My impression is that we didn't send the FOI in until after it had been going for a long time, but we will sort that out. That's an issue that we can get back to later.
B.C. Trade has entered into a three-way arrangement with Westcoast and Asea called B.C. International Power
[ Page 16478 ]
Group, a joint venture. Under note 9 there's a short description of the assets and the operations for the period from its commencement in October 1994 to December 31, 1994. What I garner from these numbers is that all of the capital for the operation of B.C. International Power Group -- $1 million -- is being put up by British Columbia Trade Corporation, and that Westcoast and Asea are not contributing any capital funds. Is that correct?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The three parties to the agreement are B.C. Trade, ABB, or Asea Brown Boveri Inc. -- which is, as the member is aware, a leading international energy and technology corporation -- and Westcoast Energy Inc. Each of the parties to the agreement has advanced $1 million for three years of the project. ABB's contribution, for example, is $500,000 in cash and an equal amount of in-kind services and facilities.
F. Gingell: So what is shown under note 9 is just the one-third interest that B.C. Trade Development Corporation owns in the joint venture. The true state of the joint venture, or B.C. International Power Group joint venture, is three times all of these numbers. Is that correct?
Hon. M. Harcourt: That's correct. The advantage is that we have as our partners one of the top natural gas companies in the world in Westcoast and their capabilities, as well as ABB, which has operations in 140 countries worldwide. They have, for example, 2,300 people in Canada and more than 800 in China. So we have a tremendous source of people, presence, experience and reputation from those two partners.
F. Gingell: In the report of the previous year the president and CEO, Ms. Exell, speaks about new programs by which you measure the effectiveness of B.C. Trade. I was wondering if the Premier could give us a rough outline on how this program works: the kinds of things that are being measured, what the criteria are, what the benchmarks are, what your goals are, whether or not you're meeting them, and so on.
[7:45]
Hon. M. Harcourt: Let me give a bit of background on the improvements that have taken place to the planning and financial management systems in B.C. Trade. There have been extensive improvements made to those two systems in '94-95 and carried forward in '95-96 to enhance the corporation's effectiveness as a professional service delivery agency. What is happening now is that planning is taking place in a multidisciplinary team form. So it is far more task-oriented, with goals being set.
What we are doing is integrating people from various parts of the corporation -- the sectoral, geographical and financial program services that are then provided to each client. What happens is that in-depth plans are prepared that incorporate strategic research and development, to start a definition of clear achievement targets, with time lines and budgeting of both the staff and program costs.
The financial reporting systems that are attached to that have been enhanced to provide information, critical analysis, for the decision-making along the way. The costs are tracked by activity and then matched to the results. Activities of lower priority or those that don't achieve appropriate results are either refocused or eliminated, as they should be. The infrastructure included is activity tracking, cost measurement, progress reviews, and changes or elimination of non-performing programs. That is the system that was put in place last year, and that is now taking place very fully this year.
F. Gingell: Are all of the benchmarks, the goals -- I think "targets" was the word you used -- objective, or are some of them subjective?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I would say a combination of both. Some of these areas are elusive or difficult to quantify as to whether it was B.C. Trade that helped get the deal, or whether it was the partnership or our part of the partnership. I would say that it is a combination of both, and I guess the proof is in the return of clients. If clients come back to get involved in further projects that we evaluate are cost-effective and a valuable use of the staff time, if they are supportive and write letters of support.... We've had a number of clients that I've received correspondence from that say what put them over the top was the partnership they've been able to form with our very good staff in B.C. Trade. The wine marketing effort that's been targeted into Great Britain is a good example of that, where our staff person is on contract to the B.C. wine industry to help put together their business plans and help in the marketing.
So there are a number of ways to measure the results. Some are quite objective and some are subjective, particularly in terms of client satisfaction.
F. Gingell: The B.C. wine example is perhaps a very nice one, because the wineries that are part of the group, whose product you are trying to help market, can record and tell you exactly what increase in sales has resulted from the efforts of the marketing group. Do you in your briefing notes have any results of that objective nature?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The best answer I can give is probably that one of the great successes has been in the alliance that has come together to market wood products -- the Canadian Comfort Direct, it's called. Richard Poliquin is the superb manager of this program. The increases have been really quite encouraging in the work he has done. It's expanded to include other provinces. It has grown to the point where there are somewhere around 29 different companies, two-thirds of which are in British Columbia itself, now involved, and $75 million. They're now starting to work with the Export Council of Canadian Architecture, which is another strategic alliance -- of architectural services and building services -- that's been put together. A lot of these are just starting to get off the ground, and I think they're proving to be very effective. That's one. I think it would be useful for you to talk to Richard Poliquin to see the success that we are building up in these strategic alliances.
F. Gingell: I would be the last person to suggest that program outcome measurement is something that you produce with a magic wand. No, it's a long and tedious program. It needs commitment. Management has to think very carefully and very hard about what the appropriate benchmarks are and how you measure things. Let's get some targets set up. People will make lots of mistakes when they're getting started, but with time under their belts they will see how program outcome measurement can really make an organization effective.
[ Page 16479 ]
I have been told by members of staff that there have been, in some of the overseas offices -- particularly ones where there have been criticisms levelled about the use of taxpayers' money.... They have actually produced methods by which they can reasonably measure the economic activity in British Columbia that they believe their efforts overseas have generated. I was wondering if that is formalized in any way and if any information is available to the committee on the amount of economic activity generated in British Columbia from overseas trade offices.
Hon. M. Harcourt: We can try to get that information for the member. We have a new approach to our agents overseas, to our trade reps, where it is performance-based: are they getting results or not? We could get the form of those contracts to the member.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Harcourt: Yes. That's part of.... They produce, or somebody else comes along. And I may say that it's been very therapeutic to see the excellent people we have: Dickson Hall in Hong Kong and Michael Craddock in Taipei. They have B.C. Trade as a client, but they also act for ancillary clients in British Columbia and are out hustling for us and hustling for those other clients. Instead of being junior diplomats, we let the embassy do that. They are the diplomats. We work very closely with their sectoral trade people, and I think we're finding the right balance with the federal government. We're not duplicating their services. We're aware of the fact that Canada is a large place, so the federal representatives are going to be taking care of all of Canada, which means we get lost in their purview. We're there to focus activities on B.C. companies and B.C. activities, and I think that approach is working.
We know, of course, the export sales in each of the countries. We have measurements of each of the particular programs. We can give you the information, for example, on the Canadian Comfort Direct and the very large increase in sales over the last three years. I can get you that information on the results. Most of the increase has been here in British Columbia.
F. Gingell: The Premier used a term earlier that when a program didn't work it was eliminated. I hope that when they were in St. Petersburg there wasn't any two-way exchange of ideas on the ways of accomplishing some of these things.
I have come to the end of the questions that I have on B.C. Trade.
As you can probably tell, I am a little critical of the financial statement presentation. I would like to suggest to the Premier, and through him to B.C. Trade, that the financial statements in an organization like B.C. Trade should be much more focused on trying to tell the story of what is happening. I guess it's got to be there, but we're not interested in how much you spend on buildings, salaries and professional fees. It's not as important as ensuring that the story that sits in the financial statements in the notes tells us how many guarantees were given, what the volume was and the dollar volume in sales that resulted from these things. This annual report is a useful tool for B.C. Trade, not only for overseas but more so in being used to ensure that British Columbia's manufacturers are aware of the opportunities and the types of things that B.C. Trade does. Perhaps that could be borne in mind a little more when the financial statements are prepared.
I'm very sorry that Mr. Stafford missed his helijet, but I thank him for the responses.
R. Chisholm: My first thing is through to the Clerk, and that is a definite yes on the note he sent me. My next is through to the Premier.
There are obviously some exciting things happening with B.C. Trade internationally, but I'd like to get a bit more mundane and closer to home, and say that many political and economic minds believe that there is a serious problem. Of course, that is with the trade barriers between the provinces. I've discussed this with your Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Energy and Mines, and Small Business, as the minister who is sitting there will attest to. When you look at the difference between Alberta and British Columbia -- 14 percent in agriculture, for instance -- we definitely do not have level playing fields.
I know the Premier is going to the Premiers' conference in Newfoundland, and he probably has ongoing negotiations. I've heard from the ministers. I'm just wondering what the Premier has planned for the near future to try to bring these differences closer together so we are at least competitive within our own country. It's nice going abroad and developing these opportunities, but we don't seem to be doing too well at home. I think we're a great hindrance to ourselves in that particular aspect. Maybe the Premier would like to comment on what he foresees happening in the next little while, and at the Premiers' conference, in reference to this subject.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I think we have made great progress in getting rid of a lot of the trade barriers between provinces. Some of that came down in the GATT round, some through the trade agreements with the United States, and some through the elimination of provincial trade barriers that the first ministers agreed to a couple of years ago and set a deadline of last summer to eliminate. We think this area, which is being described as a $6 billion problem in a $700 billion economy, is exaggerated, frankly, because over $5 billion of that $6 billion results from marketing boards and issues that are being dealt with through international trade bodies.
The amount of real interprovincial trade barriers is about $700 million, tops, and a significant portion of that amount is not procurement. It is some of the other provinces' investment incentives, which I disagree with philosophically, where you're bribing companies to come, distorting the market and paying business to come to your province. I think that seeing who can give the biggest bribe to business to come is not private enterprise. That's an area where we have asked for investment protocols so that the provinces agree to get rid of that sort of activity. I think we have come a long way in opening up the procurement between provinces and in eliminating the trade barriers. I think it's now a very modest part of our economy -- a couple of hundred million dollars out of a $700 billion economy.
[8:00]
R. Chisholm: I'm glad to hear that the Premier thinks this is a modest problem with the economy, but with agriculture, as I know after research, there's a 14 percent difference between the farmer in Alberta and the farmer just one mile away in British Columbia. That is a definite disadvantage for British Columbia farmers when you come down to talking
[ Page 16480 ]
about inputs and outputs, for instance. I still think there is some area for the Premier to negotiate. Will that subject be brought up at the Premiers' conference in Newfoundland this year?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Yes, it has been brought up, and it has been discussed by our Minister of Agriculture. A lot of this is because Alberta has had a very fat bureaucracy and some very rich subsidy programs for their farmers. That's where the 14 percent comes from. British Columbia traditionally has had a leaner administration and fewer of those giveaways. You can look at it as a disadvantage, or you can look at it as us being more entrepreneurial, with an agriculture industry that is therefore fitter and leaner for the changes that are happening through GATT, dealing with subsidies.
These are areas that our Agriculture ministers have been pursuing. I think that through the budget process in Alberta, a lot of those are being eliminated, and they are being cut out in a number of the other provinces too, as governments try to trim and cut back.
R. Chisholm: I have just a couple of comments for the Premier's estimates on behalf of my constituents in Chilliwack. First is a positive comment. I want to publicly thank the Premier for his personal interest in the problems not only of the Chilliwack region but also of all regions in the province when he gave his personal attention to the matter of CFB Chilliwack and the overall state of the province's emergency preparedness. The Premier and I have had a number of discussions over the past few weeks about the question referenced, in and out of question period, and I haven't had a chance to thank him. I wish to do so now.
As I was listening in my office a few minutes ago to the Premier's debate with the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, he listed the things he would be raising at the upcoming Premiers' meeting in Newfoundland in August. There was something I didn't hear him mention. Without mentioning any plans you have at the moment to prepare for that meeting with some homework here in British Columbia, I wonder if you would like to amend your list a little bit and add emergency preparedness and the funding to the provinces of that. Maybe the Premier would like to make a comment.
[S. O'Neill in the chair.]
Hon. M. Harcourt: There are some very important areas that I am going to be bringing up at the annual Premiers' conference in Newfoundland this August, particularly around health care and funding for medicare and the Canadian social transfer program -- which is really a way of saying major slashes of federal cash contributions to those programs and the impact of off-loading. Part of that impact, as the member for Chilliwack mentioned, is the closing down of CFB Chilliwack. The member has raised some very important questions about our ability to have armed forces on the ground here in British Columbia to deal with floods, earthquakes and other disasters from either natural or human causes.
I have attempted to assist the member to meet with PEP, the emergency preparation people, to see what their concerns are about losing the Chilliwack base, the mechanized unit and some of the other resources there. I hope to continue that work with the member and with the mayor in Chilliwack to see if we can start to close in on the impact of the federal closure of the Chilliwack base.
And yes, that is part of the off-loading that I have been talking about, which we're facing here in British Columbia: the off-loading of billions of dollars that has happened between the previous federal government and this federal government.
R. Chisholm: My last question to the Premier is just a comment for his attention. One of your government's strong suits has been the environment. I personally think that it will be seen for some years as a legacy of this administration.
But although your government has made some progress in air quality through AirCare and other initiatives, we still have a problem in the central and upper Fraser Valley. I have spoken to the Minister of Environment and the former Minister of Environment, and both of those ministers over the last number of years have admitted, for instance, that there have been an extra 33,000 visits a year to hospital emergency wards due to asthma problems because of the pollution in the valley. The minister reported that there were an extra 2,800 deaths in the Fraser Valley due to this problem. And that hasn't been reported for one year; it has been reported for a couple of years now. The former minister admitted, too, that agriculture in the Fraser Valley was down by $75 million due to the pollution in the valley. It used to be that you could see Cheam Peak almost every day of the year. Over the past five years, residents and visitors to the region have been lucky if they can see it for more than just a handful of days. Mr. Premier, we need more action in the Chilliwack area on cleaning up our air.
I've introduced for the fourth year in a row a private member's bill on ethanol use to help clean up our air. We never get around to debating it. Mind you, we study methanol, which has been thrown out in the States. We study natural gas. We study propane. We study the electric car, which we don't have the battery technology for. But in the meantime, over that four years this problem has gotten worse.
It is a matter of mandating ethanol into the fuel, and we will decrease the pollution by up to 35 percent. I simply ask the Premier, the next time he's flying over Chilliwack, to have a look for himself. Then come back to Victoria and read my bill. Ethanol mixed with gasoline would do the trick in the short term at minimal cost. It would help provide jobs in the Fraser Valley. You could legislate with a sunset clause to kick in when other solutions are in place. You could even implement it for just one or two regions. But it would be a great step.
I'd like to ask the Premier to look into this situation, because there's no necessity to have these 2,800 deaths. There's no necessity to have this extra burden on our health care system. There's no necessity to have agriculture down by $75 million -- especially when you take a look at ethanol: you can produce it from grains. There are corporations out there that just want to produce it for us if they had somewhere to sell it. It is a proven commodity. It's been used in the States, and they've run trillions of miles on it. It's used in Brazil 100 percent. It is part of the Green Plan for Canada. And the pluses go on.
It is only a temporary step. But it is a temporary solution until we finally come up with zero emission or a solution that
[ Page 16481 ]
will cut pollution drastically. In the meantime, it could save an awful lot of lives that we see being dispensed with. These people should never have died. Unfortunately, because of our lifestyle and because of the geography, we have this problem. For four years now we have not addressed it.
Maybe the Premier could give me his word that he will look at the bill, look at the situation and talk to his Environment minister, because every Environment minister he has had has stated the same thing to me. Yet we started this in 1992, we're in 1995, and we still do not even have a temporary solution. And people are dying.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm a masochist, because I have read each of the Hansard reports just out of curiosity to see what is happening when I'm not here. I did read, the other day, the member for Chilliwack's questions to the Minister of Environment about ethanol, his bill, the 2,800 deaths from the air pollution problem in the Fraser Valley and the $75 million of agriculture that was lost. The minister, as you're aware, commented that we do have a very active clean air policy.
You're right: it is a very serious health issue. There are some doctors I've talked to in the Abbotsford-Chilliwack area who know certain patients are going to come into their office, when they look out their third-storey window and can't see the mountain because of the air pollution. They know that some of their patients who have asthma, emphysema or breathing difficulties are going to be in their office, suffering. So it is a serious problem. Greater Vancouver.... As a matter of fact, the Georgia Basin is a lot like the Los Angeles Basin. Chilliwack, Matsqui and Abbotsford are like Riverside and Yorba Linda in Los Angeles. You get the ocean breezes pushing the air pollution off the freeways and settling over a community, trapped by the mountains. Then the air on a sunny day in an inversion traps it even more.
So we're very aware of the member's constituents' problems from air pollution. That's why we have a program to take old clunkers off the road and have them compacted. That's why we have the AirCare program, which is starting to have an impact. That's why we brought in the clean air legislation to get rid of the beehive burners and deal with some of the other burning problems. That's why we are looking at cleaner fuels -- and we have looked at ethanol. I am aware of your bill. That's why we have a substantial investment in Ballard buses, which is the leading technology in the world on hydrogen fuel cell buses in particular. It's not only in production but it's in operation -- one bus in Vancouver and another in Los Angeles. We're hoping to go to the next stage -- to ten buses each in operation -- to be able to get a better trial out of it.
We are working with the auto industry on auto emission standards -- not exactly similar to Los Angeles, but close. And voluntarily now, the industry and the auto dealers are working very closely with us.
To conclude my remarks, I am expressing some support and sympathy for what the member is talking about. We have looked at ethanol. The problem is that the subsidy you have to offer -- and we tried it up in the Peace with some of the wheat producers -- in terms of a decreased fuel tax is very substantial to the treasury to make it economical. If the member has an answer as to how ethanol can be competitive with methanol, natural gas and specially treated gasolines -- the cleaner fuels that companies are coming up with -- I'd be more than glad to take that forward.
[8:15]
R. Chisholm: Hon. Premier, I don't think we have the time to wait out all the testing that's going on. For instance, if you take a look at the Detroit newspapers, they reported -- and I quoted it to your minister -- that the electric car was going the way of the scrap heap, as far as the Governor of California was concerned. So it will be a long time before we have that. If we take a look at propane and natural gas, you do have pollutants, and they are non-renewable fossil fuels.
When you talk about subsidizing the farmer, I don't think that subsidy would be necessarily all that great, especially when you consider that agriculture in the Fraser Valley is down by $75 million. What is that worth to the coffers? What are 33,000 visitations to the emergency wards at the hospitals worth to the coffers? When you start adding all of these things up and pricing them out, your subsidy is minuscule. On top of that, we haven't even talked about the 2,800 deaths every year for four years which are admittedly due to this problem. My point is that if we had put it in temporarily with sunset clauses and withdrawn it when you had a final solution to this problem, how much money would we have saved in the meantime, and how many lives? So I don't think we can't just sit back and say: "Just let it ride." Like I said, people are dying, and there are reasons for it. Maybe sometimes we have to bite the bullet and take a little extra hit for a short term until we come up with a solution.
Hon. M. Harcourt: Hopefully I was being clear when I said that I have some sympathy and support for what the member is talking about and that I would be more than pleased to take up his concerns and have him meet some of the Ministry of Environment officials. We would like to get a pilot project going. We looked at it in the Peace and we came very close. It just doesn't quite make it, but I'd be glad to have a fresh look at it.
J. Weisgerber: I hadn't intended to get in on an ethanol debate, but I think the government is making a serious mistake if it carries through with its announced plan to phase out the exemption of road tax for alternative fuels. The Premier will recall that in the 1992 budget there was a planned five-year phase-out, or a decision to start in 1997 with a phase-in of road taxes on alternative fuels, including ethanol, natural gas and propane. I think that's a fundamental mistake. I believe that today you're starting to see a big resistance built into conversions to natural gas and propane. I don't believe we'll ever get an ethanol industry in British Columbia if we don't hold out some substantial offer of tax relief, and there are going to be new ethanol plants built in western Canada. I think, as the member properly points out, that we should weigh very closely the costs and benefits of maintaining an attractive tax environment for ethanol.
I came back because I was listening with much interest to the discussion between the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast and the Premier about aboriginal issues. Let me say that I agree with the member's comments with respect to Sechelt. It seems to me, as the member pointed out, that the experience with self-government -- and there are flaws in that -- has been a very positive one. The fact that the whole question of self-government has been taken off the table, if you like -- or at least resolved in the vast majority -- and the very good starting position the Sechelt have put forward in
[ Page 16482 ]
terms of their comprehensive claim make it a natural to move forward. I say that because I understand from the Premier that everyone seems to be heading in that direction, and I certainly support that.
What I didn't agree with were the discussions around Adams Lake, because I don't agree with the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast or the Premier that this issue around the right-of-way, and the lack of proper gazetting or recording of the right-of-way, is simply a problem for the federal government. The federal government may well have been negligent in not properly recording the agreement that was reached, but the Premier knows that's a situation that has existed not only at Adams Lake, Green Mountain or Duffey Lake. There are literally hundreds of areas around the province where this issue exists because of a lack of attention over time by bureaucracies.
It seems to me that the province does have a legal remedy. To the point, when the province transferred the land to the federal government for the creation of a huge number of reserves in this province, under something called order-in-council 1036, it did provide for something called resumption. Resumption allows the province to resume or expropriate land for road rights-of-way or utility rights-of-way, up to 5 percent of the total amount of the land transferred for reserve purposes.
It seems to me that at Adams Lake -- and the Premier may want to confirm the details, but this is my understanding of it -- the road right-of-way negotiations were concluded, an agreement was made and alternative lands were provided by way of compensation for the road right-of-way, and all that was missing was the federal government's gazetting of that right-of-way. If that's the case, and I believe it is, then there should be a process by which the province can clear the title to the road right-of-way, and that's resumption -- expropriation.
These negotiations have been going on, and maybe could continue to go on, for years, but I believe there should be a clear message coming from this government that when a blockade is up, when a road is blockaded, and when public passage is interfered with or hampered because of a blockade and the government is unable to get an injunction to bring the blockade down because of a difficulty with a title, then the remedy is resumption. So my question, first of all, to the Premier is: does he recognize that resumption is outlined under OIC 1036 and is a legal remedy that's available to the province, whether it be at Adams Lake or in other areas around the province?
Hon. M. Harcourt: There are two issues that the Leader of the Third Party talked about. One is the Sechelt and the successful self-government model that is in operation there. It's not perfect, but certainly from all accounts it is operating quite well. I have spoken to the mayor of Sechelt, and he has a good working relationship with the chief and the aboriginal people in the Sechelt area. He says that that is one model. There are others that will come out of the treaty negotiations, and we've said very clearly that we are quite prepared to look at governance as part of the treaty table, rather than having two separate tables that may or may not meet somewhere down the line, as is being proposed across Canada. We don't think that is going to be very effective in British Columbia; they should both be dealt with together, comprehensively.
The Adams Lake situation.... It is unfortunate that since 1982-83, the province has been trying to resolve this matter. It would have been a very simple process if the federal government had just passed an order-in-council. This is a problem that existed during the Leader of the Third Party's tenure as the Minister of Native Affairs. The present Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has been writing, pleading and visiting, trying to get the federal government to do the same thing. It's a complicated issue. It's made more complex by the courts and the court decisions now. OIC 1036, resumptive power, is an area that we are discussing at the policy tables. We have a process in place to deal with individual bands and nations. The Leader of the Third Party has correctly pointed out that there are about 400 of these trespasses that haven't been resolved across the province.
I guess it's a judgment call. Sure you can send in the cavalry and use 1036. But what's the reaction to that, what's the response to that? Does that encourage people to sit down and peacefully negotiate these situations or not? I think that is the tricky and complex climate we are in here in British Columbia. We are trying to encourage people to come to the treaty table and to not use unilateral or arbitrary action -- provocative action. I think we are starting to succeed, but it is a difficult and complex issue that the Leader of the Third Party has rightly raised.
J. Weisgerber: A couple of points. The Premier says it's being discussed at policy tables. I'm not sure whether that refers to policy tables within his own government or with first nations or with first nations organizations. Perhaps the Premier would clarify that.
I don't believe, and I've never believed, that resumption should be used arbitrarily, that resumption should simply be the remedy for the 400 or so specific issues that have been under negotiation not only with Ottawa but with the bands. It's important to understand that there have been ongoing negotiations, most of them conducted -- as the Premier must know -- by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. As long as those negotiations continue and as long as there aren't illegal activities -- there aren't blockades -- then I don't believe resumption is the proper mechanism to use.
I believe that sooner or later -- and it happened.... The Premier likes to raise the issue of Mount Currie, Duffey Lake. Indeed, we did use resumption at Duffy Lake -- one of the few times in the history of British Columbia that it has been used. But when a blockade is in place, when the parties are intransigent and there isn't any movement, I believe the province has an obligation, for the benefit of its citizens, to use the tools available. I don't believe it's a provocative action. When someone has blockaded a road and held people at ransom over a period of time, I don't think it's provocative to take legal remedies. I think that people considering blockades -- aboriginal people or others -- must understand that there is a price to pay for that action.
With respect to bands using blockades on roads where the gazetting is in question and where injunctions are not available, I believe that under those circumstances -- such as the one at Green Mountain, the one at Adams Lake -- the province has a clear obligation to use those remedies which were made available to it in order-in-council 1036. But let me say that this is a debate that I don't expect to win here today.
I do want to get on the record, though, that there is a remedy: resumption -- order-in-council 1036. It is available. When the province or individuals are unable to obtain an
[ Page 16483 ]
injunction because of improper gazetting, that is a remedy. Whether one wants to use it or not, it's a remedy that's there and available for any of those reserves where the land was transferred under order-in-council 1036. If the Premier agrees with me on the availability of resumption as a remedy, then I would be prepared to move on. I don't think it's something that either one of us can stand here and win a debate on.
Hon. M. Harcourt: The policy tables are with the summit, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and also inside the government, through the planning board and working groups that we have working on aboriginal issues. It is an area that has been very intensively looked at, studied, talked about and worked on. What we need to do is anticipate the emerging issues that create the tensions that lead to roadblocks, by doing more proactive work with aboriginal and non-aboriginal people. I think that would go a long way.
No, I don't think it's a win-lose or an either-or. What we have attempted to do is deal individually with individual bands and aboriginal nations to anticipate these sorts of problems. We have had provincewide discussions, through the summit and the UBCIC, where we agree to disagree. They have said: "You get rid of 1036, and then trust us to be trustworthy." I am prepared to trust them, but I don't think that would be prudent. So we've reached a standoff at the provincial level on both tables and are dealing with it on a more individualized basis. My minister and I have made it very clear that we will not negotiate while blockades are up; that is not acceptable.
We've had a good discussion of a very complex topic. I will certainly take under advisement the advice and the suggestions that the Leader of the Third Party has given.
[8:30]
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
J. Weisgerber: Just to conclude, the Premier came very close, but the Premier will acknowledge that the province still has the remedy of resumption where issues arise on reserves originally transferred under order-in-council 1036.
The Chair: The Leader of the Third Party.
J. Weisgerber: Thank you. I was asking a question, and I was hoping that the Premier would acknowledge it.
Hon. M. Harcourt: If the Leader of the Third Party is asking if 1036 is still in existence, the answer is yes. Therefore, because it's in existence, it is available. What we are trying to do is move away from the exercise of that where possible and work through negotiations, treaties, interim measures and other means to regularize those roads and other alignments.
M. de Jong: There is a distinct possibility that this will be the last opportunity before a provincial election for the hon. Premier and I to have an exchange on a number of matters.
An Hon. Member: You won't be here.
M. de Jong: The Government House Leader suggests that I won't be here, and that is a distinct possibility as well. If it occurs, I have no doubt that he will join me on the unemployment line and help to secure employment for me.
I would like to talk to the Premier and canvass him on a couple of issues relating to constitutional matters, some of which have been canvassed previously. One of the issues the Premier addressed was his expectation that there would not be a constitutional round of negotiations in the months leading up to the Quebec referendum, and indeed in the months following that referendum. However, he does say that British Columbians aren't satisfied with our present federal arrangement, and therein lies a certain inconsistency.
I should say that I wholeheartedly accept some of the other comments the Premier made with respect to his commitment and that of his government to ensuring that the country remains unified and that steps be taken to promote that concept wherever they can. But I can't help but think that the Premier is adopting an approach and a strategy that is more politically convenient than helpful in achieving that goal. He might be right when he says that British Columbians aren't in a mood to discuss constitutional matters. But I'm afraid that doesn't provide him with the excuse not to embark upon those negotiations. In fact, the day is coming when we will be presented with a situation in which we have to respond. Far from finding ourselves in a position, as we did several years ago when we were caught off guard in attempting to ascertain a position and exposing ourselves -- and this is where the Premier should be particularly concerned -- and himself to the charge that he hadn't consulted with the population to ascertain what their position was insofar as determining the relationship with the rest of Canada and Quebec...that we commence those discussions now.
My initial question to the Premier is: why the reluctance on his part to embark on those discussions within the province to get a sense for what British Columbians' vision of our relationship with the rest of the country is? We know that they have rejected one vision in the last referendum, yet we're no further ahead. We know the day is coming. We know that a decision will be made in Quebec, and regardless of what that decision is, it will give rise to calls for another round of constitutional negotiations. Though it may be politically convenient at the moment to avoid those discussions here in British Columbia, my submission to the Premier is that that is not ultimately realistic or wise.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I think the people of British Columbia are very clear that they want political leaders in this province and this country to focus on issues that are close to home -- issues such as jobs and investing in the training, infrastructure and natural resources which are going to secure prosperity. If we're going to have discussions between governments, it shouldn't be around constitutional arrangements; it should be about how we can cut down duplication in government -- how we can cut down waste between the federal and provincial governments. I think we would have far more credibility with the public in that area.... And there is a lot that is taking place.
At our first meeting, the Prime Minister raised the issue of getting rid of waste and duplication, and six months later we had an agreement on 14 different areas where we were going to synthesize into one environmental testing lab in British Columbia for agricultural testing, meat inspections, poultry inspections, fish inspections -- food inspections of all sorts -- and where we were going to consolidate health issues. We had a timetable for that, and I am quite prepared to give
[ Page 16484 ]
the member access to this first phase of getting rid of waste and duplication between the federal and provincial governments.
The second phase, I think, is on hold until after the Quebec referendum. The work is taking place to deal with duplicating forestry, mining, energy, environment and a whole range of federal bureaucracies that are in provincial jurisdictions. They are clearly into section 92. There are 8,000 people, for example, in the health department in Ottawa -- doing what? There is a whole series of areas that are far more fruitful: in either the quiet work that's going on now or the reductions in staff that are taking place at the federal level and will be accelerated, in my opinion, after the referendum in Quebec. That is where we can save our taxpayers money, get rid of the major irritants -- such as duplicating bureaucracies, which taxpayers rightfully get upset about -- and deal with the changes that I think British Columbians want.
We want to have effective training programs. We want to have one-stop shopping for business services -- and we do have that in British Columbia now. Small Business and I announced this just recently at what used to be the CPR station, now called the Station. I believe that that is where we should put our effort: looking at one tax collection regime for GST and PST and the work that can maybe take place in that area, without landing another billion dollars on consumers in that merging or harmonizing of those taxes.
So I don't disagree with the member, but I certainly don't think that the people of British Columbia want to have a lot of hypothetical discussions this fall about "what if?" I think they're very clear; they've said: "We want Canada to stay united; we want Quebec to stay." The choice is separation or not, not some fuzzy "stay-in-Canada-but" or "get-out-of-Canada-but." I think we should let that take place and support the federalists in Quebec where the referendum is going to take place. And I believe they will be successful.
M. de Jong: I don't quarrel with much of what the hon. Premier has said, but he began earlier in these debates by acknowledging that British Columbians are dissatisfied. The things that they're dissatisfied with relate to some pretty fundamental questions regarding our federation, the division of political powers and things like the Senate. Those are fundamental issues that extend well beyond some of the legitimate economic concerns that the Premier has identified.
The other frustration that I sense in British Columbians relates to the fact that we are perceived in this province as constantly being on the defensive in these negotiations, as constantly responding to another agenda, to another schedule. In this case, here we are again: we're planning our strategy around a Quebec referendum. We will begin to formulate our plan and our approach after that. The fact of the matter is that there is dissatisfaction in this province right now, today, regardless of what happens in Quebec.
I don't think the Premier can simply say that we're going to wait and see, because he's already acknowledged that British Columbians want changes. Why would we postpone the discussion that we as British Columbians need to have? No one is prouder of this country and no one strives more to preserve its unity than I, and I know that the Premier feels the same way about it. But for us to be back on our heels reacting on the day after a Quebec referendum vote, where, depending upon what the result will be, there will inevitably be demands on the Premier -- if he remains in office at that time.... Why would we wait? Why wouldn't we initiate that discussion with British Columbians, those who are prepared to involve themselves?
It strikes me as making sense to avoid that very same criticism that was levied at the Premier in the last go-round -- that British Columbians weren't listened to. Yes, the majority of British Columbians may be disinterested, but that's no reason for the Premier to chuck his responsibility. That's where the leadership comes in -- to remind British Columbians that this day is coming. It's coming sooner than they think. It's time for us to begin thinking about these issues. Just because the Premier can hide behind a poll and say the majority of British Columbians don't want to talk about it -- that's not good enough. My question to the Premier is: in the face, perhaps, of unfavourable polls on the issue, is he prepared to show that leadership and to initiate that discussion and debate in the weeks and months leading up to events in Quebec?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I want to make it very clear that I and British Columbians are busy bringing about changes. We're not waiting for anybody. The people who want to have a referendum on Canada aren't here in British Columbia.
We've already made a commitment here in British Columbia to Canada. We've already said that you're either in or out of Canada; there's no squishy in-between. British Columbians are crystal-clear. Whatever their politics, wherever they live in this province, I don't think there's any need for a referendum on that. It is almost self-evident that that's the position of the British Columbians I talk to, whether you see polls or the thousands of people I meet either directly or through the media and communications available over television and radio shows. It's crystal-clear that British Columbians not only are thinking and have thought about it, but agree on the kind of Canada they want.
The changes they want are very specific. Through the three summits I've had, the various forums and working groups on economic development and international trade -- the first summit I had at Pearson College in 1992, the second summit on skills and training, the third summit on partnerships and cooperation between the public and private sector -- the various groups in our province and British Columbians are very clear what they want to see happen. They want to see a plan. That plan is here -- "Investing in Our Future: A Plan for B.C." That is going to strengthen Canada if British Columbia keeps the leadership role in our economy, our land use decisions and our deficit and debt management.
I hope, with the support of the opposition, to encourage the federal government to carry out its deficit plans, not on the backs of British Columbians but by cutting duplication and waste that I've just described previously. I believe -- if they take up the $9.3 billion of recommendations, which I have given to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, of cutting out subsidies, waste and duplication -- that we can take care of the real business of the people of British Columbia, which is jobs, getting our financial house in order, dealing with the conflicts in our forests and making sure we're ready for the twenty-first century with the skills, natural resources and transportation and information highways that we need.
So no I think British Columbians know what they want, and we're doing it.
[ Page 16485 ]
[8:45]
F. Gingell: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
F. Gingell: It's my pleasure to introduce Mr. Tex Enemark, who, as we all know, was a deputy minister. I know that he's missing, right at this moment, as it's getting late on a Thursday night in front of a holiday weekend, the thrill he used to have at being in the House and sitting with his minister. He misses it terribly. So I'm pleased to see him back. I ask all members of the House to make him welcome.
M. de Jong: I'm saddened somewhat by the Premier's response. It's not because I doubt his sincerity and commitment to maintaining a unified country, because that is wholeheartedly sincere. But I am saddened by what I see as an unwillingness to confront the issue we are destined to be faced with. The justification for that can only be political expediency.
It will arise in other ways. It will arise insofar as the manner in which land claims and negotiations are concerned. Some of the discussions we have heard and some of the terminology we have heard the Premier use speak of the possibility of a third constitutional level of government. Is that something we are contemplating? Is that something the Premier is very confident that British Columbians are in favour of?
We have heard the Premier speak of land transfers that would fall outside the Crown tenure and outside the traditional fee simple concept that we have within our existing Torrens system. When we start talking in those terms, and when you're taking land that is no longer subject to any form of expropriation, for example, that falls outside of our fee simple land title system, we're now speaking in terms of sovereignty. I can't think of any other word that you can apply to that sort of process. These are constitutional matters that have constitutional implications.
The Premier speaks with great confidence that he understands what British Columbians want. I confess that I don't have the great insight that he apparently does. I don't have that ability to interpret the results of the last referendum with the clarity that the Premier apparently can. That vote came about for a whole host of different reasons. The Premier speaks of the people in the province as some sort of monolith that he understands, and that is looking at these things from a single perspective. He must surely know that that's not true.
When the day comes, as it will -- in a matter of months, not years -- when the Premier, if he's in that office, is called upon to participate in these negotiations, I will rue that day, because the first thing he's going to say is: "Well, I need to get a mandate from the people. I have to canvass with British Columbians on how they feel about questions like native sovereignty, a third constitutional level of government." This is my question to the Premier: how can he be so confident? What data, what insight, does he have that the rest of us don't have that allows for him to proceed into what will likely be the single most important round of constitutional talks that this country will embark upon without, in my view, any clear indication of where British Columbians want to go?
Hon. M. Harcourt: This is an interesting and important area of discussion, but the member is mixing up two or three issues at once. First of all, he's dealing with the question of aboriginal negotiations, self-government and the status of lands. We're going to deal with that here in British Columbia through the treaty process. We're the first government in B.C.'s history to deal with these at the treaty table. We're not waiting for Quebec's referendum. Over the last three and a half years, we have put in place the ability to sort out these issues, including governance, with the aboriginal people at the treaty table. That has nothing to do with what people in Quebec are doing.
Secondly, the people in Quebec are the ones who are having the referendum, not the people in British Columbia. I haven't had anybody send me a petition saying that they want to separate from Canada. British Columbians are the most loyal Canadians; in fact, you can see it in all the public opinion surveys that are being done and, even more importantly, when you talk to British Columbians. So that's not at issue. We're not the ones who are thinking about or who may have a clear question.... I hope there is a clear question in Quebec. I hope it's a straightforward question -- "Separate or not: yes or no?" -- and not a squishy one that won't settle anything.
But it's the people in Quebec who are going to have to decide on that. We have already made our decision. We don't need a referendum in British Columbia about Canada. We're Canadians; we're loyal Canadians. That doesn't mean we don't want changes. We can negotiate the changes. The Prime Minister has said this, and I agree with him. We can negotiate these changes without having to change the constitution one iota. Through the flexibility of our federal system, and through administrative and political arrangements and will, we can bring about these changes -- and we are. I have just given two or three examples of where we're getting rid of waste and duplication and interprovincial trade barriers, and we're providing one-stop shopping for small business and a series of other changes. That's by far the most fruitful way to go about changing Canada: not at the constitutional table but at the political table, by making political and administrative changes.
I would like to just finish this by saying that it's too bad Tex Enemark left. He was an old friend of mine, who is probably saying to himself right now: "My God, please don't start another round of constitutional talks." I'd much rather get talking about mines and other resources that we can get going here in British Columbia.
M. de Jong: I suspect that this is a debate that I am not likely to reap much success in, though I say to the Premier that I think he is adopting a politically convenient stance but not a realistic one.
During the course of these estimates debates and in question period today, there have been some references made to some documentation that found its way out of the Premier's Office or out of cabinet offices. I was interested to hear the Premier's response. While he recognized the existence of the document, he went to great pains to point out that he disagrees with all of the findings. Where the cabinet briefing document suggests that it's not clear if the referral-welfare-to-work part of Skills Now has been effective in placing people in jobs, he says: "No, that's not true; I'm entirely confident that it has." Where the document says that the critical link between Skills Now, Forest Renewal B.C. and B.C. 21 has not happened
[ Page 16486 ]
to any degree, the Premier says: "I don't agree with that; quite the contrary." Where the document says that it's not clear what the link is among community skills centres, Skills Now and other adjustment strategies, the Premier says: "That's just not true."
Before we get to the substance of some of these issues, maybe the Premier could indicate to the committee to what extent the resources of his office were utilized, personnel and otherwise -- if any -- in the production of that recommendation.
Hon. M. Harcourt: If the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Matsqui are wondering why this side of the House was puzzled about this document, it's because none of us have ever seen it. It has never been to a cabinet committee; it has never been to any of our deputies.
It is a document that was prepared in March or April of this year. It was prepared by the cabinet planning secretariat staff. The authors of the report were asked by senior CPS management to pull together a whole range of critical comments that had come from the opposition, the media, citizens, public servants and polls about a whole range of these issues. These weren't staff opinions; these were taking the critiques of all of these programs -- not that we believe them -- and putting them into a document to get a sense of the vulnerabilities in terms of critical comments about some of our key initiatives. That's why this document was so elusive; none of us has ever seen it. It's never been to a cabinet committee; it's never been to any of our deputies.
It drew material from files, Hansard, polls, letters and reports on relevant meetings. Staff were asked not to leave anything out, so that management would have a complete sense of the critique outside of the cabinet and outside of the government caucus of a number of its key initiatives, whether it's Skills Now, the forest changes, Forest Renewal B.C., B.C. 21 or our debt and deficit plans. The staff document was never presented to me, cabinet members, cabinet, cabinet committees or deputies. That's the reason that there was some astonishment at this document: we'd never seen it.
I hope that answers the member's concerns. I think the member should note that the introductory paragraphs say that the initiatives are progressing through implementation well and that actions to respond are adequate. That's why I was so vehement in my comments that I don't agree with those, because they're comments that have come out of the mouth of the opposition member opposite, and he's wrong. These initiatives are working, and they are found in "Investing in Our Future: A Plan for B.C." They're working very well.
M. de Jong: It's interesting that the Premier, again, is rather selective. It's a report he doesn't purport to place much stock in except for those provisions that are convenient for him to quote.
I'm a bit confused, and I must admit that my confusion stems perhaps from my relatively recent arrival here, and it may otherwise be genetic. The Premier has commissioned staff to produce a report. I presume that the Premier and the offices place some faith in the opinions of those staff, or they wouldn't have called for the report to be done in the first place; they wouldn't have asked them for their opinion.
When the Premier says that the report is simply a compilation of views taken from outside of government, that just ain't so -- the report contains a whole host of information. It talks of what the observations of the public are. The Premier is correct when he says the report includes that sort of information; that's certainly in the briefing document. But it also includes some very specific findings by the staff that produced the report.
Is the Premier saying that he has no faith whatsoever in the opinions of those who were involved in the production of this document? If so, what are they doing hanging around?
Hon. M. Harcourt: This report was not commissioned, not asked for. It was put together by some of the staff in the cabinet planning secretariat, and I described the sources. The vast majority of it was outside of government. There were comments in some cases from some of the ministries, but, by and large, it was opposition critics, media critics and some of the polling information. It was a staff report that never saw the light of day. It was an internal staff report that staff commissioned on their own. There was no commission in this report. It was not perused by me, any of my cabinet members or any of the deputy ministers.
[9:00]
M. de Jong: In a few short months, the Premier will have to make a decision about going to the polls; he won't have a choice. That will happen inevitably, whether he likes it or not. I suspect, when one looks at the present standing of his party, that he will postpone that decision as long as he can. But ultimately the decision will be made for him. When he goes to the polls, he'll be seeking forgiveness from British Columbians for a whole host of sins.
He'll be seeking forgiveness for the Vancouver land use plan, the communications plan that was released. Contrary to the information and the statements the Premier made initially that there would be no loss of jobs, British Columbians in the affected parts of the province got to read about the government's plans to limit the information that would be disclosed to them, to limit the damage that was going to be caused by the government's land use planning strategy. He'll have to seek forgiveness from those British Columbians whose lives have been so dramatically affected by that whole process and by that act of deception perpetrated by the government, specifically and purposely, on those individuals.
He'll have to seek forgiveness for the Trumpy memo, that memo which confirmed that the Premier's own senior staff -- Treasury Board staff -- were telling him and his colleagues that their debt is unsustainable. After the Premier and the Finance minister have spent months and months spinning and spinning this line that British Columbia's debt was under control, it just wasn't so. It just ain't so, and no amount of spinning by the Premier is going to change that fact.
He'll have to seek forgiveness for his handling of the events surrounding the resignation of the former Minister of Environment. He'll have to explain to British Columbians why he waited until the very last minute, when he was backed up against the wall, when he had no choice, because the Law Society of British Columbia had rendered a decision that found his minister had contravened extremely serious trust guidelines that will preclude him from practising law for 18 months. The Premier has never answered the question about why he waited all that time, when the former minister acknowledged earlier in the spring that he had made a mis-
[ Page 16487 ]
take. It took the Premier months to act on that information. We don't know if the Premier had the information. We don't know when the Premier lost confidence in his minister as he says he ultimately lost confidence in the former Minister of Government Services. The double standard is striking. We haven't heard from the Premier. We haven't heard him explain that difference, so he'll have to seek forgiveness from British Columbians for that.
He'll be seeking forgiveness from British Columbians about what we heard described earlier this evening as the clown hall meeting. I don't know if that makes the Premier the clown prince of politics, but it was certainly his clown hall meeting. He'll be seeking forgiveness from British Columbians for the money that was spent on that fiasco. He'll be seeking forgiveness from British Columbians on the NOW Communications fiasco, where audit reports confirm action taken by the Premier's own office to hide contracts with Mr. Struble in Washington, deliberately weaving a web of deception.
He'll be pleading for forgiveness from British Columbians. Though he sought to put this off for months -- years, in fact -- he will ultimately be pleading for forgiveness for the deplorable, absolutely unforgivable manner in which he and his government have handled the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society situation. He won't get that forgiveness, because his conduct in all of those instances, particularly in the case of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, is beyond forgiveness. It's absolutely deplorable.
Earlier in these debates I heard the Premier explain -- and he went through a fairly detailed chronology; he read his notes well -- how the minister, in his view, had done everything according to plan and had done everything right. The one question he's never answered, the one issue he's never addressed directly is: why would a minister of the Crown, in possession of a report investigating an organization with direct links to the NDP, take that report to the Premier's own senior staff -- representatives of a cabinet committee and the secretary of the New Democratic Party -- and then excuse that behaviour on the basis that he didn't have advice from the Attorney General's department? My question to the Premier is: doesn't he think that if a minister of the Crown needs advice to tell her that that's an inappropriate course of action, that minister is in the wrong line of work?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The answer is no. I have never gone to the public in an election seeking forgiveness. I seek a mandate. I sought a mandate based on a vision of the city I was in, the province I was in. I have done that through nine straight elections. I'm sure the young member will learn more about this in politics, and I hope he learns a lot more about law and the system of law we have. He seems to have forgotten it in this chamber. He's prepared to hang them and then try them. He said that in four of the things that he has mentioned here today. He didn't have the courage to go out and attack the judge, with the privilege removed -- as he did a few days ago.... I think the young member from Matsqui has a great deal to learn about politics and law, and a great deal to learn about how you deal with and treat people, and I hope he learns it before the next election. I hope he is capable of learning what an appropriate way to deal with people is, and what an appropriate way to respect the administration of law in this province and our democratic traditions and institutions is, because he sure as heck hasn't learned it in the few months that he has been here.
M. de Jong: I'm actually quite pleased that the Premier raised the question period debate of several days ago, because I was absolutely shocked to hear what the Premier had to say. The reason I was shocked is that it was only a few short years ago that this Premier's cabinet ministers were writing letters to their constituents condemning the sentences that were being handed out by judges relating to the Clayoquot incident. Those letters deemed jail terms as being inappropriate. And what was the Premier's response then? What was the Premier's response when it was suggested to him that his cabinet ministers had acted inappropriately? Well, the Premier said: "It's entirely appropriate for MLAs to acknowledge the feelings of their constituents."
Isn't the double standard rather dramatic? When I come into this chamber and suggest to the Premier that my constituents are upset and deem certain sentences to be inappropriate, I'm acting inappropriately and am somehow not abiding by the bounds of decorum in this chamber, but when his own members adopt that similar conduct, it's appropriate. And why is it appropriate? Well, we're us, and you're them. I think it's shameful. I appreciate the Premier's fatherly advice; I really do. I must tell you, though, that I take it with the proverbial grain of salt, given the source.
The Chair: The Government House Leader on a point of order.
Hon. G. Clark: I would just like to draw the Chair's attention to the fact that we are in the Premier's estimates. I appreciate that the Premier is responsible for many and varied things, but I don't think he's responsible for the actions of Provincial Court judges, and I think it's clearly out of order to stray into that territory in estimates debate.
The Chair: I thank the minister for his intervention. I have refrained from making many interruptions in the last five or six hours of this debate. I would point out that though the practice in the Premier's estimates is to allow considerable latitude, we have indeed been only very tangentially connected to the Premier's estimates for a considerable amount of time. I think the minister's point is well taken. I would ask that that be a cautionary note for all members who participate in this debate.
M. de Jong: I only make the point that the Premier raised the issue, not I. Since we are discussing conduct, we are discussing conduct within the Premier's Office. I think it's appropriate for me to ask him whether a double standard does exist, and whether it's appropriate for his staff, his members and himself to conduct themselves in a way that he now says is inappropriate for members of the opposition.
Hon. M. Harcourt: No, I think that there's one standard. I think the standard is that if you want to say these comments, then don't say them behind the privilege of the Legislature; say them out there. The comments about Clayoquot by the members he's talking about were said out there as MLAs, without privilege to protect them. The member for Matsqui didn't have the courage to do that. That's my only point.
The Chair: Can I suggest now that this intervention is to simply give notice that we have allowed that personal interchange to occur. I think it is over. Now we ought to get back to the estimates debate.
[ Page 16488 ]
M. de Jong: Thank you, hon. Chair. You say that with an air of finality that suggests that I would be ill-advised to....
The Chair: You would indeed.
M. de Jong: Information relating to the Nanaimo Commonwealth situation continues to hang like a millstone around the neck of the Premier because of the sheer hypocrisy with which the government and the Premier have addressed the issue. I should say, hon. Chair, that it's coincidental, I'm sure, that I make comments through you that in fact have come from you. It was acknowledged several months ago: "Part of our problem as a party is that we tend to be and have been rather holier-than-thou and sanctimonious. We have believed that New Democrats didn't do unpleasant and improper things. We have now discovered that we do."
Those candid comments, given fairly and sincerely, should indicate to the Premier the seriousness with which this situation is taken by members of his own party, who, I would submit, are unfairly tarnished by the cloud that hangs over the government as a result of this Premier's refusal to take firm and decisive action. For him to suggest that the problem is removed from his office, removed from his ambit, is just shirking his responsibility as both Premier of the province and leader of the New Democratic Party.
The Premier.... My question to him is: is he prepared to follow through on an undertaking he gave to British Columbians months and months ago that they would have an opportunity to get to the bottom of this sordid affair? He's had forensic audits; he's had internal reviews. We haven't seen any of it. What is clearly required now is a full and public inquiry, so that those members of his caucus who aren't involved will have the satisfaction of seeing their names cleared and having this cloud removed that is hanging over them now. Will the Premier commit to embarking upon that single process, that single procedure, that can remove this cloud from so many of his own colleagues in this shameful affair in British Columbia's political history?
[9:15]
Hon. M. Harcourt: No. We will let the special prosecutor complete his work -- the special prosecutor who has just been appointed. Hopefully, we can have the report by Mr. Parks released as quickly as possible. I'd like to see it as soon as possible -- and so would the people of British Columbia -- in order to clear the air of the purple rhetoric coming from the member for Matsqui: the accusations and aspersions that he's casting at people widely and that hit the net that he flings out so widely. I would like to see that report out as soon as possible.
M. de Jong: Earlier the Premier offered me some fatherly advice. He may be interested to know that much of the advice, if I've taken any from him, comes from his days in opposition. Isn't that the sheer hypocrisy? To read some of the Premier's comments from his days in opposition, when sanctimony rolled off his lips like a valley preacher -- and I can say that, because I am from the valley....
The Premier was calling for the head of Bud Smith in two separate incidents: in the Doman incident and the incident involving the tapes. He was sanctimoniously demanding an ethical standard that he is so clearly unable and unwilling to demand of himself and his colleagues. For the Premier to say, "I'm content to let this matter lie; I'm content to let this matter rest with special prosecutors and forensic audits," just isn't satisfactory, because those weren't his comments. He's in the Premier's Office now. If he's demanding that standard from others, as he so obviously did in his days in opposition, what's happened since then? What's different except that it's him now?
The Chair: Shall the vote pass?
M. de Jong: I'm not surprised that the Premier doesn't want to talk about it. Every time he opens his mouth he digs himself a bigger hole. But this is the place for him to talk about it; this is the place for him to discuss an issue that touches the very heart of his office. It was his aides who attended the meeting, not mine. It was his party's secretary who attended a briefing to deal with a document that potentially implicated that political party. Did the Premier know about that? Did the Premier send those top officials to that meeting? I think that's a legitimate question. Let the Premier answer that: did he send those officials to that meeting?
V. Anderson: I rise in the Premier's estimates with a concern that we have shared for about 25 years. It goes back, the Premier will know, to inner-city days, 25 years ago in downtown Vancouver, when we were working together with the people of the downtown core who were concerned about the social services, the living conditions, the housing conditions and the legal conditions that were part of the community at that time. Unfortunately, I rise tonight to express the concern that in the last four years the conditions have become even worse; they have deteriorated in that same downtown core.
An Hon. Member: Wait till the Liberals' cuts get in.
V. Anderson: They say: "Wait until the Liberals come in."
An Hon. Member: The Liberal cuts.
V. Anderson: The cuts in services that have happened in the downtown core, the reality of the difficulties there, the social services which have decreased.... Ever since we had an opportunity to look at the Social Services program, we acknowledged that the present government inherited a program which was a mess. We asked the Premier on a number of occasions to do a study of the whole Social Services system in order to review it, reorganize it and reform it. But the Premier wasn't willing to listen or to act.
They kept saying that everything was fine, that things were improving, that things were getting better, until finally, by the force of public opinion, they had to have the Gove inquiry. Fortunately, they had the Gove inquiry, because that inquiry clearly said that the Social Services system was understaffed and that the Social Services system had asked people to do jobs beyond their training, capabilities and support.
I ask the Premier at this time why he has been reluctant and unwilling to take the measures that need to be taken to help the people not only in downtown Vancouver but in Victoria, Prince Rupert, Prince George and all around the province, whose conditions, income and actual purchasing ability have continued to decrease during the time of this
[ Page 16489 ]
government. I think it's fair to ask the Premier in his estimates why this has continued to deteriorate and why there has been no major attempt to cure the circumstances, as they have become worse day by day. I would be anxious to hear from the Premier in that regard, and so would the people of the community who are facing those circumstances.
Hon. M. Harcourt: As I said earlier, I have read all of the estimates in Hansard. I know that the member canvassed these issues with the minister for 20-some hours, and I'll send him the copies of Hansard so he can read the answers he got at that time. But I will add a few things.
First of all, in the riding that you're talking about, your federal Liberal government has cut 50 training programs for unemployed young people and new immigrants in the downtown east side. It's your federal Liberal government that is going to be cutting unemployment insurance and cutting access to training programs. It is your federal Liberal government that has added a huge number of people to our welfare rolls -- those who have been cut off UI. We have had objections from the member and his party about the increases to the minimum wage, so that the working poor can make a decent income and support themselves; they have objected to the employment standards, so that working people can have decent standards; they have objected to Skills Now, and ridiculed and criticized Skills Now, which is very effectively training thousands of British Columbians across this province; and they have voted against the capital expenditures that are going to build health care facilities and child care facilities at the local level. They have voted against the very measures that the member now condemns us for. We brought them in, and his party voted against them provincially or is trying to cut the funding for them federally. I think it is shameful that they would criticize us for doing these things, when they don't want to do them. That is the ultimate hypocrisy.
And I can tell you that I'm as committed to the people in the downtown east side now as I was 25 years ago when we brought in the first minimum standards for housing, the first health bylaws and the first fire bylaws. We brought in some minimum standards of maintenance so that the people in the downtown east side didn't have to have cockroaches running rampant, so they had running water and washroom facilities that worked. I have been working for 25 years for the people in my riding, and I don't need a lecture on how to deal with the people in the downtown east side that I've been working for for years, particularly from somebody in a party that's been cutting and making their lives more miserable. It's sad that the member would be part of a party that would be doing that to the poor, at a provincial and federal level, and that is getting ready to accelerate that harm to the poor -- the most vulnerable people in our society. It is indeed a sad day....
Interjection.
Hon. M. Harcourt: It isn't me or the party that I belong to that's forgotten our way; it's the Liberals who have lost their way. It's the Liberals who have forgotten the poorest, the young who need training, and workers who need to get new skills. That very clearly shows the different visions that are represented here in this Legislature.
My government -- my party -- which represents ordinary working people, has taken some real criticism from the opposition for the measures I've just described that we've introduced. The people in my riding are going to have a chance to judge my record. They did the last time and gave me 63 or 64 percent of the vote. I've been in nine elections. I have been evaluated and judged by citizens in Vancouver and in that riding, and I have been sent back every time to continue to work to make sure that ordinary working people and the poor in our society have social justice. They're sure as heck not getting it from provincial or federal Liberals. [Applause.]
The Chair: Order, members. I'm sure we all want to see an end to the debates. I ask members to restrain their exuberance.
V. Anderson: I'm sure the people who are watching tonight will appreciate and understand the supercilious comments that the leader has just put before them, so I don't really have to comment about that. They speak for themselves.
What I talk to the Premier about.... Perhaps I'll just make a passing comment. It seems in the last four weeks that the members of the government side have changed considerably their approach to governing in this province. Instead of telling us and discussing what is good for the people of the province, they find in almost every discussion that they want to give a negative presentation of truths which are not truths.
An Hon. Member: Is this a sermon?
V. Anderson: A sermon would be good for all of us -- no problem there.
An Hon. Member: Where's your conscience?
V. Anderson: My conscience is the worry about those people who keep saying half-truths to others, repeating continually things that we have not said. But people who tell mistruths will be seen for what they are. They will not be listened to even when they call the truth. Perhaps the members over there have forgotten the story of the boy who cried wolf, but maybe it would be well if they went back and read it again.
If the Premier was telling the truth about all the wonderful things they have done, then you would not find some 15 to 20 percent of the children of this province living in poverty. That's what this government is known for. It's this government that has had the power and the action, regardless of what we might be saying. It's this government that has had the opportunity to act, to make the decisions that have created the circumstances in which people live at this present time. It's this government....
[9:30]
The Chair: Member, I'm sorry. I must intervene. I have allowed both sides to articulate whatever is moving them at the moment, but we are not even close to estimates. We're making a travesty, frankly, of the process. I ask the member to please direct his questions and comments to a matter that properly belongs to the Premier's estimates. We are not going to allow a recanvassing of estimates debates that have already occurred and of bills and measures that have been voted on in this chamber. If I allow that, I am doing a disservice to every member of this chamber. I have been probably too generous in allowing the rules to be bent, but it's going to stop now.
[ Page 16490 ]
V. Anderson: I will respond to the Premier's comments. The Premier has made accusations against myself. I will defend myself against the accusations he made -- saying I was not concerned with the people and had undertaken actions which were contrary to the well-being of the people -- just so he could boost his own ego. Hon. Chair, you can defend the Premier at this point if you wish, but it's the Premier's own words which will come back to haunt him.
Point made, and I grant that, hon. Chair. What I'm raising is that the Premier is ultimately responsible for the well-being of, and the actions that affect, the people of this province. That's what we're talking about in these estimates; that's the Premier's estimates. He's responsible for the well-being of this province. If we're not able to make the Premier accountable for his words in his own presentation, then it's a sad day for democracy in this province. As the chief executive officer, the Premier is responsible for the actions of his people, his ministry and his government. All I'm trying to do is highlight in this House that the conditions of the people in this province that he says are wonderful are not wonderful for some 20 percent of the population, and the Premier needs to be honest about that. If he would come forth and admit this, and admit that the government is not perfect, then we could have an opportunity to deal with this honestly. I want the Premier to be honest and forthright with the people of this province, and realistically and honestly admit the mistakes: admit that people are living in poverty; admit that people are not being treated with dignity in the Social Services office; appreciate that when people come from Riverview Hospital they're not allowed to meet with the Premier's representatives. We need to acknowledge in public that these things are happening. I don't need to go any further, because by his own words, the Premier has condemned himself.
W. Hurd: I want to ask the Premier a brief series of questions about the Columbia Basin accord that he signed on behalf of the province when he was in the Kootenays.
Interjections.
W. Hurd: Evidently that line of questioning is very popular with other members of the House, so I'm confident that the Chair will rule it to be appropriately in order, even though some of these issues have been canvassed in the past.
This particular agreement that I'm holding was signed by the Premier of the province in the name of Her Majesty the Queen in right of the province of British Columbia. I wonder if the Premier, upon reflection, can advise the committee of his understanding of exactly what kind of agreement he signed on March 19, 1995.
Hon. M. Harcourt: This matter has been canvassed in the estimates of the Energy minister, in the estimates of the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro and in question period. These are exactly the same questions that were asked in those estimates and during question period. The member is fully aware that this has been canvassed in question period and in estimates. If he has some specific questions he'd like to ask, I will answer them briefly, but these have already been asked and answered.
W. Hurd: I appreciate the Premier's response, considering the lateness of the hour. But the press release dated March 19, 1995, announcing the Columbia Basin accord was issued by the office of the Premier. That certainly invites a series of questions as to why the Premier would see fit to make this announcement on letterhead out of the Premier's Office, would have signed a rather lengthy agreement that may or may not bind the province of British Columbia to expenditures of some $1 billion over ten years, and is now reluctant to answer any questions about the nature of the agreement and exactly what has been agreed upon. Maybe I can just back up, then, and ask the Premier why it was that on March 19, 1995, the decision was made by his government that the Premier's Office should be responsible for issuing the press release and for, I would assume, coordinating events for the community ceremony in the Kootenays.
Hon. M. Harcourt: The Premier makes a number of announcements that are then carried through by ministers of the Crown. The ministers of the Crown in this case are the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro. Detailed negotiations took place with those ministers and, in some cases, with the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. If the member has detailed questions, those are the appropriate ministers to ask.
I make a number of announcements on behalf of the government. The details of those announcements.... I've read through Hansard, and he has canvassed those many times before; he has canvassed them in question period.
W. Hurd: Again addressing the press release issued from the office of the Premier, a direct quote attributed to the Premier was: "The accord will be an unprecedented shift of power to the people of the region." I wonder if he could, to the best of his knowledge, advise the committee what was intended here in the press release and what he believes represents an unprecedented shift of power to the people of the region.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I won't spend a great deal of time on this, because I think the member can read the press release and the statements around it. But we believe in people having power, having the ability to affect their communities positively rather than negatively, as they were so badly affected in the Columbia Basin for so many years. This is a way of helping the people in the Kootenays have a far greater say about what happens in their economy and in environmental issues. It's very simple: we believe that people should have power to make decisions that affect their lives, and that's what this accord is all about.
W. Hurd: That's a lofty statement indeed, but it unfortunately doesn't jibe with the facts read into the record by his Minister of Employment and Investment. On April 19, 1995, he pointed out, during debate on the bill, that when the trust and the province enter into the formal written agreement, there is no obligation. The province and the trust intend to enter into a formal written agreement regarding the content of the memorandum. Until that agreement is signed, the advice is that there is no legal commitment to proceed with these power projects.
I wonder if the Premier can advise the committee whether he understood that at the time that he went to the Kootenays a month earlier and signed this lofty memorandum of understanding. It was not only signed by the Premier but
[ Page 16491 ]
also by the Columbia River Treaty Committee and the MLAs that represent the region of the Columbia River Basin. Was that his understanding of what he was signing: a Columbia Basin accord on behalf of Her Majesty that has no legally binding commitment? Was that his understanding at the time?
The Chair: The member for Surrey-White Rock.
W. Hurd: I could go on, I guess, with the minister's press release, which he issued from his office. There are certainly a number of issues that have been identified here with respect to this particular agreement, and I am rather surprised that the Premier is apparently unwilling to answer for those commitments.
Perhaps I could ask the Premier again, referring to the specific agreement that he signed: does he understand that the province and the trust are committed to invest $500 million over ten years to construct three hydroelectric projects? Is he aware of the rather negative reports on that investment by Peat Marwick, which was commissioned by the Ministry of Employment and Investment to look at this entire investment? I wonder if he is prepared to advise the committee whether, as Premier of the province, he has carefully reviewed the agreement that he signed on March 19 in the Kootenays. Is he totally comfortable that despite the disparaging review of the project investment by Peat Marwick, he's as confident now with respect to the viability of these projects as he was when he signed the agreement on March 19?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I will repeat: these same questions have been asked of the ministers who are responsible by the same member, and he has been given answers on these points previously.
W. Hurd: I can only deduce from the Premier's answers that neither the press release issued from his office on March 19, 1995, nor the agreement that he signed on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in right of the province of British Columbia really means too much. That's what I'm hearing the Premier say. Obviously the government thought it sufficient at that time to have the Premier fly up to this signing ceremony. I look at the memorandum of understanding, which reads: "...between Her Majesty the Queen in right of the province of British Columbia and the Columbia River Treaty Committee Inc...." I'm rather surprised at the choice of wording for an agreement that doesn't appear to have any legally binding significance.
I understand the Premier's reluctance to answer questions with respect to this matter. I'm somewhat surprised that the choice was made in March to have the Premier's Office issue the press release and have the Premier sign the agreement, and now that we have an opportunity to go through this agreement, it is -- as he has said -- a function for other ministers to answer for.
Perhaps I can then move on to another line of questioning, with respect to the liability and expropriation costs that are piling up in the province of British Columbia. The Premier will be aware that in the first year of his mandate, the government engaged the firm of Peat Marwick Thorne to look at the entire issue of the province's liability with respect to the expropriation of resource interests. I wonder if the Premier could tell us whether the Premier's Office has any role to play in cataloguing those liabilities. I'm thinking of the loss of the Geddes Resources proposal for the now-created Tatshenshini; the other one that comes to mind is the cancellation of the Kemano completion project. Does the Premier's Office have any responsibility for ensuring that these costs are appropriately catalogued and that the people of the province know how much of a liability is being built up on their behalf?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The answer is yes.
W. Hurd: I wonder if the Premier at this time would be prepared to advise the committee and share with the people of British Columbia to his best knowledge the extent of the liability for the province. I know that his Minister of Forests was quoted as saying that the adoption of the Vancouver Island land use plan might result in compensation costs in the range of $500 million. When we add the potential $1 billion for the creation of the Tatshenshini wilderness area plus the ongoing prospects for compensation on the Kemano completion project, I assume that we're looking at a substantial amount of money. I wonder if the Premier could advise the committee, to the best of his knowledge -- since he has acknowledged responsibility for some aspect of this -- what he believes the total figure will be.
[9:45]
Hon. M. Harcourt: The compensation figure for KCP is zero. The issue of Geddes and Windy Craggy is under active negotiation.
W. Hurd: I wonder if the Premier could tell us what kind of communication he has between his office and Treasury Board with respect to these compensation issues. I refer the Premier again to the findings of the Peat Marwick Thorne summary in 1991, which expressed grave concern about the building liability the province was experiencing with respect to expropriation costs. And, of course, this was before the land use decisions, before the creation of parks and wilderness areas and the alienation of mineral interests. I wonder if the Premier would commit in this set of estimates that he would endeavour to come up with a figure -- a realistic figure -- for the alienation of these interests and that he would share with British Columbians before his government goes to the polls.... Because I'm sure he agrees that that figure needs to be out there. Taxpayers of the province need to know what kind of liability they are experiencing. Would he be prepared to make that kind of commitment?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I just did. I just said that there is zero liability for KCP, negotiations are taking place with Geddes Resources, and the land use plans are proceeding to bring stability to this province, probably protecting significantly the markets of a number of our companies. Without those changes, there would have been a serious erosion of the market share in Europe and the United States in general for the forest companies in this province, and in particular on some of their key contracts -- for example, with the New York Times and with Pac Bell. So the opposite is happening. We're doing whole a lot for the companies that would have lost markets, by bringing these changes into effect in British Columbia.
W. Hurd: The Premier will be aware that his Minister of Forests did, or did not, advise the people of the province --
[ Page 16492 ]
nobody's too sure.... But he did suggest that the compensation figure for the Vancouver Island land use plan would be $500 million. I wonder if the Premier could -- since he's acknowledged that he does share some responsibility for cataloguing or itemizing these kinds of costs -- advise the committee of whether that, in his view, is a figure backed up by research or some sort of investment on the part of his ministry. Is that a figure that we can declare to be accurate -- the $500 million figure?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The Minister of Forests has already indicated that this figure is not accurate at all.
W. Hurd: Again I refer to a directive or press release from the office of the Premier, this time dated October 20, 1994, in which the headline is: "Premier..."-- I won't use the name -- "...Checks the Progress of the Vancouver Island Land Use Plan." It talks about the key elements and the visits he undertook. There's even a backgrounder attached to the press release, which was, of course authored by the former press secretary, Andy Orr.
I just wondered whether the Premier, during the course of that tour, talked about the compensation issue at all. Did he advise the communities or the people of the province that there would be compensation due? If it isn't $500 million, does he have any figure that he can offer the committee? The Minister of Forests suggested early in the debate that in fact $500 million wasn't too far off the mark. But if he has now backed away from that, then clearly there's a void here that I'm sure the Premier would welcome the opportunity to fill. I wonder -- since he does have some responsibility for "checking the progress" of the Vancouver Island land use plan as late as October 20, 1994 -- whether he can take some time to share with the committee what his information is and what figure he has with respect to what the province can be expected to pay for the alienation of those resource interests on Vancouver Island.
Hon. M. Harcourt: The member had a chance to canvass those questions and that information in the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, of the Attorney General and of other ministers who are responsible for these areas. I'm surprised he hasn't done that already, but that's where that work should have taken place.
W. Hurd: I've just been advised that in canvassing the estimates debate for the last fiscal year, the Premier made a commitment to this side of the House that those figures would be available. I invite the Premier to possibly revisit the Hansard record of that debate. As I recall, he promised to release studies on the full impacts of land use plans in the province -- the potential job losses and impacts on communities, but more importantly the expropriation costs, which Peat Marwick Thorne, a respected accounting firm hired by his government in 1991, identified as one of the key, looming economic liabilities being faced by British Columbia.
So I wonder, in light of the commitment he made a year ago, whether the Premier would at least acknowledge to the committee that he will either share that information he's had a year to prepare or make a commitment to share it with the opposition and the people of the province in the very near future.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I just did.
W. Hurd: And he did last year. He did a year ago, in this very chamber. It's recorded in the pages of Hansard that that's the commitment he made. You know, I wonder whether the political troubles of the government are in same way related to commitments that he makes elsewhere in the province and doesn't follow up on within a year. I wonder if I can go back to a commitment the Premier made with respect to the sustainability harvest level in Clayoquot Sound when he participated in an announcement of the land use plan in Clayoquot Sound. I understand that he made a commitment of a harvest level of 600,000 cubic metres in Clayoquot Sound. That's on record as well.
The Chair: Excuse me, member. I think you just crossed the line. You're now dealing directly with Ministry of Forests material. That has no connection whatsoever with the Premier's Office and the expenditures of that office, and therefore that line of questioning is out of order.
W. Hurd: The press release from the Premier's Office indicates that he was "checking the progress of the Vancouver Island land use plan." Did his check of the progress of the plan in any way entail a review of the sustainable levels of harvest in Clayoquot Sound?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I can report that the progress of the Vancouver Island land use plan is excellent.
Hon. A. Petter: You canvassed this during Forests debate.
W. Hurd: I'm being advised by the Minister of Forests that we canvassed it during Forests debate, and I'm glad that he's here. Maybe he can clear up the discrepancy between the compensation figure that he offered for the adoption of the plan -- $500 million -- and the Premier's figure, which we don't have yet. Maybe this is an appropriate time to ask the Minister of Forests whether he knows what the compensation figure is. During this estimates debate we've already identified that the Premier does have some responsibility for cataloguing those expropriation costs. He's acknowledged that, but figures are hard to come by. As has become the pattern in this chamber, when questions are asked of the Premier the ministers answer anyway. I wonder if the Minister of Forests would be prepared to share with the committee on behalf of the Premier....
The Chair: I'm sorry, member. This is quite out of order, and you know it is quite out of order. Please don't provoke; don't push the envelope.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'll take a slightly different tack with the Premier, if I may. I'm sure we can get back to this a little later, because I know there are still some unanswered questions with regard to the forestry issue. I want to ask the Premier about some curious things that have been taking place in his office over the last number of months which are of very great concern to a number of people, certainly to the opposition and certain people in the public. I'd like to start, if I may, with.... I realize this issue was touched on briefly, but I'd like to pursue it on a slightly different tack.
The issue of Mr. Gardiner's role with the Premier's planning committee of cabinet that he's set up I find somewhat
[ Page 16493 ]
perplexing. Brian Gardiner, it appears, has been playing a role with this ad hoc political committee that the Premier has set up. Can the Premier tell me if Mr. Gardiner regularly attends these meetings and, whether he does or not, how often these meetings normally happen? Is it something that goes on once a week, regularly scheduled? Is it once a month? Does it meet on an ad hoc basis or on a regular basis? And how often is Mr. Gardiner present at those meetings?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I have answered this question a number of times. I have said that the committee meets regularly. Mr. Gardiner attends on occasion.
G. Farrell-Collins: I think these are important questions, and I'm just trying to get the context set up, if I can, because I have some specific issues I want to canvass with the Premier on this. From the documents that we have seen coming out of that committee, it appears that Mr. Gardiner plays a fairly active role in policy and platform development in the direction of the committee. It is the chief political planning group of the government. The Gang of Six sits on it, amongst a couple of others. I believe the New Democrat caucus chair sits on that committee also.
But it seems to me that in the documents, in particular the memo that became public a couple of weeks ago from U.TV, there seemed to be a fairly solid rapport between the new principal secretary to the Premier and Mr. Gardiner and some fairly clear directions being given by Mr. Gardiner to the principal secretary to the Premier. I'm wondering what the role is there. What role does Mr. Gardiner play on that committee, and how closely are the functions of the party and the planning committee integrated, on an ongoing basis?
Hon. M. Harcourt: This is a cabinet committee, so I'm not going to go into the details of what is discussed at that cabinet committee. I have said that the committee meets regularly, and Mr. Gardiner, on occasion, attends meetings on a specific item.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm a little unclear. My understanding of the Premier's comments.... I was actually at the scrum, I believe, when he commented that this wasn't a cabinet committee as such, but that it was more of an ad hoc political group that he'd put together. Can the Premier tell me if it is a cabinet committee or not? I'd like that distinction. Maybe we can solve once and for all right now whether it is an official committee of cabinet or an ad hoc grouping of people who sit on cabinet but play this other role as a political advisory council, or however you want to term it. Just so I'm clear what the role of that committee is.
Hon. M. Harcourt: The member will probably remember, because he's an astute member of this Liberal caucus, that I said there were two standing committees of cabinet -- Treasury Board and Planning Board -- and that the government priorities committee has been in existence for quite awhile and deals with the priorities of government. It is a committee of cabinet to which people are invited from time to time for a specific item. Mr. Gardiner has been at meetings on occasion.
G. Farrell-Collins: I just want to clear this up, because the Premier used two different words. I am sincere in asking this. He said that there is a planning board, and then he talked about a government priorities committee. Are those the same thing, or is one a subgroup of another? Can he explain the difference between those two for me?
Hon. M. Harcourt: There are two standing committees of cabinet. One is Treasury Board, which deals with.... I think the member is aware of what treasury boards are; they have them in every government. The other is Planning Board, which again deals with policy issues. Then there is a government priorities committee, which every government has.
G. Farrell-Collins: So there are, in fact, three committees of cabinet. Is the government priorities committee a committee of cabinet? Initially, the Premier said there were two, and now he has identified three for me. Are there two or three? If there are three, is he saying that the government priorities committee is one of those three committees of cabinet?
Hon. M. Harcourt: There are three committees. Two are standing committees; they are regular committees. The third one is an ad hoc committee that I have had in existence and that every government has in existence in one form or another.
G. Farrell-Collins: I appreciate the clarification. It's not an area I've had an opportunity to participate in. I hope to. But now I see what the Premier is talking about, and that clears it up for me to a certain extent. This government priorities committee.... Mr. Gardiner sits on that committee. Or he attends the committee.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Okay, he attends the committee on occasion. Are there others who attend that committee on occasion?
[10:00]
Hon. M. Harcourt: There are some staff, who, depending on the issue, are invited to come and make presentations or answer questions.
G. Farrell-Collins: Are those government staff, ministerial staff, Premier's staff or party staff? Are there any other party people who would occasionally attend that committee meeting? Or is Mr. Gardiner strictly the only non-governmental person who would attend that committee meeting?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Those are government staff, ministerial staff and Mr. Gardiner. That doesn't exclude other people who could attend, but he is the only one who has attended that committee on a few occasions.
G. Farrell-Collins: Just to clarify, the Premier is saying that Mr. Gardiner is the only one who has attended that committee aside from cabinet ministers, political staff, ministerial staff -- those government people. But that doesn't preclude others from attending should they be called upon.
Hon. M. Harcourt: That is correct.
[ Page 16494 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: Can the Premier tell me if any members of organized labour have ever attended any of those meetings of the government priorities committee? Has anyone else from the, guess, more partisan side of the government?
Hon. M. Harcourt: No. I'm sure the Liberal Party has an election planning committee, and that is where those kinds of discussions take place.
G. Farrell-Collins: We do have an election planning committee, but it is not a committee of caucus; it's a party committee. I guess that is where we are a little different. I don't know that that is the role for them.
If I may, I want to get into the memo a little bit that Mr. Gardiner sent to Mr. Walsh -- it runs three pages or so -- because it is enlightening. From our point of view it was enlightening, and it was interesting to see. I won't comment on the status of the election readiness of the New Democratic Party as reflected by that memo, but I do want to ask a couple of questions.
Mr. Gardiner raised a couple of interesting issues and cautions to the government that should be of concern to the Premier and certainly to the public as a whole, particularly as it relates to health care. Mr. Gardiner stated in the memo: "We have to be aware of the multitude of local problems that can offset any possible gains on this issue." He was talking about health care.
Can the Premier tell me if he is aware of what the multitude of local problems are with regard to health care? I know that we've been raising the multitude of local problems that we have seen in health care day after day in this Legislature all this session -- in fact, last session, too. I'm curious if the Premier is aware of those, because the minister has been denying them, time after time. If that is what this committee is doing, and if this committee is looking at those types of things in a political context -- this committee of cabinet that the Premier is involved in -- can he tell me what those looming liabilities are at the local level in health care?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Just to make it clear, the government priorities committee is not an election planning committee; there is a separate election planning committee. It is separate from the government in every way. It is a party committee, just as the Liberal Party has an election planning committee. On that committee is the president of the New Democratic Party, as would be the president of the Liberal Party; and there is the provincial secretary, or the equivalent in the Liberal Party. It is a separate and distinct operation that is not involved with the government.
On the question of election readiness, as the provincial secretary of the NDP pointed out, there's lots of work to be done. I'm sure the Opposition House Leader would agree, from the memos coming out of the Liberal Party, that a number of ridings in the Liberal Party -- Surrey-Cloverdale and others -- had some pretty scathing criticisms of the state of their readiness, the state of their ridings, the state of their membership and the lack of a relationship between the member and his constituents. These frank assessments are done from time to time. They do come out and cause a kerfuffle amongst everybody as they look for where a memo came from and who did it, and they try to explain it away. These things happen in politics.
The question of health care and some of the issues in that huge $6.5 billion system.... These things are all part of the growing pains that we are going through as we bring in the very, very large changes that came out of the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs, which led to community health boards, community health councils, Closer to Home, the health accord and shifting people out of the acute care hospitals. We are facing very serious problems because of the previous Conservative government's and now the Liberal government's cuts to health care for British Columbians, which are affecting the funding for health care and will affect it even more so in the future. Those are the sorts of issues that arise in a huge system going through change.
The Chair: As the Chair of committee, I'm having some real struggles, I must confess. It's very debatable, first, whether the activities of this committee fall properly under the Premier's estimates, and it's absolutely crystal-clear that health issues do not fall under the Premier's estimates. We have already had Ministry of Health estimates to some great length. I therefore must offer that caution both to the member asking questions and to the Premier in answering questions, because we are frankly out of order.
G. Farrell-Collins: I don't want to argue that point. I accept the criticism, although I don't know how we could possibly question the activities of that committee under any other ministry than the Premier's. Clearly it's a committee that he struck; it's a committee that's representative of the executive council almost exclusively -- with the exception of Mr. Gardiner and staff who are brought in. So if I step out of line here, I would seek the Chair's guidance on how one could possibly canvass this issue without doing it under the estimates of the Premier. I want to stick to that, and I might also mention that it wasn't me who raised the issue of election readiness, it was the Premier. I realize that caution went to both of us, but....
The questions with regard to health care were strictly in the very, very narrow sense of the warning that was issued by a member of this committee to the principal secretary and the Premier, and in that context I think they're worth noting. Anytime a warning of what's taking place in a ministry comes directly to the principal secretary of the Premier, I assume it's a serious recommendation drawing attention to that issue. I'm concerned, and that's why I asked the Premier the question. If there's something that rises to this level, I think it's important that it be canvassed at this level.
I would concur with the Premier -- perhaps a little more strenuously, though -- that there are indeed significant problems with the transition to the different style of health care that the government is bringing forward, and that the Premier talks about to a great extent, to the point where I would.... Well, I don't want to get into the issue, so I'll offer this sentence only. I would tend to agree very strongly with our critic and with the leader, who said that we probably should have started with some pilot projects. I do know that there are some jurisdictions where they have been moderately successful. It probably would have been best to take our time in moving into this transition, rather than heading into it as directly as we did.
I take the Premier's comments at their value: there are significant problems with this transition, and there are communities that are having a difficult time making that transi-
[ Page 16495 ]
tion. As a result, the perception of eroding quality of care is a realistic perception of the public. It's certainly been a realistic perception that I've had in my experiences with the health care system. It's still good, but it is eroding. The quality isn't there that was there before -- the quality of service, anyway.
I want to move on if I can a little bit more to the, I suppose, partisan nature of the memo, which is what gave me the greatest concern. It was the line in the memo that states.... It's talking about advertising; it's talking about strategy; it's talking about the messaging of the government, and how they're going to communicate the vision of the government to the public. Certainly that's something coordinated through the Premier's Office on an ongoing basis. The advice comes from the party wing to the principal secretary and the Premier in the form of this statement: "An integrated campaign between the party and the government must be part of this plan." I assume that the plan is to market what the government is trying to sell the public.
Can the Premier tell me what this integrated plan is, or how this integrated plan is to work? What role is the government going to have in this integrated plan, and what is the party's role going to be? How is this plan going to be integrated, seamless and linked? Those are the key words that he used earlier this evening. Can the Premier tell me how that plan is coming together and what roles there are between the party and government? Obviously those two must be kept quite separate. Given the comments in the memo, I'm concerned that due to lack of attention, or perhaps to direct and deliberate intent, they may in fact be mingling those two, and I think that would be a concern to the people who are paying the bills.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm pleased that the opposition leader is going to send the complete documents for the Liberal election strategy. I look forward to receiving those documents and to reading them.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I make the same offer.
A. Warnke: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
A. Warnke: I just noticed very good friends of mine who have come all the way from Nanaimo -- riveted, no doubt, by the tremendous debate that's taking place. I would ask the House to please welcome Barry and Janice Kroening from Nanaimo.
G. Farrell-Collins: I want to advise the Premier that I was in no way expecting him to give me the NDP election strategy, because from the memo it appears that it's not ready yet.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: It is? Well, then it was developed in haste. I do want to ask the Premier about not necessarily the party side.... I do want to ask the Premier, though, about the government side, because we have also been privy over the last little while to a fairly exhaustive communications strategy plan that was put together by the Premier's Office and a couple of the other ministries that itemized some strategies that the government may be following. I believe it was Skills Now, B.C. 21....
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: And Forest Renewal B.C. Thank you. The Premier has itemized the three main ones for me.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: That's right. The Premier is holding up his booklet -- "Investing in B.C.: A Plan for the Future," I think it's called.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: "Investing in Our Future: A Plan for B.C." I hear the acronym is a mouthful. That document, I suppose, is probably worth about as much as the one that the government put forward in 1991, which has been violated and discredited through the government's actions since 1991. The Premier will probably disagree with me on that, but I think the public would generally support my view. I suppose that some of the Premier's standing in the polls is a reflection of that. Can the Premier tell me if that's the extent of the campaign that Mr. Gardiner was directing the government on? Is it this "Investing in Our Future: A Plan for B.C."? Is that the integrated, linked plan that the executive secretary of the party is alluding to in that document?
[D. Schreck in the chair.]
Hon. M. Harcourt: The party, if they're going to be involved in partisan advertising, will do so as part of the pre-election strategy. The government is very proud.... I'm very proud of the Skills Now program. I'm very proud of B.C. 21. I'm very proud of the forest renewal plan, and of the fiscal plan we have for the province. These have all come from the Premier's summits, the Premier's forums and the land use plans. They have come from the involvement of thousands and thousands of British Columbians who have quite different politics. I don't believe that Jake Kerr, Ken Georgetti and Gerry Stoney come from the same politics, but they sat down and worked together to put the forest renewal plan together.
That's what this plan is based on. This is not based on any NDP election campaign at all. It's based on British Columbians getting together and, for the first time in our history, leaving our ideological hats at the door and coming in as business leaders, labour leaders, educational leaders, government leaders, environmental leaders and community leaders to talk about what's in the best interest of British Columbia, and that's what this plan is all about. I think it's a very proud accomplishment to be able to get British Columbians to sit down and talk about B.C. -- not from a political angle or to grind a political axe, but just to talk about what's in the best interest of British Columbia.
[10:15]
These programs are good government programs. They come from the people of British Columbia, who represent quite a diverse set of constituencies and political beliefs. That
[ Page 16496 ]
is quite separate from any partisan advertising that would come out of the pre-election activities and the election activities of the New Democratic Party of British Columbia.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'll take the Premier at his word that this is going to be completely separate from what the party does. I would ask the Premier, then, if he can provide us with some enlightenment as to what Mr. Gardiner was specifically speaking about when he talked about an integrated campaign between the party and the government. Can you tell me what that's about? I know he can't tell me what the party is planning for the election, but can he tell me what the government component of that integrated plan is? I'd be thrilled to know what the government portion of that integrated party-government plan is.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I just did. I said that the initiatives that came out of the various summits and land use plans.... B.C. 21 and the coordination of government investments in B.C.'s infrastructure and land and people came out of the first summit at Pearson College. The second summit on skills training at BCIT created the Skills Now program. Educators, labour leaders and business executives from all over British Columbia saw that need to match the marketplace for the skills and have the training in place. So that is where these initiatives from the government came from.
The forest renewal plan was an initiative voluntarily put together by the forest industry, who invest $2 billion back into the forest industry. That was their choice. Forest leaders came here and praised the plan. We were the first government to take a long-term perspective on the forest industry, and we brought in legislation based on the forest industry wanting to see the forest renewal plan in legislation. That stumpage was directed back into the industry -- back into the communities that created it.
The fiscal plan to get rid of the deficit was a commitment that I made and kept. The fiscal plan to have a debt management plan came from business, labour and other leaders. We toughened that plan, and it's part of our plan for the province that any of these investments in our people, infrastructure and natural resources would be affordable investments. So in that sense they are a seamless web; they are integrated and linked.
G. Farrell-Collins: I would like to set the record straight, because it's been said a couple of times today that the Premier has balanced the budget. I would advise him that he hasn't balanced the budget. He is $250 million short on the revenue side, which puts him at least $114 million short in total, not to mention some of the accounting issues which various analysts have had a bit of a problem with. So I just want to set the record straight: the budget isn't balanced yet, unless the Premier is planning on making substantial cuts to spending in the next little while. Until he has announced those cuts, he should refrain from telling people the budget is balanced, because it isn't. I'll leave it at that and move on. But I just want to caution the Premier on that before he gets himself too far down that road.
The concern I had with this is that the Premier tells me that.... Mr. Gardiner says that there's going to be an integrated plan between government and the party. The Premier tells me that the two aren't working together; the party will do its own thing, and the government will do its thing. Then he tells me that the government's portion of that integrated plan is the document on planning for our future. Given that sort of diversity of answers, I'll fall on the side of stating that in fact there is an integrated plan in the works, that this is part of it, and that the government is paying for this package -- the taxpayers are going to be paying for this package -- and that the party is somehow going to develop another plan which dovetails with it so that the messages that come from what the government is doing and what the party is doing are virtually identical, or pretty close to identical. We'll see what happens come the election.
I want to move on, just briefly, with that theme in mind. Mr. Gardiner talks about a suggestion that the party and the government integrate their functions during an election. Can the Premier tell me if he feels that that's appropriate? I don't want to get into the substance of the act, because it's still before the House, but the Election Act is very restrictive on third-party advertising during an election campaign. In other jurisdictions they have been cautious to state that government advertising should not take place during an election campaign. But once the election campaign starts....
The Chair: Order, hon. member. It is clearly contrary to the standing orders to deal with matters that are before the House. This line of questioning is clearly in contravention of that order.
G. Farrell-Collins: Then I'll just ask the question directly: does the Premier feel that it is appropriate for a government -- any government -- to expend millions of dollars' worth of advertising in the lead-up to and during a writ period? Is that something that he is comfortable with as Premier? It looks as though there is an integrated advertising plan set up here between the government and the party that would result in extensive government- and therefore taxpayer-supported advertising in the lead-up to an election and, I suspect, during the writ period itself.
Can the Premier tell me if he is comfortable with that, or if he has any sort of moral objection to that type of government advertising being used that way? In the past, according to comments of his I've read a number of times in the media, from the lead-up to the 1991 election, which was -- as the Premier knows, because he was on this side of the House -- an extremely protracted lead-up to an election.... It went on for some 18 months, I believe. Certainly I was nominated 18 months before, and I know the NDP were probably getting ready before that. So there is that lead-up to an election when government advertising can take place. In the past the Premier has been very concerned and very vocal and adamant about his moral objection to that type of taxpayer-supported advertising taking place. Can he tell me if he still holds those beliefs and how he feels about an integrated party-government plan taking place during the lead-up to an election?
Hon. M. Harcourt: On the question of whether we have a surplus or a deficit, I say "O ye of little faith" to the hon. member, because....
An Hon. Member: I've been here long enough....
Hon. M. Harcourt: Well, if you had, you would see that in the last three budgets before this one we exceeded the
[ Page 16497 ]
budget targets. We were right on our spending estimates, and our revenues exceeded the estimates that we originally had. So we have not only met but exceeded our goals in the last three budgets; that's three for three. And I anticipate that through cuts and other measures we are going to be able to do just that: maintain our goal, as we have in the previous three budgets. And our goal is to have a surplus in this fiscal year.
In regard to whether, as Premier, I am proud that we're putting out public information about where they can upgrade their skills, where our workers can get new training when industries change or industry goes down in their community, and whether I want British Columbians to see how our investments in the Vancouver Island Highway, the new ferries we're building and the new Duke Point terminal fit into the plan for Vancouver Island.... One thousand people are working this summer on the Island Highway, 94 percent of them local people.
I think the taxpayers are entitled to know about the benefits back from the proper and shrewd, sound investments into British Columbia in that program. I think it's important that British Columbians know that the accusations I've just read about from some of the United States environmental groups, that Clayoquot is scalped and our forests are falling apart.... Our citizens don't have to believe that nonsense. They can get accurate information about how we're restoring and renewing our forests, with $400 million a year going into fixing some of the erosion, some of the old logging roads and all of the other errors of the past. I think it's important that our citizens be informed of this very bold, cooperative initiative.
I think it's important that our citizens know that we've met our deficit reduction and elimination targets and our surplus targets, that we have a debt management plan that is going to keep B.C. with the lowest per capita debt and the best credit rating in the country, and that this is all part of a plan.
I think it would be irresponsible of me as Premier not to be able to communicate these initiatives to British Columbians. That is what the very modest advertising budget that we have put forward, which is far less than the previous government's and is based on a merit system, which the industry itself says is the fairest advertising approach that they have seen in recent history..... As Premier, of course I'm going to make sure that our citizens are informed of these very innovative and, in some cases, world-leading innovations here in British Columbia, whether it's Skills Now, forest renewal or B.C. 21....
If the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove is astonished or surprised that the political party I belong to is going to be proud of the accomplishments of this government and want to tell New Democrats and have the New Democratic Party be proud of those accomplishments, and if the member is surprised that we happen to share the same values and commitment to these kinds of initiatives and want to talk about them as a political party, then I can handle that accusation anytime. The party that I happen to lead is proud of government and of our accomplishments. They want to talk about them.
They're going to put out money from our members to talk about these accomplishments and the fact that we have probably realized, of the 48-point platform we put out last time.... One of the criticisms of us is that we've realized 52 of those 48 points -- that in some cases we tried to do too much, were too active, weren't focused enough and had so much to do that we actually did 52 of the 48 points. So I disagree with you, hon. member. I don't think we've broken the commitments we made to the people of British Columbia in the last election. We've kept those commitments.
We have developed, with thousands of British Columbians, a plan to take us well into the future over the next many decades -- the second plan ever that this province has had, the second since 1943-44. This government is proud of our achievements. We think the people of British Columbia should know about them, participate in them and benefit from them. And that's how you do it: through government advertising and information programs, to make people aware of them.
For our party to say we're proud of and want to talk about those accomplishments -- I don't know why that should come as a shock and surprise to a seasoned politician like the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.
G. Farrell-Collins: I hope that if I ever get seasoned, I'm smart enough to get out of this business. I don't plan on being in it that long.
I want to come back to some of the Premier's comments. I didn't really bring up the budget and don't want to end up in a budget debate, but I will respond to the Premier's comments that the budgets for the last number of years have been on target and that revenues have actually exceeded projections. That may well be. But I should also advise the Premier that the economy is not looking quite as good as perhaps it was a year ago, and that there are possibilities that the revenue may be a problem.
Again, I just want to caution the Premier not to make the comments that the budget is balanced until it is. If he's going to say the budget is balanced, then he should tell us how it's balanced. He should announce those cuts to spending and announce those revised revenue projections, to tell us exactly how he intends to do that. Otherwise, he should refrain from saying the budget is balanced. Either tell us how you're going to do it, or don't tell us it's done. That was the only caution I extended to the Premier. I suggest that he follow it.
The Premier suggests that somehow I should be.... He's surprised that I would be shocked that the government would want to advertise its good record. Well, I'm no more shocked and outraged than he was as Leader of the Opposition, when the Social Credit government did exactly the type of underhanded.... I guess I don't want to be too strong in my words. Let me put it this way: politically motivated government advertising. He talks about job creation. He talks about spending on highway construction and that it's important that the public knows it is happening. Well, the Socreds did the same thing. They ran ads -- they had the minister's face on them.
[10:30]
I've noticed, as this government progresses, that there are more and more ministers' faces on more and more things. The Minister of Employment and Investment is perhaps the best example of that, although I notice that the former Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks made a bit of a debut today in the House with trading cards. There's been a whole growth industry in trinkets -- sweatshirts, ashtrays, postcards, whatever you want to call it -- coming out of the various ministries, which are informing British Columbians in such a meaningful way of the types of things they're doing. I see the Premier is checking with the minister to the extent of some of that advertising he's done. Perhaps I can get him copies and....
[ Page 16498 ]
An Hon. Member: There are no ashtrays.
G. Farrell-Collins: No ashtrays? Well, I guess it would be politically incorrect to have an ashtray, but I'm sure that virtually every other household appliance and trinket has been produced, whether it's key chains, watch fobs or whatever you want; I'm sure they're out there. I've certainly seen the T-shirts.
I guess it's that old-style, distasteful type of politics where the taxpayers pay for that stuff that the public didn't expect to get from this government. They expected something better. Certainly that was the impression they were left with, given the outrage expressed by the Premier time after time, in and outside this Legislature. I've read the clips, and I've read Hansard, and I can't believe it's the same person who was on this side of the House a short three and a half years ago. I wonder what happened on the road to Damascus -- or on the road to Courtenay, if you want to call it that, the Island Highway.
Something happened somewhere, and I guess what happened is that he ended up at about the same position in the polls where the Socreds ended up. He found that the only way to get out of that situation was to desperately spend taxpayers' money -- millions of dollars -- on politically motivated advertising campaigns, link it with the party plan, and have the sort of sleazy, slimy, negative type of objectional advertising that the Socreds engaged in. If the Premier's telling me he's proud of that, then that's fine. We'll just have him on record, and we'll be able to compare that during the next election. People will be able to see just how far along that road the Premier has fallen. If he's proud of that, then that's fine. I guess there's been a change in the attitude and the compass that guides the Premier over the last little while, and that's fine.
But I want to come back to the Premier's 48 points. He says, if anything, he's been criticized for probably doing too much. I would criticize the Premier for doing too much. I'd criticize him for doing too much as far as Dick Gathercole's $400,000 for two years' work goes, not including his -- I've calculated it roughly in my head -- deputy minister's option to purchase up around a seven-year pension for two years' work. I don't know what that is going to cost the taxpayers in total. Mr. Eliesen, who was hired as the Mario Lemieux of B.C. Hydro at $195,000 a year, if you can believe it, lasted two years and had to be fired by the next minister responsible for B.C. Hydro. He took with him a substantial multimillion-dollar pension to his new company, where he's still being paid by the taxpayers. If we talk about.... Gee, I could go on and on here about the types of appointments that we've seen: Mr. Bulmer, who was appointed by the former, former Minister of Government Services under this government to head up the B.C. Systems Corporation, and he had to be removed from that. There is a whole range of these types of appointments the government has made at the senior levels.
And sure, they've brought in a few token people here and there to try to make it look like they have a broad representation of British Columbians. I do want to give the Premier credit for having a substantial portion -- virtually 50 percent -- of the boards and commissions being women and having tried to represent a number of multicultural communities. But I would suggest that in dipping into those communities to fill those positions on the boards, he's consistently chosen New Democrat supporters and given them rather good packages, severances and pensions, and that it's been the public that has suffered because of that.
Again, I suppose that somewhere along the road to Damascus the Premier changed his mind and changed his morals and decided that despite his opposition, time after time, in the House and despite his indignant outrage at the compensation, for example, that Mr. Poole got.... I was a fairly keen observer of politics at that time. I remember the Premier standing in this House and outside the House ranting and raving about the severance package given to Mr. Poole, which totalled some $100,000, when he was kicked out of the Premier's Office. Yet when Dick Gathercole gets kicked out, he gets $130,000 and a pension, and the Premier says that's okay. It's okay because the Socreds did it; the former Socred member who's now the leader of the Reform Party did it.
I have to ask myself what's happened to the Premier over the last three and a half years. Is there something that infects that corner of the chamber? Is it something that...?
I see the former Minister of Environment nodding his head, and I know that he certainly succumbed to that virus almost immediately after assuming office, but I was surprised to see that the Premier succumbed so quickly. What is it about being in the Premier's Office that has caused the amazing likeness between the policies of the former Premier and of the current Premier to appear? What is it that has caused that to happen?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Did I hear right that the House Leader of the official opposition was comparing me to Bill Vander Zalm -- comparing me to the mayoralty candidate that the Leader of the Opposition nominated to run in Vancouver? I find that astonishing. Here's a man who left office in disgrace and who was found to have abused his office and to have been in conflict, and all the opposition has done is make accusations against me that have proven to be totally groundless.
They are prepared to trash people's reputations and, even after they have been cleared, to continue to talk about scandals and abuse of office. I think that is what this opposition is going to remembered for. They are going to be remembered for the approach they have taken in opposition, because people would fear very much the kind of government they would be if -- God help British Columbia -- they ever got into government.
The Chair: Before recognizing the hon. member, the Chair would advise all members that as fascinating as these broad philosophical discussions are at this late hour, the Chair would appreciate it if members could occasionally attempt to relate the discussion to the estimates that are before us.
G. Farrell-Collins: Indeed I am, and indeed I am trying to understand the advertising strategy of the government and to what extent it is motivated by politics -- and partisan politics at that -- and to what extent it is motivated by a need to inform the public. The comparison between the Premier and Bill Vander Zalm, one of our former Premiers, was made. It wasn't with pleasure that I made that comparison but rather with a view to reality. I don't intend to accuse the current
[ Page 16499 ]
Premier of the types of wrongdoings that extended to a conflict-of-interest finding, I believe it was, against the former Premier.
I'm certainly not saying that the Premier has done that, but he hasn't really raised himself above the former Premier as it relates to patronage and to making sure that the good friends of the Premier and the government get good payoffs. That is where I raise that question. It was in a very specific example. I compared the severance package and pension given to Dick Gathercole, in this case, to the severance package that was given to Mr. Poole when he left, and the moral outrage that was expressed.... Mr. Poole got $100,000 and Mr. Gathercole got $130,000 in addition to a deputy minister's rated pension. So I'm comparing those two and I'm asking myself what happened to the Premier in the intervening period between when he was outraged to the extent that he was at Mr. Poole's severance package and the stage he was at yesterday and today, when he was proud of the severance and pension package that the Premier gave to Mr. Gathercole. I'm having difficulty comparing those two and understanding the Premier's motivation of three years ago and his motivation today. Perhaps the Premier can tell me what has happened to him as a Premier in the last three and a half years that's led him to believe that his actions today are responsible, yet the actions of a previous Premier were not.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I have just discovered that the Liberal policy is that there will no severance paid to civil servants who are terminated or whose jobs are made redundant. That's basically what the House Leader of the opposition has just said.
Interjection.
Hon. M. Harcourt: That's exactly what he just said. And to compare.... He hasn't done his homework. If he had looked at Mr. Poole's circumstances and the reason we were outraged, he would see that it was an outrageous settlement. There was no basis for it. The back credit that he got for past activities had very little to do with provincial government activity. Because of that, Mr. Justice Nemetz was appointed to bring in a proper severance policy. That policy was adopted by the government and agreed to by ourselves when we were in opposition. I want the member to know that in this figure of $400,000 that Mr. Gathercole's is alleged to have received, two of those years were for working for the people of British Columbia and part of it was severance.
The member would have paid no severance; that's what he's really saying. We should not have followed the government policy that is accorded to a deputy minister in the government. We should break the law, not pay severance, and then that deputy would sue. He would be able to hold us to the five-year contract that he was on and collect far more money from the taxpayers. So what we have from the Liberal House Leader is: (a) if people are fired, they don't pay any severance to them.... They'd have problems with that in court. They'd get laughed out of court and pay a lot of money in lawyers' fees to maintain that position, I assure you. Or they would just pay out the five years, rather than negotiate a more prudent severance package according to the policy of the government that came out of our criticisms of the Poole package. That was changed. The government severance policy was changed as a result of Mr. Justice Nemetz's recommendation.
The member hasn't done his homework; he hasn't sorted out the difference between the two. In this case it was the proper policy and the prudent way to settle it, rather than go to court and get dinged for more dollars.
G. Farrell-Collins: The Premier alleges that I haven't done my homework. Without being offensive to the Premier, I want to caution him on that. I would suggest that there are some areas of his own government that perhaps the Premier isn't aware of that I can enlighten him on.
The issue of firing somebody without severance for either a just or an unjust reason is yet to be determined; it is currently before the courts in the case of Dixon v. B.C. Transit. While I don't want to comment on that, I would suggest that the Premier be cautious in his comments with regard to pending court action that could happen as a result of firings. If the Premier's not aware of that, I'm sure the Minister of Employment and Investment will brief him on that ongoing court case.
As far as the pension goes, the comment about Mr. Poole getting recognition for past activities applies to many of the patronage appointments that have been made by this government. It's true, Mr. Chair. The fact is that the deputy ministers' pension plan exists for a number of people. I know it exists for people at the Workers' Compensation Board, where they can buy pension time for past work that's even outside of government.
Hon. G. Clark: No.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister says no. I know of a couple instances where it's happened.
Hon. G. Clark: Not since we've been in office.
G. Farrell-Collins: We'll see. If I'm proven to be wrong, then I'll accept that, but I've yet to see that.
I want the Premier to be cautious in that area. I think that the list of patronage that's gone on under this government is not a record that the Premier should be proud of. It's certainly not a record that I think he's looking forward to going to the polls with, but anyway, it's an issue that will certainly take place then. I should probably leave it there, because it wasn't the intent of the line of questioning I got into. I was talking about government advertising during an election campaign on a theoretical basis and whether or not the Premier agreed with it, and unfortunately we ended up in a bit of a segue.
One of the other things that came up in the memo that Mr. Gardiner brought to the attention of the principal secretary to the Premier was.... It said: "We must also find new vehicles for getting our message out about" -- I might interject in there "imagined" -- "sleazy connections and castoffs in the Reform Party." Why would the head of the party be advising the principal secretary to the Premier about those types of things? Is that something that the principal secretary to the Premier is engaged in? Is he engaged in finding new vehicles for getting the message out about imagined sleazy connections and castoffs in the Reform Party? What role does the principal secretary to the Premier play in that regard?
[10:45]
[ Page 16500 ]
Hon. M. Harcourt: The principal secretary didn't write the memo. If the member wants an answer to that, I'm sure Mr. Gardiner would be delighted if he phoned him up and asked him.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'll yield, hon. Chair.
W. Hurd: I just want to engage the Premier in a line of questioning about the activities of B.C. Trade Development with respect to the ongoing international campaign to cast forest practices in British Columbia in the most favourable light possible and to counteract, as the Premier knows, some of the negative publicity, the negative advertising campaigns that are underway by certain groups. I'm aware that among the duties of B.C. Trade Development is a coordination program for international forest products buyers from Europe and other countries who come to British Columbia to review what is actually happening in the woods of the province.
Given the fact that the Premier and B.C. Trade do spend a considerable amount of effort and time trying to bring buyers to the province to educate them, what specifically is the Premier's office doing with respect to the ads that are running now around the world: negative ads about forest practices in British Columbia? Is there any effort underway by B.C. Trade Development not only to educate the buyers on trips to British Columbia but internationally to counteract these destructive and negative advertising campaigns that are underway?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm sure the member is pleased with the fact that we as a government have taken a very aggressive approach to counteract these very unfair -- as a matter of fact, in some cases viciously unfair -- ads from some of the more extreme environmental groups. They are basically raising funds. The cynical purpose of a lot of their advertising is to ignore the reality of the changes in the last three years and continue to pump out lies.
I confronted some of those groups in Europe, as the member is aware, and I made them aware of the fact that they're lying about British Columbia. I have gone to the European Parliament and the U.S. Congress. I have invited puzzled -- because of the disinformation campaign -- members of the European Parliament environmental committee, members of Congress, Senators, high officials in Washington, D.C., customers of forest companies, journalists and others from Europe and the United States to come to British Columbia. Two years ago I said: "Come to British Columbia. We'll show you the good, the bad and the ugly. We'll show you what we don't want to do anymore, where we're going with the Forest Practices Code and the changes that we're bringing about."
I think we're having some success, and I believe that a lot of the responsible environmental groups are recognizing the success of the changes that we're bringing about here in British Columbia. It's the extreme groups -- the groups that are cynical, that are only doing it to raise money -- that continue to lie about the Hesquiat Peninsula and about the terrible things that they say are happening in British Columbia.
I can assure you that we have a very good team, which I established effective April 11, 1994, when Johanna den Hertog -- who has international experience, knowledge of many languages and who worked very actively on my campaigns into Europe -- was assigned to work as a special adviser in intergovernmental relations. The international forestry and environment task force consists of people from Environment, the intergovernmental division of my ministry and forestry. We have been effective in taking that message out.
The industry itself has been prodded, by ourselves and by their customers, to get the message out, too. Groups like B.C. Forest Alliance, with Jack Munro and Patrick Moore and others, are doing a very good job of starting to get the message out about the changes. The industry is now, too, and is going specifically to their customers to make sure the customers hear the truth. I can assure the member that we're very aggressively not just defending the forest industry in a defensive way, but acting very aggressively to get the truth out about the changes here in British Columbia that have turned us into a model for sustainable forest practices rather than a pariah.
W. Hurd: The Premier will be aware that certain of those environmental groups have actually stepped up the pressure in the past fiscal year. I'm referring specifically to the full-page ad that ran in the New York Times on Wednesday, April 18, 1995. It was a full-page ad showing a picture such as this, and saying: "Picnic in clearcut forests. Hike on eroded hillsides."
When we asked the Minister of Forests in his estimates what specific effort was being made to counteract these full-page ads running in papers from New York to Los Angeles, he advised that he felt it was the company's responsibility, and that to his knowledge, there was not a significant amount of dollars in voted expenditures for this campaign. I wonder if the Premier could advise us whether any specific dollars in his set of estimates are being dedicated to counteract these full-page ads in one of the largest cities in the world that show destructive pictures of clearcuts and use inflammatory language such as that contained in the ads. Is there any specific voted expenditure the Premier can identify that would meet the immediate need to counteract these campaigns? I think they are hurting the image of British Columbia in cities like New York and Los Angeles, but more importantly, they invite some sort of immediate response from the government of the province.
Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted to rise in the Premier's estimates today. I hadn't planned to speak, but I'm delighted to take any occasion to speak on these estimates, although it is 10:55 p.m. and I know the scintillating opposition retorts have been keeping all those folks -- the many dozens of family friends of the opposition members -- awake at night watching the debate in the chamber.
I may just talk briefly about the member's remarks with respect to international trade obligations. I think it's fair to say that British Columbians who followed the Premier's trip to Europe, in particular, were very proud of the fact that the Premier stood up to the protesters and to those who would seek to sow misinformation about British Columbia.
I know that when my constituents saw the coverage of the Premier standing up for British Columbia in Europe, when they saw repeated references to setting the record straight, and when they saw the reaction of the politicians in Europe to the Premier's leadership in this regard, I think they were not
[ Page 16501 ]
only proud of the role the Premier played in defending jobs and the forest industry from irresponsible remarks, but they also recognized that we all have a role to play in defending our forest industry from these kinds of unfounded and unwarranted attacks.
So I just rise in these estimates to praise the Premier with respect to dealing forthrightly and aggressively on behalf of British Columbia's interests and for dealing with the misinformation being peddled in Europe by those who would seek to undermine our forest industry and jobs in British Columbia. I know I speak for my constituents, who say to congratulate the Premier for the excellent job he did in defending British Columbia's interests.
W. Hurd: I know those are the same remarks the minister undoubtedly gave at the last NDP convention, but they are far removed from the question I asked, which related to specific voted expenditures to counteract this advertising campaign.
Let me float out this time a concern expressed by my constituents with respect to the government's choice of how it expends advertising dollars. At a time when ads like this are appearing in the New York Times, the government has elected to spend $10 million within the province. The Premier has acknowledged that it's to push a "plan for B.C.," which my colleague from Fort Langley-Aldergrove has indicated is directly tied to the re-election effort of the government. I wonder if the Premier would concede that perhaps he should reduce the expenditure of $10 million within the province and devote at least a couple of million dollars to an immediate campaign to counteract these advertisements in the New York Times and other papers in the United States. Would he agree that perhaps spending $10 million to tell British Columbians they should feel good about him and his government is somewhat misplaced, given the fact that there is an immediate need to run full-page ads in the New York Times within a matter of weeks to counteract this picture of the destructive effects of clearcut logging in British Columbia? Would he agree that the choice of priorities for advertising spending leaves something to be desired when these kinds of ads are being published unchallenged in major U.S. cities?
[J. Pullinger in the chair.]
Hon. M. Harcourt: Rather than the Liberal approach, which is to throw money at problems and a massive amount of money into a reciprocating ad in the New York Times, I think it's up to the industry to do that itself. What I did instead was meet with Stephen Golden, the vice-president of the New York Times. He wanted to know the truth about what was happening in British Columbia. My Minister of Forests and I met with him. It was because of the changes that we're introducing here in British Columbia -- the Forest Practices Code, the protected-areas strategy, the land use plans, the forest renewal plan, which is helping workers and cleaning up a lot of the mess, the Clayoquot scientific panel and the Clayoquot interim measures agreement with the Nuu-chah-nulth -- that the board of directors of the New York Times made a decision to hold off cancelling the contract with Mac-Blo.
You should go talk to Bob Findlay of Mac-Blo about the work we have done to make sure that MacMillan Bloedel and other forest companies in this province are not unfairly boycotted by these kinds of pressure tactics, which are the last-gasp tactics of these fundraising environmental groups, who know they've lost the battle of trying to blackmail the people of British Columbia. You should go talk to the people at Pac Bell, who, because of the changes here, are not going to get rid of their contract with Mac-Blo.
So I don't agree. I don't think throwing money at ads in the New York Times is the way to do it. The way to do it is by going directly to the people who make the decisions and letting them know what we're doing here. It's up to the companies, too, to do that sort of advertising, as the Forest Alliance did in this case, not the taxpayers of British Columbia.
W. Hurd: Let me see if I have the Premier's reasoning straight. He believes that spending $10 million of taxpayers' money to tell British Columbians about the forest renewal plan and the new Forest Practices Code during an election year -- throwing taxpayers' money at that -- is more important that throwing a few of those dollars to counteract this kind of destructive ad in one of the largest cities in North America.
[11:00]
If one were a cynic -- and I wouldn't want to be accused of that -- one would suggest that spending $10 million in an election year in British Columbia to tell British Columbians something they should already know about the government's forest policy might be a questionable use of the assets of the taxpayers, when these kinds of ads are running unchallenged and the Premier has suggested that it's up to the industry to counteract them.
Maybe I can ask my question to the Premier again: does he not accept the wisdom that given the fact that these ads are currently running in newspapers throughout the United States, he should perhaps reduce his government's election advertising budget of $10 million and perhaps divert a few of those dollars to telling people in New York about the Forest Practices Code, the forest renewal plan and the measures of his government, instead of telling the people of British Columbia, when during an election year it might be misconstrued?
Hon. M. Harcourt: How wasteful the member for Surrey-White Rock is. He wants to throw money into a hugely expensive ad in the New York Times that probably 15 or 20 people in New York are going to read, pay any attention to, have anything to do with what we're doing here in British Columbia or have any concern about it, when I can pick up the phone and talk to the vice-president who is going to make the decision, yes or no, on this. Isn't that a lot more cost-effective way to make sure that Mac-Blo keeps its customers? Doesn't the member have any concern about using the taxpayers' money in the most efficient way? I think that a phone call and a meeting at Mr. Golden's expense when he came out here are far more cost-effective than throwing money into a very expensive ad in the New York Times -- which was counteracted, by the way, by the Forest Alliance, in any event.
W. Hurd: The Premier has acknowledged the wisdom of what a tremendous idea it is to spend $10 million of taxpayers' money to reach perhaps three million people in British Columbia, when there are eight million or so people in the city of New York. If we're talking about the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars for advertising, surely the Premier would acknowledge that reaching eight million people in New York
[ Page 16502 ]
by placing an ad on behalf of the province of British Columbia to counteract an ad like this would reach far more people and be far more important to the economy of the province than spending $10 million in British Columbia, where we have half as many people as they do in one city in New York.
Surely those numbers must stack up to the Premier, and surely he would acknowledge that there's a need to spend at least some of that $10 million on a campaign on behalf of the B.C. government -- which, after all, owns 95 percent of the forest resource in British Columbia. They are the landlords and they own the resource, which is something that the Premier and his minister have often talked about. Surely spending $10 million to reach three million people with partisan advertising and leaving unchallenged an ad like this in the New York Times represents a questionable expenditure by the government of British Columbia. I would just welcome a commitment from the Premier that he will review the $10 million advertising budget which is tied into Mr. Gardiner's re-election strategy, and perhaps consider reducing it by even a paltry $200,000 or $300,000 or so and diverting some of that revenue into buying ads in major U.S. centres like Washington, D.C., New York and Los Angeles, where this kind of destructive photography and rhetoric is going unchallenged in British Columbia.
The Chair: Shall vote 8 pass? The member for Surrey-White Rock continues.
W. Hurd: I want to pursue a new line of questioning. I understand that during the fiasco which engulfed the member for Victoria-Hillside, the Premier made a commitment to pursue a policy of sexual harassment, which was to apply to senior deputy ministers in his government and senior ministry staff. Could the Premier advise us whether his office will be monitoring that new policy in any way? Does he expect to receive reports on how it is being implemented? Has his office learned anything from this fiasco? What steps is he taking as the Premier to ensure that the guidelines, if they do exist, are thoroughly understood by deputy ministers throughout government? One of the deficiencies that was identified at the time was the lack of a clear policy at the senior levels of government with respect to this sensitive issue. So I wonder if he could advise the committee what progress is being made.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I want to assure you that I am not pursuing a policy of sexual harassment. I am pursuing a policy of preventing sexual harassment. I don't know why the member would want me to pursue a policy of sexual harassment; we're trying to prevent it. We have training programs for deputies and senior managers. We are coordinating a program to make sure that people who work in the public sector understand that it's unacceptable behaviour and that there are serious consequences for being involved in and misusing a position of authority and power. It's a very good question from the member. The government is very actively pursuing training programs across government, and making sure that people are aware of what's acceptable behaviour and what isn't.
W. Hurd: The Premier will be aware that the former Minister of Government Services, the current member for Victoria-Hillside, expressed some strong views in a letter to the Legislative Assembly about the policy that was in place and the fact that if such complaints were not taken before the human rights branch and were merely alleged, that the rights of that individual would in some way be compromised. I wonder if the Premier has had an opportunity to reflect on the letter from the member for Victoria-Hillside and the concerns that he raised with respect to the fact that since the allegations were never acted upon or were never forwarded to the human rights branch, he had no recourse in defending himself.
It's not an issue of guilt or innocence; it's an issue of whether due process can be pursued. Since we do have a new policy in place of preventing sexual harassment, could the Premier tell us whether he's confident that this new policy would prevent the kinds of events that occurred with respect to the member for Victoria-Hillside, and whether anyone who is accused of sexual harassment will see their cases automatically forwarded to some sort of tribunal where guilt or innocence can be clearly established?
Hon. M. Harcourt: There are clearly policies across government for matters involving sexual harassment and how they are dealt with. I am prepared to send the details of those policies to the member. But that's not what this is about. This is about a cabinet minister in whom I lost confidence and trust. When a Premier loses confidence and trust in a member, as I've explained many times before and which I'm sure the member has heard, then that member is gone.
W. Hurd: I'm choosing to steer clear of the resignation of the former minister and the reasons the Premier has accepted it or rejected it. I am trying to deduce what progress we have made since this unhappy event with respect to the policies that he has acknowledged have been implemented since then. Again I ask him: is he confident that were another minister or deputy to be so accused in his government, we wouldn't see a repeat of this situation where the hon. member expressed concern that there was no due process? Can he assure us that where an allegation is made -- whether it be a deputy or another minister -- that there will be a process by which guilt or innocence can be established? I'm sure the Premier agrees that it's important, when these allegations are made -- serious as they are -- that there is some closure to them, that they don't just stay out there and that there is a process by which the veracity of the allegations can be determined, and guilt or innocence can be established. The Premier is well aware that the alternative, which is merely having the allegations exist without any closure, is one that I think should give concern to every member of the executive council and deputies, who may find that the allegations may or may not be valid. I wonder if the Premier could assure us, having reflected on the case involving the member for Victoria-Hillside, whether he is now confident that if allegations occur in the future they will be acted upon differently than in this case.
Hon. M. Harcourt: The member is mixing two different things. There is a sexual harassment prevention policy. If allegations of sexual harassment take place, the policy as to how they will be dealt with is in place across government. I'm confident in those policies, and I'm confident that the training programs taking place across government -- with deputy ministers and in our caucuses and our offices -- are appropriate.
That is a different issue from a member of cabinet or caucus who loses the trust and confidence of the Premier. I want to make those quite separate and distinct. I'm not talking
[ Page 16503 ]
about due process for a cabinet minister who misinforms the Premier about incidents that may or may not have occurred. It's not a question of due process. It's my decision whether I have the confidence and trust that that member is meeting the highest standards that I expect and the people of British Columbia expect. They are two quite different issues.
W. Hurd: I appreciate the answer from the Premier on that matter. The assurance he has given that there is a new policy in place will, I would expect, hopefully prevent similar occurrences in the future. I look forward to the assurance from the Premier that those policies do exist and that this matter would be handled in a different way in the future.
I just have one final question. It's with respect to some of the issues that were raised by other members on the aboriginal affairs front. I'm particularly concerned about the application by the Tsawout Indian band to negotiate surveys on a private island, James Island, just off the Saanich Peninsula. I wonder if the Premier is aware of the ramifications of that. Since it involves offshore investment, that application to survey the land and to possibly make application for a treaty settlement would in some way set a precedent, which would cause some concern internationally, in that private property may in fact be in jeopardy during the treaty negotiation process in the province.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm not aware of that particular issue, but I will take it under advisement.
W. Hurd: I hope that we can get some response from the Premier on that issue. Just referring to press reports, the band has indicated that pending the results of the survey, they may "file site-specific land claims on the sites if the survey warrants such action." I don't know if the Premier is aware of it or not, but this particular island was recently purchased by the McCaw family of Seattle, Washington, which is now also the majority owner of the Vancouver Canucks and GM Place. I would urge the Premier to possibly apprise himself of this particular issue and possibly even consider bringing some of the parties in to find out exactly what is transpiring here, because obviously this is a family that has made a sizeable investment in British Columbia, including the hockey franchise and GM Place. I'm sure the Premier would be concerned about any suggestion that a private holding would be in some way compromised by what people perceive to be the treaty process. I just hope he would take that matter under serious advisement.
[11:15]
G. Farrell-Collins: I want to resume where I left off a short time ago; I had to step out for a few moments. I apologize; I didn't hear the answer as the Premier made it. I asked the question about the Gardiner memo as it relates to the strategy that was put to the principal secretary to the Premier, where it says: "We must also find new vehicles for getting the message out about imagined sleazy connections and castoffs in the Reform Party." That advice was given to the principal secretary to the Premier. Can the Premier tell me what role the principal secretary and the government intend to play in that activity, in that message-finding?
Hon. M. Harcourt: As I said the last time, that was a memo from Mr. Gardiner to Mr. Walsh. Mr. Walsh didn't write that memo. I advise the member that the best thing he could do is to pick up the phone and ask Mr. Gardiner that same question, as to what he meant by that.
G. Farrell-Collins: Somehow, I suspect that I'd be unlikely to get an answer from Mr. Gardiner.
Hon. M. Harcourt: You just might.
G. Farrell-Collins: I just might, but somehow I doubt it.
Hon. M. Harcourt: It's 430-8600.
G. Farrell-Collins: Sorry, that's the B.C. Fed number.
W. Hurd: It's a 1-900 number -- a recorded message.
G. Farrell-Collins: The part that concerns me, though, is that the government would be participating in that type of smear campaign, planned, premeditated and set up to damage people's credibility with, obviously, no basis in fact. Can the Premier tell me why that committee that the principal secretary...? Why would Mr. Gardiner even expect that the principal secretary to the Premier would be the one to give that advice to? Is there some sort of a strategic relationship there, an integrated plan to bring forward sleazy accusations and questions about members of the third party? Is there some sort of integrated plan there, as part of the government's re-election plan outlined by that memo?
Hon. M. Harcourt: No, there isn't. I'm surprised that Mr. Gardiner would write that kind of memo. He should go to the experts in sleaze and sleazy approaches who are sitting in the official opposition.
G. Farrell-Collins: I will have to, unfortunately, given precedent in this House, ask the Premier to withdraw those statements.
The Chair: I'd ask the Premier, if he feels that he impugns the motive of any member, to withdraw.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm not impugning motives. I'm just saying that they have made accusations against people's integrity. Those people have been cleared. But they continue to impinge on their integrity. Those kinds of tactics are the ones that the member was talking about. I think that the experience we've had in this House.... When over and over again the opposition have attacked people's integrity, those members have been cleared, whether it's the Attorney General, the Minister of Agriculture or the Premier -- they get cleared. And they continue to attack their integrity. If those are the kinds of tactics he's talking about, then I think that Mr. Gardiner could have gotten in touch with somebody else.
If they feel that I've impugned their integrity, I withdraw the remark as it relates to them feeling their integrity has been impugned.
G. Farrell-Collins: The only reason the question is raised is that it's the memo between the principal secretary to the Premier and the head of the New Democratic Party. It talks about making up sleazy allegations with regard to opposition members, and I think that's questionable politics. When we
[ Page 16504 ]
have a coordination plan, an integrated plan, that's being developed between the principal secretary to the Premier and the secretary of the New Democratic Party, that gives me concern. When I see that integrated plan, and the parameters include that type of strategy, I think I'm justly concerned. That's why I ask the Premier those questions.
I assume that the Premier's first response to the question -- not the second response, which I think was perhaps a little chippier than it needed to be -- which was that Mr. Gardiner shouldn't be writing that type of memo to the principal secretary and that the principal secretary should not be engaged in that type of plan, is probably the better answer. I would expect that we will never again see that type of memo, where there's an integrated strategy between the government and the....
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: I know you hope not, but if past experience is any indication, they come with more frequency as time goes by, despite the new photocopier in the Premier's office which he referred to earlier.
I just want to raise that issue with the Premier. I think it's extremely inappropriate for that type of document.... I would expect that he would have taken that up with Mr. Gardiner and that we're not going to see that type of false messaging, that type of smear campaign, result from the government under his leadership. If I can obtain that assurance from him, I'm sure I'll sleep more comfortably this evening.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I wouldn't want to do anything to interfere with the sleep of the House Leader of the official opposition. The memo that was sent to the principal secretary was simply that: a memo that the provincial secretary of the New Democratic Party sent to the principal secretary. You're going to have to talk to Mr. Gardiner about what he meant by that, because obviously it wasn't Mr. Walsh who sent that memo or made those comments. Mr. Gardiner is the person you should speak to. I just gave you his phone number, 430-8600, if you want to talk to him about it.
G. Farrell-Collins: I may just take the Premier up on that and see exactly what it is that Mr. Gardiner intended by that comment. I hope it's not a reflection of the whole New Democratic Party, because I think it reflects very poorly on the party, the Premier and other members of this House when you have that type of strategy laid out for an election. I would think the Premier would rather run an election on the items he so proudly referred to this evening, as opposed to the imagined sleazy connections of the opposition. I assume that the Premier will take that up himself with Mr. Gardiner, so that he doesn't, in the future, draw down the calibre of the reputation of the New Democratic Party in all regions of the province with those types of documents.
I do want to raise one other item with regard to the memo. It states: "It's my view that it's never too early to attack our opponents." I assume that's in the same vein. Can the Premier tell us whether it's his intent to be attacking the opposition? Or is it more his intent to try and campaign and take his government forward with a positive message? Or is he going to follow the method that Mr. Gardiner, the head of his party, recommends: start to fabricate sleazy connections and derogatory comments about the opposition, and begin that attack immediately?
Hon. M. Harcourt: In case the member hasn't noticed, I've been doing that for quite a while. There's so much to criticize about the opposition that I've been doing that for many months. But attacking? No. I've been criticizing, comparing, showing the differences and showing the different visions. I hope it hasn't offended the member that I've been critical of them on occasion. I will try to do it in a way that doesn't offend his sensibilities. I know that he has a very thin skin, and I wouldn't want -- particularly at this late hour -- to have him feel that I've somehow hurt him, so he doesn't have a good sleep tonight.
But I can assure the member that I and members of this government are going to continue to be very critical of the very fearful vision that the opposition has for working people in this province, when they say what they are going to do to lower standards -- environmental standards, working standards -- to compete with the Alabamas and the developing countries of this world. I think the two different visions that we have going into the next election are going to give the people of British Columbia a very exciting and enjoyable opportunity to see the differences that exist.
Now, if the member thinks that that is attack and feels threatened by that -- by the New Democrat vision for this province -- so be it. But I can tell him that we are going to make sure that the people of this province see very clearly the very scary vision that the Liberals have for working people in this province.
G. Farrell-Collins: I might bring the Premier's attention to the fact that I hadn't noticed him attacking. I guess if he's been doing it, I haven't noticed it. Perhaps it hasn't been terribly effective, and perhaps he hasn't been particularly good at coming up with fabricated ideas of what the Liberal opposition is about. I have noticed him trying, but I certainly haven't noticed it hurting or having any sort of an impact on the public. Maybe he'll work harder at it or something; I don't know. But certainly I haven't been pained by it.
I grew up in a family of seven children -- six brothers and sisters -- so I can tell you that nothing that's been slung at me in politics yet has been quite as bad as growing up with that motley crew. I keep waiting for it to get bad, but it never quite makes it that far.
I guess we'll see what happens as the government's campaign towards the election progresses, as they continue to spend that $10 million that has been diverted from other worthy advertising projects in government by the Minister of Finance into this integrated plan with Mr. Gardiner and the New Democratic Party. We'll see who actually directs that plan when it finally comes -- whether it's the principal secretary or Mr. Gardiner -- and to what extent the government priorities committee, I believe it's called, plays a role in the allocation of this $10 million. We'll get into that in just a little bit.
One of the other things that Mr. Gardiner stresses, if I can quote here, is that "our work with the labour movement must be solidified. A greater effort must be made to develop communications material for labour activists. We need to ensure that the labour movement is comfortable with our campaign." Can the Premier tell me what "our campaign" -- this plural possessive campaign -- is and how it is that the labour movement is being involved in that campaign, which is obviously being run from the Premier's Office?
[ Page 16505 ]
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
Hon. M. Harcourt: That is a question involving the political party, not the Premier's Office.
G. Farrell-Collins: I guess my question is about the fact that it says: "Our work with the labour movement must be solidified." That memo is addressed from the principal secretary to the Premier, so I assume that the possessive applies to both of them, that it is part of this integrated plan that he was speaking of earlier and is a tie-in with the labour movement. Can the Premier tell me: am I misreading that, or is Mr. Gardiner...? Is there a typo in that memo that I'm not picking up on? Because it seems very clear to me that he's talking about a communication plan that belongs to both himself and the principal secretary and, I assume, the party and the government, and that it is important that the objectives of the government be cleared by the labour movement. I'm just curious about what form that consultation took, and how it is that the government is bringing labour activists into this campaign, which is being run from the Premier's Office and the party office at the same time.
I guess that is a topic the Premier would rather leave undiscussed any further. I suppose that is a reflection of the influence of Mr. Gardiner with the Premier's Office and the extent to which the government, under his leadership, has failed to see the distinction between partisan politics and governing. I think it's unfortunate. I think it's a good reflection of how far he's come in the last three and a half years and how closely his government resembles the previous government in so many ways.
I want to move off that a bit, but not too far, to another document that came out recently. It ties in with the document the Premier was referring to and holding up earlier. It was called "Investing in our Future: A Plan for B.C." The Premier has the actual document that was put together. I have in front of me the plan for the B.C. communications overview, which I assume is what framed if not the initial document that the Premier has, certainly the ongoing communications plan of the government leading up to the writ period. I would suspect it is most likely to continue during the writ period.
[11:30]
In looking at it, one of the things in this document that struck me right away is that it goes through a whole bunch of vulnerabilities of the government -- areas that the government should avoid. One that really struck me says that the $10 million campaign the government is planning for this messaging document is to avoid characterization as a campaign. Can the Premier tell me how he intends to run a $10 million campaign and not have it look like a campaign?
Hon. M. Harcourt: It's not a campaign. It's to talk about the initiatives that this government has put together. This government has put together a plan for B.C. that the people of British Columbia want to know about. They want to know about the basic elements of it, the accomplishments to date and what's to come. They want this government to be accountable to the people of British Columbia, to put out information about this very exciting plan and the investments in the future that we're making. They want to have the kind of information, public education and advertising available to talk about Skills Now, the forest renewal plan, B.C. 21, the fiscal plan of the government and the plan we have to take us into the future. This is the appropriate role for government information, education and communications funds.
G. Farrell-Collins: The Premier says it's not a campaign. I don't know how you can spend $10 million on advertising and not call it a campaign. The document talks about a communications plan, the cohesive, overarching coordination of a communications strategy for the government. Yet the document says it's not supposed to characterize itself as a campaign. How do you do that? How do you run a $10 million advertising campaign without it being a campaign? Is it going to be in the type of messaging the government is using? Is it going to be subtle so people notice it, but not quite? Is the messaging going to be different? Are you going to downplay certain aspects? How are you going to make a campaign of $10 million not look like a campaign?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I think the unfortunate part about these estimates is there has been no discussion of substance. The opposition has refused to talk about their plan for the province, or compare it with our plan. They have refused to talk about what they would do. They have refused to get into the substance of this plan.
They have talked about allegations that they have made that have proven to be groundless. They have talked about leaked documents that they misrepresented as documents that came from cabinet or that were looked at by cabinet, but didn't or weren't. The Leader of the Opposition held up some document that cabinet members and I had never seen. That was just a sham. We have been here for many, many hours, waiting for some substance out of the opposition. I'm sad to say, with the Lieutenant-Governor awaiting the knock, that we still haven't had any substance out of the opposition.
We have the bellowing of the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, who's just building up a head of steam. That's good to see. We still don't have any substance at all from the official opposition. We did get some from the other members of the opposition. I think it's sad that we've spent all these hours, and we started it off with some phony document that had nothing to do with anything -- some phony document that was alleged to be a cabinet document and was alleged to have been seen by the cabinet and by the Premier. None of us had heard anything about it. None of us had seen the document until the opposition made it available. I think it's sad that we've gone all this time and we still don't know what the opposition stands for, except for picking around the pieces, using phony documents and wasting a....
F. Gingell: It's phony?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Yes, it was phony in the sense that you said that it was a cabinet document, that it was seen by cabinet and that it was seen by cabinet committees. You left that impression. It was a misrepresentation of the truth.
I think it's sad that the Lieutenant-Governor is standing by waiting, and we still haven't had any substance out of the opposition.
G. Farrell-Collins: If I was the Premier -- heaven help me -- I would be loath to admit that documents were flying around my cabinet that I hadn't seen. Perhaps the Premier isn't embarrassed by that, but he certainly should be. I would
[ Page 16506 ]
suspect that it's not the first document that has gone by his cabinet colleagues that the Premier has not been informed about. I would suspect that a good indication of some of the problems....
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: If the Premier is finished, I will continue and then he can get up, and then I'll get up. We normally switch back and forth; it works that way.
The document that was brought up this morning, I think, was a scathing indictment of the failure of this government's plans in a whole range of areas. I don't think that whether or not it made it to cabinet is the significant issue. If the Premier chooses to split hairs.... The indictment stands, whether his bureaucrats kept it from him or not.
I would suggest that if the Chair has a problem with these questions, he absent himself from the Chair and do other things.
The Chair: Excuse me, hon. member. Just a moment. That remark, I'm afraid, is entirely gratuitous. Please don't presume to tell me that the expression on my face is one that you can read. I will, however, take this opportunity to remind members that we have spent approximately three and a half hours on this document. The most recent dimension of the debate would seem to be whether it is or is not a document that came before cabinet. If I smile when I see the direction the debate is taking at that point, I think that might be excused. I would remind members that we have canvassed this at great length. I am not sure that the public interest is going to be served by canvassing it any further. However, I am a creature of this committee and I am your servant, and therefore I will allow the member to continue. But please don't suggest that I am making some other kind of judgment.
G. Farrell-Collins: I would remind the members of this House that it wasn't I who referred to the document; it was the Premier. If there is to be a chastisement made, perhaps the Premier would recognize that and respond accordingly. The document I was referring to was the strategic plan surrounding the government's plan for the future.
The Premier says that in all of this time we haven't discussed anything of substance. I would suggest that we've discussed numerous items of substance, and that the only time there has been a problem in this House is that when we have tried to get too much into substance and beyond the knowledge level of the Premier or his deputy, the Premier has called upon the Chair to interject and suggest that those areas have already been canvassed. So the Premier is the one having trouble with substance and the policy debate. However, if the Premier wants, I'm sure, given that Committee A has now risen, that there is now a full array of opposition members -- every single one of us -- who would be more than glad to take this debate well beyond the current time to discuss whole ranges of substance which may well involve the Premier's guidance and leadership.... So let's try and keep to the issue at hand, and perhaps we can move through this in a more reasonable manner, because I would hate to have to see us end up in a prolonged debate about some items. So perhaps we can just deal with the issues at hand and deal with the question.
The Premier has a $10 million plan -- prescribed by this government's priorities committee and made up by Mr. Gardiner -- in which one memo refers to it as an integrated plan among the party, the government, the MLAs and the taxpayers' money. We now have another document that actually talks about the context of that plan. We have one that itemizes the political agenda and another one that itemizes the context of that agenda.
I'm seeking to obtain from the Premier some understanding of how he feels that he can spend $10 million on this plan that talks about trying to make the messages believable so that the public believes what the government is saying. Whether or not it's reality, they'll make sure that they believe it. It talks about every announcement being posed in the context of affordability and the debt management plan. Then we have yet another document that says that the government doesn't have a debt reduction plan; in fact, their debt is going up each year by increments....
I'm wondering how he expects the public to absorb this $10 million plan -- this $10 million campaign that's not a campaign -- about things that aren't reality but are just perceptions of reality. Another item here is that perceptions of wasteful spending are a strong vulnerability. There's all this jumbling up of what the public might perceive and what perceptions are, what the truth is and what we're trying to sell them, what reality is and what we're spending $10 million trying to tell them.
The gist of the debate today in the Premier's estimates has been of trying to get to the truth. We have seen, through the land use plan memo, through the Trumpy memo, through the education memo, through the Gardiner memo, through this "A Plan for B.C." memo, through the key challenges memo.... We saw two handfuls of memos this morning. We see the government saying one thing to the public and something different when they're talking to each other. We see the government spending millions of dollars in advertising to tell the people one thing; yet when they cuddle in their little groups -- their planning groups, their ad hoc cabinet planning committees -- they tell each other something completely different. We see the Premier going around the province talking about open and honest government and somebody you can respect; yet we see the head of the New Democratic Party talking to the Premier's principal secretary, his chief adviser, about sleazy campaigns.
Hon. Chair, the Premier might as well take the $10 million, put it in the bank and save the taxpayers' money, because they aren't going to believe it, given the litany of deceptive statements and memos that have come out that show the government saying one thing and doing something completely different. It has destroyed this government's and this Premier's credibility. No amount of taxpayer money, and no amount of advertising campaigns that aren't supposed to look like campaigns because they might twig into it, will save you.
You spent three and a half years deceiving the people of British Columbia: telling them that their budget is balanced when it's not, telling them that you've got a debt management plan when debt is going up 62 percent, telling them that you've got control of spending when spending is going up every single year, telling them that spending is coming down.... You are deliberately using terms that are confusing to the people of British Columbia by saying that you've reduced the rate of spending and in the next stage talking about reducing the rate of spending growth. That's deliberately using misleading terms that the public can get confused
[ Page 16507 ]
about. When that's gone on for three and a half years, Mr. Premier, I would say that it's too late and that $10 million is too few dollars to spend to somehow pull the wool over the eyes of the people of British Columbia once again, like you did in 1991.
In 1991, you brought out this document, your 48 points, that has your smiling face on it. You spent millions of dollars of party money running campaigns, running advertising. Everybody remembers the little piggy bank with the Premier smiling -- "If we don't have the money, we won't spend it" -- and dropping the penny in the piggy bank. People remember that ad as much as the American people remembered seeing George Bush saying: "No new taxes."
When you go to the polls next time, Mr. Premier, those same ads will be running, but they won't be run by you and they won't be run with taxpayers' dollars. They will be run by the opposition parties in this province, and the people of B.C. will know that they have been misled for three and a half years. They'll know that you have invested and spent their money unwisely, have racked up a huge debt and have mortgaged their future, and that all along you have been telling them something other than reality. Mr. Premier, when you finally get the guts to call that election...
The Chair: Through the Chair.
G. Farrell-Collins: ...the people of B.C. will respond, and they will know that last time they were deceived. Next time, they will not be deceived.
Will the Premier give us his commitment tonight that the $10 million that the Minister of Finance has creamed off the legitimate government advertising budgets in the ministry, and is planning to direct in a partisan fashion -- orchestrated by a government ad hoc priorities and planning committee chaired or directed by Mr. Gardiner -- will not be used? Will he give us his commitment that the $10 million will go back to important uses that are going to benefit the people of British Columbia instead of benefiting his political hide?
Hon. M. Harcourt: We see again the deception that's coming from the opposition. Mr. Gardiner is not chairing this committee; he attends the committee on occasion. He had no role to play in the decisions this government has made to say that we are going to utilize the public education information money from the Skills and Training ministry, from the Forests ministry, from Employment and Investment, and from Finance to talk with the people of British Columbia about some initiatives we're very proud of. We happen to be very proud of Skills Now.
An Hon. Member: Tell them the truth.
Hon. M. Harcourt: We are going to tell them the truth about Skills Now: that tens of thousands of British Columbians are going to be able to get some skills that the Liberals want to deprive the people of this province from getting.
[11:45]
Interjections.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I listened to the member quietly, and I let him speak. He had his chance, and he's still speaking now. I'll stop if he wants to get up and say some more. Be my guest.
The Liberals leave the impression that this province is bankrupt and that it's falling apart. That is such a laugh to the people of British Columbia because they have far more confidence in this province than the Liberals will ever have in their little toe. They know that we have the lowest per capita debt. They know that the bond-rating agencies have given a thumbs-up to the way this province is being run. They know that the Skills Now program is going to give our citizens the skills they need, and that the $200 million that the House leader of the opposition says is a fiction is no fiction. It's in the budget and is being invested in thousands of British Columbians, and the people want to know about it. They want to know how their kids can get access to this training, and we're going to let them know. We're going to have the information programs they want.
The Liberal opposition would cut those programs and deprive those young people not only of the knowledge of those programs but of access to post-secondary education. They would encourage their federal counterparts to slash the budgets for training and for post-secondary education even more. How cynical it is of the opposition to stand up here and say that this government should not be advertising those types of programs or to say we should not be working with the forest industry and with forest workers to talk about the forest renewal plan. The House Leader says that's a fiction, but it's not a fiction. It's very real money that the forest companies have said they want to see reinvested in the forest industry.
And is B.C. 21 a fiction? I'd say that the billion dollars being invested in the Vancouver Island Highway is no fiction. It's being built right now. I just drove along it. It's being built right now as we speak at French Creek bridge and Little Qualicum bridge. A new highway that should have been built 30 years ago is not a fiction; it's real, and it's a billion-dollar investment. The $840 million going into the ferry plan for new ferries and ferry terminals is very real.
It's an investment in infrastructure and in our future: these investments in people, in Skills Now, in our natural resources with forest renewal and in the other changes that we've introduced; the investments in the Vancouver Island Highway, in the West Coast Express and in the new roads being built throughout this province that the Liberal opposition wouldn't build. They wouldn't build them. The $1.8 billion is being invested in schools, where construction was neglected for ten years, that the Liberals wouldn't build; we would. So the people of British Columbia very clearly know the difference between the Liberals and this government. They know we have a real plan -- not a make-believe plan, a real plan. And we don't deal with attacking people's integrity; we don't deal in leaking phony documents that they say are cabinet documents. Skills Now, Forest Renewal B.C. and the Forest Practices Code are very real land use plans that are bringing peace, as I said we would, to the valleys where there were battles in every watershed in this province.
We have eliminated the deficit a year early, with a $114 million surplus this year and a debt management plan that is tougher than the one that the business community brought to us. As much as the Liberal opposition want to close their eyes and ignore reality, the people of British Columbia don't. They know there are two visions of this province, and that's what this is all about: an economy that the Liberals want to take down to the lowest common denominator, lower labour standards, lower environmental standards -- compete with
[ Page 16508 ]
developing countries, compete with the Alabamas of the world, the right-to-work states -- and our plan, which is to take our economy up. It's to take it up to the level of the best economies in the world: Japan, Germany, Switzerland, the Silicon Valley and the Massachusetts area, around Boston. That's the plan that British Columbians see from New Democrats.
So there is a very clear alternative vision that New Democrats offer to the Liberals. I don't arrogantly prejudge, like the House Leader does, what the people in British Columbia are going to do. I've never done that, through nine successive election wins. That's up to the people of British Columbia to decide.
As leader of the New Democratic Party and Premier of this province, I'm going to take a vision of this province that I'm very proud of -- "Investing in Our Future: A Plan for B.C." -- and protect medicare from the wrecking crew of the Liberals, provincially and federally, who want to go to a two-tier system where if you've got a quarter of a million dollars for heart surgery you can get it right away; if you don't, you go to the back of the bus.
There are very clear differences between the opposition and their dismal vision for working people in this province, and the vision that New Democrats offer working people. I look forward to putting that vision out between now and the election, and then letting the people decide.
D. Jarvis: I rise to ask the Premier a few questions. I hope he's as patient a man as I am, because perhaps now we'll come down to some substance that he likes and we can talk on a subject that maybe is close to his heart. He brought the subject up during his opening address, and I feel that a few things need to be addressed about CORE -- the Commission on Resources and Environment. I was wondering if the Premier could give me his views on what is happening with CORE and Mr. Owen at the present time. Is he still involved in CORE? Is he still reporting directly to the Premier? Or is he reporting to some other division in the government?
Hon. G. Clark: Very shortly I believe we'll be getting to vote 4, is the Commission on Resources and Environment, which reports to the Legislature.
D. Jarvis: Prior to that vote coming, could the Chair ascertain for me who will be answering questions for the...?
Interjections.
D. Jarvis: Will it be the Minister of Employment and Investment? And when will that be coming up, Mr. Chairman?
The Chair: Once the Premier's estimates are completed, we then go to those miscellaneous votes.
D. Jarvis: I assume that the Premier, although he makes all these notices about everything and makes announcements that he doesn't want to be accountable for, won't answer the questions. Is that it?
The Chair: It's not a matter of anybody's choice, member; it's rather under whose budget they appear, that's all.
D. Jarvis: Mr. Chairman, seeing that that's the case, maybe I'll switch over to another item that....
Interjections.
D. Jarvis: Mr. Chairman, would you quiet everyone down? I've been waiting for 14 hours to talk, and I think I deserve an opportunity.
The Chair: I decided some time ago to quit trying to quiet anybody down, but you seem to have achieved quietness.
D. Jarvis: I would like to ask the Premier a question about something he was directly involved in. My question is about the decision on June 22, 1993 -- he'll remember it very favourably -- in regard to the announcement of the Tatshenshini becoming a wilderness area. At that time, he said there would be a fair and quick settlement. It has been over two years now. I can remember being at a luncheon with him at a mining meeting when he said there would be a fair and quick settlement; that was well over a year ago. I appreciate that one of the companies involved came up with a proposal a short while ago, and that it was turned down. I wonder if the Premier could tell me if there are any specific discussions going on with regard to a settlement with the owners of the Windy Craggy project.
Hon. M. Harcourt: The answer is yes.
D. Jarvis: That was a very succinct answer.
The Premier was very anxious to have United Nations heritage status for the Tatshenshini. I was informed by Mr. Irwin, the federal Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, that this decision would not be made until such time as all the aboriginal tribes in the area had signed off; they weren't prepared to do that.
A report came to me that the Premier had been quite excited about this and called in Paul Birckel, the chief of the Champagne-Aishihik band. In a meeting with the Premier on around December 5, 1994, Paul Birckel signed off any claim he had on the Tatshenshini. It was said that afterward, when he was criticized for doing it, Mr. Birckel said that he was told by the Premier and government officials that Windy Craggy was all a promotion and a flash in the pan. They told him there was nothing there, when in actual fact everyone knows that there are minerals in that area.
It was a deliberate co-opting of an aboriginal tribe. Now that they have signed it off and their traditional area is supposedly a heritage park, they are no longer able to use the resources in that area. This seems to be at cross-purposes with what the government wants, which is that the aboriginals should be self-sufficient and able to use the resources in the area. I find it quite despicable that the government and the Premier of this province would tell the Indians that the resources in that area are of no value and would mislead them to the point where the aboriginal tribe signed off. I was wondering if the Premier could tell me if he told the chief of the Champagne-Aishihik that there was no value in the mineralization of the Tatshenshini area. Is the chief telling us a lie?
Hon. M. Harcourt: As the member for North Vancouver-Seymour is aware, this is an interim measures agreement. We
[ Page 16509 ]
have agreed to proceed with this and negotiate with the Champagne-Aishihik people; that is taking place right now. As the member is probably aware, there are no settlements in this area. The Tatshenshini on the B.C. border side is utilized by the Champagne-Aishihik for hunting, fishing, trapping and other uses like that, but there are no settlements with the Champagne-Aishihik in that area.
Yes, there are some minerals in that area, but in the schemes that were presented to me in terms of how that mine would work, extracting that mineral out of that area was difficult to impossible. So yes, we are going to be talking to and reaching an interim measures agreement with the Champagne-Aishihik that will include comanagement of the area and utilizing the traditional rights that the Champagne-Aishihik have exercised for centuries in this area.
D. Jarvis: Could the Premier tell me, then, what expertise he has that he is able to interpret that a mine is not mineable, or that it's hard to extract minerals out of a specific area? How does he know, in relationship to all the experts in British Columbia and in the rest of the world who say that it is a highly mineralized area and that there are literally billions of dollars in there? They estimated that there were 2,000 jobs to be made available. There is over $1.33 billion in tax revenue that could have come out of that. The Premier looked at reports that were referred to him by I don't know who, which said that it wasn't a viable mine, and then he took it upon himself to tell the aboriginal tribe that there was no value there, so now they are not in a position to use that area to maintain some wealth and sustain themselves.
[12:00]
Hon. M. Harcourt: The fact is that the government made a decision that this area would become a park and wilderness area, and would, with the Wrangell and the other park in Alaska, plus Kluane park in the Yukon, become the largest international park and wilderness area in the world. That was a decision that the government made and that I informed the chief and the Champagne-Aishihik people of. On the basis of that, we have entered into interim measures negotiations and hope to reach an agreement.
D. Jarvis: That's not the point that I was trying to get at. The point is that you were stopgapped. Your government was unable to advance this park, this wilderness area, into a United Nations heritage park. You were stopgapped because the federal government would not advance your case until such time as the aboriginal tribe had signed off. So I assume from that that you had a political agenda, and in order to complete your political agenda, you lied to the aboriginal chief....
Hon. M. Harcourt: I would ask the member to withdraw that remark.
The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Premier. The member for North Vancouver-Seymour, I think, knows full well.... I'm sure he will.
D. Jarvis: Yes, I would withdraw that remark. I would just say that the Premier misrepresented to the aboriginal tribe that there was no value there in order to advance his position with the wilderness park.
A. Warnke: Actually, noting the hour, I must admit we are in competition, probably, with David Letterman, Jay Leno and all the rest of it, and I suppose it's a situation where we might have to compete with that. That does sort of prompt one to ask: have you heard about the hurricane called Hurricane Victoria? It's a big wind that goes around in circles. Or how about this: it really shakes you up to see a politician sign a piece of legislation and then wipe the fingerprints off the pen. Or how about this: I know of a politician who went to Victoria and took the pulse of the province and anything else that wasn't nailed down. We could go on and on and on and try to compete with....
Interjection.
A. Warnke: But of course we won't.
I just have one question. It relates to the philosophy of managing and organizing the Premier's Office and reflects, I suppose, on some of the ideas of reform and changing the organization of the Premier's Office. I could go on a little while, but I won't. Basically I want the Premier to respond in the best way he can.
Essentially, there is the question.... I'll try to deal with it in three ways, very quickly. There has been an evolution of the Premier's Office in the context of what one would call executive federalism, and there has been the assessment.... I would really like to explore this, because the Premier has now been in office for three years, and naturally, in order to plan and all the rest of it for the coming year, I would like to see the Premier actually reflect, essentially, on how he sees his role in terms of executive federalism, especially in the context of, let's say, the following quote. Prof. Garth Stevenson put it this way: "The problem with executive federalism is its tendency to erode the power and influence of the Legislature at all levels. In fact, legislatures are weakened when they must legislate within the parameters of the executive agreement, arrived at in secret without their participation." It's Professor Stevenson's point that, really, this tends to undermine the nature of the legislative process, to undermine parliamentary government.
That's one aspect. Second -- I'm really trying to do it very, very quickly....
Interjection.
A. Warnke: Perhaps the Chair could. I'm sure the Chair is quite capable of it.
Secondly, in terms of improving the organization of the Premier's Office, the Premier has had a chance to reflect on it for the past three years....
Interjections.
A. Warnke: I am very tempted to sit and have the camera.... It changed direction very quickly.
Essentially, the Premier has had a chance to reflect on how the Premier's office can change in terms of organization. I would really appreciate it if.... It's a great opportunity for the Premier to assess how the office has changed compared to the Premier's Office in the last three years, in the previous administration and all the rest of it. I wonder if the Premier could very quickly give some reflection on the change of....
[ Page 16510 ]
Interjections.
A. Warnke: Hon. Chair, I would like to give that opportunity to him.
Hon. M. Harcourt: The only reflection I'm having tonight is off the top of my head. I can tell you very succinctly, to wrap this up, hon. member, that if I have had a chance to reflect on these very, very challenging and complex questions you're asking me, I will simply say yes.
Vote 8 approved on the following division:
|
YEAS -- 29 | ||
|
Petter |
Dosanjh |
Edwards |
|
Zirnhelt |
O'Neill |
Hagen |
|
Kasper |
Hammell |
B. Jones |
|
Lortie |
Giesbrecht |
Smallwood |
|
Cull |
Harcourt |
Clark |
|
Pullinger |
Sihota |
Evans |
|
Randall |
Farnworth |
Conroy |
|
Doyle |
Streifel |
Sawicki |
|
Krog |
Brewin |
Copping |
|
Schreck |
Lali | |
|
NAYS -- 10 | ||
|
Warnke |
Campbell |
Farrell-Collins |
|
Hurd |
Gingell |
de Jong |
|
van Dongen |
K. Jones |
Anderson |
| Jarvis | ||
Vote 9: British Columbia Trade Development Corporation, $17,900,000 -- approved.
ESTIMATES: OMBUDSMAN
Vote 7: ombudsman, $5,020,000 -- approved.
[12:15]
ESTIMATES: INFORMATION AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
Vote 6: information and privacy commissioner, $2,600,000 -- approved.
ESTIMATES: CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST COMMISSIONER
Vote 5: conflict-of-interest commissioner, $185,000 -- approved.
ESTIMATES: COMMISSION ON RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
On vote 4: Commission on Resources and Environment, $3,167,000.
W. Hurd: I think it's important at this point to read into the record a commitment made by the Minister of Employment and Investment during the last set of estimates, when he agreed that it would be appropriate for the Commissioner on resources and environment to be in the chamber to answer questions. I understand that with the lateness of the hour and the need for members to adjourn for a holiday weekend.... It is, I think, regrettable. The commissioner, when I did have a chance to talk to him, agreed that it would be appropriate for him to be in the chamber to answer questions about land use plans that affect so many people in British Columbia. It's difficult for us to question the Minister of Employment and Investment on those topics because he's spending a lot of his time trying to bail out international agreements these days, but I will say that it is regrettable that the commissioner can't be here to answer those questions. I would hope that....
Interjections.
W. Hurd: I'm think I'm being heckled by someone from a resource-dependent community who has good reason to be concerned about the Commission on Resources and Environment.
I just feel it's incumbent upon me to point out that it is regrettable that the commissioner, who acknowledged a willingness to be here and said that he should be here, obviously isn't.
Interjection.
The Chair: Order, please.
D. Jarvis: I was wondering if I could ask the minister responsible for CORE if he could tell us just what the situation is with regard to Mr. Owen. Who is he reporting to? Is he still involved in the same procedures with CORE as he was before, or is he into another aspect of CORE?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'll take that matter on notice. [Laughter.]
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, members.
D. Jarvis: Actually, I don't find that so humorous. I think it's rather ridiculous that this government, with the Premier professing to be such a man interested in....
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, members. Order, please. Members, let us please allow the member for North Vancouver-Seymour to pose the question.
D. Jarvis: I'm quite concerned by the fact that I would get a supercilious answer from the minister on that, especially when the Premier earlier said that he was so concerned about the responsibility for integrated resource use in this province. That he would allow something like that to pass just shows you where the responsibility in this province lies.
I would like to ask the minister, with regard to the CORE situation in the Kootenays....
Interjection.
[ Page 16511 ]
D. Jarvis: Perhaps if the Premier could answer the question that I had asked the Minister for Investment, who turned it over to the member from...wherever he is hiding over there. I can't see him. Would the Premier be prepared to answer that question?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'd be delighted to answer the question. The Minister of Government Services, of course, is responsible for the officers of the Legislature, but for the sake of goodwill, peace and prosperity at this time of the night, I will answer the question.
Mr. Owen, since he was appointed in January 1992, has performed a remarkable service to the people of British Columbia. He has helped carry out land use policies for British Columbia -- the basic principles and policies. He has developed some unique land use plans on Vancouver Island, in the Kootenays and in the Cariboo-Chilcotin, and has helped those same principles advise and guide some very successful smaller-scale land use planning that is taking place in the rest of the province now.
The LRMP process in Kamloops is the first out of the chute. There was almost unanimous agreement there except for the prospectors, who decided to say no as a matter of principle. That was a very successful example of where the smaller-scale, more community-based land use planning is going to go from here.
CORE has a work plan which has been accepted by the government for the next few years. They will issue sustainability reports annually to the Legislature, advise us on citizen participation and other issues, and help carry on the debate and discussion about a sustainability act for British Columbia. They are also working on the Georgia Basin concept for the urban areas.
I'm pleased that the member is interested in the success of CORE and the work of Mr. Owen, who has been recognized internationally. He has been asked to advise the Cambodian government and other governments on land use problems and the sustainability issues that they face. I think we owe Mr. Owen a debt of gratitude for a courageous and pioneering job well done.
D. Jarvis: I would like to ask one of the ministers -- I have three of them now who say they're responsible for it -- a question regarding the CORE situation in the Kootenays.
Just following when Mr. Owen put out his report in October 1994, numerous mineral tenure holders in the Kootenay areas received notices as to the effect that the government's recent decision that they are no longer permitted to explore or develop mineral areas that may be located within the new protected areas. That effectively represents expropriation, as far as I'm concerned, and as far as all the people in the Kootenays were concerned, it was a form of expropriation. In fact, it ignored the Expropriation Act.
I was wondering if the minister responsible could tell me if the government has given any consideration to calling those letters back, and sitting down and redrawing the lines of the protected areas, the way they did in the Cariboo situation. They sent out the same letters to the free miner certificate holders in the Cariboo, and then there was so much of a stink made by the people in the Cariboo that in order to make a settlement, they withdrew those letters of expropriation and redrew the lines.
The Chair: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.
D. Jarvis: Now we have a fourth minister to look after it?
Hon. A. Edwards: I believe that the member wants an answer to his question. I think that's what he wants, and I have the answer to his question.
With the land use plans in the Kootenays, the only place that mineral exploration and development cannot take place is in protected areas, and that's been very clear right from the beginning. Mineral exploration and mineral development can occur anywhere outside the protected areas.
As I understand it, there were some letters sent out by mistake in the Cariboo; that has not happened in the Kootenays. Anywhere where the boundaries for protected areas included claims, there will be fair compensation.
Basically, the CORE process has been a success in the Kootenays. It has been a process that has really knit people together, and anybody who lives in the area or who has been there knows that very clearly. It has been completed, and it's been a very positive experience. The mining industry, particularly the coalmining industry, has never had such security in the Kootenays as it has now with the land use plan in the Kootenays.
D. Jarvis: Perhaps I could.... I questioned the fact that this minister was answering that question, because I didn't know that she had the responsibility. Her track record certainly doesn't show that.
In any event, I would like to ask a minister in charge over there -- whoever that is -- if those free miners will be compensated.
Hon. A. Edwards: I repeat: we will give fair compensation to anyone who loses claims because of the designation of a protected area.
D. Jarvis: Can I be assured...? On the basis that the Minister of Employment and Investment said no to that question and the Minister of Energy and Mines said yes, can I get some kind of satisfaction as to who is in charge over there? Is it yes or no?
Hon. A. Edwards: When it comes to people who have bona fide claims -- I understand that the Minister of Employment and Investment wasn't aware that you were talking about people who have claims -- they will be compensated if the claims are drawn inside the boundaries of protected areas.
D. Jarvis: Could the minister give me an example of what a bona fide claim is? Are those the ones that have received notices? Are they just the ones inside the protected-areas strategy? Will all the free miners that have had their tickets withdrawn receive compensation? Are they all bona fide claims?
The Chair: The Minister of Employment and Investment on a point of order.
Hon. G. Clark: I don't wish to prolong the debate, and we try to answer these questions, but this really isn't on the
[ Page 16512 ]
Commission on Resources and Environment vote. That's where we should be discussing whether or not someone was compensated as a result of a protected area. The Commission on Resources and Environment makes recommendations to government on land use plans. The government then takes action. What the member is talking about -- what flows from that action -- is an inappropriate matter for discussion under the minister's estimates, which have already been passed, but not under vote 4.
The Chair: I think the minister's point is well taken.
D. Jarvis: I guess it is well taken, but it's another copout by this government, for sure.
Vote 4 approved.
ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE CHILD ADVOCATE
Vote 3: office of the child advocate, $600,000 -- approved.
ESTIMATES: AUDITOR GENERAL
Vote 2: auditor general, $7,700,000 -- approved.
[12:30]
ESTIMATES: LEGISLATION
Vote 1: legislation, $25,306,000 -- approved.
Hon. G. Clark: I move the committee rise and report resolutions.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B reported resolutions.
Committee of Supply A reported resolutions.
Hon. M. Harcourt tabled 1994-95: The Year in Review, the annual report of the B.C. Trade Corporation.
Hon. G. Clark: I call the wrap-up of the Government Services estimates.
REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES
K. Jones: We've had the opportunity to try to canvass Government Services -- the Lottery Corporation, the gambling policy and various other aspects, parts of the Purchasing Commission -- and found that the minister, being new to the job, gave very limited responses and was unable to give us any real indication that there was competency in the ministry at the present time.
There is a serious need for some work to be done in the ministry. As a result, we finally gave up, because we were not getting appropriate responses to the questions being asked. We attempted to go through a proper venting of the estimates of Government Services and found that there was really no way of getting any further response to the questions. Therefore we recommend that the minister needs to spend a lot more time on the ministry to be able to get a good handle on his ministry, and I presume that he may have sufficient time before the next election.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, it is very difficult to hear the person who has his place. Please come to order.
K. Jones: Thank you, hon. Speaker, I appreciate you giving me this opportunity. We felt that there was a definite need for a thorough look at the ministry. The ministry represents the most important part of providing all of the governance within the legislative process of British Columbia. Although it's made up of a lot of very small areas, each one is critical to the operation of the government. With the bringing of the estimates and the expenditures that went with regard to that servicing, we tried to canvass the effectiveness of that.
We looked at whether the government operations in some cases should be privatized. We asked the minister what method he had of evaluating his ministry's sections. It was very evident there was very little method of evaluation as to whether the operation could be measured on results. It was very difficult to show that there was any accountability. The situation has not improved much in the last three estimates we have had with Government Services. There seems to be no improvement -- the recommendations of the auditor general and other studies that have been done of the Government Services area -- and the government really needs to have a serious look at this.
We also canvassed quite extensively the new announcement on aboriginal gaming which was announced by the minister yesterday, and found it to be wanting. It looks like a very special arrangement has been made. Unlike the announcement which indicated that there was a very minor change of the process of gambling, it's setting up a process that would establish a different type of structure for aboriginal gambling in British Columbia than that which is available under the regular charitable gambling process. There appears to be no control over the way the funds are going to be distributed from the gambling fund, unlike the present situation where the charitable organizations have to apply and have to have a purpose for what they are doing. For that reason we found that there was a great wanting in this new announcement on the gambling policy, and it is very, very questionable.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I won't take this on notice; however, I'll be very brief. I want to thank the critic and all of my other colleagues from the Legislature who were in the room to assist us with the important task of going through the estimates. I want to thank the ministry staff who were there to assist us. And that's the conclusion of the estimates.
Hon. E. Cull: I move that the reports of the resolutions from the Committees of Supply on April 20, 24 and 26, May 2, 9 and 25, and June 1, 6, 7, 12, 13, 15, 19, 20, 27, 28 and 29 be now received, taken as read and agreed to.
[ Page 16513 ]
Motion approved.
Hon. E. Cull: I move that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $19,860,819,247. This sum includes that authorized to be paid under section 1 of the Supply Act (No. 1), 1995, and is granted to Her Majesty towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996.
Motion approved.
Hon. E. Cull presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act, 1995-96.
Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, this supply bill is introduced to provide supply for government programs for the 1995-96 fiscal year. The amount requested is that resolved by vote in Committees of Supply after consideration of the estimates. To maintain uninterrupted delivery of government programs, it is essential that this supply be granted expeditiously. As the appropriation covered by interim supply will expire shortly, supply is urgently required so that a variety of essential payments to GAIN recipients, hospitals, school districts, universities, social agencies, as well as the government's payroll, may continue uninterrupted. Therefore in moving introduction and first reading of this bill, I ask that it be considered as urgent under standing order 81.
Bill 52 introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith.
Hon. E. Cull: This supply bill is the second and final one for the fiscal year 1995-96, the first having been passed on March 29, 1995, when the Legislative Assembly authorized the value of appropriations for three months. This bill, which is in the general form, as were previous years' final supply bills, requests a total supply of $19,860,819,247 for voted expenditures as outlined in the schedule to this bill.
Finally, I point out the requirement for passage of the supply bill in order to provide for the expenditure of the government for the 1995-96 fiscal year. I move second reading of Bill 52.
Motion approved.
Bill 52, Supply Act, 1995-96, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.
The House in committee on Bill 52; D. Lovick in the chair.
Section 1 approved.
Schedule approved.
Preamble approved.
Title approved.
Hon. E. Cull: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 52, Supply Act, 1995-96, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
The Speaker: Hon. members, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is about to enter the chamber. Please keep your seats.
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.
[12:45]
Law Clerk:
Criminal Records Review Act
Employment Standards Act
Human Rights Amendment Act, 1995
Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1995
Fire and Police Services Collective Bargaining Act
Victims of Crime Act
Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act, 1995
Health Authorities Amendment Act, 1995
Securities Amendment Act (No. 2), 1995
Access to Abortion Services Act
Royal Roads University Act
Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1995
In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.
Supply Act, 1995-96
In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill.
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Hon. G. Clark: I move the House at its rising stand adjourned until Tuesday at 2 p.m.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:48 a.m.
[ Page 16514 ]
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Schreck in the chair.
The committee met at 6:40 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES
(continued)
On vote 38: minister's office, $371,984 (continued).
V. Anderson: We were discussing multiculturalism in the estimates and were looking at some financial increases. We looked at office staff just before we left. We also talked about the sizable increase in professional services.
I believe there is also a fairly sizable increase in advertising and publication. There's $500,000 there, which sounds to me like an awful lot of money for advertising and publication. According to my understanding, it's gone up from $148,000, which didn't sound too bad, to $687,000, so there's been a 500 percent increase. There are a lot of contracts in a 520 percent increase.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that previously this part of the ministry had almost no communications dedication to speak of. One must remember that this part of the communications shop -- if I can call it that -- serves multiculturalism, immigration and business immigration and human rights. Essentially those three areas are being looked after with this communications and advertising budget.
One also has to take into account the fact that it's only in the last year or so that this part of the ministry has had a higher profile. Part of the reason that the larger budget has been allocated to the communications portion of it is essentially because of what I was saying earlier: one, you have to dispel some of the myths around multiculturalism; two, one has to make people familiar with ministry programs; three, which is sort of an overriding consideration in my mind, we really have to conduct a debate in British Columbia as to where we're going on multiculturalism, what it means, whether it means what we say or think it means or should mean something different from what we think it presently is perceived to be by the people of British Columbia. I think it's important to keep those things in mind.
One must not think that this communications branch services only the visible minorities or those who might come within the confines of immigrants and visible minorities. This branch functions for the service of all 3.7 million British Columbians.
V. Anderson: Could you give us some idea of what kinds of materials or publications, what kind of communication, is taking place for this $.5 million? Could you give us some idea of at least the major ones so that we understand, in particular, what their purposes are?
[6:45]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: In terms of the specific projects, I think, off the top of my head, of many advertising campaigns that have been done in the last year or so, in particular the one around the issue of the expansion of the language list for the people of British Columbia to know that we were doing that. It was an important event in the sense that once you advertise and communicate with the public around that issue, you send a certain message. I know from reading the newspapers that there was a lot of advertising around that issue.
In terms of the general objectives, even if I read you the major plans for 1995-96, there is nothing specific, except some of the things that I've already advised the hon. member of. They are:
1. To maintain and enhance the department's stature. It is talking about profile.
2. To provide information needed by the public in developing a good understanding of the department's mission, goals and programs. Hopefully we'll have a higher profile once I'm finished with it.
3. To develop communications which inform the public about the complete network of community-based services funded by the department.
4. To continue to build effective working relationships with the ethnic and mainstream media. There are those words again.
5. To work effectively with other government ministries and GCO to assist non-government organizations that are funded by the department to acknowledge publicly the support received.
6. To inform the public about the value of services and contributions from groups, organizations and others.
7. To dispel the myths around immigration and multiculturalism.
8. To develop a program to address racism.
9. To tell the public about good news stories and achievements of many recipients who make use of department programs.
There are a couple of others that are essentially along the same lines.
I recall being present at the launch of a couple of these guides. There have been newcomers' guides provided in a variety of languages, such as Latin, French, Chinese and Punjabi. Those are four that I know of; there might be others. That's a guide that includes all the services that are provided by the government for newcomers and others.
Also, there are publications such as "Myths and Facts" and Immigration to B.C.: Facts and Figures, Immigration Week materials that were prepared and advertising to attract business immigrants. That happens abroad, I believe, rather than here. All of those are part of the package at communication's expense.
V. Anderson: Did I understand the minister to say there was a publication in Latin?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I meant Spanish. I didn't want to say Hispanic; I knew there was a different word.
V. Anderson: I assumed it might be Spanish, but I just wanted to double-check on that.
[ Page 16515 ]
Also, when the minister said that the term "mainstream" is there again, it just emphasizes the reality that we have become accustomed to using language, and we have to always start with ourselves to change the terminology before we can get other people to change the terminology. It's more difficult for us to do it internally, within our organizations, but it highlights that.
Where are the main offices for the ministry, and how much are they available throughout the province? I know you've moved in Vancouver recently and upgraded or extended.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There are three offices, essentially. There's one in Victoria, of course. There are two offices in Vancouver: one is at Canada Place, where B.C. business immigration is, and then there is the Multiculturalism B.C. office on Georgia Street, I believe. One office is going to be opened next week: the Oakridge reception and orientation centre, and that's to do with the settlement services that are being extended into the communities at the behest of the department.
V. Anderson: Where is the new orientation and settlement centre opening? Is it in Vancouver or Victoria or where?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Sorry, I wasn't tuned in to the question. Could you repeat the question, please?
V. Anderson: Where is the new office opening?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's at the Oakridge Centre in Vancouver.
Let me just clarify something. I may have said Latin. I meant to say Spanish, not Latin; I wasn't thinking.
V. Anderson: Thank you; I won't make any comment on that.
I was delighted to have heard of the Oakridge Centre opening, because it is in my riding. I'll be in there very soon to get updated on what's happening.
I was surprised, in a sense, with the expansion and that there was no increase in travel. How is the province at large serviced? We have three offices in Vancouver and Victoria, so how is the rest of the province serviced from the point of view of multiculturalism or immigration outside the two cities? There's a lot of province that isn't in the cities.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The bulk of the organizations and individuals serviced, particularly by the settlement and integration services that are provided, are in the lower mainland-Fraser Valley area and perhaps in the Victoria area. There are community liaison individuals within the ministry that do occasionally travel to other parts of the province. As well, I'm aware that there are very active organizations in places such as Prince George and other areas. I believe they keep in touch with the office electronically through mail, faxes and telephones. The need for travelling isn't as great.
V. Anderson: I appreciate that, and I presume one will go on the Internet like everybody else in due course. That seems to be the thing to do these days to keep in touch.
However, I have a concern that we regularly hear from across the province that so many of our things are urban-oriented, and I agree there's a higher proportion of immigrants, but as we discussed earlier, multiculturalism is not just immigrants. It's the whole range of people, and there's hardly any community in B.C. where there is not a wide range of cultural backgrounds. So I'm curious to know and disappointed to hear there is not a focus throughout B.C. in the small towns and the smaller urban centres. In the social concerns area and in the youth area where they're having trouble with youth, I'm sure that the racial tensions and the multicultural concerns, which are not normally dealt with because they're not the major concern, are still underlying critical issues that need to be dealt with.
When we think about attitudes, when we talk about the Right and Left in politics, it seems to me a lot of that right wing is related to not having the opportunity to experience the interrelationship which this ministry above all others should promote throughout the province. In a way, the greatest need is where there's the least being done, it would seem to me.
[S. O'Neill in the chair.]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member makes a valid point. I just want to add that there are agencies that do consult with organizations across the province. There are the immigrant settlement agencies that meet from time to time on a provincial basis; as well, AMSSA has annual meetings that representatives from across the province attend.
I wish there were sufficient funds for us to establish physical presence in different parts of the province. I would be the happiest person in this government if we did have that. Of course, given the fiscal constraints we have, that may not happen. However, I think the point that the hon. member makes in terms of the need for changing attitudes and the need for the actual physical presence of these facilities in all parts of the province is there and is quite evident.
V. Anderson: What is happening in the area of interministerial cooperation that would be relevant out there? We have government agents in every community throughout the province. We have social services and health education offices throughout the province. We have a whole host. We have municipal and transportation. We've got offices galore in every community. If multiculturalism is an integrated program within all the ministries, it seems to me that there should be at least one office in every community that supplies the materials and contacts. Things could be available so that people in that community could use it as a resource centre.
It seems to me that we already have the machinery and the network. It's just making sure that people know where to go to get materials, pamphlets, information, contacts and phone numbers and to use a fax or whatever else, in order to be in touch.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm aware that there are presently two committees: an interministerial committee chaired by Multiculturalism B.C. and the Crown Corporations Committee. I think that one of the objects of those committees is to ensure that some of the sensitization of all the service-providing groups and bodies within government takes place and that wherever the government's presence is, through whatever vehicle the government is present, there is a total wholesome cultural presence in terms of these issues in each community, if possible.
[ Page 16516 ]
[7:00]
I can assure the member that that is one of the thrusts I would have in the next year or so. I want to see some of these services integrated to the extent that the current offices in each and every part of British Columbia would serve an additional function to carry the banner for Multiculturalism B.C.
V. Anderson: I will raise two questions. I would be interested to know who chairs those two interministerial committees. Who are the chairpersons of the interministerial committee and the Crown corporation one?
Also, the Social Services ministry is just in the process of preparing a manual for MLA offices with information, background, contact people and all of this kind of thing. Is it a possibility that some of this information could be out so that constituency assistants, who are asked all these kinds of questions but have very little information and backup on where to go on all these issues, could have it either directly from this ministry or through a coordinated approach with the interministerial committee? That way, we don't end up with ten different books, but some kind of addition to the manual that Social Services are doing. A section within that could provide this contact and basic information.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: At present, I believe Hayne Wai from Multiculturalism B.C. chairs both committees. He's a senior policy analyst within the ministry. One of the purposes of the committees is to make sure that we don't duplicate and triplicate these services. Therefore when the ministries are preparing material such as that which the member has discussed, then it is an opportune time for the minister responsible for multiculturalism to insert our presence into those in a meaningful fashion.
V. Anderson: I'll move on to the question of grants and ask if we might discuss the nature of grants. I note that the $535,000 for grants has not increased. You might make a distinction between grants and contributions. They are listed separately, so I'd be interested in the distinction. After we've dealt with grants, I'll move to the question of contributions.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Rather than me reading general definitions of what grants and contributions are to the hon. member, I refer him to page 121 -- the last page of this book. It has explanations with respect to grants and contributions.
V. Anderson: Could you give me the kinds of major grants that are made under that category? Are they basically the same from one year to another, and is that why they remain the same? If so, what are the basic grants?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The two basic grants are: an Open Learning Agency grant in the amount of $100,000; and a heritage language grant to the tune of $170,000. Those are the two basic grants. There are some discretionary grants in minor amounts.
V. Anderson: Perhaps we have a different meaning of the word minor. I notice that those two grants add up to $270,000, which is just over half of the total of $535,000. There are about $300,000 there in minor grants. I'd be curious to know what makes up the bulk of that $300,000.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Perhaps that was an unwise choice of words. I did not mean to say that the amount of $300,000 is minor; it was just that the grants are much smaller, and there are many. The staff does not have that information here, but we can get it for you.
V. Anderson: Perhaps you could help me understand what kinds of categories or groups are applying for a grant as opposed to the categories or groups that would apply for a contribution. I presume there's a frame of reference for grants that is different from the frame of reference for contributions. Is there a difference in repayment? Are there different requirements? What makes a grant different? If you are applying for it, why would you apply for one rather than the other?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The two major grants are grants sort of without terms and are handed out to agencies. The other grants are also given to non-profit organizations, but they're given on terms and conditions. Obviously there is some accountability with respect to those. The numbers would be many, actually.
Some of the grants, for example, would be going to the Canadian Anti-Racism Education and Research Society, the Immigrant and Multicultural Services Society, Richmond Women's Resource Centre Association, the Association of Neighbourhood Houses of Greater Vancouver -- that's Gordon Neighbourhood House -- the Central Vancouver Island Multicultural Society and the Surrey Family Services Society on behalf of the Surrey-Delta Multicultural Coordinating Committee. These are all non-profit organizations that are involved in the pursuit of advancing multiculturalism and assisting people with cross-cultural understanding and integration.
V. Anderson: I noticed that under your definition it says "eligible criteria." If I understand what you just said it would be non-profit groups, not individuals or others, who are doing multicultural integration services. The ones that you represented to me were in the lower mainland. Are there grants that go throughout the province, and if so, approximately what proportion would be going outside the lower mainland and Victoria?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: For example, these are allocations by communities, and I'm just rounding off the figures here: Fraser Valley, $23,000; interior central, about $3,000; northern B.C., $49,000; Okanagan, $14,000; provincewide, $395,000; Vancouver and lower mainland, $816,000; Vancouver Island, $85,000. That's a grand total of about $1.4 million, just as an example.
V. Anderson: I know that the multicultural organization has a directory of organizations and groups which it updates on a regular basis, and I appreciate being able to have a copy of that periodically when it's updated. Is there a mailing, information-sharing, newsletter or something that goes out to these groups on a regular basis? If so, can I get on the mailing list?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is no regular mailing. However, there is, of course, a list. Whenever there is an event and some mailing takes place with respect to that, all groups are forwarded that information. My staff would be happy to put the hon. member on the list and send those mailings to him, and I would also ask the staff to provide the hon. member with the directory as and when it's updated.
[ Page 16517 ]
V. Anderson: Thank you. Is there any particular reason that this particular section of grants wasn't increased in funding? When so much went into contributions, why would some of it have not gone into grants? I presume there's a demand there equal to the demand under contributions.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The thrust has been to seek more and more accountability from those that are funded. Therefore, as contributions have to be accountable in terms of where, how and when they're spent, the contributions portion has gone up. I think that's generally a good way of doing it. I'm learning this process as well as you, hon. member. This is my first time looking at some of this.
V. Anderson: What is the process of accountability for either grants or contributions? What's the benchmark from which one evaluates these groups as they come in or as they apply year after year? What's the kind of relationship? Is it a portion of their funding? Is it all of their funding? What are the benchmarks and evaluations that take place?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: With respect to these grants, the application is made, and in it they have to provide the kind of service they're going to provide and what accountability mechanisms exist, whether the group is representative of the portion of the community that it's attempting to serve and, of course, whether there is genuine need for the service that they are proposing to have.
[7:15]
Once that application is with the ministry, the ministry goes out to do its own assessment of whether the organization is generally what it claims to be, and then the organization is made to sign the terms and conditions upon which the money is to be provided. It is usually a phased process where you have some money going first, and subsequently a portion of the money goes. It is a sort of drawdown system of providing money so there's more accountability.
V. Anderson: That relates to the question I was asking earlier. I understand that it is phased, but the minister says that they go out and do their own assessment of this. I'm therefore assuming there's travel, and if they have many groups throughout the province, then how is that assessment done? How does that affect the travel, the staffing and the other things that are part of this?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: If I remember correctly, I did mention the work of the community liaison officers, who do occasionally travel outward to do this kind of work. As we said earlier, a large part of the clientele, if I can use that term, is essentially in the neighbourhood of the lower mainland, and there isn't any major travel involved.
V. Anderson: I'll move on, but I would still like to comment that I have a concern. Because the lower mainland is handy, because there are large organized groups and a lot of pressure from there, I get the feeling that the rest of the province is being neglected, and I hope that will be reviewed very carefully in looking at the process.
Let me move on, then, to the contributions, which have gone up about 100 percent. They have gone up from $2 million to over $4 million, so the contributions have doubled.
Before I do that, perhaps the minister would say something about the Open Learning Agency, which receives $100,000. I think that's for setting up the accreditation program, and perhaps he could say something about that. Will that $100,000 be an ongoing grant from here on or is it short-term to get it established and running?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the dependency of this particular agency will be phased out as the agency becomes more self-sufficient, due to the fact that they would be charging fees to do the service they're going to provide to the people of British Columbia.
V. Anderson: I would like to commend the ministry for the support to the Open Learning Agency, which has been a critical need for a long time.
The other critical need which is somewhat related to it is the need for professional people and engineers, or whoever, to have English training in professional language. I know this has been going on to a very limited extent on a volunteer basis. They get ESL training, but their ability to speak the English language normally on the street and in the community is quite different from their need for the professional language. Immigrant services used to do a bit of this, but just recently I've been talking to people who are having that same difficulty and having nowhere to go because of that.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is a shortage of those programs. There are some that are exclusively privately funded for training people in the use of language for professional purposes. I think there is obviously a need on that front for us to be able to do something. Given the financial constraints it may be impossible, but it certainly is desirable.
V. Anderson: I would suggest that one could develop some partnerships with.... I know the engineering society at one time was attempting to do that for engineers, doctors and lawyers. I know of a concern for those. I'm sure they're working with professional groups in some kind of partnership with user-pay fees. I think there are opportunities, if somebody was to help initiate, coordinate and set up the basic organization, for this to have significant input into those people being able to get back into the job and professional market and contribute to society in a very significant way. Many of those people, even if they get their accreditation recognized, are still not going to have the language capability for years. It's a waste of time, skills and energy.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm advised that staff have been discussing this issue with Skills, Training and Labour and some professional associations. Certainly we believe that the hon. member is making a valuable point, and we should continue in that direction.
V. Anderson: I commend the staff and thank them for their cooperation, for being here, for their smiling, cheery faces all the way through this and for the briefings they have offered. I realize that when I want briefings from now on, I'm never going to go to the minister, because the message doesn't get through. I phone the staff, and within an hour I have a briefing. I know how to do it: from now on I will bypass the minister. So you will hear much more from me.
[ Page 16518 ]
Moving to contributions, I raise the question of why the contributions have increased by 100 percent from roughly $2.5 million to over $4 million. I would be curious to know why that has come about and what the thrust and direction.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There was new money added to this ministry in 1994-95, so it has never been debated. Let me just give the figures. There has been no increase from 1994-95 to 1995-96 for these figures: settlement grants program, $573,000; cultural sensitization, $500,000; core funding program, $750,000; Open Learning Agency, as I said before, $100,000; race relations grants, $404,000; and promoting cultural diversity, $250,000. That's a total of about $3.6 million -- $3,598,000, to be exact.
V. Anderson: I'm curious. I understood the $100,000 to the Open Learning Agency was in the grants rather than in the contributions. Is that right? Or is there $200,000 in total?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I may have made the mistake. I was trying to simply give the hon. member an impression of what went on in 1994-95, which was the first time this additional funding came into being, and that's how it was divvied up. That's how it is for 1995-96. But in terms of grants and contributions, that's a different issue. The $100,000 is a grant.
V. Anderson: I'm curious about 1994-95. The minister commented that the money that was spent wasn't in last year's budget. How did it get spent if it wasn't in the budget? I don't remember a special order coming through the Legislature to increase the amount for that. Where did we sneak that one through, and how was it done?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It would be a large amount to sneak through. It was done with the approval of Treasury Board, with due process being used. It was after the estimates had gone through that the Treasury Board approval to spend that money came.
V. Anderson: Somehow I don't think Treasury Board has the authority to give that approval. If it's not some place in the estimates, then it should be a special vote, as other ministries have done. If they move the money around within the ministry, they can do that. But if it's not within the ministry budget, then each of the ministries -- such as Health and Social Services -- when they need extra, asked for it, and it's done before it would be entered into the next year. It's a special vote.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It came from the species called the contingency fund.
V. Anderson: Most organizations would call it miscellaneous, but here it's a contingency fund. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify where it came from, and we know what it's about. Am I to understand that it is the expectation that this $4.5 million would be an ongoing expense from here on in?
Let's take a look at a couple of those -- the B.C. settlement grants. How many groups would get those grants, and what would be the basic kinds of groups? I'm not asking for a detailed list of each one, although if sometime the minister wanted to provide us with a list, I'd be happy to receive it. But at this point, it's to get some indication of what those grants are for and where they are.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: A total of $2.5 million was distributed. Seventy-nine organizations submitted 182 proposals, totalling over $6.3 million. Fifty-two organizations and 94 projects were funded. There was annual community consultation, that established the priorities for this funding. The funding recommendations were made by an interministerial committee.
V. Anderson: Was there a significant proportion of these -- I mean significant in the area of the province? Again, is the province representative or is the vast majority in the lower mainland and Victoria?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. member, I have a list....
The Chair: Excuse me, minister.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Sorry, I'm so used to the court. You ask a question, and you answer; the judge doesn't say: "Now you can talk." My apologies to the Chair; it's totally inadvertent.
Let me go by regions and give the hon. member the amounts. For 1994-95, and I'm giving round figures here: Vancouver Island and coast, $261,000; lower mainland and Fraser Valley, $2 million; Thompson-Okanagan, $98,000; Kootenay, zero; Cariboo, $26,830.
[7:30]
In terms of the organizations, let me give a sampling of names: Family Services of Greater Vancouver, Greater Coquitlam Volunteer Centre, Jewish Family Service Agency, Law Courts Education Society, Family Services of the North Shore. Going over to the Okanagan region: Penticton and District Multicultural Society, Vernon and District Immigrant Services Society. Going over to the Vancouver Island region: Cowichan Valley Intercultural and Immigrant Aid Society, Nanaimo Immigrant Settlement Society. There are many others. I'm just giving the hon. member some sampling of these.
V. Anderson: Out of $3.6 million, that's $2 million going into the lower mainland, which has roughly half the population of the province. So immediately it begins to look overbalanced in the lower mainland. I would raise that issue again.
There is another thing on first look. Having worked in volunteer community associations and knowing that many of them are funded from a variety of different sources, my guess would be that most of those in the lower mainland have a variety of sources they get money from, whereas those outside of the lower mainland would not have the same variety of resources.
Is there any cross-checking on how many ministries of the government are funding the same sources which are good at putting the projects together? My guess from my experience would be that a good many of these organizations are being funded by the Education, Health, Social Services and multicultural ministries. They have learned and have even hired fundraisers to do that, whereas the outlying, smaller agencies are handicapped just once more. So I would ask if that's a fair assessment on the surface.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: First, in terms of any duplication of grants from the provincial government, one of the reasons the interministerial committee is in place for the approval of these
[ Page 16519 ]
grants is specifically for that purpose: to make sure that the grant recipients are accountable and are not receiving grants for the same purpose from two or three different bodies of the province.
Second, I'm sure there are some discussions with the federal agencies when these grants are provided, because the sources of funding for the balance of their budgets are determined through the application. The applicants are made to disclose other sources of funding that they are utilizing.
In terms of the outlying areas vis-a-vis the lower mainland, the overwhelming numbers of immigrants are in the lower mainland and Fraser Valley area. These are settlement grants that go towards integrating immigrants socially, economically and politically into the society. It's perhaps natural that much of the funding would be centred around the lower mainland.
I don't think one could say that the agencies in other areas are not as proficient or as efficient in seeking grants. Having worked in this area voluntarily over 27 years, and having struggled, fought and worked with many people who work in the area, I can tell you that when it comes to advocating their interests, they are quite aggressive no matter what part of British Columbia they come from.
V. Anderson: I'd like to ask about the $750,000 that goes to core funding. How much, on average, goes for core funding? How many groups are given core funding, and where are they in the province?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The maximum amount allowed under the $750,000 figure is $60,000. The average amount paid is approximately $26,000 for an organization; the actual amount is $25,904 per organization. There were 29 organizations that were paid. If the hon. member is looking for a sampling, these lists can be provided to the member. In fact, I would ask the staff to provide the other lists, as well as this one, to the member at the earliest opportunity.
AMSSA received $60,000. The Immigrant Services Society of B.C. received $60,000. MOSAIC received $60,000, and so did the Surrey Delta Immigrant Services Society. Those are the only four that received $60,000. Others received $20,000, $20,000, $10,000, $10,000, $20,000, $5,000 and $12,000 -- odd figures. The Inter-Cultural Association of Greater Victoria received $45,000, the Kamloops-Cariboo Regional Immigrants Society received $40,000 and the Kamloops Multicultural Society received $5,000. That is just a sampling.
V. Anderson: I've had some contact with the Kamloops one as well as the others, and I really want to affirm, from my experience, the good job that they're doing for the whole community. They're really providing a wide community service, and I want to acknowledge that.
Is there a supposition that this core funding is likely to be available year after year? Is it a continuing undertaking rather than a one-year undertaking?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The money is in place, but it may not go to the same groups or be the same amounts next year. To qualify, you have to show need, quality service and results.
V. Anderson: Perhaps we could discuss the community and institutional partners program -- I think that's the name -- and the amount of money that goes for it. How does it differ from the other programs?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: CIPP grants -- community and institutional partnership program grants -- go to multicultural groups only. I understand there have been 104 projects for $1,138,500 altogether. The areas of emphasis in these programs are: antiracism projects, cross-cultural understanding projects, projects aimed at community development and full participation in society, institutional change and sensitization projects like the health projects I talked about at the beginning and culturally based conflict resolution, and the like.
V. Anderson: One would be tempted to ask more details about each one of them, but I'll do that another time and get the information from you separately.
What's the definition for this program of a multicultural organization, as against other groups that might want to apply? Where do the boundaries come for this?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: One would say that's any non-profit group that is engaged in those areas of endeavour in British Columbia.
V. Anderson: In the area of immigration particularly -- and I know this has to do with the programs that have to do with immigration -- could you explain to me briefly what the main programs are within the area of immigration, rather than multiculturalism, in the integration part of this ministry?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It is essentially comprised of two areas: firstly, immigration policy, which basically involves negotiations with the federal government on immigration issues; secondly, interministerial work within the provincial government itself on any issues that may be immigration-related. Of course, we also have the settlement policy, which touches on immigration as well, because the kinds of immigrants that come into the country or are brought into the country pose different settlement challenges for us. Therefore I think that is part of it, although settlement grants are obviously different.
V. Anderson: In regard to policy development, I appreciate that there's a major concern out there in the community that immigration policy has been regarded as federal, as far as people coming into the country. There seems to be an increasing concern that the province be involved in immigration planning, the awareness of how the province is affected by it and the kinds of interrelationships that exist between the province and the federal government. Could you give us some indication of what's happening in that area? I understand there are some protocols being worked on. Is that public? Is there an opportunity to know the direction of those protocols at this point?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously one issue that concerns us when we're dealing with the federal government is one of information-sharing, which is an ongoing concern. Then, of course, the negotiation of various agreements and negotiations is presently, I understand, going on. There is the ongoing
[ Page 16520 ]
concern of putting the provincial concerns on the table in terms of formulation of federal policy, and I have said in my public statements, long before I had this portfolio, that the federal government, by and large, doesn't take into account the concerns and requirements of the economy and the people of British Columbia in the formulation of its policy. Essentially it is focused on central Canada, and that is very clear in the way they are now talking about sponsorship bonds and those kinds of issues, which would have an adverse impact on entrepreneur and investor immigration into British Columbia.
[7:45]
I'm afraid that would have a very negative impact on the economy of British Columbia, if it isn't already having a negative impact, because the information and rumours are out there that they are going to do this. So that is a very large concern, and there are negotiations and discussions ongoing with respect to settlement renewal. The federal government puts a certain amount of resources into provinces with respect to settlement of immigrants, and they are thinking of either pulling out or simply handing the money over to the agencies in the provinces. We have very strong reservations and strong views on that, and there are discussions going on on that issue, because we will be very, very unhappy. I think it would be detrimental to a coordinated strategy on settlement if the federal government chose on its own to dump money into British Columbia without any consultation and coordination and, in fact, without the consent of the provincial government.
V. Anderson: I appreciate that. Is the provincial government doing any consultation in the way of the citizens and the various groups of B.C. being able to come together to share their ideas and their views and to help the government in the undertaking of developing this policy, and also themselves in promoting the policy with Ottawa in some kind of coordinated way? It seems to me that there's certainly a lot of interest out there, and the government could take some leadership in enabling the people of the province to come around on some of these issues and get a coordinated policy. They could write their own letters; their groups can.... But if everybody does it individually, then that will help. Every group will fight for its own funds directly, rather than working cooperatively. I think there's a real leadership that could be given here -- not only could, but must be given -- in order that we don't have the kind of disarray that the minister has referred to.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: With respect to the issue of input and consultation, as the hon. member knows, the large body of the population that this ministry serves has an interest in ongoing discussions with respect to immigration matters, and that body of the population does provide its input. As well, the rest of the population continuously provides input to the ministry with respect to its views, and those views are obviously taken into account in the formulation of the policy.
The point that the hon. member mentions in terms of consultation is a valid one. However, I will not say yes or no at this time. I will simply express a reservation, without saying that is my bias. That reservation is that I have seen, over the 27 years of my Canadian life, many issues such as immigration discussed, from the Green Paper of the mid- to late seventies to all the other issues, including the landing tax.
Unless we can design a method and a mechanism for discussion of these issues in a way that lends itself to reasonably intelligent discussion, we could do more damage than good. I would like to be able to consult in a way that is conducive to really listening to all the people of British Columbia and to devising policy. I will be thinking about that in the next few weeks.
V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's comment. I also appreciate that this is a difficult and uncertain issue, but I think it is becoming increasingly more important. It is part of the puzzle that has to deal with antiracism, with multiculturalism and with equity. It's the key part of the puzzle that immigration for many people is seen as the root of all the problems and not the root of the solutions. In many cases it is, and we keep saying that it's because of the financial input from immigration and because of the increase in numbers that we in B.C. have the prosperity we have.
We're kind of after the golden egg to get rid of the goose that gives us the golden egg. Since it's key in so many of those other issues, I think it's important to find a way to deal with it somehow. Maybe we need to withdraw some of our forces from the other issues -- the fighting of the fires -- to deal with what's causing the fire in the first place. I don't know if the minister would comment on that or not.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: We have obviously gone into a lot of philosophical discussion today, and I'm delighted to be able to do this. I would venture to be less than politically correct and say that I for one want to engage in discussion across British Columbia on all issues. There has been a tendency in the past on the part of many of us across British Columbia, and across Canada as well, to try either to stop the discussion or to change the direction of the discussion by simply saying: "No, you can't say this. No, this means you're a racist. No, this means you are sexist." There comes a time when all of us have to be frank and fair with each other in a place like British Columbia, and I think that time has come.
I am very open to those discussions, and I have always encouraged people to tell me what they think regardless of how they might view that my feelings might be affected. I don't think that's the issue; the issue is whether people feel there is the freedom to be able to say what they want to say without someone labelling them. What I want to do in British Columbia, if there is anything I can do, is create an environment where we can talk to each other in the most open, frank and friendly fashion and say what we want to say to one another. But for that we have to be able to devise a way that we don't lose the battle instead of winning it.
V. Anderson: I would agree wholeheartedly with the minister, and I wish him well in devising that way. If any of us can be in any way helpful, we would be happy to do so. The same battle probably has to be waged in interministerial cooperation, because people have their own stake in each of the ministries, and that has developed over a lot of generations and years. Could the minister comment on this?
All these ministries -- Forests, Mines, Fisheries, Social Services, Education and Health -- have a real concern for immigration and for how we relate and support them. ESL is a concern with Education in the school system as well as with adults. Health support is a concern, as is French language support. There are so many ways needing a unified and integrated interministerial approach that the province is aware of which functions. Can the minister comment on that?
[ Page 16521 ]
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand there is a group called the interministry working group on immigration. I understand there are representatives from each of the ministries and central agencies of the government on that committee. Sitting to my left, is Ann Bozoian, whose name is right at the top on that committee. That committee tries to deal with those issues in a coordinated fashion so that we're not working at cross-purposes.
V. Anderson: Not to put your adviser on the spot, but we've heard of interministerial committees in a variety of areas in the past. Most of the feedback we've had from them is that they were committees in name only and that nothing was really happening or functioning. It would be encouraging to discover that something is really happening, that it is functioning and that changes are being made because of it.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm told that our representation on that committee.... Actually, there are numerous representatives. There are about eight representatives from our ministry on that committee and one from each of the other ministries, so we have a significant presence. When the issues revolving around immigrants or immigration crop up in budgets or discussions with respect to the other ministries, I'm told that my ministry makes itself felt in a very positive fashion.
V. Anderson: I guess the other aspect of that is being encouraged that something really is happening and things are going ahead. Is there a means by which the public at large can be informed or discover that these things are happening? There's a feeling that things are happening behind closed doors, and so you don't trust anybody; there are a lot of negative feelings. Is there any way of helping the public be aware that there are constructive things going on?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm advised that consultation and discussions do take place in the formulation of any policy that affects any ministry vis-a-vis immigrants or immigration.
With respect to the other, larger issue that the member raises, I think it's important. There's a view out there that whether they're from the Right or the Left, politicians don't do anything. I don't know if the hon. member is saying we should be spending a lot more money telling people what we're doing. I don't know whether that will make any difference. It is certainly my intention in the area of multiculturalism, human rights, immigration supports and FOI, as I was talking about it earlier today, to raise those issues with the public when I get out of this place after the estimates and the session is over. I think that's the only way to do it. How effective it is, only time will tell.
V. Anderson: You'll be glad to know I'd like to move on to the business of immigration. Perhaps the minister could briefly talk about the two main programs, the entrepreneurial program first. Then we could deal with the investor program afterwards.
[8:00]
Where is it at this point? What's happening to it? Is it going ahead or is it behind, and how many persons or groups are involved in it? Perhaps we could start with an explanation about the entrepreneurial program.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member has asked a question which actually requires a long answer. I usually am not inclined to read things, but I will have to for my own benefit as well as for the benefit of the hon. member.
Dealing with the immigrant entrepreneur program, it says: "An immigrant entrepreneur is a successful business person who has sufficient resources to settle successfully in Canada. He is also required to be actively involved as an owner-manager, and the investment must create at least one job for a Canadian." These requirements are referred to as the terms and conditions on the visa. The terms and conditions must be satisfied within two years of landing. What constitutes a substantial investment or what qualifies as a job isn't mentioned. There are no minimum numbers required in terms of the investment. I think that's one of the things that sets this apart from the investor category.
Prior to 1990 British Columbia was having increasing difficulty with the entrepreneur program. While the entrepreneur movement out of Hong Kong was accelerating sharply, entrepreneurs were increasingly resisting meaningful investment. Corner grocery stores and other small retail operations were being flipped from immigrant to immigrant to simply satisfy the terms and conditions. In response to these issues, the business immigration branch in British Columbia developed provincial guidelines which were then adopted by the federal immigration officials as the benchmark for removal of terms and conditions in British Columbia.
In terms of the investment, if the member requires more details on that, we can provide those to him by way of copies of the material that we have, rather than taking up the time here.
In terms of the immigrant investor program, this is a program that lets experienced business people who are investors immigrate to Canada by investing, obviously, in approved Canadian business funds. The immigrant investor would get an unconditional visa, and the immigrant investor himself or herself does not have to run the business. Anyone who has successful business experience and earned a net worth of at least $500,000 Canadian, and invested the required amount of money after applying for a visa in an approved business or fund locked in for five years.... Of course, you have to pass the medical and security checks.
In B.C. the amount required for investment is $350,000 (Canadian), and you can invest it in businesses that use investor money to start or expand themselves and create economic benefit in B.C., or funds that will invest the money in two or more companies. That's some of the basic information in these programs.
Let me give you some more information, hon. member. The investor immigrants have contributed approximately $290 million in direct small business investment in British Columbia through the investor program since 1986. This investment has created about 5,500 direct job opportunities for British Columbians. Of course, these entrepreneurs have gone on to further entrepreneurial activities, creating yet more jobs. The average immigrant entrepreneur will make an initial small business investment of about $155,000, will create about four permanent jobs and will save about one existing permanent job for British Columbians within two years of arriving in British Columbia. Over the last several years, I have been
[ Page 16522 ]
reading the statistics with respect to investment coming from the Pacific Rim either with or without these programs, and that has been in the billions of dollars. These are just small figures relating to this particular program.
If we have a program in place for British Columbia, I think what this does is send a signal that we are receptive to people coming into the province with talents -- with capital both human and non-human. I think that has been the major reason that British Columbia is a very receptive society to immigrants. It is a multicultural society, a society that prides itself on a very excellent race relations record, at least in recent history. For those reasons, people from all over the world and particularly from the Pacific Rim have been attracted to British Columbia over the last many years, resulting in thousands and thousands of jobs and billions of dollars' worth of investment.
V. Anderson: We have also been able to read in the paper -- and it doesn't get sorted out -- that some of the programs have not gone well, particularly in places like Manitoba. We've heard about that.
We could use some assurance about how well both the business entrepreneurial program and the investor program are going. You indicated that there was one problem with the business investor program and that there were some changes in it. Between these two programs, perhaps you could indicate the successes.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The system devised by our people in British Columbia was in fact eventually adopted by the federal government and other provinces to deal with this issue and to prevent abuse. There has been almost no abuse, or very minimal abuse at best, in British Columbia. The British Columbia model has more or less been adopted across the rest of the nation.
R. Neufeld: I have a couple of quick questions. How are the investor and entrepreneurial programs monitored? Is there a process of monitoring them by government?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The entrepreneurs obviously have to do their own due diligence, but there is staff here to assist them with what they do. In terms of the lending conditions and the terms, they obviously have to comply with all those. You have to remember that in addition to our staff doing what has to be done from the point of view of the business requirement, there are also the immigration squads, as they're called, which roam the province on behalf of the federal government, making sure that the entrepreneurs or the investors who come into the country based on certain terms and conditions do live up to those. So you have a two-pronged attack on that.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate that. I understand, then, that it's really the federal government that follows up on the monitoring of it.
The immigration of professional people ....
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Aye.
R. Neufeld: I felt some sympathy there for a minute.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I know.
R. Neufeld: I'm talking about professional people specifically. I believe the minister is probably aware that we have some real difficulty attracting doctors or those kinds of people to the north from the lower mainland. Historically, the majority of our doctors -- physiotherapists and all the ones that go along with it -- have come from Europe or other places overseas. Where I live, they are mostly South Africans. There was a problem with immigration for a while, and with what happened in Fort St. John specifically, it really threw a kink into the doctor-patient ratio. I believe there has been a relaxing of the rules. Maybe the minister could explain this to me so that I understand more about the immigration process when we're dealing with bringing people from those countries as professionals.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: With respect to the issue of doctors, I'm not familiar with the details. The sense that I have is that these doctors come as family-class immigrants to this country. As to whether they would be able to get a licence from the College of Physicians and Surgeons to practise in British Columbia, that's an issue. The billing number is an issue as well. I'm not aware of the intricacies of the billing number or the College of Physicians issue. Therefore I would rather not say anything to the hon. member. On the immigration issue, even if you have qualified as a medical doctor to come to British Columbia as an immigrant, I think you have to deal with the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the billing number. I think the Minister of Health might have more to say about that. I am unable to assist.
But the larger issue that the hon. member raises is still in the back of my mind, and that is whether we can compel anyone to work in any particular part of the province. I think the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would prohibit anyone from imposing those kinds of conditions. If one can't be prevented from interprovincial transfers due to the Charter, then one certainly can't be prevented and prohibited from moving from one part of the province to another. So the north may have difficulty retaining medical doctors in any event; even if you had them, they might want to move to major centres. The solution that you are envisioning is a short-term solution. Obviously there are problems. I'm aware of the problems; I don't have any solutions.
R. Neufeld: Just so we get it on the record and so the minister understands, I certainly didn't have in the back of my mind anything about billing numbers for specific areas of the province or making people work in specific areas of the province. That was obviously what the minister thought I was talking about, but I wasn't asking that question. I understand what doctors have to go through to be able to come here and get a billing number; I know that. I'm asking about purely the immigration part of it, because that is where the difficulty is, not the qualifications. I know what the qualifications are.
[8:15]
I'll go back a ways. It wasn't too long ago that the immigration rules were changed a bit in British Columbia, because we're overdoctored, as far as British Columbia is concerned. But we're overdoctored in the lower mainland, not in the rest of the province. So there were some changes with immigration that took place at one point in time. I understand that now they're relaxed a bit, so we do now have some doctors coming from South Africa. That was the question I was trying to get at with the minister.
[ Page 16523 ]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I understand from the officials that if we went to the federal government and expressed a need for a particular specialty -- specialists from whatever regions of the world -- we would be able to receive those doctors in British Columbia. The difficulty we will have is in making them stay in the area the hon. member might want them to stay in and, of course, with the other requirements with respect to the College of Physicians and the billing numbers.
R. Neufeld: I can tell by what I see down the way that there are lots of questions yet to be asked on some other issues, so I don't want to belabour this too long. Just so the minister understands, I've lived in the north for most of my life. When doctors come from other parts of the world -- and they do come from all over -- to the north, they're usually from heavily populated areas, and they quite enjoy living in the north. So that's not another problem I have; you're trying to second-guess what I'm asking. No, I'm not asking about that, because in most cases they stay. Once people do get to the north, they do stay. But they also come on the understanding that they spend a number of years in the north before they can move to the south. And that's more just an explanation than anything else.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I want to thank the hon. member for being here, and I would ask him to stay. Please.
V. Anderson: We touched on the area of antiracism and racism, just in passing a while ago. It's a growing concern not only in the lower mainland but in 100 Mile House, Armstrong and a variety of places around the province. I know the ministry is supportive of those programs, but has the ministry, through the multicultural council or whatever, taken some initiative? Preventing this from developing further is becoming an increasing focus of concern within the province. Could you comment on that? It is a major concern.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am aware of the couple of instances where the ministry has played an excellent role: with respect to a situation in Merrit, where there were some difficulties among the residents of Merritt from different backgrounds; and, of course, the Surrey Legion issue, where there was some assistance in conflict resolution provided by the ministry.
I believe the member is asking a question which is much broader, as to what proactive steps we're taking. I think the proactive steps, no matter how much money you spend on these issues through the department or agencies.... In fact, there are steps by the political leadership in the province.... It's always been my view for every minute of the last 27 years that I've been in Canada that if there's one thing that can deal with the issue of racism in a very clear and concise fashion, it is the political leadership in the province. We are vigilant on many issues, not just at one time, but all the time. We need to be vigilant as the political leadership of the province, as elected individuals -- all 75 of us -- and as municipal councillors, school board trustees and all of the elected people in British Columbia. We need to be proactive in our own way, take positions of leadership on this issue and do so obviously in a very constructive fashion. That's the only hope. If we throw money at this problem, it won't go away.
We need to educate people as to how to resolve conflicts peacefully; we need to assist them with conflict resolution from time to time when the need arises. In terms of the larger issue, I believe that's fundamentally what we need to do. That's our function -- yours, mine and the rest of the political leadership in the province.
V. Anderson: This has shifted us into the area of human rights. I'd like to take a few minutes on that. We had a chance to discuss this recently in the House in relationship to a recent bill that came through. There's been a fair bit of discussion in that regard, and we should not take too long on that.
What is the relationship between the ministry and the B.C. Human Rights Coalition? Could the minister comment on the relationship and the coalition, which is a very active and vital group?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Human Rights Coalition is an advocacy group for issues relating to human rights in British Columbia. It is an organization of long standing which provides some legal assistance to the complainants who appear before the B.C. Council of Human Rights through the process of complaint resolution. We have no formal relationship with that coalition.
I understand -- I have not spoken to the members of the coalition -- the coalition has been very supportive of the human rights work that we've been trying to do over the last three or four years in terms of the amendments that were brought in 1992, when my colleague from New Westminster was the minister responsible, the amendments that were brought in 1993 and the amendments that have now been completed. They have been very, very supportive. In fact, they have advocated with respect to these human rights issues and have done some advocacy work with us in terms of what position the government should be taking on possible amendments with respect to Bill Black's report.
V. Anderson: With regard to funding, I noticed that there is a $340,000 increase in the total budget this year. In relationship to the other increases, that's very insignificant. Because of the shift that's taken place because of the new organization that's come out of the act, is there a shift in funding? Are there grants and contributions that go to groups outside, the same as there are in the multicultural area? I notice a figure of $127,000 listed as grants. I'm interested in where this goes.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There are no major grants to any organizations except some money that goes to Legal Services to assist the complainants with the process, and I believe that's $127,000. There are some small grants that go to students completing various human rights-oriented projects.
V. Anderson: We have to do some things in human rights to justify the staff being here all evening in that area. I appreciate that; we fill in some of the blanks.
Talking about staff, I notice there is a $150,000 increase in the staff budget this year. We had some discussion. Is it logical to expect that with the new organization there are going to be some staff increases, and what might they be? How many FTEs are or will be involved in human rights?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that there have been two individuals hired to deal with the intake as a result of the increased caseload and the backlog. I understand there is one
[ Page 16524 ]
legal counsel, because the Ministry of Attorney General withdrew legal services and therefore a legal counsel was required. I understand that was due to a conflict-of-interest situation. There is a 0.5 FTE with respect to the administrative aspects of it. That's the $150,000 that the member is asking about.
With respect to budgetary requirements for the new structure, as I said during the debate in the House, I'm not aware of the details at this time. Some additional resources are going to be required to do the work, to deal with the backlog. There is a 1,300- or 1,200-case backlog.
I'm told that actually I was misinformed. It's not 30 months that it takes from the initiation of the complaint to the conclusion of the complaint. In British Columbia the time period for the conclusion of the complaint from the moment the complaintant walks in the door is 42 to 46 months. It takes 12 to 16 months from the moment the complaintant walks in for an investigator to be assigned. That further process then takes another 30 months. We have a very, very bad situation in British Columbia, and it's going to take some additional resources to deal with it. I can't put a figure on it at this time.
V. Anderson: We've been very aware of that as people have come and complained to us about not getting their complaints heard. I appreciate that that's being worked on.
One thing that took place was a change to the human rights tariff to do with legal services. It took place in March and will make it much more difficult for people to get legal support from the Legal Services Society. Could the minister explain what change took place and the effect of that?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The council has reduced funding to the Legal Services Society. That limits the legal services primarily to the representation of complainants at hearings. I believe the legal services have been eliminated for those services which the council itself provides at no cost to the complainants. The council continues to fund independent legal advice on mediated terms of settlements and maintains discretion to fund legal services in special cases. Funding for legal services is comparable to other jurisdictions.
[8:30]
V. Anderson: I'm going to clarify what I heard the minister just say, hon. Chair. Whereas Legal Services used to provide initial organizational funds before it came to referral, that organizational help is now being provided by the council itself, and it is only when the referrals are made and are actually being heard that Legal Services steps in. Under the new arrangement, am I hearing that the support they need in being examined by the commissioner would be provided by the commissioner for that office? It's only after it's referred to the tribunal that they would get legal aid service. Is that what I'm understanding?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: If the hon. member is talking about the new structure under the new legislation, I think I recall what I said in the House was that the commission would be providing the resources for investigation and the formulation of the case. Once the case goes before the tribunal, then the complainants would receive legal aid without being means-tested. The needy respondents would also receive legal aid.
V. Anderson: The minister may have said that, but in the confusion, I'm not sure if I remember. When does he estimate that the new commission and tribunal process will be in place? When will the switchover take place, and how soon can people count on that beginning to operate?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is a substantial undertaking. A submission has to be prepared to go to Treasury Board to seek additional resources before implementation can begin. I want to have it happen as early as possible. I'm as anxious as anyone to see it proceed, because I believe that the state of human rights in British Columbia cries out for some help. I can't put a time frame on it at this time. All I can say to the hon. member is that a submission will be prepared as soon as possible and taken to Treasury Board. Once that happens, we will be able to deal with the situation.
V. Anderson: Am I to understand that although Bill Black's report came in last year, and we know the bill was coming forward, the expenses for this were not included in this year's budget in estimates?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think it would be fair to say that the drafting of the legislation and finalization of the legislation took place very recently. It has taken some time from the moment the report came into our hands to determine what it is that we could do at this time and what it was that we could not do at this time. Consultation had to take place with organizations such as the Human Rights Coalition and other organizations even subsequent to the report being handed to us. That obviously has taken some time. We are anxious to proceed. There's no money in the present budget for that.
V. Anderson: So I am to understand then -- and I'm sure this will be a disappointment to people in the field -- that it either has to wait until next year's estimates or that the minister is hoping that once again there will be some money in the miscellaneous contingency fund that might be appropriated for this.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I would hope there is some money coming forward, and we're going to make every effort to get the money. We'll beg, borrow or whatever else we might have to do. I think it's important to do this on behalf of the people of British Columbia. I hope we'll be able to reach Treasury Board sometime in July, and the legislation obviously has to be proclaimed before we can begin the work. That may take some time, but all those things will come together at some point, hopefully in the very near future.
V. Anderson: I would like to say thank you at this point to the minister and the staff for my participation over about three or four hours. I appreciate it very much, and I look forward to ongoing participation. As I indicated, I will no longer ask the minister if I can meet with him; I will go directly, with his permission given publicly. Thank you very much. I'll turn it back to my colleague.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I want to thank the hon. member and urge him to stay.
K. Jones: The two of them have been going up and down together so often that they're still in the response mode here, and they keep bouncing up and down.
Could the minister tell us what he might know about the Shamrock Halls bingo operation?
[ Page 16525 ]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Unless it is defined somewhat more particularly, I may not know where it is or what it means.
K. Jones: It's my understanding that it's a licensed bingo operation in the Nanaimo area.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm not familiar with it. I haven't been to Nanaimo for some time.
K. Jones: On behalf of your representation of the Gaming Commission, could you try to give us some answers with regard to the Gaming Commission's knowledge of Shamrock Hall and any dealings, good or bad, that they may have with the Gaming Commission?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I would be delighted to provide this information to my esteemed colleague at the earliest possible time, once we get out of the estimates. I don't have that information here with me.
K. Jones: Does the minister recognize the name Harewood Charities Bingo Society, on Bowen Road in Nanaimo?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, I do.
K. Jones: What does the minister know about this operation?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Nothing, other than what I've read in the newspapers, watched on television or heard on radio.
K. Jones: And what was it that you watched, heard and read?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the hon. member is talking about some past actions or dealings of the Harewood Bingo Society. I do not recall very much about it other than the name, which I've read in the newspapers.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us whether there is any investigation by the Gaming Commission into the fact that there is a legal suit going on between Harewood Charities Bingo Society and Shamrock Hall, to the tune of $20,000 for rental arrears?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I do not believe my officials are aware of this action. Even if they were, it appears on the face of it to be a civil action between two parties.
K. Jones: Since those parties are involved as licensee and charitable organization, presumably, of a bingo operation under the Gaming Commission, surely the minister and the Gaming Commission would be taking some definite interest in the fact that there is a situation of rental arrears on the part of one of the organizations. Would the minister like to be aware that this was publicized in the Vancouver Sun on June 19 of this year? Would that help?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I thank the hon. member for letting me know that.
K. Jones: Does the minister have any concerns on behalf of the Gaming Commission with regard to a situation of a charitable society having a claim against them to the tune of $20,000 for rental arrears? They are obviously a charitable organization. They have a bingo licensing capability, I presume -- or has that been removed from them?
The Chair: Hon. members know, I'm sure, that anything that's before the courts is not within the purview of our discussions here -- just to remind you all.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand from what the member has told me that there is a civil action. I am not aware of why it is or what it's for. If the hon. member is interested in the details of any dealings that the Gaming Commission or the gaming branch may have had with these two entities that are engaged in a civil action, I believe the hon. member would be at liberty to contact those two entities and get the information from the gaming branch and the Gaming Commission. My officials would assist him. We will get back to him with respect to this matter.
K. Jones: Would it be possible that the minister might show an interest in it if the society were bankrupt and, as a result of that, were in rental arrears? Would that cause the commission to consider withdrawing their licence?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I will gladly take that question on notice and get back to the member.
K. Jones: When would the minister get back to us?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: As early as possible.
K. Jones: Would that be by Tuesday?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It may not be.
K. Jones: Would that be by Wednesday?
The Chair: Oh, hon. member.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: As early as possible.
K. Jones: Would that be a Friday?
The Chair: Hon. member, you're beginning to make a bit of a mockery of all of this.
K. Jones: Well, the minister could answer with some firm date. He's making a mockery of it.
The Chair: You've had an answer.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us whether he has had any discussions at any time with regard to companies doing business with the B.C. Lottery Corporation and selling lottery tickets offshore?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I did not, of course, get the thrust of the question. Maybe there is something wrong with me at this time of the evening. If the hon. member is asking whether I have ever had discussions with companies engaged in offshore sales or resales of lottery tickets, the answer is no.
[ Page 16526 ]
K. Jones: The question was whether the minister or the minister's operations -- be it the ministry, the Gaming Commission or the B.C. Lottery Corporation -- has had any dealings with a company doing business as a seller of tickets offshore -- i.e., outside the country.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm not aware of that at this time, but I will take that question on notice because I'm unable to answer it.
K. Jones: Tuesday?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I will have the answer back as early as possible.
K. Jones: Perhaps the minister would like to bring in appropriate staff who can provide him some answers to the questions. That is the purpose of this, and the opportunity is here for appropriate staff to be brought in. It's a waste of our time if you keep taking questions on notice. That is not the intention of the estimates; the intention was that you would have appropriate staff here to answer questions.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: We had the requisite staff today and yesterday; we do not have that staff at this moment. The hon. member did not ask this particular question then. If the urgency was such that the hon. member desired the answer right away, he had ample opportunity to ask that question. I will undertake to provide the answer to the hon. member at the earliest possible time, but not right now.
K. Jones: I remind the minister that the schedule was adjusted at the request of the minister's staff to allow multiculturalism questions to proceed. The process of the gaming questioning was postponed in order to allow that to occur. If the minister is not willing to cooperate, as we cooperated to facilitate his staff, then I'm very disappointed.
A. Hagen: I would like to raise a point of order, hon. Chair. It is certainly the right of the member to ask questions and the right of the minister to respond as he sees fit. I think the relevance of the debate would be assisted if we indeed stuck to that understanding of the rules of this House.
The Chair: I thank the hon. member for her wise advice. I'm sure the members will take it into consideration.
K. Jones: It's interesting to see the backbencher of the minister coming in to try to muddy the waters and bail the minister out. The minister has failed to bring the adequate staff to answer the questions he doesn't have the answers for himself.
The Chair: Hon. member, I think the idea here is to avoid casting aspersions on anyone in this room and to get on with the estimates. With all the material you have there, I'm sure you have lots of questions to ask, so why don't you get on with it.
K. Jones: Yes, hon. Chair, but I'm not going to be satisfied with the constant taking-on-notice response to those questions.
The Chair: It's entirely the minister's prerogative.
K. Jones: If the minister wants some cooperation, which we've already provided, then he has to start providing some answers.
[8:45]
The Chair: Shall vote 38 pass?
Some Hon. Members: Aye.
K. Jones: No.
Could the minister tell us whether he has read any studies that have been done on the operations of the Lottery Corporation?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: In the short space of time that I've been in this ministry and prior to that, no.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what direction he has given to the board of the Lottery Corporation as to its objectives?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The B.C. Lottery board has been functioning quite well. In fact, we are in the process of reappointing the board, and I had a very brief but pleasant meeting with Mr. Simonis the other day in Richmond. I'm advised that the B.C. Lottery Corporation is doing quite well. In terms of any changes to its direction, I have not discussed the same with Mr. Simonis, and I have not been able to read very much on the corporation in my short space of time. Therefore I will say that at this time the direction remains as it is.
K. Jones: What is the direction of the Lottery Corporation?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It is to develop, undertake, organize, conduct and manage lottery schemes on behalf of the government, and, of course, much of the revenues from the Lottery Corporation's proceeds goes to health care in British Columbia.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us the total cost expenditure attached to the board of the Lottery Corporation?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Board members are, I understand, per diem appointments, so there is really no substantial cost involved. But I can get that information for the member and provide it to him. It might take me a few minutes to extract that information out of the stuff I have. It will be provided to him as soon as I have that. Maybe he could proceed with other questions.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what activities the board of the B.C. Lottery Corporation does?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It provides broad policy direction to the lottery scheme in British Columbia.
K. Jones: How could the board provide broad policy to the Lottery Corporation when the minister has just said that their activities are very, very one-directional? How would the board be able to go beyond that?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Let me just spell out some of the objectives of the B.C. Lottery Corporation to the hon. member.
[ Page 16527 ]
The program objectives of the B.C. Lottery Corporation are to carry out its purpose in a manner that ensures the integrity of the games offered and ensures that their scale and scope is consistent with the moderate and unique approach to gaming that British Columbia has.
Within the context of the previous objective, the purpose is to maximize gaming revenues to the province of British Columbia, to have the best retailer network in the province to serve and meet the needs of our players, to achieve a workforce that at all levels reflects gender, disabled, visible and other diversities of the B.C. workforce and to make sure that all employees, retailers and the customers of the B.C. Lotto Corp feel that they are valued participants in the lottery scheme in British Columbia.
As I indicated, if you look at the purpose and the program objectives, and you put them together, there is a broad area within which the board of directors can provide broad policy directives to achieve those objectives.
K. Jones: Your description of the program objectives is a description of the mandate of the chief executive officer in administering the operation. It really has nothing to do with the board. Therefore, from what you've told me so far, I get the distinct feeling that the Lottery Corporation could do its job very effectively without any board whatsoever, and I would suggest that the board of B.C. Lottery Corporation is actually superfluous. Could the minister tell us why he continues to have a board when the chief executive officer is fully capable of running the operation?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I thank the member for his opinion, and I will take his advice under advisement.
K. Jones: I have asked the minister why he continues to have a board under these circumstances. Could the minister tell us why he is continuing the board?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I believe I really have answered the question in the fullest possible way that I can. That's the end of questions on that.
K. Jones: The minister constantly shows his limits when he has to say he won't answer any more questions; he really shows his limits. Could the minister tell us, under the operations of the B.C. Lottery Corporation, what associations there are with other companies?
The Chair: Hon. member, would you please repeat the question?
K. Jones: Minister, I asked you if you could tell us whether there are any associations with other companies by the Lottery Corporation. Does the Lottery Corporation have associations with any other companies?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am not aware of any joint ventures per se between the B.C. Lottery Corporation and any other companies. However, they have a continuing relationship with their retailers, and they have contracts with them. Obviously that's a commercial relationship or commercial relationships. I am at a loss to understand what specific information the hon. member is seeking. Maybe he can specify.
[9:00]
K. Jones: The member was requesting to know about any and all arrangements, associations, alliances, contracts with major corporate suppliers or corporations that supposedly benefit the purpose for which the Lottery Corporation has been established.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think that's the kind of question, if the hon. member is seeking specific information, that my office would be very, very happy to answer for him. I don't have it at my fingertips, and it would be impossible for the staff to sit here and tabulate that information.
Firstly, I'm not aware of any major corporate associations that the Lottery Corporation may have. It's unknown to me because I've been in this portfolio for a very short time and have only had the Lottery Corporation within my ministry for less than two months. They may have some commercial relationships that I am not aware of. Therefore I will not venture to give an answer that may appear to be incorrect later on. I would simply say that this answer would be available to the member as early as possible after the estimates.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what the relationship is with Pollard Banknote Ltd.?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is the first time I've heard that name, but I'm told by the staff that they may be the people that supplied bingo paper to the Lottery Corporation. However, I will undertake to provide an answer to that question as early as possible.
K. Jones: Could the minister repeat what he just said? I wasn't able to hear.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: If my memory serves me correctly, what I said was that this is the first time I've heard the name of this organization. I understand that these people the hon. member mentions may be the suppliers of bingo paper to the Lottery Corporation. That could be untrue; I'm not aware of that relationship. I'm told that that's the relationship. We would get back to the member at the earliest possible.
K. Jones: Perhaps I should just help the minister by saying that Pollard Banknote Ltd., located just east of Kamloops, is actually the supplier of bingo paper and the breakopen tickets for the ministry. It also exports business to lottery corporations in various parts of the world.
Perhaps if the minister, as I suggested previously, wanted to sit down with me, I could give him a little briefing and maybe better equip him for his job.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Actually, that briefing might come in handy after the estimates.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us if he is familiar with the supplier of the lottery terminals that are used by retailers?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm unable to answer that question at this time, and I'll take that on notice.
K. Jones: I move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again so the minister can get the appropriate staff here.
[ Page 16528 ]
Motion negatived.
Interjections.
K. Jones: I was trying to come to our senses and get this painful episode to an end so the minister would actually be able to have some adequate support here instead of fumbling along and bumbling along the way he's having to do because he doesn't have any answers.
The Chair: Perhaps try another tack, hon. member.
K. Jones: Yes, I'm going to.
Does the minister know the name of the company that supplies the terminals that are used by the retailers throughout the province?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's a $64,000 question. No, I don't know the answer.
K. Jones: Does the minister know of any relationship between the Lottery Corporation and that company which may go beyond a business relationship?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Aye.
K. Jones: I take it that the minister is saying yes -- a typical Scottish term, aye. Therefore he is saying he fully knows about a special relationship between the Gtech company, the supplier of the terminals for the Lottery Corporation, and the Lottery Corporation itself. I presume that the briefing he had probably explained that. Could the minister tell us anything about the Gtech Corp. that he might have had given to him in the briefing?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that Gtech and B.C. Lottery Corporation have had a business relationship. I am unaware of the details of that business relationship.
K. Jones: I seriously think the minister should be concerned enough to look very deeply into that relationship. It might have a serious impact on his ministerial role in the future. Is the minister aware of any work that's been done over the past year by Gtech on a contracted basis for the Lottery Corporation?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'd be happy to get back to the member on this issue in terms of the specifics that the member is seeking.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us if there was a manufacturing agreement with the Gtech organization to manufacture video lottery terminals?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'll take that question on notice and get back to the member.
K. Jones: I think the minister thinks this is question period. The minister should be better informed regarding a very important part of his ministry, one that has some areas that need to be looked into rather carefully, I would think. It seems that the minister has made a statement that there will be no video lottery terminals in British Columbia, yet one of his prime Crown corporations has been in the process of developing video lottery terminals. Could the minister explain how he or his predecessors have allowed that to occur?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Crown corporation has looked at prototypes of the terminals, not developed the terminals. I want the hon. member to know that this is the B.C. Lottery Corporation. This is a Crown corporation that to a certain extent sits at arm's length from the minister. I have had it within my portfolio for a very short time. They have a multitude of business arrangements with all kinds of corporations and retailers. If the member is looking for specific information on any aspect of the Lottery Corporation, I'll be happy to provide that to him. I will take that question on notice. I believe we had someone here from the corporation yesterday and again today, and the member did not pursue that line of questioning. He would have been able to get those answers, but I am unable to provide that answer right now.
K. Jones: I will not accept the suggestion that because his staff was here earlier and we didn't pursue those questions is a suitable answer to his inability to answer the question. The arrangement was with your staff, hon. minister, to allow your multiculturalism staff to have their hearings now, ahead of time, and to interrupt the time that we had with the Lottery Corporation and with gaming. If you think you're going to try to play games with me about who scheduled what, it's all on your side, hon. minister.
The Chair: Hon. member, I think you recall the discussion earlier about....
K. Jones: I think the minister had better realize....
The Chair: Hon. member, would you take your seat, please.
I'd like to remind everyone about two things. First, about addressing all remarks through the Chair, it has nothing to do with me; it has to do with the position of the Chair. Second, in terms of the arrangements that may or may not have been made about who is to be here or not to be here, it strikes me that the issue has been settled. It doesn't serve either of the causes much good to pursue it further. I appreciate the position that you're in, hon. member, but I suggest that perhaps at this stage, pursuing another line of questioning might be more profitable for you.
K. Jones: Perhaps I could give an example of how these things can be run properly. The hon. Minister of Employment and Investment called his estimates for the B.C. Buildings Corporation at 9:30 in the evening, and he was able to bring out the chief executive officer of the B.C. Buildings Corporation to provide support in answering the questions that were made in that situation. I see no reason why this minister doesn't get his staff on the phone and bring out the right people who can answer the questions.
[9:15]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: We have the chair of the B.C. Systems Corporation waiting to be brought in so that we can pursue any line of questioning on that particular corporation. I indicated that personnel were here earlier on. It's unfortunate that
[ Page 16529 ]
they had to leave. It's not a matter of laying blame at anyone's doorstep. The fact is that they aren't here; the answers will not be provided.
K. Jones: I read a note that was given to me by one of your staff members which says: "I just wanted to confirm the order as we last discussed -- gaming, air-quality assurance and purchasing." That's for this period, now. You can check with your staff member who is seated behind you if you wish to find out whether that is what we had planned. I understood that you were fully aware of it and were going to have the appropriate staff here.
The Chair: Hon. member, I cautioned you before, and I will caution you again. We are here to discuss vote 38, and that has to do with the estimates -- not whatever private arrangements you may or may not have made and were accepted or not.
D. Schreck: To the best of my knowledge, I have been able to contact, and I believe all members of the House have been able to contact, any staff member in government whenever we need to arrange meetings. I am sure that with both the availability of staff to all elected members and the benefits of freedom-of-information legislation, a great deal of the exchange of routine factual information can be accomplished without using valuable legislative time.
I appreciate the opportunity to question the elected minister on policy matters, and I have done that as a backbencher within government to many of my colleagues on matters that are of concern to my constituents. I would simply appeal to all members to draw the distinction between the policy matters for which the minister is accountable and factual matters that any of us can sit down at virtually any time of the year with a staff person and discuss. If it's necessary to confirm in writing, I know that we have the opportunity to confirm in writing through letters. By doing so, we can make more valuable use of this very precious time.
K. Jones: I appreciate the interjection of the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale. It certainly is a valid point. It's perfectly possible for staff to be brought in for policy matters. If the member had been here earlier, he would have known that we were talking about policy matters and not routine operational matters. We were looking at very, very serious policy matters, hon. member.
The minister seems to be unwilling or unable to give his opinion or the position of the ministry or the Crown corporation that is represented by him on those very critical policy matters. He won't give an adequate answer. It is on that basis that I've asked that there be an opportunity for staff to be brought in so that there can be a proper briefing, and this valuable time can be of some use. It is a waste of this valuable time when the minister can only take things on notice.
Could the minister tell us what program is being established to improve the returns of the Lottery Corporation, since the Lottery Corporation's Lotto 6/49 lottery is actually shown to be losing money from the last fiscal year to the current fiscal year?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I do recall discussing this very issue in those very exact terms yesterday and providing the answer. It is my understanding that the lottery sales have gone up by 3 percent, and the Lottery Corporation has all kinds of programs and mechanisms to check efficiency and to enhance it on an ongoing basis.
I am not aware of the specific details of those; they are not in my head at this time.
K. Jones: The minister states that the return of the Lottery Corporation has increased. Maybe you'd like to check your figures. Could the minister tell us whether the return to the province has increased or decreased this year?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The revenue to the province has increased.
K. Jones: By how much?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have very rough, unaudited, raw figures, and there is an increase of $1 million.
K. Jones: Are those the figures as listed in the latest annual report?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the report was with respect to 1993-94, and these are the 1994-95 figures that I have given to the hon. member. They are unaudited, raw figures at this time.
K. Jones: The figures I was referring to were the only published figures we have to deal with and are those in the annual report. Could the minister tell us whether that report showed a profit, an increase to the taxpayers?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is an increase this year over the amount in that report.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what the exact amount of the gross revenues of the Lottery Corporation is for this year?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: In unaudited, raw figures, approximately $781 million.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what the net return to the province is, based on those figures?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That was the figure I gave earlier on. It's an increase of $1 million over last year, and the figure is $234.5 million.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us how much of the difference is operating costs?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The question was: what's the net revenue to the province? What's the increase to the province? What are the gross sales? Where did the operating cost come in those questions?
K. Jones: Usually, in a business transaction, there's an operating cost some place in between the gross sales and the net revenue.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member raised the question of the operating expenses for the Lottery Corporation for 1994-95. They are approximately $47,304,000.
[ Page 16530 ]
K. Jones: How much of the gross sales were paid out in prizes?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Approximately $403 million.
K. Jones: In which category would donations, grants and gifts to either provincial or community activities be paid out? Where would that money come from? Or is that an additional item?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That would be part of the operating expenses.
K. Jones: I just want to confirm that these are the raw figures for '94-95.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us how much of the operating cost went to advertising?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am unable to provide that answer; I don't have the breakdown. I'll take that on notice and provide it to the member.
K. Jones: Will the Lottery Corporation be reporting to the Gaming Commission or will the Gaming Commission be reporting to the Lottery Corporation?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: None of the above.
With respect to the earlier question that the member asked, the B.C. Lottery Corporation spent $9.48 million on advertising in fiscal 1994-95.
K. Jones: Could the minister answer the other question, or was the answer "neither"?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: None of the above.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what will be the relationship between the aboriginal casinos and the Lottery Corporation?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: To ensure that what we do with respect to aboriginal gaming is completely lawful and within the laws of British Columbia, the British Columbia Lottery Corporation may be the agent of the government and have a management contract with whoever may own the aboriginal casinos. That would be the only relationship. It would a notional relationship, to a large extent.
K. Jones: Just to clarify this, could the minister tell us what the role of the Lottery Corporation would be in this partnership with the aboriginal band?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It would not be classified as a commercial relationship per se. It would be a contractual relationship under which the management company would have to live up to the terms and obligations under the contract with respect to running the operation of the casino.
[9:30]
K. Jones: I wasn't sure if the minister was really finished in what he was trying to say there. Did the minister want to say a little more on that? Could the minister say a little more on that relationship to explain it more clearly?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: As I understand it, for gaming to be legal in British Columbia, it has to be not-for-profit gaming or charity gaming. The difficulty in the case of the aboriginal gaming has been that the aboriginal communities have said that they would like to be able to utilize the proceeds from gaming for economic development purposes. To make sure that that arrangement is within the confines of British Columbia law, the Lottery Corporation would have to play a role as the agent of the government to enter into a contract with a management company, and the management company could operate the casino so that a portion of the proceeds from the casino could go into a revenue pool, rather than to charitable organizations, which is not exactly charitable per se. But that revenue pool would be administered, as I said yesterday. I explained this fully and at length yesterday. In fact, this morning we talked about this, I remember.
That revenue pool would be administered by a board that would be appointed by the government. It could be done through an OIC; it could be done through legislation, if need be. That board would have representatives from the community, the aboriginal community and the government to ensure that the funds out of that revenue pool are utilized by all British Columbia communities across the province for economic development purposes.
K. Jones: The present operators of casinos in the province don't have to go through the Lottery Corporation. Why is that? They're in the same boat as having to be operators of the government. They report to the gaming branch. Why is it that the Lottery Corporation is getting involved in the aboriginal, rather than the gaming branch?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: For this purpose, the Lottery Corporation will also report, if and when these contracts are entered into, to the Gaming Commission, to that extent and only to that extent.
The reason that the current casinos do not have to involve the Lottery Corp is that those are charitable casinos. The charities are to utilize a certain portion of the proceeds, and that lends legitimacy to the arrangement that's entered into.
In the aboriginal casinos, number one: the aboriginal communities don't have the numbers of charitable organizations that would be able to take advantage, number two: the aboriginal communities made it known to us that in addition to the charitable objectives, one of the main objectives they had, and legitimately so, is the economic development of the communities, which is sorely needed. We wanted to make sure that we could do all of this within the confines of British Columbia law, and we will have to inject the Lottery Corp as a contractor vis-a-vis the operating company.
K. Jones: Most interesting, very interesting. So we have two different entities being generated for....We have one type of gaming for the non-aboriginal community, and we have another type of gaming for the aboriginal community. Why is that, minister?
[ Page 16531 ]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The gaming is the same. The betting limits, the number of tables, operation hours and the types of games will be the same across British Columbia. There is one law in the context of gaming, and it is regulated by the Gaming Commission and enforced by the gaming branch in British Columbia.
I have attempted to explain in the simplest possible way I can....
K. Jones: Maybe you should be a little more complex so we could understand it.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have attempted to explain to the hon. member that we have no for-profit gaming in British Columbia, and we have no intention of engaging in for-profit gaming in British Columbia, whether on reserve or off reserve.
To satisfy the chief objective for which the aboriginals seek participation in gaming, we will have to inject an element -- i.e., the Lottery Corporation -- so that gaming can take place without the charities being involved in it. The only distinction would be that the portion which goes to the charities in a regular casino in Vancouver, for example, would go into a revenue pool administered by a board under OIC or legislative terms. Applications to that fund will have to made by the aboriginal communities across the province for economic, social and cultural development purposes.
We had to find a way, hon. member, to make that possible. You would agree with me that it is a very important objective for the people of British Columbia to make sure that the aboriginal communities are able to participate in gaming, to the extent that we can make that possible along the same lines with the same rules, hours of operation, types of games, number of tables and betting limits as regulated by the Gaming Commission.
The only reason we need the Lottery Corporation's involvement in aboriginal casinos is to make sure that we are able to do this without involving charity organizations per se. The element that goes to the charities in regular casinos would go into the revenue pool to be utilized under the auspices of an appointed board, with financial safeguards, for economic development purposes.
K. Jones: Was this arrangement requested by the aboriginal people?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There were discussions with the First Nations Summit task group on gaming, which included Chief Ed John, among others. Before the negotiations with the first nations task group were terminated there was consensus on some issues, and this was one of those issues. So we have utilized that consensus to arrive at an arrangement which is almost the same across British Columbia, with that one distinction: the portion that goes to charities in regular casinos would go into a revenue pool to be utilized for all of the purposes that current revenue in the rest of the society is being utilized for, as well as for economic purposes. So there is that additional objective of economic development that we want to accomplish for the aboriginal people of British Columbia, and they wanted us to be able to achieve that purpose for them.
K. Jones: Why did the aboriginal people say they wanted that arrangement?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I was not present at the negotiating table, and I can only surmise from discussions with my staff and from looking at the poverty on reserves, where 33 percent of the employable population is unemployed as opposed to 10 percent across the rest of society, that they very dearly want to achieve, in addition to other objectives, economic self-sufficiency and some economic development.
K. Jones: The question is not whether the aboriginal want self-sufficiency or not. That's not what I was asking about. It was with regard to the arrangement involving the Lottery Corporation. The gentleman to your right, I believe, was probably at the table and fully aware of some of the arrangements, or certainly has been briefed on the arrangements. Maybe the minister could get the details as to why that was desired by the aboriginal peoples. It's a most unusual request, I would think. I still can't see why, under the Criminal Code, which gives the jurisdictions to the province to operate, there's any reason for the Lottery Corporation to be slipped in there, as another source of income for the Lottery Corporation. Is it a passthrough? Are they putting the revenue into their pockets and hands so that they can show greater gross revenues?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I wish my hon. colleague was a member of a law class. I might be able to assist him. I've already explained many times that under the provisions of the Criminal Code, you cannot engage in gaming that does not involve charities unless you are an agent of the provincial Crown. The B.C. Lottery Corporation would be the agent of the provincial Crown notionally contracting with the management company to facilitate the functioning of the casino so that a certain amount of money could then go to a revenue pool instead of going to the charities, as it does in the rest of the province. That is the only distinction, my dear colleague the hon. member.
K. Jones: Thank you for giving us a very clear explanation of that relationship. Hopefully that will not be an opportunity for other things to come from it. Could the minister tell us if the Lottery Corporation will show revenues, expenditures, payout and the contribution to the province from the casinos operated by the aboriginal people in its books?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm not, at this time, familiar with all of the microfunctioning of how this will come about. The Lottery Corporation may show some money flowing through its books. The Lottery Corporation may simply show the expenses incurred as a result of what the province would ask it to do. I think those are issues that have to be dealt with.
There is enough guidance for the Gaming Commission on that issue, and the Lottery Corporation also understands what needs to be done. Those are essentially two bodies: one is a Crown corporation, and the other is a commission appointed under OIC. I think those two bodies can arrive a legally appropriate arrangement.
K. Jones: Could the minister elaborate on the amount of money or the percentage that the aboriginal gaming casinos would be providing to the province of British Columbia?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am certain, because those are the guidelines, that it would be based on the same principles as
[ Page 16532 ]
the amounts are with respect to charitable gaming in British Columbia. The actual amounts are to be determined by the Gaming Commission, as always.
K. Jones: What percentage would the aboriginal band be receiving as operator of the casino?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I believe the question is similar, and the answer is the same. It would be substantially the same. The specifics have to be worked out by the Gaming Commission.
[9:45]
K. Jones: Based on that, I think the operator would get 40 percent of the revenues, and the province would get 10 percent. The charitable proportion was 25 percent of the revenues, so they're actually getting the operating as well as the charitable portions of the funds. Is that correct?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand, at this time, that the charitable portion of the proceeds is 50 percent from regular casinos in British Columbia. I believe that it would remain the same with respect to aboriginal casinos. A final decision rests in the hands of the Gaming Commission. That 50 percent, if that's the figure determined by the commission, would go into the revenue pool.
K. Jones: I stand corrected. The minister is probably absolutely correct. Is that 50 percent of the gross sales to the casino?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That is net of prizes.
K. Jones: So that is 50 percent, and 40 percent will be.... So 90 percent of the net will go to the aboriginal people, and the province will get 10 percent. Is that how it works?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's how it would substantially work. That's how it works in the other charitable casinos.
K. Jones: That makes quite a return for the aboriginal peoples off of a single casino, far greater than any charities can make, because they don't make any of that operating revenue. That goes to a private operator. So this isn't really quite the same as a regular charitable casino. It's a special arrangement that gives them 90 percent of return. I presume they could create an operating company and operate that as a group, or one individual could operate it, as they do with the present charitable operations. Is that correct?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm so delighted to be answering these questions at this time of the night. I've been dealing with them for the last two months of my life. For a chap who's only been to a gaming establishment twice in my life, I seem to know a lot.
Let me assist my colleague. You currently have 40 percent of the revenue received by a management company. The aboriginal band that may provide the on-reserve site for this casino might itself be the owner of the company that manages the casino, or it might contract with another company to manage the casino. In the event that they enter into an arrangement with a management company to run the casino, they may be interested parties in that arrangement; the aboriginal band that would have the casino located on its site may get a cut of the 40 percent. The 50 percent, hon. colleague, would go to the revenue pool -- not to the aboriginal band, but to the aboriginal people in the 200 bands in British Columbia.
The way the hon. member has put it, it's almost as if this is daylight robbery for the aboriginal people to get 90 percent of the revenues from charitable gaming. But this is how it happens with other casinos across the province, hon. colleague: 40 percent goes to the management company, 10 percent goes to the government treasury and 50 percent goes into the community, benefiting us and hundreds of thousands of other British Columbians. Aboriginal people of British Columbia are also British Columbians, and they are entitled to equality.
K. Jones: I fully agree that they're entitled to equality, and that's why I'm wondering why this arrangement isn't done on an equality basis. If they were established the same way that the present charitable gaming operators are, there is no reason why an aboriginal company or individual couldn't compete in the marketplace with the current charitable operators and have the funds go to charitable organizations on the basis of an equivalent arrangement. They could operate as a society to distribute funds for the needs of the community.
There is very little control of the funds as established under this program, because they're not allocated. They're not going to be defined and controlled, as the charitable organizations are currently in British Columbia. The ministry is just turning over this cash -- a pretty good cash cow, if it is established in the right places -- to be administered in whatever way the aboriginal advisory council, or whatever it will be, decides. Is it strictly in their hands so that they can do whatever they like? Is the government going to have any accountability over how this money is used in the end?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I resent the remarks made by the hon. member. Fifty percent of the proceeds from the lottery goes to the charities. Who makes sure that those charity proceeds are utilized for the people of British Columbia? Those charities make sure. As the minister, I don't have direct control over those charities. They have regular financial accountability vis-a-vis the Society Act. Conceivably, charities could get together, have an organization and run a charity casino anywhere in British Columbia. Nothing in the law prevents them from doing that.
The hon. member takes exception to the fact that we have now allowed the aboriginal bands to apply for and possibly achieve casinos on their lands in a limited way. The fact that a portion of that money would be used for economic development purposes is offensive to this hon. member. It is beyond me why I've been spending the last half-hour talking about this issue with the hon. member. It does not get through his thick skull that we are committed to providing equality to the aboriginal people in British Columbia. I will not be answering any more questions on this issue.
Interjection.
K. Jones: As my colleague has just said, this is not equality; this is a special arrangement. I find it most regrettable that the minister should be personally upset about this issue. It is
[ Page 16533 ]
being brought forward in a special deal arrangement, which doesn't have the same equality. The control that exists on the charitable organizations, hon. minister, is found in the fact that they have to apply to the B.C. Gaming Commission and get a licence from the gaming branch to operate. From what you've told us, this arrangement does not have that control in it, and that is why we're concerned.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Gaming Commission would have to license the casinos; there is control. There would be money flowing into a revenue pool under the auspices of a board appointed under legislation. In keeping with the guidelines and rules of the Financial Administration Act, there has to be financial accountability. Applicable financial safeguards would be put in place. Applications would have to be made from all across British Columbia. There would be a process to deal with those applications. Funding will go out based on accountability criteria. I believe I have really exhausted what I can say on this issue, and I will rest my case.
K. Jones: With regard to this funding agency that will hand out the money for the pools, is it possible that that government-appointed agency could hand out money to constituency offices or to constituency campaigns of the NDP?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: No.
K. Jones: What method does the minister have to control that?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: As I explained earlier.
K. Jones: The minister hasn't explained what control there is. The control is by the board that is going to be appointed by this government, presumably. At least, that's the information that we have presently. How can we prevent another Nanaimo Commonwealth situation in this case? With regard to this new policy, could the minister tell us what reporting there will be to the Legislature?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The pool would be established under legislation, and if the Legislature believes that reporting to the Legislature would be a requirement, that would be put in.
F. Gingell: Do I understand that legislative requirements have to be passed before this whole process can be brought into an arrangement?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: As I have said -- I believe this morning or yesterday; I don't recall now -- there might be a time lag between now and the time any casino begins to roll money out into the revenue pool. If, prior to the legislation being in place, that begins to happen, we will either look to the Financial Administration Act to set up a scheme or look to an OIC to set up a board in the interim. The legislation is anticipated to deal comprehensively with this as with the other issues in gaming, bringing under the same legislative umbrella the Lotto Corp, the Gaming Commission, the gaming branch and the like.
F. Gingell: Is open debate on this issue in the House not intended, then? You anticipate that the casinos, with this arrangement that allows a portion of the net receipts to flow to the pool rather than to the charity, can be set up and organized without any legislative changes.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: That will only be done on an interim basis. In the last analysis, there will be legislation. I can see that the member is in a state of shock and disbelief, but, hon. member, the Gaming Commission is a creation of OIC and has been functioning quite well.
F. Gingell: Yes, I appreciate that. This really is a major change in policy. I know it's easy to say: "Well, we're not doing anything more than the funds that are going to the charity we're now pushing off into something else -- i.e., economic development -- and we're doing it in a form whereby the use of those funds won't necessarily be to the organizations that run the casinos. They are going into a pool and will be used all the way around the province." But the whole foundation of gambling and lotteries since Canada allowed this to start to happen -- when was it, the 1960s? -- was that there were always charities or what we all believed to be charitable works as the beneficiaries.
[10:00]
I appreciate that it funded such things as the Summer and Winter Games. I was present at the Summer Games in 1986 and 1987, funded by the Lottery Corporation, where we saw juvenile soccer, baseball and so on. It's been a tremendous power, and it's been for the culture. But there's never been any intention before for the funds that are generated to be used for economic development. That really is a major change, and I think it deserves to have some wide debate.
It also surprises me that we don't require some legislative change. Surely the legislation under which the Gaming Commission works is very definitive about the use of proceeds by charities.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm not arguing that that's how it could be, but so could this be definitive under an OIC scheme or Financial Administration Act guidelines. But that's not to say that there would be no legislation. In the end, I agree that any significant legislation, any significant bodies that may appear to set a different direction.... I disagree with you; I don't think it's a new direction. But they need to see the light of day in the chamber and be discussed.
It's a very important public policy issue. In terms of the Gaming Commission starting in 1986 or 1987, you have a modern state in British Columbia with all the amenities and affluence. We could then say to ourselves quite comfortably that a certain amount of proceeds would go to charities or only for cultural purposes per se or for other purposes relating to art, sports and things of that nature.
I think that's a matter of priorities. It's important for us to recognize.... This is not me lecturing the venerable hon. member. I say from the depths of my conscience that I think it's important to recognize what the priority is for the aboriginal people of British Columbia today. What is their crying need? It is economic development. They say: "Let us engage in economic development, as we want to stand on our own feet." This policy says: "Yes, the aboriginal people in British
[ Page 16534 ]
Columbia are in a different state of economic development. They do need all the assistance that we can provide for them to be able to become self-reliant."
This is not going to rake in billions of dollars. We know that charitable gaming is modest in British Columbia. We know the impact studies -- community impact, marketability assessments, all of those issues -- are going to be taken into account by the Gaming Commission in approving sites on reserve, if one or more are done. We know that the rest of gaming would not be negatively impacted. We know that it would be in the context of moderate enhancements.
If we know that, and we then also know, as a matter of public policy, the chief objective and need in the aboriginal communities, then I think it is not going too far for us to say: "In the rest of society, we're able to utilize 50 percent of the proceeds for these purposes. You would be able to utilize these for those purposes, plus economic development -- not just exclusively for economic development, but for art, culture and economic development."
We say economic development, because if we did not have that one objective of engaging in economic development on behalf of the aboriginal people of British Columbia -- they are our people, a part of us -- we would not have to have the Lottery Corporation involved in it. We would not have to worry about creating a slightly different scheme to inject the Lottery Corporation into it, because charitable gaming can be done anywhere in British Columbia. The fact is that for them to be able to utilize even 1 percent of the 50 percent that goes into the revenue pool for economic purposes would be illegal if we did not provide this scheme, and that's the reason that this scheme is being provided.
F. Gingell: I'm not going to beat this to death, but I think there's a real danger in setting a precedent by having a trial program or whatever one wants to call it. It is very difficult to turn the clock backwards. You put something in, and when you're dealing with a question of ethics -- that's not the right word, but I can't think of the right word....
Recognize that gaming only came into Canada because people believed the money was going to charitable purposes. I'm sure the aboriginal people don't want to be looked at as charitable. That's not what's involved. They're talking about economic development. But it was only the fact that the money was going to do what the community saw as being good charitable works that there was support for it. I think that's a factor that has to be taken into account if you decide that you go into a trial program through an order-in-council route rather than dealing with it in a rather more upfront method. This isn't being done secretly, but it's not being done in the upfront method by which new legislation would be brought in. The people in the province would see it, the members of the Legislature would be able to debate it, and any changes in the program and the legislation would come as a result of an openly democratic process.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. member, we've been discussing this issue for over a year in British Columbia, and we discussed this issue in the estimates yesterday and today. All of the gaming changes that have taken place in British Columbia have in fact taken place through a commission set up by an OIC. Not to say that that is the route we should go, but I think you deny reality when you say that making this slight change to allow the aboriginal people to engage in economic development is an entirely different direction from what we have done in the past.
I agree there has to be legislation. There will be legislation; you will have the opportunity to debate it. I have answered the questions to the best of my ability, and I think I will leave it at that.
F. Gingell: So I will make a statement, then, knowing that it's not going to be rebutted.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Be kind.
F. Gingell: Yes, I will. I would like to suggest to the minister that no one is against economic development for first nations. That's not the issue, and it's very easy to sort of move around the issue and talk about it from a different angle. But I'd like to suggest to you that the most straight-on angle is that for the very first time, the net proceeds of gaming will be used for an economic development purpose that is available only to one group in Canada now.
You may support that, and I may support that, too. I may be with you 100 percent, but I think that the issue needs to be dealt with in a little more open fashion. The minister has said that we've been talking about it around British Columbia for the last year. Yes, but the minister has been saying there won't be different programs; there isn't going to be anything special. "We're not going to have any Las Vegas-style casinos, and there's not going to be for-profit gambling."
But this is for-profit gambling. The profits are going into a pool to be used for a purpose that is not charitable. For-profit doesn't mean that it necessarily finishes up in an individual's pocket, but it isn't finishing up in a situation that we think of as charitable. As I said earlier, I may be very supportive of it, but I don't have a feeling of comfort that it's being done in an open fashion. I don't expect a response, Mr. Minister, and I won't ask another question on it.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is not to engage in further debate, but from my point of view, it is not a question of real change in direction; it is a question of need. When we set up the Gaming Commission in British Columbia in 1986 or 1987, British Columbians didn't have the need for economic development or the need to utilize the proceeds for economic development. The aboriginal communities have needed to use them for economic development purposes. That is the distinction. The funny thing is, they have not participated in gaming on reserves at all since 1986, yet there are 200 bands in British Columbia. I think that's the real distinction. That's not to criticize your viewpoint; that's simply to say this is where I stand on this.
We are going to have to reach an agreement with the First Nations Summit to deal with this issue. There was some consensus about resolving this issue. We're then going to have to structure the revenue pool. We're going to have to pass legislation. In the interim, if the funds start flowing -- at this time I can't give you a guarantee -- I'm certain the funds will be held in trust pending a resolution of these issues, the placement of particular financial safeguards in place and perhaps the passing of the legislation.
[ Page 16535 ]
I take all of what you say very seriously. I think it's really important that when we make this kind of change, we do have a thorough discussion, particularly in the chamber.
K. Jones: I'm disturbed by the statement the minister just made that we have to give gaming to the aboriginal people. We don't have to give gaming to the aboriginal peoples. We have the opportunity for aboriginal people to participate in the charitable gaming field the same way as all other people participate in the gaming field within British Columbia. The aboriginal people are participating in the charitable gaming field already. They already have charitable bingo operations.
Why is it that the minister feels obliged to bring in a special deal for the aboriginal people on gambling? Is it part of a deal that this government has chosen to make with the aboriginal people in regard to a trade-off on land claims? Surely both the land and the financial benefits that the aboriginal people will get from their land claims settlements would be very effective in giving them an opportunity for economic development.
[J. Pullinger in the chair.]
Economic development from a gambling standpoint is like putting the aboriginal people in quicksand and saying: "Keep standing, folks, because you'll be able to make a new life for yourselves." It's a new life well into the ground, hon. minister. Gambling is not a vehicle for economic development. Gambling is a vehicle for the degradation of a society that those people so proudly represent and would like to attain again.
[10:15]
To put them into the gambling situation that we in the rest of North America have had is not the way to help them with economic development or to give them self-esteem but to draw them down, back into the morass of the seamier parts of our society. You are not helping them; you are hindering them.
Let's look at the statistics in British Columbia. According to a B.C. Lotteries Angus Reid report, there are now 87,500 problem gamblers in British Columbia, including 27,500 who are judged to be pathological. Experts say their predicament is the result of disempowerment, hopelessness -- this sounds familiar, as it is how some people have described the aboriginal people's feelings -- guilt, deception, anxiety and a lack of self-esteem. I've heard the aboriginal people say that that's how they've felt over the years. They want to rise above that; they want to be different from that. They have a right to be different from that. Gambling only brings that on.
It is not surprising that the victims of gambling are still in denial. It's not surprising that they are silent and all but invisible. We've heard a lot of comments from people who want gambling, but who speaks for people who are addicted, who are dealing with a totally pathological addiction that brings problems to their families and society? With nearly 100,000 problem gamblers already, we have a major public health problem. It's second only to alcohol in mortality costs, and that is terribly expensive.
Most of the damage is hidden in depreciated family health, divorce, suicide, community breakdown, lost job productivity, theft, fraud, cost of insurance, welfare, police, courts and prison systems. Pathological addiction may take years to occur, then more years for the addict to deplete his life's assets and become visible through welfare dependency and criminalization, which are the ultimate social consequences of today's gambling intensity. By increasing it, hon. minister, you will be responsible for increasing the number of people who are affected by that type of disease. Indeed, it is a disease. It's like going out there and giving a licence to sell more alcohol. You are contributing to that disease.
I thought that you, with your wise counsel earlier in regard to the large casinos, wouldn't have made the mistake and would have recognized that gambling expansion is not the right thing for British Columbia. Certainly the behind-the-scenes deals that have been made with regard to this aboriginal gaming proposal do not allow the public to have any say in the process whatsoever. Many of the current charitable casino operators and casino charities are very seriously concerned about any expansion of the casinos, which would be taking from the current pool of money available for gambling. Does the minister think he will be able to encourage, through this policy, many more people to take up gambling so that there will be enough money to maintain the existing charitable sources and provide money into this new pool for economic development? Where's the money going that would be needed to deal with the additional aboriginal and non-aboriginal addicted persons, resulting from these new expanded casino opportunities? How is the minister dealing with the addiction of gambling in British Columbia, particularly when he's busy with these new aboriginal casinos? How is he going to deal with that?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The member made a wonderful speech, and I have a question for the hon. member. In view of all of what he has said, if he generally believes it, does his party say to us that we should be shutting down the 18 charitable casinos in British Columbia, putting 47,000 charities out of work and 600,000 British Columbians without the assistance that they render?
K. Jones: The minister doesn't wish to answer the serious problem of the people who are addicted by gambling and the fact that the proposal the minister has now announced will increase the number of addicted people who will be acutely affected. Instead, he poses a question as to whether the existing casinos should be shut down.
I say to the minister that when the minister can come up with an appropriate source of matching funds for those charitable organizations and also deal with those persons who are addicted and provide them with the means by which they can get off their addiction to gambling, then maybe the minister will have done something for society that was useful. At the current time, expanding gambling and not addressing the addiction problem are two of the most fatal decisions this minister has ever made in his life.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have two things to say to the hon. member. One, I'm not advocating this, but I think it is a fair question to ask of the hon. member, because if we're engaged in this kind of debate, it's important to know whether he would shut down the 4,700 charities and affect adversely the lives of 600,000 British Columbians. If he pursues the logic that he advocates to its logical conclusion, that is where we will end up.
Why does he then ask me to provide alternative sources of funding for affluent British Columbia when the aboriginal
[ Page 16536 ]
native population is in dire need of funds, and he does not want to provide any aboriginal casinos or any proceeds for their benefit?
In terms of the problem of gaming, we are going to put in place a problem-gaming program that would assist problem gamblers. The program would be under the auspices of the Ministry of Health, and I believe it would be a very progressive program. It would be a program that would meet the needs of problem gamblers, who have existed in British Columbia for a long time, with or without any enhancements in gaming at this time.
K. Jones: The minister is fully aware of the report that was done by Dr. Volberg through the Angus Reid report to B.C. Lotteries, which identifies that the more gambling opportunities are provided, the more addiction will occur. The minister is trying to pass off the responsibility for proposing to bring more people into the addiction of gambling by claiming that that is through economic development.
Hon. minister, if your government were to get on with the lands claims settlements and get those settled, these people wouldn't need gambling as a means of economic development. They would have the means of economic development through settling the land claims agreements. They don't need the funds from gambling, which has so many negative aspects for them.
Until the minister is prepared to do something with addressing the problem which is his responsibility, if he wishes to abrogate his responsibility, call an election and turn it over to the official opposition to do the job for him, we'll be happy to take that on as a challenge. Make your offer to the electorate so that they can make the decision as to whether they want gambling expanded in the province of British Columbia or not. I'm sure you would be very, very happy to give that a try. Hon. minister, once again you are not taking any responsibility for the further harm that you're bringing to the people of British Columbia.
I would like to ask whether you could tell us of the status of the case with Miss Fletcher-Gordon.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The matter is in the hands of lawyers. It would be extremely inappropriate for me to comment on a personal matter, particularly one that is the hands of lawyers at this time.
K. Jones: Is the legal arrangement between the province of British Columbia or the Lottery Corporation or the Gaming Commission?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: In view of my previous answer, I would desist from commenting.
K. Jones: The minister can't hide behind legal status in answering a question as to who the litigants are in a legal case. That has nothing to do with the case itself. It's only a matter of knowing from the public standpoint, the taxpayers' standpoint, who may possibly end up with the bill.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The question posed by the member would lead me to be speculative in my response, and as a lawyer and a minister, I know that is not something I'd like to do.
K. Jones: Is the minister saying that the response would be speculative, because he doesn't know the parties who are involved with the Fletcher-Gordon case? Or is it because he wants to hide behind that as a means of not issuing the information to the public?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The answer stands.
K. Jones: Then the answer appears to be correct: the minister wishes to hide behind this, rather than tell the public exactly where their possible costs may come from. I presume the taxpayers of British Columbia may be held responsible for the costs that would be incurred in this case, hon. minister.
[10:30]
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is a beautiful, wonderful mechanism that this government is very proud of, called FOI, and the member may have access to whatever is allowed to be disclosed pursuant to that.
K. Jones: More evidence of the minister not having the answer. Could the minister tell us what is being done to deal with illegal video lottery terminals in the province of British Columbia?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I've already answered that question during these estimates.
K. Jones: The minister hasn't answered that. What programs is the minister putting in place to deal with the problem that the police appear to have with controlling video lottery terminals? What is the problem with enforcing video lottery terminals? If there is a problem, what action is the minister taking to resolve that problem so that video lottery terminals illegally operating in British Columbia can be dealt with?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I do remember answering that very question in detail, as well.
K. Jones: Again, the minister doesn't have an answer. Could the minister tell us if there are any special recreational incentives to retailers or employees of the Lottery Corporation being provided through taxpayers' funds or Lottery Corporation operating expenses?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Not to my knowledge. However, if the hon. member will write a specific question and forward it to my ministry, I would be more than happy to provide the details after receiving them from the Lottery Corporation. I do not have that information on hand.
K. Jones: I will now move to the area of the aviation quality assurance program.
Before we leave the Lottery Corporation, could the minister tell us what contribution is going from the Lottery Corporation to the Crown corporations secretariat for the operations of the secretariat?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand there is a chargeback for funding the Crown corporations secretariat. I do not have the information available for that. We can provide that to the member.
[ Page 16537 ]
K. Jones: I don't know how many tons of paper are going to be required to make all these replies. I'm sure the minister is making a note of each one of these, but it's probably going to amount to as much paper as we have on my desk here already. Mind you, the amount of paper that I have here is small compared to the amount of paper that's on the other side, supporting the minister.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Aye.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us, with regard to the aviation quality assurance program, what the purpose of that program is, and how many dollars are assigned to its operation?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The purpose of this particular program is to establish safe and cost-effective aircraft standards in agreements and contracts for aviation services supplied to the province. With respect to funding, there has been a 58 percent increase, and there has been an increase of two FTEs from 1994-95.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us the number of employees over the last three years?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Four.
K. Jones: For all of the last three years?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: This is the first increase in the last three years.
K. Jones: Have there been any resignations or dismissals from the organization?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: In the last year there have been two retirements.
K. Jones: So those two retirements have just been replaced?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I would assume that they were; there are six FTEs.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us when the two additional FTEs were added?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The commencement of the two FTEs was in April of this year.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us what the purpose of aviation quality assurance is in its role in relation to the types of aircraft services that are used by the government?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: This program engages in regular consultation with ministry user groups on needs, standards, service and performance. It also deals with generic and program-specific safety standards exceeding Transport Canada levels; safety compliance audits on aviation companies' contracts or master standing offers with air charter companies; incident follow-ups; and qualified air carriers and database -- that's another function. Obviously it has priorities for 1995-96. It's been run on a reasonably efficient basis.
I understand that the staff provided expert guidance and support to the Commonwealth Games. Staff provided considerable support to the airport venue planning committee and, with a host of other game support agencies, attended the arrival and departure of each aircraft attending the games. The staff also audited Borek Air, the company that flew Prince Philip to view grizzly bears in Khutzeymateen Inlet. The staff reviewed the bases in Calgary, Prince Rupert, Sandspit and Vancouver. If there is anything else the member wants to know, I'll be happy to tell him if I can.
K. Jones: Could the minister give us any indication of whether the practice this past year was similar to the type of work done in previous years?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: There are, of course, priorities for this program in 1995-96. One is the expanded mandate. This is to expand coverage to include program requirements for all user ministries; to review ministries based on specific standards for private sector aviation services; to review and revise lists of private sector aviation services, incorporating customer feedback; to continue periodic audits of private sector aviation companies on the approved list, liaising with Transport Canada's new audit process; to ensure governmentwide charter rates are realistic; and to provide safe service. Those are the priorities for 1995-96. There is a somewhat expanded mandate.
K. Jones: In doing an audit of an airline, would aviation quality assurance provide a check on such things as the operation of altimeters, the operation of the company, the crew training, Transport Canada's overview of the company, the maintenance of aircraft, the malfunction of the CVR, the visual environment around the base and the performance of safety equipment and warning lights?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: The province may at any time and without prior notice conduct a base audit of the contractor and permitted subcontractors of the contractor. The base audit includes many things. Maybe I'll wait for the hon. member to....
Interjection.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I thought I'd get some rest.
[10:45]
"The base audit may include but will not be limited to...
I've never read so much English aloud.
Interjection.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Punjabi, definitely. My ESL days are coming back.
"...the following areas: the carrier licence and operating certificate, insurance coverage, personnel records, licences and training, dispatch and flight watch procedures, weight and balance procedures, flight planning and flight logs, adherence to operations manual requirements, libraries, dangerous goods procedure if applicable, airworthiness and condition of aircraft, aircraft technical logs and records, condition of support equipment, aircraft logbooks and records, recording and repair of unserviceabilities, compliance with airworthiness directives and service bulletins, control of spare army-navy stock and unserviceable parts, quality control and quarantine procedures, adherence to maintenance standards in accordance with the maintenance control manual, invoiced financial charges, Transport Canada orders and operation records, control of spares, parts and unserviceable parts and all other terms and conditions of the agreement."
[ Page 16538 ]
K. Jones: I've talked to quite a few of the people associated with the former government air services. There was concern expressed about the capability of aviation quality assurance to do the job that it apparently was intended to. In talking with other people in the aviation industry, they feel that Transport Canada is very, very capable of checking out all aspects of aircraft and aviation operations. They wonder why duplications of services are being provided by government quality assurance. It sounds like both the purpose of it and the people who deal with it don't seem to have much confidence in it. Therefore I question why the minister has any intention of continuing it, let alone increasing the number of staff in that area.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think it's important to recognize that in this area we have standards over and above the federal standards and therefore need to continue to work in this area. Very important work is being done by this branch.
K. Jones: If the minister's prepared to take that responsibility, I guess there's nothing else we can do about it. There certainly is a concern out there. Apparently there were only five audits done last year where there are normally ten. The other five audits were very minor audits in conjunction with the royal aircraft service, which really didn't amount to a great deal and certainly weren't thorough auditing. It was basically a reiteration of the work that is already done on a regular basis by Transport Canada.
I think we also have some question about the capability of aviation quality assurance to deal with what's now becoming a larger segment of the aviation contracting business, the rotary wing area. Could the minister tell us how that area is being appropriately addressed, if it's even justified?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Let me give a succinct response to the member. There have been 27 audits in the last year.
K. Jones: Twenty-seven audits were done in the last year, 1994-1995. What about 1993-94? How many audits were done?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: My staff advises me that the hon. member asked that very question last year and probably has the answer.
K. Jones: We appreciate that the minister has a good sense of humour. It's unfortunate that it's about such a serious area of people's lives and the tragic situations we've had in regard to our air ambulance service. Perhaps the job wasn't well enough done in this area. That's why I would be concerned, hon. minister. I think I'll just leave that to you.
Having reviewed the interim findings of the investigation that was done with regard to the Masset crash, I see no reason to go further with the minister on this case. It seems like he's just wasting our time. As a result of that, hon. minister, we're fed up with the minister's waffling responses on these issues, and I now call the vote.
Vote 38 approved.
Vote 39: ministry operations, $66,655,020 -- approved.
Vote 40: environmental assessment and land use coordination, $17,676,986 -- approved.
Vote 41: product sales and services, $10 -- approved.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 10:55 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]