[ Page 431 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

G. Brewin: In the gallery today are four people, two of whom are Burmese constituents of mine: Mr. Ingmar Lee and his wife, Daw Khin Tint Khing. Visiting for the first time in Canada from Yangon, which used to be Rangoon, in Burma, are Mr. Aung Chine and Mrs. Daw Tin Tin Sein. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Joining us today are two representatives from the Fraser Basin Management Board: Mr. David Marshall, the executive director of the board, and Ms. Iona Campagnolo, who is the acting chair of the Fraser Basin Management Board. I think all members of the chamber know the excellent work that the board has been doing in assessing the health of the heart of British Columbia, the Fraser River, and I'm sure they recognize the value they have in their work.

I want to say that Ms. Campagnolo is taking over as acting chair from the now member for Vancouver-Fraserview. I intend to be recommending that she assume that chairmanship on a permanent basis, and I would hope that the federal government would join us in that. I think that the board has done excellent work and will continue to work with this government.

Hon. D. Miller: I have two introductions to make. Firstly, Mr. Charles Maynard and Suzette-Taylor Leechee, who are in the gallery today, are officials of the republic of Trinidad and Tobago. They are in B.C. for two weeks, working with officials in the venture capital program in the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, and they are trying to introduce similar programs in Trinidad.

Hon. Speaker, I also have the privilege of introducing some constituents of mine whom I hold in the highest esteem, members of the Nisga'a Tribal Council: Chief Joe Gosnell, Chief Nelson Leeson and Chief Harry Nice. I would ask the House to make all the parties welcome.

R. Masi: Today I would like to introduce Mr. Vic Eaton, a longtime political commentator for Delta Cable Television, and I hope a good friend of mine. Will the House please make him welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: I have the privilege of introducing two women who are in the gallery today: Linda Wickstrom, a longtime NDP activist from North Island and her mother, Sylvia Wickstrom, who also happens to be the mother of Ron Wickstrom, who's my executive director. I would ask all members to welcome those two members of the Wickstrom family.

D. Symons: It's my pleasure today to introduce a fine young man, my grandson Jeffrey Symons. He is accompanied here by his charming and young and vivacious grandmother, my wife, Marge Symons.

G. Wilson: I'm delighted to introduce to the House today a gentleman who was formerly the senior intergovernmental affairs officer with the government of Saskatchewan. He's a professor, a lecturer, a writer, an independent scholar and the editor of an outstanding book called A Civilized Revolution. I'd like the House to please make this editor welcome.

L. Reid: I'm pleased to welcome to the gallery today four visitors from Germany: Sinret Woldu, Mike Bader, Pia Hettstedt and Gunnar Hettstedt, who have just arrived in Canada. I trust that they will have an enjoyable stay. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. D. Streifel: One of the privileges I've had in this House since being elected in 1991 is to introduce constituents and very dear friends when they're in town. I'd like to have all my colleagues in the House welcome two of my constituents from Silver Hill in Silverdale, which is in the western part of my riding. Holger and Ella Wickstrom are here visiting today. Their daughter Marie and her husband, Arnie Fast, are with Holger and Ella. Son Ross Wickstrom and his wife, Renée, are also here. I appreciate their support, their being here and their saying hi to us. Would the House please make them welcome.

E. Gillespie: It's my great pleasure today to introduce to you some visitors from the Comox Valley: Ron Crowther and his family. We have Daphne, Samantha, Shannon and Alexandra. I'd like to welcome them to this Legislature.

I. Waddell: I too want to add my welcome to the Hon. Iona Campagnolo, former federal cabinet minister and a good friend, and to David Marshall, my former executive director at the Fraser board. I have just two brief points: one is that it's nice to know there is a role for former politicians in using some of their skills; the second is the fact that we've kept the fight to save the Fraser Basin on a non-partisan basis. I see the Leader of the Opposition, who is one of the original fighters for this and for the board concept. I want to acknowledge that and say hello to my good friend Iona Campagnolo.

J. Kwan: In the members' gallery this afternoon are five Members of Parliament from Taipei. The delegation, led by Mr. Yeou-Chi Lee, is on its way to Ottawa under the auspices of the Canada-Taiwan Parliamentary Friendship Association. For all of them, this is their first visit to Canada. Accompanying Mr. Lee is Mr. Schien, director general of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Vancouver. Would members of the House please make them feel welcome.

[2:15]

Hon. M. Sihota: Would all members please join me in welcoming the Coalition of B.C. Businesses strategy group that's here in the chamber today. That group includes the chair of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Suromitra Sanatani, Jim Chase of the B.C. and Yukon Hotels Association, John Hansen from the Vancouver Board of Trade, Mr. Hochstein of the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, Geoffrey Howes of the Restaurant and Foodservices Association of B.C., Marion Keys from the Motor Dealers Association of British Columbia, Paul LeBranche of the BOMA, Keith Sashaw from the Canadian Home Builders Association of B.C. and Steve Torrence of the B.C. Horticultural Coalition.

Hon. C. Evans: After some of the bigoted and unkind things I might have said in these chambers in the past about the legal profession, it causes me some embarrassment to actually admit that there is a lawyer in the precincts who is my good and longtime friend, Greg Stacey. He's a lawyer from Nelson, Creston and Nakusp. Would the House please make him welcome.

G. Robertson: I'd like to add my thanks and greetings to Linda Wickstrom Nichol, one of my constituents in North 

[ Page 432 ]

Island, for all the fine work that she did in my last election campaign, and also for all the hard work she has done in my constituency for many years. I'd like the House to greet her.

The Speaker: In case there's anybody we haven't acknowledged, perhaps the Chair, on behalf of all members, could welcome all others.

Hon. M. Sihota: Welfare as we know it will no longer be. Last week our government announced the first of a series of changes to make work a better deal than welfare by introducing the family bonus program, which provides a tax break and fairness to working families in British Columbia. Today, through this legislation, our government is announcing the second step: namely, that young people 19 to 24 years of age will no longer be eligible to collect welfare as we have known it. Rather, as a condition of receiving a living allowance, young people must participate in a training program. The programs are designed to ensure that young people do not enter into a cycle of dependency -- are no longer dependent upon the state -- but rather have assistance in ensuring that they have the skills and training necessary to fulfil their potential as human beings.

Bill 11 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm not a member of the Forest Renewal board.

G. Campbell: This minister's performance throughout his tenure as Minister of Finance has been incredible, and that's an incredible response.

Let me simply ask the Minister of Forests: can you confirm or deny that the board of directors of Forest Renewal B.C. met last Thursday and discussed diverting $400 million of Forest Renewal funds into the government's general revenues?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can confirm that the subject of surpluses was discussed, that program delivery matters were discussed, that meeting the objectives of the Forest Renewal board was discussed, that the good work that they're doing in communities was discussed and that many specific, good projects were discussed. But I have not been officially notified of any resolutions the board made on that subject, as I wasn't present for that.

G. Campbell: I think the question we all have to ask ourselves is: when is the Minister of Forests going to explain that the Forest Renewal board did, in fact, discuss the diversion of $400 million of Forest Renewal revenues into general coffers? Does the Minister of Forests feel that communities have been sustained and that the unemployed, who have been put out of work because of activities and changes that have taken place in the forests, have been cared for? Do you believe that all the environmental enhancements we need to do under forest renewal have been taken care of? And why would the board decide to discuss the removal of $400 million for general revenues after just one year and a bit in service?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: One of the criteria for program approval is wise spending. We're not satisfied, and I'm not satisfied as a board member, that they've done enough, fast enough, to work in those areas where there are unemployed forest workers. But I have to remind the Leader of the Opposition that the program was not created in order to solve all the problems in the forest industry, such as technical change and reductions that might come from overcutting. It was there and it has been targeted where there are land use changes.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members! I would like to hear the questions and the answers. Member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: For the last three days I've sat here and watched the Minister of Finance avoid, deny, wriggle and slither away from questions about his intentions with respect to forest renewal dollars. He has looked across the floor and has mocked members for suggesting that he was going to take money out of forest renewal.

The Speaker: Question.

M. de Jong: At the same time he's doing that, meetings are taking place where this government is requesting a transfer of $400 million from Forest Renewal. My question to the minister is: why should we believe anything he has to say? Will he stand up in this House now and acknowledge that he wants $400 million from Forest Renewal?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm always astounded by the righteous indignation of members who, if they'd had their way, would never have created a forest renewal fund.

As I've indicated to this House, this government is looking at all programs of government, including forest renewal, as part of a program review. It's altogether appropriate that the Forest Renewal board, which is charged under legislation, would review its program, look at its financial situation, consider its investments, consider its responsibilities and deliberate on these matters. There should be no concern about that. In fact, members should be encouraged that the Forest Renewal board is undertaking this kind of review on its own, and no doubt its recommendations and considerations will assist us in our program review.

M. de Jong: In the span of 25 seconds, the minister has gone from not knowing about the meeting to being encouraged that it took place in the first place. It's obvious that this 

[ Page 433 ]

proposal came from the government, because the alternative is that the Forest Renewal board sat down and said: "Gee, maybe we can give $400 million to the government without their asking for it." In fact, they did ask for it. It's not a review. Reviews don't start from the premise: "You're going to give us $400 million."

The Speaker: Question, please.

M. de Jong: Once again, will the minister come clean and admit that he has directed Forest Renewal B.C. to hand over $400 million to general revenues?

Hon. A. Petter: I certainly won't confirm that, because it's not the case. I will confirm that this government is undertaking a program review of all programs in government, including programs the members opposite voted against. In due course, as a result of that program review, we will be improving services for people throughout British Columbia, ensuring that we meet our financial targets. It's altogether appropriate that agencies like Forest Renewal deliberate on their own roles and mandates, that they consider how to improve their programs. As I said yesterday -- and let there be no mistake, hon. Speaker -- this government is determined to ensure that Forest Renewal continues to fulfil its objectives and mandates, continues to invest in the resource and continues to invest in the people of British Columbia who tend that resource, so we can have a bright future for our forest communities and our forest resource.

The Speaker: Assuming there's a supplemental, I recognize the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, it's the first program review I've ever heard of that starts from the premise: "You're going to give us $400 million." I've never heard of a program review starting from that premise. For three days this minister has avoided the question. Let me put a simple question to him: when did he think he was going to get around to telling us that these meetings that the Minister of Forests has just acknowledged took place? When was he going to get around to telling us that that proposal for $400 million was on the table?

Hon. A. Petter: The Forest Renewal board meets from time to time. I'm not a member of the board, but it meets from time to time and deliberates on a range of matters, including the extent of surplus funds that the board has accumulated, including how to improve its programs, including. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, surplus funds are part of the program for Forest Renewal, and how that program gets managed.

Interjections.

Hon. A. Petter: Some of the shock of the members opposite apparently comes from their lack of knowledge about Forest Renewal. I'd be happy to give them a briefing and tell them how the program was initiated, and about our continuing commitment to it and the commitment of this government and, I'm sure, of the board to ensure that the program is improved over time, refined and reviewed within the context of our government's program review. When that review is complete or outcomes from it are complete, I'll be happy to report back to members.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'd ask the Minister of Finance not to challenge the opposition to read back into the record the intent and plan for Forest Renewal, hon. Speaker. We've done that before, and we can do it again if you like.

My question is to the Minister of Forests. Douglas McArthur, the deputy minister to the Premier, sits on the Forest Renewal board. Can the Minister of Forests tell us the first time that Doug McArthur took to or discussed at the Forest Renewal meetings the allocation of those resources and the potential for them to be funnelled into general revenue?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, but I can tell you that the business plan of Forest Renewal is presented to me, and it will be in due course in the weeks to come. After review and approval by me, it will be submitted to the Legislature and will be referred to the select standing committee.

G. Farrell-Collins: We know what happened the last time that report went to the committee. The Chair refused to table the recommendations in this House, and the minister prorogued the House before those recommendations were acted upon. This slimy, sleazy backtracking on behalf. . . .

[2:30]

The Speaker: Excuse me, member. Member, you have some experience in this chamber, and you know full well that kind of language is not appropriate. I would ask you to please withdraw those remarks and then continue.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I'll be glad to withdraw those comments. There are many others that I can make.

The forest-dependent communities of British Columbia counted on that money to go back into their communities. The minister should read the Hansard. The member for West Vancouver-Seymour said: "We are not against the concept of this bill. We basically approve of it, as I said. However, it is the implementation that worries us." The member should quit re-creating history and deal with reality.

Will the Premier tell us at what time discussions were first initiated at the Forest Renewal board of funnelling revenues -- or, as the government calls them, surpluses -- into general revenue? Was it before the election?

Hon. G. Clark: I want to know whether the Leader of the Opposition will deny that he met with forest industry executives to talk about eliminating Forest Renewal. They spoke against it in the House, they spoke against it with their friends in the corporate community, and they campaigned against it up and down this island and up and down British Columbia. They are on record as opposing the initiatives we took in this House to defend forestry communities, and that's why practically every forestry community in this province is represented by a New Democrat member.

Now they want to shift. They're against capital spending; they voted against all the school construction. Now there are crocodile tears when we freeze capital spending. They voted against Forest Renewal; now there are crocodile tears with 

[ Page 434 ]

respect to forestry communities. People in forestry communities should know that this government will not let them down. We're on their side. That's what we campaigned for, and that's what we continue to stand for.

G. Farrell-Collins: The bluster may work on his backbenchers for now, hon. Speaker.

Again, the question to the Premier is: at what point did his deputy minister first start discussing the pillage of Forest Renewal funds for general revenue? Was it before, during or after the election? A simple question to the Premier.

Hon. G. Clark: They're going to get whiplash from changing their position so much. After five years in this House saying one thing, suddenly after the election they want us to spend, spend, spend on everything.

I want to be clear: every ministry of government is under a program review. Every agency of government and every Crown corporation is under review. We expect every single agency, Crown corporation, ministry and program of government to be subjected to this program evaluation and review, with a view to saving the taxpayers' money. It's entirely appropriate for all these agencies to look at their mandate, at their budgets and at ways in which they can cut costs, so that the taxpayers will be better off. That's what we've said. The Minister of Finance has started this review, and that's what we intend to continue. Whether it's Forest Renewal or any other agency of government, we're going to be working hard to reduce costs to taxpayers, balance the budget and make sure the taxpayers are represented.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, members.

W. Hurd: The opposition has learned that at meetings of the Forest Renewal board prior to the last election, Doug McArthur, the deputy minister of the Premier's Office, warned the board that funds could be lost to Forest Renewal B.C. -- diverted at those meetings. Can the Premier confirm that he was aware of his deputy minister's role in those discussions with Forest Renewal B.C.? Can he confirm that he knew prior to the last election that his government had no intention of honouring its commitment to forest-dependent communities in British Columbia?

Hon. G. Clark: I don't know about my deputy minister, but let me speak personally. Since I became Premier, I have been absolutely consistent. In fact, I have been a critic. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: I have said publicly. . . .

The Speaker: Order, members. Can I have. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: I'd like to answer, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: I would like to give the Premier an opportunity to answer, too. So perhaps. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: I'd very much like to answer.

The Speaker: Excuse me, Mr. Premier, can I just ask for a moment. Members, the high level of enthusiasm in the chamber is desirable. The level of volume, however, is such that I frankly can't hear the questions or answers. I would therefore. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, I think that silence will make the point more eloquently than I can. Having said that, I will ask the Premier to please continue.

Hon. G. Clark: I want to be absolutely clear. I met with IWA members all throughout British Columbia; I met with their executives; I met with forest companies; I met with small business companies. In every case, I said consistently that I felt that Forest Renewal was not moving fast enough to deal with problems. I was putting pressure on them to deal with problems. I said that before the election, I said it during the election, and I say it today. We want to make sure that Forest Renewal works the way we intended it to, which is to put money back into the regions, to deal with unemployment in the forest industry communities, to invest that money in a way which protects forestry communities.

They have taken longer than I would like -- and, I suspect, longer than every member in this House would like -- to make the investments we want to see. It is very important that right now the board knows that the government wants to see action on forestry. We want a full review; we want to make sure it's working the way we intend it to. I would suggest that members opposite should support the notion that we want Forest Renewal to work the way we intended it to. That's what we intend to do -- not undermine it, the way members opposite would have us do.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

H. Lali: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

H. Lali: I have four individuals sitting up in the gallery who are not only very, very strong supporters of mine, but close members of the family: my niece Rajwant Lali; my wife, Rani; and my two children, my son Ajhmair and my daughter Suman. Would the House please make them welcome.

Interjections.

Hon. A. Petter: We're up to 1995 now; it's okay.

I have the honour to present the report of the business done in pursuance of the Pension (College) Act during the fiscal year ended August 31, 1995.

[ Page 435 ]

I have the honour to present the 1995 annual report of the British Columbia Utilities Commission in accordance with section 15(1) and (2) of the Utilities Commission Act.

And, finally, hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 1994-95 annual report of the British Columbia Lottery Corporation, in accordance with the Lottery Corporation Act.

Bill 2 amends 12 provincial statutes to implement measures announced in the 1996 provincial budget. The Home Owner Grant Act is amended to increase the threshold at which the grant is phased out, from $475,000 to $525,000. The increased threshold reflects an adjustment for increased assessed values that will ensure that 96 percent of homeowners will receive the full homeowner grant. The College and Institute Act, the Institute of Technology Act, the Open Learning Agency Act and the University Act are amended to allow universities, colleges and other post-secondary institutions to pay grants in lieu of property tax to their host municipalities.

The government authorized universities to pay provincially determined grants in lieu of property tax for the 1995 tax year by resolution of their boards of governors, and this legislation clarifies the authority of the boards of all provincial post-secondary institutions to make such payments in 1996 and future years. The grants to be paid each year will be set by the minister responsible up to an amount equivalent to the general municipal taxes that would be levied if the properties were subject to property tax.

The Social Service Tax Act is amended to introduce a new exemption from the provincial sales tax for tangible personal property incorporated into prototypes. This exemption is designed to encourage further research and development in British Columbia and to contribute to the ongoing growth and diversification of the provincial economy.

The government is committed to making investments in the province's transportation infrastructure to support ongoing economic growth in the province -- investments that are developed with a sustained approach to the movement of people and goods throughout the province. That is why we released a comprehensive transportation plan last year called Going Places, which provides new opportunities to build the province's transportation system in a fiscally efficient and environmentally responsible manner. To support this plan, Bill 2 amends the Motor Fuel Tax Act to allow the transfer of an additional one cent per litre of clear-fuel tax to the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority. This is a reallocation of current fuel tax revenue, and therefore will not increase fuel taxes paid by drivers. Servicing the debt of these priority transportation projects through dedicated taxes such as the fuel tax allows a better matching of expenditures and benefits over the life of these assets.

[2:45]

The Municipal Act is amended to provide authority to exempt from property taxes certain improvements such as runways at prescribed community airports. This will ensure that the property taxes on airports will be roughly the same as the grants-in-lieu currently paid by the federal government, and removes an impediment to the transfer of these airports to local control. The authority to exempt airport improvements is provided retroactive to 1994 to allow this policy to apply to community airports which have been transferred to local control during the last two years.

The Property Transfer Tax Act is amended to raise the maximum fair market value of residential property eligible for exemption under the first-time homebuyers' program. The maximum value of a home eligible for exemption is increased under this legislation from $250,000 to $275,000 in the greater Vancouver regional district, the Central Fraser Valley regional district, the Dewdney-Alouette regional district, the Fraser-Cheam regional district and the capital regional district, and is raised from $200,000 to $225,000 throughout the rest of the province. This change reflects the government's ongoing commitment to helping British Columbians enter the housing market for the first time so that they too can enjoy the benefits of home ownership. With this change, homebuyers can now save up to $3,500 on the purchase of their first home.

Bill 2 also amends the Property Transfer Tax Act to prevent tax avoidance on the purchase of land by associated corporations. It has recently come to our attention that an exemption under the act for statutory amalgamations has been used by associated corporations to avoid the higher 2 percent rate of tax on property values in excess of $200,000. This avoidance has been achieved through the creation of numerous associated corporations, each of which purchases a $200,000 interest in the same property, and then amalgamate, exempt from the tax. Under this bill, the tax will be imposed on the total value of all partial interests in the same land purchased by associated corporations within a six-month period. This amendment parallels an existing provision in the act which prevents value-splitting by related individuals and will thereby guard against abuse.

The Industrial Development Incentive Act is amended to increase the industrial incentive fund's funding cap from $300 million to $400 million. This increase is necessary to make strategic provincial loans and investments in important economic development projects, such as the Columbia-Kootenay region power projects and the proposed Kemess mine development near Smithers.

Since 1981 the government has had an informal partnership with the province's anglers and hunters for the protection and enhancement of fish, wildlife and their habitat. At their request, surcharges on angling and hunting licences were established, with these funds flowing to the habitat conservation fund special account. These moneys have been used for a wide array of enhancement projects. In response to advice and interest from a number of groups, the Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act and the Wildlife Act are amended to establish a new Habitat Conservation Trust fund for the administration of these surcharges. Retroactive to April 1, 1996, all revenues which used to flow to the habitat conservation fund special account will now flow into the new trust fund. The legislation also provides for the transition from the special account to the separate trust fund -- that is, the existing balance in the special account will diminish over time as the funds continue to be used to finance enhancement initiatives.

Other minor amendments to the Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act and the Wildlife Act will have 

[ Page 436 ]

the following effects: they will protect existing revenue by authorizing the payment of interest on funds held in the special account and trust fund, allow the fund to pay for its operation by authorizing the payment of administration fees, and enhance revenue-raising ability by providing that revenues derived from fundraising will be directed back into the trust fund.

Hon. Speaker, these changes are part of this government's efforts to protect fish and fish habitat throughout the province. Since 1981 the habitat conservation fund has invested over $24 million for fish and wildlife enhancement projects. More than $12 million of that was spent on fish conservation and enhancement -- over $2 million in the last fiscal year alone. I might just add that it is another component of this government's tremendous investment in fish habitat through Forest Renewal and other agencies. Under the new Habitat Conservation Trust fund, these initiatives will continue and increase in the coming years to ensure that our fish stocks are protected for future generations.

Those are the key elements of the bill. I think they are all good news for British Columbians, addressing a range of issues of interest, and I think they merit the support of all members of this House.

F. Gingell: We all recognize this bill is more appropriate for debate in the committee section of the movement of this bill from first draft to legislation, but there are some issues that I would like to deal with.

The first is that I'd like the minister to make sure that I get briefed on the issue of how much money is going to be in this grant-in-lieu-of-taxes pool for the universities, colleges and institutes relative to the municipalities. I do understand that certain grants were paid last year -- for instance, Simon Fraser University to the municipality of Burnaby, an amount substantially below what the normal property taxes would be for such a property. Those funds were put into the hands of Simon Fraser by the provincial government. The provincial government gave them the money to make these payments.

It's terribly important for this government to recognize that as they continually tie the hands of independent boards. . . . They appoint independent boards to administer universities and colleges. I spent some ten years on college boards, and I know their circumstances. They give the board the responsibility, but then they tie their hands with such things as tuition freezes. Now, I'm not suggesting tuition freezes are good or bad, but I really believe they are decisions that should be made by the governors of the colleges. So you freeze this one source of revenue that maybe only constitutes 12 to 15 percent of the income of the institution, and then you put in these programs that now allow them or cause a moral commitment, perhaps, to start to contribute towards the cost that municipalities bear to provide services to these institutions. So it's critically important that the minister recognizes the need for the government to ensure that the colleges, institutes and universities are put in funds to make these payments. I leave it at that at this moment, but it is an important issue. I think confirmation by the minister that such is the commitment of the government will help us to deal with that in committee stage.

The second issue I'd like to deal with briefly is the issue of relaxing the sales tax requirements to be paid on prototypes. The provisions of the act, as I understand them, require that the tax will be paid when the prototype's use is changed from being a demonstration plant to commercial production. I would ask that the minister talk to his officials between now and the time that we discuss this in committee. He may wish to bring forward an amendment to it: that the provincial sales tax that's charged on the unit as it changes its use from demonstration to commercial be based on the fair market value of the unit at that time.

Prototypes are often long and difficult exercises. Parts are purchased and taken off and remachined and changed and fitted, and usually the cost of developing the prototype is substantially greater than the fair market value of the equipment after its work is completed -- that is, its tangible value. Its market value may indeed be greater because now, perhaps, it has resulted in new technology or new processes being developed. But the tax that should be paid is the tax on fair market value at the time that it changes use. It may be substantially less and, as I read the act at the moment, it may cause some problems if it requires the tax to be paid on the original cost of all the bits and pieces that went into the manufacture of the prototype in the first place. So that's something I think the minister could discuss with his officials.

The next issue I would like to deal with briefly is the issue of the 1 cent going into the TFA. We all know the problems this government is facing with respect to the commitments it made about its so-called balanced budgets. There's a definitive commitment here to move a further 1 cent a litre from gasoline tax into the Transportation Financing Authority, but the date when it happens has been left in abeyance. It's going to come into effect as soon as it is passed by order-in-council. I would suggest that it would be appropriate for the Minister of Finance to make a commitment that the order-in-council will be processed and passed as soon as this act is enacted rather than leaving it hanging out there. The people of British Columbia need to know how much of their tax dollars are going into this specific program to service debt from the construction of transportation infrastructure. So I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it's appropriate that the minister make up his mind about it, not just put it into place and leave it dangling there, as it were.

The last issue I wish to deal with is the Habitat Conservation Trust fund. This bill does both things: it creates the trust fund and moves funds that come from angling fees and all sorts of other things, such as surcharges on angling, hunting, guiding and trapping licences; revenues derived from lands administered by the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks for the benefit of fish and wildlife; interest, bequests, donations, court-enforced payments and fundraising projects undertaken. . . . This money has just been going into a special account in past years. We know what that means. It's just a notational account that's kept in the accounts of the government to indicate that these funds are sort of available for this purpose and are going to be paid out without going through the process of votes by this Legislature. They are preapproved votes, in effect.

Now, they're doing an interesting thing here. I guess there's been pressure on them, because they have been behind in spending the money. At the end of 1995, there was some $3.5 million in the fund that hadn't been spent. They substantially underspent in 1994-95. Let's go to 1995-96, a more relevant year, when they took in $4.8 million in revenue. They had originally anticipated spending $3.6 million of that, and the fund increased by some $1.1 million. So the pressure is on them to say: "Okay, let's take this money, and instead of putting it in the consolidated revenue fund, let's put it into a trust fund." Then, as I understand it, there will be a bank account, an actual account. There will be securities, probably held by the treasury, representing this. Having listened to question period, this is exactly what they did with Forest 

[ Page 437 ]

Renewal B.C. They're simply going to take these revenues, these surcharges, and they're going to put them into a special fund for this particular and specific purpose.

The minister has made a great point that we kept voting against Forest Renewal B.C. The minister knows in his heart, truthfully in his heart. . . . The minister, as we know, is a man of education and knowledge, and has been brought up by his mother to understand the truth in these issues. We were for reinvestment in the forest; we just didn't think that setting up a separate organization, and the bureaucracy that would go with it, was the right way of doing things. I will happily, in third reading, take my full two hours or whatever reading back into the record the words that were spoken by opposition members supporting reinvestment of excess -- or so-called excess -- surcharges on stumpage and royalties into communities -- into retraining, the recovery and reconstruction of streams, the taking out of old logging roads, and dealing with slope stabilization and reforestation.

[3:00]

But now, one and a half years later, or two years after FRBC came along, clearly there is a plan to go back and see this as a source of revenue to come back into government, or to try to move some government programs into FRBC to deal with the current issue of a balanced budget. Here in this fund they're going the other way. I really think the government needs to think about whether it really wants to create another separate fund. Are you going to set up an independent board of directors to administer such a fund -- a board that will represent wildlife interests, that will bring independent recommendations and decision-making to the expenditure of these funds in the future? I take it from the accounts that the fund has roughly $5 million a year to spend. It's important.

We are all for habitat conservation, but we're all for simplifying government; we're all for not creating any more bureaucracy; we're all for doing things in the most effective manner. Both sides of this House are committed, I hope -- I'm sure -- to a program whereby we will evaluate programs by clearly stating beforehand what the goals are, what the intended outcomes are, how we intend to get there, the amount of money that will be spent doing it, what the time frame is and how we will measure success.

During the course of committee debate on this bill, I think it might be appropriate for the minister to give us his thoughts on exactly how he sees the fund being administered, the kind of organization, and whether there have been clearly enunciated goals and measurable benchmarks to measure the success of these changes.

I think that takes me through all the subjects in this bill, other than property tax exemptions for portions of airports. Wonderful. Transportation infrastructure is important in this province. It's particularly important in the small communities that don't have major airports. I want to see devolution move along faster, from federal government to local bodies, and anything this government can do to assist them in the area of property tax on devolved airports -- if that's the proper adjective to use -- I strongly support.

Mr. Speaker, in principle we support the provisions of this bill. There will be some further questions, and I thank you for this opportunity to speak to it.

The Speaker: I thank the member for his comments on second reading. Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the Minister of Finance, whose comments will close debate.

Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, I just want to thank the member for his measured and constructive comments. I sometimes regret that in other parts of the proceedings of this House, we can't engage in measured and constructive discussion of the kind that we've just heard from the member opposite.

I think the information on grants-in-lieu is on the way to the member; if not, it will be shortly. I'll make sure it arrives in time. I will take his suggestion about prototypes under advisement, consult with my staff and comment on some of the other matters during third reading debate.

I just can't resist responding to his point about the trust fund. Since we are in a more measured and less confrontational forum here, I think the member knows in his heart of hearts --if I can return the favour -- that this government is deeply committed to the reinvestment of funds -- in this case with respect to wildlife and in the case of Forest Renewal with respect to forestry expenditures. One does one's best to establish programs that will achieve their purpose, and if one is forward-thinking, one isn't afraid to review them from time to time. In each case, one has to consider: are they meeting their objectives?

In the case of Forest Renewal, the objective has been to build up towards and then maintain a steady flow of investment. That remains the objective, hon. member. As the Premier indicated in question period, perhaps that investment hasn't built up as fast as we had hoped, and there are issues there to consider. I think, in his heart of hearts, the member knows that the reconsideration, the program reviews and other things surrounding forest renewal are not in any way a departure from the commitment of this government to maintain that continuity of funding.

Similarly here, there's been a concern expressed about providing greater security for this funding, and we're trying to do our best. It doesn't mean that in the general scheme of things, things won't be reviewed in the future; but it means that in this legislation, we are sending a very positive signal about the management of these funds and their allocation. In that spirit, I appreciate the member's comments, and I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1996, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. A. Petter: I call second reading of Bill 3, the Tax and Consumer Rate Freeze Act.

Bill 3 extends the tax freeze until the year 2000 for British Columbia families and small business. It also implements the government's commitment to protect British Columbia families from increases in three key areas by freezing tuition fees charged by post-secondary institutions for two years, freezing automobile insurance premiums for two years and freezing B.C. Hydro rates for three years.

This legislation underscores our commitment to helping middle-income working families and small business. We have listened to British Columbia working families who are finding it difficult to make ends meet, and we have made things a 

[ Page 438 ]

little easier for them in the coming years. Freezing taxes until the next century, together with the freeze on key costs such as hydro, ICBC and tuition, will allow families to face the future with more confidence and more money in their pockets. Indeed, the average family of four with two children will save up to $500 a year from these rate freezes and the income tax cut announced in the budget.

The government has also made it clear that our first economic priority is jobs. Therefore Bill 3 also freezes corporate income taxes for small businesses, which often struggle to get by and yet have been so instrumental in supplying new jobs in recent years. This tax and consumer rate freeze will provide British Columbia families and small businesses with some certainty and protection from increased charges into the next millennium. The freeze will not jeopardize our commitment to health care and education, and it will be accomplished at the same time that we meet the targets laid out in the debt management plan.

I think all of these measure are indicative of this government's commitment to supporting British Columbians, particularly small business and middle-income families. For that reason, I hope they too enjoy the support in principle of members opposite. I again move second reading.

F. Gingell: Well, Mr. Speaker, these kinds of bills are usually acts that are introduced into the House towards the end of a parliament. We don't have to look back far, to 1991, just before the election of October '91, when the previous Social Credit administration passed something called the Taxpayer Protection Act. The Taxpayer Protection Act, if I remember rightly, was hailed by the Premier of the time, Mr. Vander Zalm, as the finest thing that their government had ever done -- the most significant thing that his government had ever done. And what happened? This government came in and in a few short days, with the stroke of a pen, wiped out this wonderful act -- put an artillery shell through it and knocked it down.

I'd like to read into the record some of the words that were spoken at that time: "This act was passed only last year. It was apparently an attempt by the previous government to stop tax increases by legislation. It failed in such a short period of time because it froze taxes in the same year the government was experiencing a record deficit." Now, where have I heard those words before? Oh yes, that's right -- a deficit. This government is experiencing a deficit. In fact, if you look back over its administration from the day it got elected on October 17, 1991 -- or November 6, 1991, when it was sworn into office -- until it called an election on April 28, 1996, it had incurred a record deficit for the five-year period for which this government had promised faithfully to the taxpayers and the voters of British Columbia in the 1991 election they would balance the budget over the economic cycle. Not in the first year, not every year, but over the economic cycle, all the pluses would equal all the minuses.

So what did this government do? They took some of the major expenditures out of the consolidated revenue fund and said: "Well, we won't count those." Every other province in this country includes in the calculation of their deficit or their surplus expenditures on highway infrastructure. In fact, some provinces include the construction of schools and hospitals, a practice that hasn't been practised in this province for 20 years or more.

But a lot of these things are purely and simply icing; they're purely and simply a veneer. What this government needs is determination to stop the growth in government spending -- not just to slow it down, but to stop it -- and to ensure that the resources that are available -- some $20 billion a year, almost one-fifth of the provincial economy -- are spent in the most effective and efficient manner to deliver the services that British Columbians need -- not to deliver special deals for their friends and insiders; not to have special deals like the health accord; not to have special deals like union-only on the Island Highway; not to have special deals like all the patronage appointments that this government has made, but to ensure that the resources are being properly spent. Twenty billion dollars has to be enough; almost one-fifth of the provincial economy has to be enough.

In the early 1980s, all provincial services were delivered for around 14 percent of GNP. By the time we got to the end of the 1980s, that 14 had grown to 17. Shortly after this government had been in office, that 17 had gone up to almost 21. It is coming back. It depends how you measure GNP; it's a very elusive measurement, I think. But recognize this: it's all very well to freeze taxes now, but if they don't freeze debt, they haven't frozen taxes, because debt is just taxes in the future. Deficits are just taxes in the future. Money that this government has to borrow to pay for current programs and for servicing the current deficit is purely and simply deferred taxes. It's us irresponsibly taking the services and benefits now, and allowing -- one normally says one's children, but my children are already doing it, so I have the privilege of saying this -- our grandchildren to pay for our excesses.

So a tax freeze by itself, although something in the right direction -- I wish we could make it permanent -- is not enough. It needs a freeze on debt, too. It needs a real commitment by this government to reduce the level of government expenditures. Try and get by for a couple of years just holding the level of expenditures level.

I'd like you, Mr. Speaker, to take the Minister of Finance back to the debt management plan produced by his predecessor, Elizabeth Cull. That debt management plan, which was included in the budget of 1995, showed projected expenditures for the years '95-96, '96-97 and all the way through to the year 2000. The first problem this government has is its overspending -- way over -- in the first year. That particular year in that debt management plan, they had proposed that the total expenditures for this current year would be $20.210 billion, from memory. What are they the first year? I know there is $300 million more: $20.572 billion, way over the first year on their debt management plan. What happened to the debt management plan? Well, they were out $450 million on their first year.

That's not all; that was before. Then they weren't going to be out $450 million, on the basis that they had a $16 million surplus. But as the minister has now said, we anticipate the deficit being $235 million. So that's another quarter of a billion dollars out. Instead of the debt management plan of this government, in its first year, being out by $450 million, it's out by $700 million.

[3:15]

An Hon. Member: Shame, absolute shame!

F. Gingell: It is a shame.

This government needs some discipline to not only freeze taxes but freeze expenditures, do their program reviews and ensure that the resources are being used in the most effective and efficient manner -- so we know what they're trying to accomplish, how much money they intend to spend on programs, what the time frames are and what the benchmarks are 

[ Page 439 ]

by which we shall measure success. So we'll stop spending money on accomplishing little and start using the funds available to us from our taxpayers and citizens in the most effective manner.

This bill identifies certain things. Section 2 identifies a hydro rate freeze. Again, this government, as governments before it, has appointed independent, free-thinking citizens of our province to take the responsibility for running Hydro. They appoint them as directors. They do have an MLA appointed to act as a liaison. But they appoint them as directors to act in the best interests of all British Columbians, to do what they believe is right. Then they go and put a bunch of rules down. "Well, you're not to increase hydro rates. You've got to pay us a $214 million dividend this year, up from last year's $125 million to $214 million."

They've got holes in their dams about which we are just as concerned as them, but they've got holes in their heads, too. You can't put in a hydro rate freeze and ensure that Hydro looks after its responsibilities in taking water out of the Campbell River up in Squamish. There are a whole series of issues where Hydro has not been acting in as responsible a manner as it should. I guess they've been concentrating their time on setting up tax havens in the Cayman Islands for the benefit of directors and their families.

As the minister well knows, Hydro is a critically important port of the infrastructure of British Columbia. To tell them that they've got to pay us a $214 million dividend this year, up from $125 million last year -- and they didn't even make that kind of profit. . . . I don't have the statements here, but from memory, their profits were around the $100 million mark. They're going to pay us a $214 million dividend. I hope they're going to start to look after some of their responsibilities. They've got some serious issues to do with this dam that I'm sure are going to cost them money. The last thing we want them to do is not deal with those issues properly because of lack of funds. I'm sure the minister would be as concerned about that as anybody else.

When you appoint independent directors, you really should let them direct. You shouldn't make short-term, politically opportunistic election promises, to say things like: "Vote for us and we'll freeze your hydro rates." If we don't look after Hydro, it won't heat our homes, and it won't be your rates that will be frozen, it'll be your backsides.

The same is true about the auto insurance premium freeze. You've got an independent board of directors. Automobile insurance premiums are supposed to be based on actuarial calculations, not just suddenly frozen for political purposes at election time. And then people start scratching their heads and saying: "Well, we can't let ICBC go bankrupt, so what are we going to do? Well, let's start talking about no-fault insurance." So, all of a sudden, the bogeyman of no-fault insurance again raises its head and our phones start to ring, not only from lawyers who are involved in the process of representing the interests of people injured in automobile accidents through no fault of their own and believe that they have some rights at law, but from people who have been through the process and their cases are settled. I have had cases where people phone me up and say: "There are rumours about no-fault insurance -- naught for naught. Don't let it happen, because I went through it, and I can tell you that it simply would not be the right way of treating us." It's more Big Brother: government will decide; we'll make out a schedule, and if you lose one hand you get this much, if you lose two hands you get a little bit more, and if you lose a leg you get a little bit more, etc. That's not the way this world should carry on.

People have rights. They should be able to defend their rights; they should be able to bring action against people that have brought them damage. I am afraid that this issue of no-fault insurance is coming before us because ICBC senior executives are saying: "My God, how are we going to get by with a rate freeze?"

In my office I have a photocopy of a cheque that was faxed to me by one of my constituents living in Ladner who got a refund for $1. How much money do you think that cost B.C. Hydro to put out? I don't have a clue, but I'll bet it's $20 to make a $1 refund. That's the way this government spends taxpayers' money -- the citizens' money -- to live up to their short-term, foolish election promises.

The next issue is exactly the same: tuition fees. It's the job of the board of governors of our universities, our colleges and our institutes to ensure that the students of British Columbia are getting the best education -- the most relevant education, the most worthwhile education to prepare them for the next century -- that money can buy. This government goes and shackles them. It puts handcuffs on them, and says: "Well, you can't increase tuition fees."

There may be all kinds of different things happening: new programs that might come along; new technology that will require greater revenues or greater resources in order for the universities to deliver these programs. Don't manacle them. Don't put handcuffs on them. Appoint good directors, good boards of governors. Your government appoints them. I'm sure you go through quite a process in determining who gets appointed. I question some of the people who are appointed, because I think there has been too much emphasis on partisan politics. But I think all of them, whatever party they come from, all want the same thing. They want to do the best damn job that they can. They give of their time, and they want to do something worthwhile. You shouldn't be restricting them. You shouldn't be handcuffing them.

I don't want to see tuition fees go up, because I don't want to see circumstances that might deprive worthwhile young people from a university education. But tuition fees are not the only issue. There are many other issues, too. If you are living in Prince George or Prince Rupert or in any northern part of the province, and the particular program that you wish to take at university is, say, medicine at UBC, or you have to travel, your travel costs and your living costs away from home are going to be a far bigger issue -- or could be a far bigger issue -- than tuition fees. So maybe you should also be thinking about freezing airplane fares, rents and the price of food, etc.

The Minister of Transportation and Highways grabs it with two hands. Her opportunity to determine how the world shall live and what services will be offered. . . . When this minister was a young lady she lived in the lower mainland. She was a citizen of Delta. But she didn't have to face, at that time, those tremendous expenses of going to school many, many miles away from home. I just think that you really should look at a slightly wider vision than this on its own.

The next issue is a tax freeze. Wonderful! I dealt with that earlier on. We shall have, I'm sure, during estimates debate, a discussion on exactly what a tax is. And there are some interesting quotes in Hansard -- statements made by the present Premier and other members of the NDP caucus who were in the Legislature prior to 1991, during the last Social Credit administration, when they kept talking about what a tax is. So we will revisit during committee stage, I'm very sure, those particular issues, because they are going to be relevant.

The other issue in Bill 3 is the issue of a provincial property tax freeze. This is very interesting; I've been trying to 

[ Page 440 ]

think this issue through. How do you deal with new construction? How do you deal with assessed values of specific individuals? Are we talking about freezing the total amount of money that the government will receive, and so it will all be a reapportionment? So those of us who do have homes on which we pay property taxes, but don't plan on adding any value to them, will encourage all our friends -- because the more they construct. . . . Then the taxes they pay will take away, I presume, from the taxes that everybody else pays.

It says: "The average residential gross taxes payable during the freeze period to the government under the School Act and the Taxation (Rural Area) Act must not exceed the average residential gross taxes payable in the taxation year immediately before the freeze period." I think that's going to be a nightmare and terribly difficult to administer. It wouldn't surprise me if the courts get clogged with a series of cases. Not the assessment board so much, but exactly how this will be administered. . . . It will be very, very difficult. It isn't clear. I don't have a feeling of comfort that this has been clearly thought through and that the full range of consequences of this particular section have been dealt with. I think there's going to be a great deal more discussion during the committee stage.

[3:30]

Am I going to vote for a tax freeze or against it? Well, I must say that it's very hard not to vote for a tax freeze. We wanted a tax freeze, and I think both parties were promising it. But we added more to that statement. We made a commitment that over a period of five years we'd bring the portion of the provincial economy that the government spends delivering all the services that the province delivers from around the 19-20 percent that it is now down to 16-17 percent. Over a period of five years we would have reduced the portion of the GDP that the provincial government spends by just under 3 percentage points. That's what is needed, because in the end the result is very interesting.

It's very complicated. If you take what you take in by way of revenues and deduct from it what you spend, and if what you spend is more, then you'll have to go out and borrow some money. That's what this government does, and it's only dealing with one issue -- the revenue side. They need to deal with the spending side, and they need to deal with the borrowing side. And the debt management plan? They haven't shown the people of British Columbia that they have the discipline that is needed to live within the commitments they made one year and two months ago -- but they should.

I think they should rethink this. In the meantime, however, we will support Bill 3. We look forward to some interesting discussions during the committee stage, and I hope that I have tweaked the interest of the minister in regard to thinking about the other two sides of the equation: taxes and costs.

J. Weisgerber: With respect to this legislation, let me say first of all that I found the comments by the member for Delta South to be very interesting. I found myself very much in agreement with his analysis of the legislation. It seems to me that what we have here is a bill that resulted from a promise by a desperate government. They really had no confidence prior to the last election in their ability to be re-elected. We had a government and a new Premier desperate enough to promise anything in order to score points in the period of time leading up to the election. I quite honestly believe that he and the members across the way were among the most surprised British Columbians to find themselves back again in government and therefore with an obligation to at least initiate some of the promises made by the Premier in the period leading up to the most recent election.

Mr. Speaker, I quite honestly don't think this bill, Bill 3, is worth the paper it's written on. I quite honestly don't believe that by the end of the time periods outlined in this legislation any of these so-called freezes will still be in effect. I believe that you'll see the government systematically and cynically abandon every one of the freezes, whether they be ICBC, Hydro or tuition freezes. I don't have any confidence that the government will follow through with these promised freezes, simply because they can't afford to. They haven't factored into their fiscal plan the cost of freezing insurance rates, etc. They haven't calculated the impact on the Crown corporations that these freezes will result in.

I believe that with the next budget, which will be tabled in this House within nine months, most of these freezes will be abandoned. The Minister of Finance is there, and with a bit of bad luck on his part he'll be there to present that next budget. I think he will be standing in this House, explaining to us why it no longer makes sense, why it's no longer reasonable. He does that. I'm not quite sure whether the minister actually believes those things or whether years standing in front of a class have given him the ability to look sincere when he says things that he simply knows are not factual.

Mr. Speaker, having watched the demonstration earlier today in question period, you can't help but reflect again on promises like the forest renewal bill, which Reformers voted for, perhaps to our chagrin, perhaps because we believed the government was sincere when it said it was going to establish a fund, that it was going to legislatively protect that fund from the greedy hand of government and that there would be no way -- no possible way -- that government would ever be able to reach into that forest renewal fund and use that money for general revenue.

What we have here is exactly the same kind of bill. I'm not sure whether the members just have a very short attention span, whether they don't remember from year to year the promises and the commitments that underlie those kinds of promises and the legislation that supports them, whether they simply are willing to abandon those principles at the first opportunity or whether there was never any intent in the first place to follow through. Those are really the only options. I suspect that the Minister of Finance knows without any doubt that he's going to have to abandon these promises, that they simply aren't doable, that they don't make sense to do.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

If indeed the minister carries forward, the member for Delta South was bang on. It will either be debt and deferred taxes that suffer, or in the case of corporations, postponed or delayed expenditures will wind up costing more than any savings that might have been realized at the end of the day. Hydro is a classic example. Hydro has the ability to postpone maintenance and rehabilitation projects for long periods of time. Hydro can abandon right-of-way clearing for several years. Ultimately the trees grow up, present a hazard to the line, are more expensive to clear and you have to have a very concentrated period of expenditures on right-of-way maintenance. Dams may well be another area where Hydro can decide to have a regular routine maintenance program, or they can defer those expenditures. Certainly the people living downstream of the W.A.C. Bennett Dam don't want to see Hydro making those kinds of decisions while they find a sinkhole in the dam. They don't want to find the government 

[ Page 441 ]

deciding that Hydro has a dividend obligation, or a freeze on rates, and that it is pouring, according to the government, millions of dollars a day in water over the spillway. Those aren't areas where government or Hydro have a lot of flexibility, a lot of discretion. But there are millions and billions of dollars where Hydro can defer expenditures and make them more expensive in the long run. So I don't have any confidence that we are going to see a rate freeze in place.

I think the member for Delta South was again bang-on with his notion of: "Let's introduce some confusion with no-fault insurance, because then we can really put people off balance. They are not going to be buying the same product, they are not going to be getting the same kind of insurance. Let's really confuse them. We'll throw a rate freeze into the mix and we will play with some notion of no-fault insurance." If British Columbians stand up and reject that, then they can always use that as the rationale for an enormous rate increase a couple of years down the road.

It is a tragedy that they didn't look at the rational alternative with ICBC. That was for the government to get out of the insurance business and allow the private sector, through competition, to provide automobile insurance in much the same way as our houses are insured, and in much the same way as insurance is done in other parts of the country. I've talked before about the competitive situation in the Peace with private insurers in Alberta and ICBC on this side. But nonetheless. . . .

What we have is the government introducing legislation that, I am convinced, it has no intention of following through on. I think we are going to see the government abandon this legislation; I think we are going to see them move away from it. I simply do not believe that Hydro rate freezes will be in place for residential consumers -- and that's where the freeze applies -- through the year 2000. I just don't believe that will happen. An automobile insurance freeze, if it's in place, will result in double-digit increases -- the kind that we saw when this government first came into office in 1991-92, and in 1993.

Tuition freezes. Again the challenge is to get spending under control. Artificial freezes will see fewer seats, less expenditure for rehabilitation, maintenance, capital and the kinds of projects that should go on in those kinds of institutions; or, in fact, we will see debts piling up as well.

As for the promise of no new taxes, if this were a government that hadn't come into office in 1991 with a promise of no new taxes, people could look at this and perhaps have some confidence. It was these folks who said no new taxes, no. . . .

Interjections.

J. Weisgerber: Oh, these folks: no, they didn't, no they didn't. I'll tell you, the selective memory of the members opposite is staggering. It causes one to sit back and say: do they simply wipe from their minds their promises as soon as they are made? No friends and insiders. I remember the 40-point plan.

An Hon. Member: Forty-eight.

J. Weisgerber: Forty-eight -- it was eight they kept and 40 they broke; that's what it was. Forty points we'll ignore after the election.

The point is. . . . We'll hear from the minister, I'm sure, and when we get into committee stage I will enjoy, with other members, taking part in probing these freezes one by one. Quite honestly, I think they are about as temporary as a glass full of ice cubes on a hot day. These freezes don't enjoy the benefit of refrigeration; their shelf life is going to be very, very short.

Madam Speaker, I'm going to take my chair. I'm going to look back next March or April -- whenever the government winds up the courage to bring in a budget again -- and we'll see at that time how many of these freezes are still in place after the next budget.

[3:45]

G. Wilson: In rising to speak to Bill 3, I certainly echo some of the concerns the leader of the Reform Party has indicated with respect to the possibility that much of what is intended in this legislation may not be able to be achieved. I say that not because I wish to impugn the motive of this minister or this government, but rather because of the structure by which we currently try to apply taxes and administer the finances of the province. I guess time will tell whether or not this is a political ploy. But for the moment let's assume that it is not; let us assume that this is a sincere effort to try to do something positive with respect to the people of British Columbia and the burden they pay in terms of taxes.

Whether that's a bold assumption or not, I guess time will tell. I don't intend to speak at length on this in principle, because much of the issue with respect to delay of rates and cost in the future have already been raised by the member for Delta South, the opposition Finance critic, and I don't take issue with much of what was said there.

If we do make that assumption, I think it's important for us to recognize that if this is going to be achieved, particularly in relationship to the Hydro rate freeze, auto insurance issues, property tax matters and so on, which have artificially constrained in large measure the government from being able to meet natural market considerations, it means we're going to have to entertain a significant change in the manner we fund the activities of government. After all, that's what taxation levels are about: finding ways we can generate revenue to government in order to provide services that the people of this province wish government to provide.

I would strongly suggest to the Minister of Finance that one of the ways we can avoid the very kinds of concerns the member for Peace River South, the leader of the Reform Party, just alluded to is if we change the system by which we apply finances in the province and move toward a four-year-based financing system. This is something that members of the PDA, and I as leader of the PDA, have been advocating for a long time. By going to a four-year budget system, not only will we be able to provide a greater degree of security in terms of dollars-to-program services, we will also be able to react much more effectively to changes in the market that will ultimately determine revenue flow to government.

One of the issues we're looking at now is with respect to a decline in forest revenues, for example -- which has given great grist for the political mill, although I'm not sure it means much more than that, frankly, -- in terms of the general lives of British Columbians. But certainly as grist for the political mill it has given opposition ammunition to hit this government with. Those kinds of considerations would not have occurred if we had put ourselves in a four-year financing system where we are able to meet those market changes by providing either front-end or back-end loading on service delivery of programs and carry forward financing in a way that would allow us the opportunity to meet the fluctuations that occur within the market.

[ Page 442 ]

I offer that to the minister as a way we can mitigate the kinds of concerns that have been raised -- legitimately, I think -- by both the official opposition critic, the member for Delta South, and the leader of the Reform Party.

I have only two other brief comments to make. With respect to the matter of the tuition freeze, this will come as a great welcome to students who clearly are now finding it an enormous burden, and to those students who don't have employment -- and there's a growing number of those. Their parents, if they're so lucky as to have parents who are going to be financing them through university. . . . I know firsthand the cost of that. It will come as a great relief that there is a tuition freeze.

However, the reality of funding post-secondary education and the reality of meeting the changes, particularly as we start to retool within our institutions toward a greater degree of services provided for employment-based or employment-related economic activities. . . . Clearly, the tuition freeze is going to put an enormous burden upon those financial institutions. Even though the proportion of dollars they gain is relatively small in terms of the overall percentage, it is one that they have had flexibility with in the past that they no longer will have flexibility with now.

I offer as a solution that that minister seriously consider entering into co-op educational programming so that we can start to entertain financing and funding of programs that are specific with respect to employment in industry and allow industry to become a partner in long-term financing with respect to those job-specific kinds of programs, and relieve the liberal arts educational system from the kind of burden they are going to have placed on them, so that we do not lose sight of the fact that post-secondary education has to also allow students to get a broader kind of education than we might see if we found them all funnelled into technical trades training. I offer that as a suggestion.

Lastly, let me talk about the matter of the freeze with respect to tax on income, which is talked about in the act in terms of the definitions, in terms of the levies that are placed against individuals. They talk about no new taxes essentially meaning "taxes payable to the government on income or on the acquisition, use or consumption of property. . . ."

If this minister will take seriously the proposition that we need to move toward an integrated single tax within the province and that we need to move to collect all taxes provincially, we will find ourselves in a situation where we do not have the level of constraint with respect to monetary flow to government that we currently do. These kinds of freezes will become a reality -- a reality that we'd be able to deal with on a long-term basis. I ask the minister to seriously consider that movement toward the collection of all taxes provincially. I'm not talking about a duplicative system. The minister and I have talked about this outside this chamber. He knows what I'm referring to, and I understand the legalities of the question on the matter of the constitution that he refers to. The time has now come if we are to seriously -- and I for one would like to take seriously this proposition, because it does provide relief for British Columbia citizens, and goodness knows, they need it -- consider changing the manner by which we collect revenue for government and the manner by which we commit that revenue, so that these freezes can in fact be a reality and not simply a stopgap political measure.

R. Neufeld: Hon. Speaker, I don't wish to take a lot of time, but I can hardly let a bill like this go by without standing up and talking a little about this government's past record when it comes to taxes and levying all kinds of new fees on the people of British Columbia and now coming through with the Tax and Consumer Rate Freeze Act.

It wasn't that many years ago that we had the Taxpayer Protection Act in this province, and one of the first things -- as I recall, in 1991 -- this government did was to rescind that act. Today they would have us believe, after four and a half years, that through this period of time they've seen the light, that actually the taxpayers of British Columbia have almost been taxed to the max.

It's cynical at best when we look at the record of this government -- the record debt that this government has got itself into in a short four and a half years. This is the government, which the member for Peace River South talked about, that didn't ever in their wildest dreams think they'd get back here the second time. They were going to leave an omelette for someone else to unscramble, and all of a sudden they're in the frying pan. It's absolutely amazing -- a $10 billion increase in debt in four and a half years, and a budgetary increase of about $4 billion in that same period of time. And they would have us believe that they really believe in freezing tax rates. That's just a little bit too hard for me to imagine.

When I go back and think about discussions that we had in this House when the minister who is now the Minister of Education was the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro, and tried to lecture all the opposition members on how B.C. Hydro had to act as a business, as a corporation. . . . He was saying that to us so they could justify imposing 2-3 percent increases per year in hydro rates. I remember that very clearly. We had the minister -- now Minister of Education, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin -- lecture us about how B.C. Hydro had to have the latitude -- and how could anyone on this side of the House be so silly as to think that they shouldn't have the latitude to get a decent return? It would be interesting to go back and pick up in Hansard some of the terms that minister used. I believe one was "a realistic return on investment." All of a sudden, as part of this cabinet, not responsible for B.C. Hydro anymore, he believes -- I suppose along with the rest -- that we should freeze hydro rates for residential consumers. All of a sudden we can magically freeze hydro rates. I find that hard to believe.

I also wonder about the ramifications of what will take place once those hydro rates are unfrozen. What's going to happen at that time? Who's going to be in government then, and who's going to have to live with what has to be done? I think the member for Peace River South related quite eloquently what happens to the dams, what happens to Hydro's lines, when they put aside all the maintenance that they should do.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that in British Columbia for too many years we've put aside real rehabilitation on our road system. And that's not just in the north. Many members have stood up in this House and talked about our road systems in the whole province of British Columbia, and the glue that we're in. At some point in time the piper's going to have to be paid.

Here we have a group of individuals in government -- squeaked by again -- all of a sudden trying to act as the greatest financiers in the whole world. It's pretty sad when we see that.

For instance, the W.A.C. Bennett Dam. Who knows -- maybe they do opposite -- what's going to happen with our weather systems in the next year? What's going to happen after we drain the dam down ten or 20 feet, and we won't be 

[ Page 443 ]

able to generate hydro out of the W.A.C. Bennett Dam -- which actually generates 38 percent of the hydro used in British Columbia? What's going to happen when we have to start buying some of that coal-fired power from Alberta to subsidize British Columbia's needs? What happens then? Whose pocket do we dig into then?

It's the same taxpayer, the same person at the bottom end of the chain. And if we don't do it through the period of this freeze, it's going to hit them hard in the pants when the freeze comes off. It's unfair, and it's cruel to people to tell them that we can freeze all these rates and nothing's going to happen in the future.

Auto insurance premium freezes. I mean, this is another one. The member for Delta South did speak quite a bit about no-fault insurance, and throwing it all again into the frying pan, into the omelette. We'll see what comes out in the end. In the end, let me tell you, people are going to get it. Not only will no-fault insurance not work, on top of it, ICBC will go into their contingency fund to be able to operate. We'll see ICBC cut costs that they should really be looking after on a yearly basis.

This is after the government -- and they should be reminded -- increased ICBC rates by almost 40 percent in the first two years when they were in office. Almost 40 percent. You folks, you group of socialists over there, increased ICBC rates by almost 40 percent in the first two years you were in office, and today you would have the people of British Columbia believe that you give a darn about how much they pay. You're a pretty cynical group.

[4:00]

In question period it's pretty hard to take members opposite. The Minister of Finance sits there shaking his head and dancing around about Forest Renewal B.C. I know you want to get your hands on the money, but wouldn't it be nice if you lived up to your commitment and spent just even. . . . You don't have to spend more in the north than what you take out of there, but just get close. All you're doing is again raping that part of the province -- the interior, the Kootenays -- and bringing it all down here into the lower mainland so you can look after the people on the Island and the people in Vancouver.

I'll tell you, hon. Speaker, it's catching up. The people in the Clayoquot, the people who were told they wouldn't lose any of their jobs. . . . Here's a group over there wondering what they're going to do, and talking about taking $400 million out of Forest Renewal B.C. to live up to a bit of -- and I don't want to say it -- untruth about what the real deficit was. Strangers to the truth, I guess is the phrase.

There was a 37 percent increase in auto premium rates in the first two years you folks were in office, and now, all of a sudden, you're feeling for the taxpayers of British Columbia and the people who insure their cars. It's cynical at best.

Tuition freezes, and what that's going to do. You talk about 7,000 new spaces -- everyone who wants to enter post-secondary education will have a spot to go to. Well, there are quite a few that I have had contact with that can't get a spot. We'd rather try to recruit physiotherapists out of Europe or the U.S. than train them here. So some of those things I don't believe. On top of that, Mr. Minister, if you go back in your record and look at tuition rate increases, I believe that you increased tuition fees by about 25 percent in the first two years you were in office. Now, all of a sudden, you have a feeling for the students. Where are you coming from?

It's absolutely disgusting to read this kind of information now, after your previous Premier had to resign in disgrace for misleading the people of British Columbia. Some of it was in 1991 when they promised no new taxes: "Not a nickel more than you can afford." I remember very clearly the Premier of the day plunking a nickel in a piggy bank: "Not a nickel more." So you drilled them with all kinds of dollars. And in here you talk about no new taxes. During the period from April 1996 until the year 2000, no new taxes.

We've become very accustomed to how this NDP government determines what a tax is and what a fee is. If there is anything that you've been able to do, it's increase fees and create new fees better than anyone else that has ever been in government. If you go to the schedule you'll find that eight taxes are protected by this act, not the list of all the fees you already have in place -- and guaranteed there will be a tremendous amount of increases in fees. It just doesn't make sense that there won't be, and you will have done it all legally.

The provincial property tax freeze -- and that's the last one I want to briefly touch on -- is another thing that compares to rural roads. And in the end, someone is going to pay. Freezing property taxes until the year 2000 -- interestingly enough, that's about a four-year term. I guess that's where you're heading. You talk about four years, and after that you're going to let somebody else try to unscramble it.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: Someone says not to tell them four years. They've been talking about four or five years. You can bet that the Premier of today will not be calling an election before he absolutely has to -- guaranteed. But in any event, at the end of that time there is going to be an increase -- very much so. There is going to have to be, because you can't go that long without having some increases. The whole world economy and everything doesn't just freeze for the NDP government in British Columbia. So we're probably going to have some substantial tax increases at that time, and it's going to be left to someone else to deal with.

I don't believe for a minute that this socialist government really believes in the Tax and Consumer Rate Freeze Act. This is just a ruse, because they know they have to come forward with something -- with the promises that the now Premier made during the last election. A lot of this will disappear fairly quickly, as the member for Peace River South said earlier.

Deputy Speaker: I now recognize the hon. minister to close debate.

Hon. A. Petter: With the exception of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, I have not heard such a discursive set of whining and moaning and groaning from members opposite in this House in a long time. I think members might want to pick up their Aesop's Fables and read some of the fables about dogs in mangers and sour grapes, because some of those fables certainly seem to fit in this case. Members have been going on and on about this and that, in every complaint, in a desperate attempt to try to hide the fact that they're going to end up voting for this bill, which they apparently disagree with in so many different ways, although the members from the Reform Party didn't say how they're going to vote. But I want to predict that they're going to vote for it, notwithstanding all of their whining and moaning and groaning. At least the member opposite from the official opposition had the forthrightness at the end of his presentation to admit that despite everything he had said and all his whining and groaning, he was going to vote for the bill. So I appreciate at least that much.

[ Page 444 ]

This bill is about priorities. It's about commitments that were made by this government and about priorities, and in particular, saying that as we move forward our priority is to ensure that ordinary British Columbians -- middle-income British Columbians -- are not going to be asked to pay a greater price in the future, whether it be through tuition fees, auto insurance premiums, hydro rates or a tax freeze. This is a clear indication of this government's commitments and priorities, and the members opposite apparently don't want to hear that.

I want to caution the members opposite, too, that they come perilously close to demeaning not the members on this side of the floor -- I guess it's their role to try to demean members on this side of the floor -- but to demeaning the public. Prior to and during the election campaign, the public responded very positively to these very commitments that were made. The public said: "Yes, we believe that tuition fees should be frozen. We believe that auto insurance premiums should be frozen. We believe that B.C. Hydro rates should be frozen, that tax rates for middle-income earners should be frozen and that small business should get a tax break, too." That's what they said. For these members to now stand up and throw all their cold water, their sour grapes, their melting ice cubes and their half-fried omelettes on all of this is to throw it not on this government but on the people of British Columbia who spoke in the last election and said that this is what they believe government should listen to and respect in terms of commitments. And that's why they're sad.

The members opposite try to minimize and belittle this. They talk about this being icing and veneer. Let me assure the members opposite -- particularly the member for Delta South, who used those terms -- that it is not icing or veneer to a taxpayer in this province to have the assurance of a tax freeze for three years. It is not icing or veneer to a student in this province to know that the barrier that would be posed by increased tuition fees will not exist, because this government has made this commitment. It is not icing or veneer to say to those homeowners who pay hydro rates that those rates will not be increased, or to say to those drivers in the province who have in the past been hit with increases under numerous governments that we're not going to get the ICBC house in order on the backs of those drivers. That's not icing and veneer; that's a commitment we've made to protect the interests of middle-income, ordinary British Columbians.

The members opposite may not like to hear that. They might want to pour omelettes and ice cubes and cold water and sour grapes over it all. But I warn them, that's what the people of British Columbia voted for in the last election, and that's what this government is going to ensure that they receive in this legislation.

I want to comment on a couple of other things that were said by the members opposite. There was a lot of discussion about government spending, in two contexts. One was in terms of reviewing the record of the last four years, and the other in looking to the future. I want to just touch on both of these aspects very briefly.

In the last four years. . . .When we became government we inherited a deficit of $2.4 billion and we said we would work to eliminate that deficit over the course of the mandate. We haven't achieved that goal and that's unfortunate, but we have eliminated nine-tenths of that deficit over the mandate.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Petter: Absolutely. We have ensured that the house of British Columbia has been put in order by reducing that deficit burden year by year by year.

The members from the Reform Party refer to increases in taxation. They should review the record. Do you know when the greatest tax increases in the last ten years occurred, in percentage terms? Let me tell you: 1988, 15.79 percent; 1989, 12.47 percent; 1990, 16.10 percent. Who was in power in those years? And now they have the audacity to lecture us, when their predecessor party -- I forget the name -- was responsible for those kinds of tax increases. What was the spending record of the Social Credit government that the leader of the Reform Party and his fellow member were involved in, in 1990, 1991 and 1992? Increases in the order of 12 and 13 percent every year in government spending were brought down by this government, systematically, to the point that we now have increases in spending below the rate of inflation and the rate of growth in population. I agree we have to do more, but that has been the tendency, so I don't want to hear a lot of sour grapes and melting ice cubes and omelettes from members whose own record, I think, calls their lecturing and their own commitments into question.

Now let's talk a little bit about the future, because the member for Delta South, in between his discursive statements and an attempt to hide from the fact that really, at root, he doesn't support tuition freezes or hydro freezes or. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. A. Petter: No, no, he said so, hon. members. He said he doesn't really support them, but that he's going to vote for them. That's the principal position of the Liberal Party on this issue: "We don't support ICBC; we think you should let the corporation decide in terms of setting rates. We don't support a tuition freeze, but we're going to vote for it." That's the principal view of the members opposite, from the official opposition -- on the record!

But let's just talk about what the member says, in terms of debt and in terms of spending. He says some things I agree with, but we have to put them into context, like all things. The member is very good at telling me to put things into context, so I'm going to try to encourage him to do the same. He says we should stop growth in government spending. He says we need to be more focused on debt and debt freezes. Actually, he said we need a freeze on debt. I think we have to do a much better job, even than the one we've done, in terms of reducing the rate of government spending, and I've already outlined the record in terms of that reduction. And we have to tackle the issue of debt; I agree with that as well. Those are two commitments that I have made and that I intend to see through.

But let's put it in context. What has been happening in this Legislature in the last few weeks? Every time this government comes forward with a proposal, it is attacked by members of the opposition. We came forward with a freeze on capital that had not yet been legally committed or was not underway, in order to deal with the issues of the debt, and the members opposite get up, castigate the government and cry crocodile tears. They get upset because we're dealing with the very issue that the member, in his discursive statement today, said we should. Wouldn't it be better, hon. member, if you really cared about this issue and not politics, for you to support us in terms of that capital freeze? Wouldn't it be better for you to say: "We think you done right, hon. minister"? I think it would. I think it would be refreshing, and I think your constituents would respect you for it.

[4:15]

We introduced a program review. Instead of saying, "Good on you; we need a program review," they cast about 

[ Page 445 ]

for the first issue they could find to make political hay on, and brought it to this House. They're up and down and jumping around on program review in respect of Forest Renewal B.C. Well, give me a break. Do they care about containing the cost of government spending? Do they want a program review or don't they? Do they want to control capital spending or don't they? They can't have it both ways. Oh, excuse me, they're Liberals; they can have it both ways, which is why they say they oppose the freeze on Hydro and the freeze on ICBC and the freeze in terms of tuition -- but of course they're going to vote for the bill. Excuse me, I forgot that that's the way the Liberal Party operates.

I want to make one final comment. I think there is an opportunity here to work together on these issues, and I look forward to doing so. I think the suggestion made by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast concerning a multi-year financing plan, for example, is a very constructive proposal. I think we have to work together in looking at multi-year financing. I think that the member for Delta South has made a number of constructive proposals -- when he's not drawn into the political hurly-burly by some of his more intemperate colleagues. I hope we can work in that constructive way, and I hope that members opposite would see fit to give the government and the people of British Columbia more credit when we act on the priorities in the way that we have in this bill.

With that I move second reading.

Motion approved on division.

Bill 3, Tax and Consumer Rate Freeze Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. A. Petter: I call second reading of Bill 4.

Bill 4 provides tax relief for virtually all British Columbians by reducing personal income taxes. The vast majority of British Columbia residents pay the second-lowest taxes in the country. Despite this, many middle-income working families often find it difficult to make ends meet. To make things easier for these families, the government decided to introduce a modest tax reduction that would particularly assist lower- and middle-income earners. The reduction in personal income tax will be accomplished by reducing the provincial tax rate by one percentage point this July and by a further point in 1998. The reduction will be capped for the highest income tax payers, earning more than $80,000. This cap will reduce costs and direct the relief to those who need it most: lower- and middle-income taxpayers. This measure will put an additional $68 million in taxpayers' pockets in 1996-97 and $150 million annually when the reduction is fully implemented.

Bill 4 also provides tax relief for small business by reducing the small business corporate income tax rate from 10 percent to 9 percent and by introducing a two-year corporate income tax holiday for eligible new small businesses incorporated on or after May 1, 1996. This government recognizes the importance of small business to British Columbia and to the British Columbia economy. Job creation is a high priority of this government, and small business has been instrumental in creating new jobs in recent years and in stimulating the economic development of this province. To sustain this momentum, the government is reducing the small business corporate income tax rate by one point, to 9 percent. This will benefit approximately 40,000 small businesses and will support additional job creation in this sector. I may say I think it sends a very positive signal to the small business community concerning recognition of that community's efforts in creating jobs and support for that community on the part of this government and, if the bill is supported by this Legislature, by the Legislature as a whole.

A two-year corporate income tax holiday is also being introduced for eligible new small businesses incorporated after April 30, 1996. The eligibility criteria will help ensure that new small businesses with real job creation potential can benefit from the tax holiday. Targeting the income tax holiday will complement the small business rate reduction and provide additional assistance to one of the strongest job creation engines in our economy. These two measures combined will reduce taxes for small business by approximately $29 million annually.

With that, hon. Speaker, I again move second reading of Bill 4.

F. Gingell: I'm really pleased that this government sees fit to reduce the corporate tax rate for small businesses from 10 percent to 9 percent. Let's think about that. It used to be 9 percent, didn't it? That's right. It was 9 percent for many, many years, and somebody put it up to 10 percent. Who was that? It was this bunch, the NDP government. One of the first things they did when they came into office was repeal this strange act the Socreds had put in called the Taxpayer Protection Act, and the first thing they did was raise the corporate tax rate on small business from 9 percent to 10 percent. They've finally seen the light and reduced it to 9 percent. Good on them. Well done.

An Hon. Member: They're a little slow, though.

F. Gingell: About four years slow, I think.

The second issue is that this government is starting to bring down the personal tax rate, and I'm pleased about that, too. I'm sorry they're not going to push it through the whole of our tax system. It is true, as they say, that low-income taxpayers in British Columbia pay the second-lowest tax rate. I think that's correct; I haven't got all the statistics here. I do know what is true, and that is that our highest earners pay the highest tax rate. You've really got to get up terribly high to get to the highest tax rate, but you can get there.

We believe in progressive tax rates, but we have to recognize that the most important thing in British Columbia is good, family-supporting jobs. We have to encourage job creation. Does this bill do that? Well, I'd like to suggest that tax rates on the high end don't produce a tremendous amount of money for the province but are a barrier to the creation of jobs in B.C. -- not the new, small startup businesses but the movement of large amounts of investment to B.C. that will create jobs. We've got a lot going for us here. We have a wonderful environment. We live in a wonderful part of the world. We have a health care system that's not as good as it should be, but it's better than others in other parts of the North American continent. We have an education system which I think can be described in the same fashion. It's a pretty good place, and it's a wonderful location to ensure that you have access to the North American free trading area and to the Asian Pacific 

[ Page 446 ]

Rim. So we really do need to take advantage of the advantages that we have, the pluses, and build on them. Does this bill do that?

There is a two-year tax holiday for new small business. I'd like to suggest to the minister that the issue of corporate capital tax, although I know it will not be applicable to these businesses because they will be under the exemptions. . . . The corporate capital tax has a way of spreading its evil tentacles throughout our economy. One of the expenses that small business finds most difficult to deal with is the cost of renting commercial and industrial space. Most of these rental agreements on such space are what we call triple-net leases. Corporate capital taxes feed into that triple-net lease exercise. So you might think about further exemptions from the corporate capital tax where the cost of that tax is borne by these very new small businesses that you're trying to help.

I'd like to suggest to the minister that one of the other problems new small businesses have in getting started, and why they sometimes go to other parts of the world, like just south of the border into Whatcom County, is the volume of regulation, additional taxes and regulatory costs that small business in British Columbia has to bear. Besides this tax holiday, this government needs to look at regulation. What's the effect of the widening scope of Workers Compensation Board coverage and assessment? What effect have the recent changes that this government brought in to the Employment Standards Act had on the creation and encouragement of small business?

I'm not suggesting that they get wiped away. I'm just suggesting that when you bring in legislation, you should have clear ideas of how you will measure its success. In evaluating your programs, which the minister speaks of, it is perhaps time to evaluate some of these other issues that members on this side bring up as concerns to the creation of small business.

So there is a tax holiday. Now, the tax holiday is only going to apply to corporations. It's not going to apply to individuals. Those corporations either have to start their small business as a corporation or have the incorporation of the business within 90 days of its creation. I can appreciate the problem of administering a tax holiday that was pushed through to individuals. That would, I'm sure, create a lot of problems.

But, you know, I spent 25 years in public practice as a chartered accountant in a small firm, dealing with small businesses. They don't start off their business by incorporating. They start off their business as a proprietorship or a partnership. They don't have money to pay for lawyers for companies to be incorporated -- with due deference to my honourable friend. I know you now can go and buy a book for $50 to tell you how to incorporate your company.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: I'm not supposed to mention that, I guess. But that's not the way business is done. Businesses normally start as proprietorships and partnerships. They go along for a couple of years, and the business has grown, and they get to the point where they're suddenly bringing in employees and are concerned about liability that others may make them responsible for. They come to the conclusion -- perhaps for tax purposes too, because they're starting to make some profits that are going to be reinvested back into the business -- that rather than have those profits, which they can't spend personally anyway, taxed at the highest of their personal tax rates, they will leave the funds in the company for reinvestment to pay corporate taxes.

But that usually happens sometime later, when the business is established. I would like to suggest that they should perhaps think of extending that period. You should perhaps think of trying to make this incentive real to the majority of cases, which will be proprietorships and partnerships rather than corporations.

Yes, we do need to help small business. Yes, we do need to do those things that will help create good family-supporting jobs in this province and good economic activity. The minister criticized me earlier for saying that if there are Hydro freezes, they should be determined not by this government but by the board of directors who you have appointed and given the responsibility for administering them. It's exactly the same way with the universities on tuition fees: you need to think about these things with a slightly wider vision. You need to think the whole thing through. That will cause the government to think about the issue of regulation; it will cause them to think about the issue of surtax on high individuals. I don't think those will collect you a lot of revenue but they sure do you a lot of damage on economic development. You need to think about how corporate capital tax costs get spread through and do get borne by small business.

[4:30]

There are some issues that we wish to deal with relative to the information-sharing portions of this act -- which perhaps my friend understands a lot better than I do -- and the consequences of that. I hope the minister will give the suggestions and thoughts that I've had some consideration before this bill comes back to us for committee stage reading.

G. Plant: I listened with interest to the Minister of Finance introduce this bill in second reading and introduce it by reference to two basic purposes, the first of which was identified as the implementation of what he described as a modest tax reduction for personal income taxes, and the second of which was identified as a tax freeze or a tax holiday for small businesses.

These are purposes that I'm prepared to support, and I share almost all the views which have been expressed by my colleague the hon. member for Delta South, with the exception of his momentary lapse from good taste in insulting the members of the legal profession. However, there is buried within this bill a third -- and important -- provision which raises, in my view, a large question of principle: the question of privacy.

The provision in particular is section 6. I want to say two things about section 6 in a general way, by way of introduction to my comments. The first is that it did not play any part in the introduction of this act by the minister. I think that's important, because what that means is that it doesn't really have any part to play in the implementation of the basic purposes of the act. The basic purpose of the act is to put forward and implement two tax freezes, neither of which, as far as I can tell, is in any way dependent upon the enactment of a provision related to information-sharing. What we have buried in this bill is, I think, a section that doesn't have anything to do with the basic purposes of the bill, yet it compromises the ability of anyone who wants to support its other basic objectives but is nonetheless as concerned as I am by the privacy issues that are raised here.

What this section does, as I read it, is allow the Minister of Finance, with the prior approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-

[ Page 447 ]

in-Council, to enter into something called an information-sharing agreement with any government, or any official or agency of any government, anywhere in Canada or in North America, including all the public bodies that are defined as such in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

An Hon. Member: Big Brother.

G. Plant: This is Big Brother, big-time.

What does the act call an information-sharing agreement? It seems to include almost any kind of agreement for the exchange of almost any kind of information which the government considers necessary for the administration of almost any statute -- either this act or any other statute in British Columbia -- in any province of Canada or in any state of the United States. It is an enormously broad-ranging power to make agreements for the sharing of information between the government of this province and almost anybody else in North America about almost any subject. I, for one, acknowledge that it is necessary for the government to have information-sharing agreements entered into between a particular minister and another minister, or between a particular branch of one government and another branch. We saw an example of how this worked just last week, when we were looking at, debating and passing the B.C. family bonus. There were particular provisions in that section designed to give it effect by allowing information-sharing agreements to be entered into between particular specified individuals.

I should say that in my view, that was the right approach -- that is, if information needs to be shared for a particular purpose, then in order to minimize the infringement of individual privacy rights, a statute should be created which specifies and limits the information-sharing that can take place. There may be a need for other information-sharing to take place in the government of B.C. We don't have an explanation from this minister in the introduction of this bill as to what that information is or why it's needed. Neither do we have stated in the provision, or anywhere else in the act, any limitation on the kinds of agreements that can be entered into that ties those agreements to particular important, valuable, acknowledged legislative purposes. What we have is broad, open-ended, unrestricted power, and no apparent constraints on its exercise.

That gives me serious concern. I am concerned that the power that is conferred upon the minister, who has to do it with the approval of cabinet, is too broad in terms of both the breadth of information which can be subject to it and the lack of description of the open-ended, enormous and wide-ranging agencies with which the information can be shared.

There are ways of dealing with this short of requiring a complete repeal or rejecting the section in its entirety. One is to clearly define the purposes for which information is required. If this is information which is required for the purpose of implementing the provisions of this bill, then let's say it, and let's have the section worded in that way. There are, of course, other ways this problem can be dealt with. There could be oversight mechanisms put into statutory mechanisms like this that allow the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner to have an opportunity to review provisions like this before the agreements that are made pursuant to these provisions come into force.

I must say that I have an additional concern: to the best of my information and understanding, this section was not referred to the information and privacy commissioner for any kind of comment or input prior to the introduction of this bill. So we don't really have, at least in a public way -- and the information and privacy commissioner was not given an opportunity to provide any -- input into whether this provision strikes a balance, which I say can be struck, must be struck but is not struck, between the need to exchange information which does arise in the course of the business of government and, on the other hand, the fundamental and all-important right and need to protect the privacy of particular individuals. I have a serious concern with the breadth and the scope of this provision, which is not just simply a technical drafting issue but an issue of principle.

G. Farrell-Collins: I too want to speak to this bill and echo many of the comments that were raised by the member for Richmond-Steveston, because as one reads through this piece of legislation, virtually all of it deals with the tax cuts. It deals with tax cuts for individuals, for small businesses, all of which we agree with. Certainly the comments made by the member for Delta South that it was this government that raised the taxes in the first place and now expects the people of British Columbia -- the small business people, the individuals, the working families -- to get down on their hands and knees and bow low to the New Democrats for relieving some of the pressure on the tourniquet that has been around their neck for the last four years. . . . While I applaud the government's attempt to release the tourniquet half a turn, I suggest that they shouldn't have turned it in the first place, and now that they've decided to head in that direction, they perhaps could unwind it a few full turns rather than partially.

Hon. Speaker, as you read through the bill -- page after page, section after section -- all of a sudden, on the last page, section 6 just leaps out at you. It's completely unrelated to any of the information that's in the bill with regard to tax cuts. It's a section that seems to have no relationship whatsoever to what's in this bill. I try not to be cynical, but each year that I spend in here it gets harder and harder.

There have been countless instances that I've seen over the last four and a half or five years that I've been here, where the government has brought in bills that they term as "housekeeping." If you dig hard enough, if you get the spade out and shovel through the stuff that's in the bill, eventually you hit a rock -- and there's the rock, buried somewhere deep down in the inside bowels of the legislation. This one was a little easier to find. It wasn't in the traditional three-inch type of miscellaneous statutes amendment acts we get. I suppose that my cynicism may well have borne itself out once again. When one looks at this section. . . . I don't want to get into a detailed debate on the content of the section itself but rather the intent of it. Why is it here? Where did it come from? How does it relate to this bill and the principle of the bill?

The bill talks about being an income tax amendment act, and it's specifically to deal with the items that have been raised as tax cuts. Why is it that the government needs to engage in an information-sharing agreement with every other jurisdiction in North America, as it relates to the income information that they have? I ask the question. I hope that when the minister speaks in closing the debate on second reading, he will explain that for us, because I'm curious as to why it's here and what it's intended to do.

The only thing that entered my mind that the government may want to bring this into effect for would be perhaps to seek out those individuals who refuse to pay their child support payments and family support payments. That's the only one I can think of. But if that were the case, why not have very restrictive wording in this bill? Why not have a separate 

[ Page 448 ]

piece of legislation that would deal with that, that would be very restrictive, as opposed to having it be as permissive as this section is? Why not deal with that issue specifically, concisely and precisely, so that it wouldn't be abused? This one is wide open. It says that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council -- that's the cabinet, the New Democrat government, the Minister of Finance -- can get together and sign information-sharing agreements with any public body in any jurisdiction in North America. For example, if they want to give your taxation information to some university in Georgia because they want to recruit people in a certain income bracket to take a course -- perhaps on how to balance a budget -- they would be able to focus that on you. They could pull up the British Columbia income tax database, and away you go.

[4:45]

Here's another example that maybe the minister hasn't thought of. What about those people in Whatcom County that love recruiting small businesses and businesses from British Columbia? Better than that, what about the people in the mining association in Alaska that just sent a mailout to all the people in the mining industry in British Columbia? That mailout said: "Come to Alaska. We've gutted our labour laws. Come to Alaska and bring your money here; bring your investment to Alaska." All they have to do is make an information-sharing arrangement with the government agency in Alaska that deals with the mining sector, and then they know all the tax information they need to know about all those mining companies. That's just an example. There's no restriction on this. I can't fathom for a minute, other than the item that I gave as an example, why the government would choose to do that. If that was their goal, why not do it in a much different, more restrictive way?

Another thing that concerns me is that prior to the election, Mr. Gunton, the hired gun of the Premier, went to the Ministry of Finance and asked for tax-related information on corporations in British Columbia -- how much they paid in corporate capital tax. It was not general, not the whole figure, but how much individual corporations paid in corporate capital tax. That's a big difference. That's not a statistical piece of information -- how much money came in, how much money went out -- that he would normally be entitled to or that the Minister of Finance would be entitled to see. This was a hired gun of the Premier -- somebody working for the Premier in the Ministry of Environment -- going to Treasury Board and Ministry of Finance staff and asking them for specific information on specific corporations about how much capital tax they paid.

Where did that information end up? Did it go into the top drawer of Mr. Gunton's desk and sit there quietly? No. It ended up in the day-to-day announcements of the Premier in the lead-up to, and during, the election campaign. Private corporate tax information is supposed to be sacrosanct. It's not supposed to be available to anybody other than those people who take the oath and occupy the Douglas Building, here in British Columbia, and it ends up first in the hands of the hired gun of the Premier and then spewing out the Premier's mouth at campaign announcements.

What else happened during the campaign? I seem to remember the Premier talking about the amount of money that top executives earned in British Columbia. Remember that? He was talking about the top executives in British Columbia earning this much money; it was part of one of their campaign announcements. I don't know where they got that information. Maybe the Minister of Finance can tell us where they got that information. He's in charge now; I expect he could find that out if he chose to ask. We know he doesn't answer the questions unless we ask them. He doesn't come up and actually give you the information. You have to wait until you ask the precise question, and then he may skip around it a little bit. As Finance minister he could find that out, but I suspect he won't.

When I see a section like section 6 in this bill, and the wide-ranging powers to whip up your tax information. . . . Just throw it on the Internet and any public body in North America can have access to it, for whatever purpose: to check the taxation rules in their area; to recruit you to take your investment money out of British Columbia and put it into their state; to recruit you as a client to bring the money you choose to invest -- perhaps, as I said, in post-secondary education; to go down to their state or province and take your money out of this province. Those are just the nice uses I can think of it for. There are probably hundreds of other uses. We don't know how many other Tom Guntons there are across North America who might use that information, who might. . . .

An Hon. Member: Hundreds.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, I know most of the Tom Guntons -- the New Democrat ones, anyway -- are in British Columbia, because the government has hired them all from across the country. But we don't know how many people there are who behave in that way, who seek out private information and use it for personal political gain. We don't know how many people there are in other jurisdictions who would do the same thing.

We don't know what pressure would be brought to bear on companies who operate outside this province. Right now there's the Helms-Burton act, which was debated and passed in the U.S. Congress, which intends to impose fines and penalties on individuals who do business in Cuba. Boy, I can tell you. . . . If Jesse Helms could plug in to the computer, pull up the mining companies in British Columbia and find out which ones were doing business in Cuba, how much money they were making, how much taxation they had. . . . "What fines should we level on this company?" Wouldn't that be great information for Jesse Helms to use?

I'm extremely anxious to hear what the Minister of Finance has to say about why this section is appended to this bill, a bill on an issue that is completely unrelated to this section. Why is this section here? What's its intent? What is it for? Has he run it by the privacy commissioner? I suspect not. Knowing the privacy commissioner and how adamant he is about protecting privacy in British Columbia, I think he'd be outraged. I don't know if he's seen this yet, but I would suspect -- knowing his background, his writings, how highly reputable he is as a protector of privacy, particularly since he's been here in British Columbia but certainly in his writings beforehand -- that if he saw this type of legislation. . . . What would he have to say? Did the Minister of Finance take it to him first for approval, suggestions or advice? I wonder. I'd be eager to find out. The rest of the bill is fine. But as usual, if you dig far enough you find a rock. In this bill, this is the rock. This is the part of the bill that gives me grave concern.

I know that members on this side of the House want to explore that further in committee stage. Without explanation, obviously we'll be voting against and speaking loudly against this section in committee stage. We'll support the first part of the bill, but this part leaves many questions unanswered. I hope the minister addresses this in summing up second 

[ Page 449 ]

reading. More importantly, I hope he has some answers for us when this bill finally comes to committee stage.

G. Wilson: In rising to speak to Bill 4 in principle, there are three areas in which I'd like to address the matters in this bill. The first is the question with respect to the two-year tax holiday. What is interesting to note in principle is the a two-year tax holiday. I wonder if the minister might consider whether -- rather than looking at the two-year tax holiday in light of the fact that there has been no movement with respect to the removal of the corporate capital tax and the impact that the corporate capital tax has on small business in British Columbia -- the government would not have achieved its goal more effectively through the introduction of a small business development bond, something we've been advocating for a long time.

For two reasons I raise this question with the minister. A small business development bond is something that would not only provide an incentive with respect to development of small business already operating in British Columbia. It would also be much more effective in addressing areas where companies may wish to branch out to expand their level of production. The bond, driven at market rate, would not have an impact on revenue to government directly but would essentially indirectly benefit government through increased revenues that these companies would make. So I really question the minister as to whether the government has looked -- and if they have not looked, I urge that they take a look -- at the concept of a small business development bond, market-driven, which would be able to provide necessary small business dollars with respect to expansion.

I say it also because of the eligibility requirement that is here with respect to the deduction. It sets April 30, 1996, as the date that the corporation must be incorporated after -- i.e., May 1, 1996. So there are many small businesses that are already affected, as the member for Delta South has already pointed out, with respect to triple-net lease concerns and the corporate capital tax, and are not going to be able to benefit from this particular program -- whereas the introduction of a small business development bond would allow assistance there without the obvious concerns with respect to an immediate reduction of revenue to government, something which drove that date with respect to eligibility. It may not be the reason, but I would suspect, at least in part, that is a reason why that may be so. I would put that forward as something that might be reviewed, and I wonder if the minister might want to look at that in some detail.

The second issue that I want to raise, of the three that I outlined which were of concern in principle, is the matter with respect to the income tax deduction rate and the extent to which that is going to provide relief for British Columbians. What is interesting about this is the timing of it. Not wanting to be too cynical about it, one could argue that this is something that was introduced because it was favourable in terms of the election campaigning. Clearly, it worked. Obviously the members opposite are back in government. Notwithstanding the campaigns of other political parties, there they are, and that's a fact.

I wonder if the minister may not recognize that what is really needed here is not simply a question of rate but a change in the manner in which income tax is collected. I know that this may sound like I'm beating on the same drum again, but I think it's worthwhile doing, because it's something that I think people really want to hear. Certainly what we're hearing is that people, as they begin to understand what we're talking about in terms of the movement toward an integrated single tax on income, something that can provide real relief. . . . If the government is really interested in providing that, I urge this minister to consider the allowable deduction of mortgage interest rates on first mortgages of primary residences for the budget year 1997. That is something that would be substantial in terms of the ability of people who are in the process of purchasing homes to afford their homes and would provide an opportunity for those people who are unable to or choose not to own a home to have an annual rental deduction as an allowable deduction against income.

Now, clearly the revenue-to-government cost is high with respect to that program, and that's why I think it is critical that the government introduce the need for chartered banks in British Columbia to file an audit and to pay taxes on the profit they are earning off those mortgages collected in the province. The minister may come back and say: "Well, there is a question of legality there with respect to the Bank Act." Certainly I hope that some legal opinion is sought and looked at. One might find, depending, of course, on which lawyer you want to talk to -- and I would suggest we talk to one that has an extensive background in this, as we have -- that in fact this is an allowable option for the province and would provide meaningful and realistic relief for British Columbians: the opportunity to deduct the interest on a first mortgage, as well as the possibility of deductibility of rent to a maximum allowance annually.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I just want to raise the third point with respect to the principle contained in this bill. It speaks to the matter that was raised by the member for Richmond-Steveston and then repeated by the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain. It has to do with the information-sharing agreements and the provisions within them. What's interesting in looking at that is the somewhat oblique reference to the Protection of Privacy Act and the purposes of information-gathering. This government -- and it doesn't only extend to the particular piece of legislation we're dealing with now, although that's the one we have to focus on and concentrate on -- has embarked upon an approach to the sharing of information in a number of statutes that were brought in last year. There are some already tabled in this Legislature this year, as well as this one, that I believe cross that line -- the line of protection of privacy, in the interests of individuals. This is something that clearly needs to be addressed, and addressed in some detail. Given the principle that is contained in this bill that deals primarily with income tax deduction, I would strongly urge that the matter of section 6, which has been raised by the member for Richmond-Steveston, is clearly an issue that steps outside of the parameters of the general principle of the bill. As we get into the committee stage, I would ask if the minister might want to consider standing down that section until we have had an opportunity to look at the implication, not only in terms of the references -- that are, albeit, oblique but nevertheless are in this particular piece of legislation -- but in terms of how the cross-referencing may be found in other pieces of legislation that have been tabled in this Legislature this year, and the impact that it may have on legislation that was tabled in this Legislature in the previous year. I believe the government has clearly stepped over the line on this. I think that could be demonstrated without doubt, and I would seriously suggest that the minister might want to stand that section down.

[5:00]

With that, in principle we would support the notion of tax deduction or tax relief, and that's something that we would 

[ Page 450 ]

want to look at. However, we do believe that this is a very small piece of relief for the people of British Columbia, and we would have preferred the government to have entertained the proposals that I have outlined in my comments today.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Finance will close debate.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm obviously pleased that the members opposite seem to at least be supportive of tax cuts -- in particular, the provisions of this bill that would reduce income tax not only for middle-income earners but for all British Columbians to some extent, as well as for small business, and provide a tax holiday for new small businesses. Those are very positive initiatives, and I'm pleased that they are recognized as such by the members opposite.

I also want to thank the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast for his suggestions with respect to small business development bonds. I look forward to finding out more about what he has in mind in that regard. We have talked in the past about his ideas with respect to mortgage interest deductibility, and I think there are some interesting legal issues around his proposal which we can follow up on.

Let me deal very briefly with section 6, because it's an issue that we need to explore in more detail during committee stage. I welcome the concerns and comments of the members opposite. I have had an opportunity to discuss with staff in general some of the concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals around this provision. I understand that there have been discussions with the information and privacy commissioner; he has provided some suggestions and guidance. I have instructed staff to respond to that, and I'm hopeful that by the time we reach committee stage we'll be in a position to discuss that in a way that will satisfy members opposite.

I disagree that in context the provision is susceptible to as broad a reading as the members opposite would suggest. But we can discuss that too, and certainly can discuss the purposes to which it might be put, to make sure that we haven't overreached in any way, and contemplate the mechanisms through which we can ensure that the bill does protect privacy, while on the other hand allowing for appropriate information-sharing that can ensure the proper administration not only of this act and the Income Tax Act but of other acts in the province. It's always a balance. We'll certainly try to strike that balance correctly, and I look forward to that discussion in committee stage. With that, I again move second reading of. . . .

The Speaker: Before the minister's motion, on a point of order, the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain.

G. Farrell-Collins: I don't mean this in a frivolous way, but we were hoping that the minister would give us some comment on that section in the broad-principle sense, particularly on this bill. I want to see if we have the assurance of the minister that the debate in committee will be one that's more far-reaching in principle as opposed to being confined to technical aspects, given that we don't have any comment at this stage of the debate.

The Speaker: Strictly speaking, I'm not sure that that's a point of order. But I think it's a helpful suggestion, and perhaps the minister would take it under advisement.

Hon. A. Petter: I thank the member for his comments. Obviously the concerns as I heard them raised by the members are ones that can be addressed in committee stage, and I think I have responded in a general-principle way by suggesting that I don't think the section reaches as far as the member opposite suggests. I do think that there are good responses to the member's concerns on specifics and that there has been some discussion with the commissioner, the outcomes of which I'll be happy to share during committee stage.

The Speaker: The motion, Mr. Minister.

Hon. A. Petter: Yet again, I move second reading of Bill 4.

Motion approved.

Bill 4, Income Tax Amendment Act, 1996, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I call second reading of Bill 7.

First, Bill 7 includes amendments to enable a new experimental trial program called innovative forestry practices agreements. The amendments would allow the ministry to enter into a number of experimental pilot agreements aimed at improving forest productivity and increasing jobs. The pilot agreements would involve a licensee committing to undertake a program of work, such as specialized silviculture, inventory and growth-and-yield work, aimed at increasing the productivity of the forest resource. In exchange for this commitment, the regional manager may increase the allowable annual cut of the licence commensurate with the expected increase in forest productivity. The ministry is proposing to enter into up to six pilot agreements in the future months. The initial agreements will be assessed after five years to determine the effectiveness of the program. These amendments are consistent with this government's objectives under the forest renewal plan and, hopefully, will lead to greater innovation in our forests and more jobs.

The second category of amendments in this bill improve administration of the Forest Practices Code. The Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act came into force on June 15, 1995. The act is a major piece of legislation and is the cornerstone for a new forest management framework. We are currently in the second year of a transition period to full code requirements.

Several amendments in Bill 7 are intended to facilitate code implementation. The bill corrects several minor drafting omissions related to the application of soils, silviculture, road and range provisions, and with the approval of forest development plans. The bill makes minor improvements in the notice provisions related to seized goods under the act's enforcement sections. The bill improves provisions related to the delegation of the district manager powers and extends the act's transitional regulation-making authority for one year. These amendments will allow the ministry to effectively deal with implementation problems in the coming transitional year and will help avoid bottlenecks in code administration.

[ Page 451 ]

The third category of changes included in Bill 7 are amendments to the Forest Act administrative provisions. The amendments allow the term of certain non-replaceable licences to be extended as the chief forester reduces the allowable annual cut of the licence's timber supply area. I will discuss this change in detail in committee, but its effect will be to reduce the impact of AAC reductions on licence holders while aiding in the attainment of certain forest management objectives.

The amendments clarify obligations of major licensees with regard to timber salvage. The amendments enable minor changes in the timber harvesting contract and subcontract regulation, which was successfully revised earlier this year. The amendments clarify and strengthen the administrative provisions relating to woodlot licence eligibility and transfers, and the amendments correct a defect in the Forest Act related to the establishment of forest districts.

I believe these amendments will significantly improve forest management. They will encourage innovation, and they will assist in the streamlining of administration. I move that Bill 7 be read for a second time now.

T. Nebbeling: My response will be brief, because we will reserve our comments for committee. We're looking in particular for the potential mechanism for how forest renewal funds would be transferred into the Ministry of Forests without actually complying with the recommendations in the act itself -- not abuse; I don't want to look at it as an abuse mechanism. So we are going to ask a fair number of questions on what exactly is happening there. We would like to have some further information in committee on the extension clause, as well, as we do not see how this formula will actually work in certain areas in the interior.

That is all for now, as far as my comments are concerned. We'll be looking forward to a number of good questions in committee.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the Minister of Forests.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The motion is on the floor.

Motion approved.

Bill 7, Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 1996, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. L. Boone: I call second reading of Bill 9.

This bill authorizes the merger of the motor vehicle branch and the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. Three important principles underlie this bill: this government's commitment to improving service for B.C. motorists, its commitment to lowering costs, and its commitment to improving safety on B.C. roads and highways. By placing the road safety program at ICBC and MVB -- the motor vehicle branch -- under a single administrative umbrella, we will sharpen our focus on road safety and help reduce the rate of accidents, death and injury on our roads.

This merger will also mean greater accessibility to driver services and greater convenience for B.C. motorists. B.C. motorists will be able to obtain their vehicle insurance, vehicle licence and driver's licence by going to one office instead of two. In other words, a single agency will be responsible for all driver and vehicle services.

Furthermore, the motor vehicle branch and the Insurance Corporation of B.C. currently serve an overlapping client base. This merger will help eliminate redundant functions. It will combine and streamline the information systems and business processes of both organizations. The result: a single, unified, more efficient and more cost-effective system.

Finally, the province of British Columbia has embarked on one of this country's most ambitious campaigns against speeders and against those who choose to drink and drive. B.C.'s traffic safety initiatives are expected to save 100 lives and $350 million in health, insurance and other costs in the first year alone. This merger will facilitate the development and delivery of those initiatives by placing them under a single administrative umbrella. It will help save lives. It will, once again, help to reduce the enormous burden which traffic accidents place on the shoulders of every British Columbian, and that's good news. It's good news for you, good news for me and good news for all British Columbians.

Hon. Speaker, I look forward to hearing the comments from the members opposite and certainly hope that they will be supporting this bill.

D. Jarvis: From what we understand, Bill 9, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, is basically a housekeeping bill. This bill is to merge the functions of the motor vehicle department with ICBC. From what I understand from various people, a lot of the functions are already being done by ICBC. However, there are some concerns about the functions of this merger. It supposedly will improve the operations and safety programs of AirCare, licence administration, licence testing, etc. The ultimate aim is to save dollars by improving customer service, with one-stop service through ICBC. I wonder at times whether the purpose of this, which I think we should perhaps go into further during the committee stage of it. . .why it's necessary to have this amalgamation of the two corporations. Has it resulted from the fact that maybe the Premier, by freezing the rates at ICBC, has created a shortfall of money that is due to come any day now, as we are now entering the third quarter?

[5:15]

An Hon. Member: The cheque's in the mail.

D. Jarvis: Well, we haven't come to that aspect about the cheques. As one of my associates said: "The cheque's in the mail." We'll see.

ICBC has now gone through its first quarter of the year -- perhaps the worst quarter in the history of ICBC. The rates have been frozen, so we could foresee a great, great deficit forthcoming. As I said, this is basically a housekeeping bill. But is there another purpose behind it? I'm not too sure. I'm not prepared to come out and say so, but I would think that this government is in a position where they need all the money they can get, especially to help ICBC out. I would estimate that ICBC will probably be looking at a deficit of close to $300 million in the near future -- by the time this year is over -- because they're being hammered by the private insurance companies, for exactly what ICBC was started up to do by your previous NDP government back in the mid-seventies.

[ Page 452 ]

So here we are, sitting with this bill, in which we are putting the regulator and the enforcer into the insurance company on its own. It could be that we are seeing the fox being put into the henhouse, without any control. There are some analogies that you could put out -- maybe not very good ones. You wonder, if we put the Canadian Bar Association and the Trial Lawyers Association into Russell and DuMoulin or Davis and Co., whether that would be a good idea, as well. We certainly would save money, I imagine.

As you say, it's going to be a possible saving to the motorist, or it could just be a larger bureaucracy. I note that we now have a very large bureaucracy, especially up in the management end of motor vehicle branch, and perhaps this may the answer for reducing that. We'll look at it at a later time.

There's also the question -- and I'm going to jump back to what I was talking about earlier -- about a conflict of interest, in the sense that ICBC has a mandate: they must insure every driver that comes before them. The only way to escape it is if the individual is unable to pay for his insurance. With the fact that they are now able with the passing of this bill -- if and when it passes -- to direct who gets a licence and who doesn't get a licence. . . .

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I couldn't hear what the minister said at that point. Anyway, there's a concern out there that perhaps they can exclude insurance to someone through not giving them a licence, instead of paying higher premiums.

At this point, I would say that there are a lot of people out there that are perhaps feeling a little bit nervous about the intent of this bill. It will be interesting to see what will come out when we ask some specific questions in committee stage. I feel that it could be fundamentally wrong -- that if anything, ICBC should be left on its own. That is another philosophical question, or another aspect of it. We will, at this stage, leave it for committee stage.

As I said, we had one more concern, and that would be the question of the number of FTEs that is reported to be left out: approximately 60. We are questioning the fact that there are probably two contracts here between the individuals -- whether they can be ironed out between them. Will the ones that they say they are reducing just be transferred into ICBC?

At this time, we can see there is going to be very little saving on the merger. Phase 1, we understand, is going to save about. . . . About 500 jobs are going to be moving into ICBC, and then there's another phase. I understand that in the fall another 250 jobs will be moving to ICBC. So the question of whether there is a saving. . . . It's very questionable. The $40 million in estimated costs -- the payroll itself will be at least, we understand, about 60 percent of that. . . . We will leave it until we get into committee stage.

J. Weisgerber: I take a much more serious view of the legislation. I don't think this is housekeeping at all. I think it's a fundamental change in direction. I think it takes away accountability to this Legislature for the people working in the motor vehicle branch. I think it is designed to camouflage the size of the public service. It doesn't make any administrative sense to move these jobs from the motor vehicle branch into ICBC. Indeed, I understand that the offices, the buildings, will remain the same. The functions the people have will remain the same. The difference will be that they are ICBC staff rather than staff of the government.

When we see the FTE count next year, it won't include another 500 or 750 positions moved out of the motor vehicle branch and into ICBC. We're not certain how those people are going to be paid. Is this going to be part of the overall shift to no-fault insurance? Are we going to combine this transfer of employees, this changing of revenue streams? I can't see any logic, and I haven't been convinced that there's any logic, in moving staff from the motor vehicle branch to supervision under ICBC if the folks work in the same office, perform the same function, and if there are the same number of people.

The minister was kind enough to provide us with a staff briefing, but I was unable to get any sense out of that briefing that there were economies to be had. People working under different jurisdictions, people working for different organizations. . . . But I suspect that British Columbians having difficulty with motor vehicle problems will find greater difficulty in dealing with a Crown corporation than they would with an agency of government.

If people are dissatisfied with the functions that are performed by these current motor vehicle branch employees; if indeed there was an opportunity for members on either side of this House to address a concern about service in those functions, at those facilities; if there was a concern about interpretations by people in those positions. . . . There was a process. That's part of what we're here for; that's what we're all about. To shift that responsibility takes away spending scrutiny from this House. It takes away direct control from government and puts it into the area of a Crown corporation.

I would suggest to you, looking at the experience that British Columbians and motorists have had with ICBC over the last four and a half years, that it's hard to make the argument that this move is being made on the basis of economy. I've come to the conclusion that there has to be one or more other motives. First, I think, is to reduce the FTE count. Second is to take away from the scrutiny of this House the spending by a substantial number of people in the public service and to put them under this umbrella of Crown corporations. We see more and more functions being moved away from the direct responsibility of government, and from direct scrutiny by members of this House, to Crown corporations. I'm not at all sure that that's in the public interest. As a matter of fact, I'm convinced that it's not in the public interest, and I want to assure all members that I'll vote against this legislation.

The minister says it's going to save money and lives. She doesn't tell us how it's going to save lives, and I would suggest to you that saying it's going to save lives doesn't make it so. Perhaps in her closing remarks the minister would be good enough to tell us how this administrative change, this shift of functions from direct employment in government to a Crown corporation, is going to save lives. Perhaps she can explain to us how changing the function of the people who work in these motor vehicle branch offices to ICBC is going to be an administrative efficiency. I suspect it is not.

I think this is a bill that British Columbians would be very wise to consider carefully, to look at critically and to examine the motives of. There's no secret that I and others believe that ICBC should be privatized, that ICBC should be done away with, that ICBC at the very worst should be minimized rather than built into an ever-larger corporation. There are concerns, I think, about public information that goes into the Crown corporation. Not only is information with respect to drivers' licences and driving habits part of this, personal medical information is part of it, whether it's within the motor vehicle branch or within ICBC.

[ Page 453 ]

I would remind members that it wasn't long ago that there were deep concerns by the members on the other side of the House about leaked information regarding the driving record of one Robyn Allan, who was at that time, I think, the president of the organization. There was deep, deep concern by members on the other side of the House, in particular the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, when his driving record became public. People wanted to know, members opposite wanted to know: how could that happen? Where did that information come from? "We'll have an investigation. We'll look at this corporation. We're going to find the person who let that information go." Now these folks have the confidence to say to British Columbians: "Don't worry about passing over medical records. Don't be concerned about all these records, which are currently the responsibility of government, going over to ICBC."

I don't believe this is housekeeping. I'm not at all convinced that it's housekeeping. I think it's a very serious change in direction that's fundamentally opposed to all of the things that I believe in. I just don't think we should be building these Crown corporations to have ever-greater influence, to remove more and more activities from the scrutiny of this Legislature and put them under the umbrella of a Crown corporation. I would ask members of the House, particularly those who have been here before, to reflect on your success in dealing with issues of constituent dissatisfaction with Crown corporations. Think how often you've been able to successfully deal with a Crown corporation in addressing a constituent's concern. I know what my track record has been over the last ten years, and it has been significantly poorer with Crown corporations than it has been with agencies of government.

I'm going to vote against this bill, and look forward with a great deal of enthusiasm to committee stage of this bill.

[5:30]

B. Barisoff: Hon. Speaker, I too query this bill. Why would they take it from Transportation and Highways and move it into a Crown corporation? The indication that there are going to be some savings in eliminating 60 FTEs to me doesn't seem to be a saving, because the contract with ICBC workers is substantially higher at the lower end, which is where these workers would be. If we're moving something into a Crown corporation to make it more efficient, I think the members could buy into a program of that nature, but I don't think any efficiencies would be gained by this.

I think things that actually deal with the Motor Vehicle Act should stay with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. There are a lot of other areas that overlap into licensing, the Motor Carrier Commission and areas of that nature. I think it's important that they all stay together. Once they're eliminated, I think we're creating another bureaucracy that would hardly be manageable within a Crown corporation. I agree with the previous member that trying to get information from Crown corporations and get things done is a lot harder than it would be to get some information here in the House.

I too will be seriously looking at a lot of the areas in this in committee stage and will probably be rising again to comment on a lot of them.

K. Krueger: Hon. Speaker, I listened carefully to the Minister of Transportation and Highways as she introduced this bill, and I applaud her rationale. It seems to me that on the face of it, it makes good sense to try and streamline the functions of the motor vehicle branch and the Insurance Corporation of B.C. through a consolidation process. Certainly I'm a supporter of the traffic safety initiatives of this government. I would like them to go further and faster than they do. I think that an incorporation of the motor vehicle department into the Insurance Corporation of B.C. might facilitate that as well. Obviously there should be opportunities for improved communication, with one organization handling these responsibilities instead of two, and for savings, certainly, in terms of having one database that deals with all these functions. But as I've discussed the prospect of this consolidation over the past months with my colleagues, I've found to my astonishment than not all of them trust the government. Not all of them believe that the government might always pass up opportunities to abuse the situation and perhaps shuffle employees into the Crown corporation, as the member for Peace River South has suggested, where FTEs will be buried instead of being there for scrutiny in government records and rolls.

When you look at administrative efficiencies, that's an attractive thing, but when you start to look at some of these concerns, you have to think again. It's not as though there hasn't been any history of this government very directly interfering in the operations of ICBC for its own political purposes. We don't have to look any further back than the election campaign, when the Premier, with practically no notice to anyone and without even a proper press conference, abruptly announced on BCTV that he was bringing about a freeze in ICBC premiums.

That freeze is particularly damaging to people in my constituency and throughout the interior, where, as I've mentioned on a couple of other occasions in this House, people were experiencing a reduction in premiums on the basis of their very positive driving performance in relation to the average in British Columbia. Over recent years, ICBC began to reduce the premiums for its policy holders in the interior such that they are now about 30 percent lower than what people pay in the Vancouver area, where the accident records are so horrendous and the cost is so extreme.

In one of my years as manager of the ICBC claims office, I tracked the amount we paid out for all accidents originating out of Kamloops and the region we serviced, and the amount of premiums that were collected, and I found that a single broker -- albeit the largest one in the Kamloops area -- collected enough in premiums to pay all of those claims, everything that had been incurred in the region. All the other brokers collected premiums that were funnelled down and that essentially subsidized driving in the lower mainland. This is a destructive thing, because it's resulting in a whole lot more traffic on Vancouver roads than there would be if this subsidy didn't take place. This raises environmental problems, obviously traffic problems and health problems for various people, and it puts all kinds of pressure on the roads that wouldn't be there if people had to pay the freight in Vancouver for their driving privilege. But our Premier moved abruptly, as I said, to freeze premiums and to stop that positive trend of people paying according to their loss experience on a regional basis, and he has therefore interfered with what was a very good thing for the interior. That was a really major interference, and I have little confidence that further interferences won't take place with regard to the handling of drivers' licensing and the other provisions of these changes.

I can certainly understand the reluctance of a number of my colleagues to support this legislation. Only today, in question period, we talked about the pillaging of a Crown corporation which we suspect is about to happen, where $400 million is transferred out to cover off the government's losses through 

[ Page 454 ]

its extravagant lifestyle in other areas and the rewarding of its friends. Will a day come when ICBC is likewise pillaged of some of its reserves to cover off things that the government is doing in other areas? That has to be a concern.

Will the government interfere ultimately, on a political basis and for political reasons, with attempts by ICBC to stop bad drivers from driving because perhaps they are deemed to be supporters of the government? The government indeed appoints the president of ICBC; it appoints the board of ICBC. The government has directed changes under the guise of pay equity, which have resulted in inordinate pay increases at the junior levels, the lowest-paid levels of ICBC's salary scale. Indeed, this move will probably be a financial windfall for a number of workers who presently draw a paycheque through the government and will soon be drawing one through ICBC.

Those are certainly concerns to me. I don't share the concerns of the member for Peace River South with regard to customer service. I think that ICBC's customer service record far exceeds what I've seen in a number of areas of government. There are many fine people, thousands of them, working for ICBC, and they've done a very credible job over the past 20 years. The administrative costs of ICBC tend to run close to half the norm in the industry. So there is a whole lot that's positive to be said for ICBC.

Our concern, then, is more like: what else will the government do? Just as we discussed our concerns about freedom of information and people's privacy earlier, what will flow from these changes if the government makes similar moves in the area of drivers' licensing and motor vehicle licensing and so on? The jury is still somewhat out with regard to what I will do on this legislation. I have very little confidence because of our experiences in this chamber, particularly the last couple of weeks, that the right things will be done for the right reasons should this legislation move forward.

The Speaker: Thank you, members. Seeing no further comments, I recognize now the Minister of Transportation and Highways, whose comments will close debate.

Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Speaker. I never pretended that this was a housekeeping bill, and I wouldn't even think to say that it was a housekeeping bill. It's a major bill. But you know, it's amazing -- I never thought there were all sorts of underlying plots out there to do various things.

As a former member of the board of ICBC, I can tell you that this initiative has come as a result of some pretty heavy lobbying by some of the members on the ICBC board, including a Liberal member who comes from the Okanagan area and who is certainly not a friend of this government, but who recognizes the good work that ICBC has done in its traffic safety initiatives.

I want to talk a little bit about the traffic safety initiatives, because that is the major push and the major reason why this merger is taking place. Over the years when I was on the ICBC board, ICBC was a very good and very strong advocate for some changes in traffic safety initiatives, and that came from the board as a united board -- whether they were the New Democrats on that board or the Liberals that sat there. They were all very concerned about traffic safety initiatives. In fact, they have put money into doing things on our highways, improving our highways so they can actually see the accidents reduced -- some things that people don't even know very much about. By putting a few hundred thousand dollars into an intersection, into improving lighting or into improving various places, ICBC has in fact got that money returned to ICBC threefold.

Interjections.

Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, these people just don't seem to want to listen, do they? It's quite amazing. I thought this was something they wanted to hear about -- what the traffic safety initiatives are, how they are going to save lives and what this bill is going to do. But if they really don't want to hear, maybe I should just close the debate.

This is very exciting stuff that's going on with ICBC, and very exciting things are going to take place with regard to how we can save lives on our highways. That's the full push of this bill. That is why the motor vehicle branch is being moved over to ICBC, and that is why ICBC is excited about having this. They will now have control of the traffic safety initiatives and will be able to implement them without having to go through another body, without having to try to deal with government and without having to get some other body to recognize their concerns.

It's good news for the motorists in British Columbia, and it's good news for British Columbians as a whole. I'm hoping that when we get into committee stage, the members opposite will recognize that this bill is not a plot, that it in fact does what we're talking about, that it is merely transferring those functions over there and that it will enable ICBC to do a very good job in traffic safety initiatives. I move second reading of this bill.

[5:45]

Second reading of Bill 9 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 37
Priddy	Petter	Miller
G. Clark	Dosanjh	MacPhail
Sihota	Brewin	Randall
Sawicki	Lali	Gillespie
Robertson	Farnworth	Smallwood
Conroy	McGregor	Janssen
Hartley	Orcherton	Kasper
Walsh	Giesbrecht	Goodacre
Bowbrick	Stevenson	Pullinger
Calendino	Waddell	Kwan
Ramsey	Streifel	Hammell
Boone	Cashore	Zirnhelt
	Evans
NAYS -- 33
Dalton	Gingell	Reid
Farrell-Collins	Hurd	Sanders
Plant	Stephens	de Jong
Coell	Anderson	Nebbeling
Whittred	van Dongen	Thorpe
Weisgerber	G. Wilson	J. Wilson
Reitsma	Hansen	C. Clark
Hawkins	Symons	Abbott
Jarvis	Weisbeck	Chong
Coleman	Nettleton	Masi
McKinnon	Barisoff	Neufeld

Bill 9, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1996, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

F. Gingell: I seek leave to make an introduction.

[ Page 455 ]

Leave granted.

F. Gingell: I would like to ask all friends in the Legislature to welcome my friend in the gallery, Kevin Doyle, with whom I had an interesting friendship as we worked together at Mohawk Oil for many years.

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

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that this House stand recessed until 6:35 p.m. and thereafter sit until adjourned.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 38
Priddy	Petter	Miller
G. Clark	Dosanjh	MacPhail
Sihota	Brewin	Randall
Sawicki	Lali	Gillespie
Robertson	Farnworth	Smallwood
Conroy	McGregor	Janssen
Hartley	Orcherton	Kasper
Walsh	Giesbrecht	Goodacre
Bowbrick	Stevenson	Pullinger
Calendino	Waddell	Kwan
Ramsey	Streifel	Hammell
Boone	Cashore	Zirnhelt
Evans		G. Wilson
NAYS -- 33
Dalton	Gingell	Reid
Farrell-Collins	Hurd	Sanders
Plant	Stephens	de Jong
Coell	Anderson	Nebbeling
Whittred	van Dongen	Thorpe
Weisgerber	Neufeld	Barisoff
Krueger	McKinnon	Masi
Nettleton	Coleman	Chong
Weisbeck	Jarvis	Abbott
Symons	Hawkins	C. Clark
Hansen	Reitsma	J. Wilson

The House recessed at 5:55 p.m.

The committee met at 2:49 p.m.

G. Plant: I want to begin by returning to a subject that was on the agenda at the end of discussion yesterday -- legal aid. The first question concerns the issue that I had raised at the very end of yesterday. I perhaps ought not to have rushed the question to get the answer. We learned yesterday about the timetable for the delivery of certain reports by the Legal Services Society, including a jointly sponsored management review, and the expectation that this review would be received by the ministry by October 15, 1996.

I understand -- this is getting to the point of my question -- that it is the intention of the minister to make that review public. We also, however, discussed the fact that the Legal Services Society is to submit to the Ministry of Attorney General a deficit reduction plan. I understood the Attorney General to say that plan would take the form of a submission to Treasury Board and therefore would not be made public.

It may be that arrangements have been made which are slightly different from those contemplated in the memorandum of understanding. That memorandum speaks of a deficit plan being submitted to the Ministry of Attorney General rather than to Treasury Board. I wonder if the Attorney General can clear up what may just be my own confusion: who is submitting what, and to whom?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It is the implicit understanding that that document would be destined for Treasury Board, either in the shape it's presented to us or with certain attachments. That's why I said that it is essentially a fiscal document that will end up in the hands of Treasury Board, and that I may not be able to make it public.

G. Plant: Then what I would ask the Attorney General to do when he receives that document is to consider whether, by altering its form -- or in some respect its content -- the information in it can be made public in such a way as to offer interested parties and citizens an opportunity to comment publicly on the policy issues that may be raised by the deficit reduction plan at the time it's presented.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I will certainly consider the hon. member's suggestion in dealing with that submission when it comes to my ministry.

G. Plant: I want to return, under the same heading of legal aid, to an issue that was briefly canvassed in questions by the member for Okanagan-Penticton yesterday. That had to do with the issue of the Legal Services Society making arrangements to appoint out-of-town counsel in circumstances where there may well be counsel who do legal services work -- either staff counsel or other counsel -- available in the community. I suppose the concern that underlay the member's questions yesterday was that of cost and the efficiency of administration. I'm given to understand that the member had in mind a specific case that's currently a subject of some interest in Penticton and was a subject of some notoriety in the news recently.

I'm afraid I don't have a recollection of the specific incidents, but I'm told there is some concern right now, in the community of Penticton in particular, about the fact that the public purse indirectly is being used to fund the appointment of out-of-town counsel to defend persons charged -- and who will be tried -- in the Okanagan, in circumstances where the Legal Services Society's very limited funds ought perhaps more properly to be spent simply hiring local counsel to do the job, which would save all the travel and accommodation expenses associated with hiring out-of-town counsel.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With respect to hiring out-of-town counsel, I think I answered that question to the best of the 

[ Page 456 ]

information that I have. With respect to any particular case or particular individual receiving legal aid, or a particular counsel being hired and what the reasons might be, I'm unable, by statute, to comment on those issues. However, if the hon. member makes me aware of the particulars of this case, I would be happy to write to the Legal Services Society board or director, asking them to provide the concerned individual or individuals with the information, criteria and guidelines that they have in place for making those kinds of decisions.

G. Plant: Thank you, minister, for the offer. I'll convey it to the member for Okanagan-Penticton, and we'll see what comes of it.

I want to turn to the subject, broadly speaking, of criminal justice. I guess it's the work of what I think is called the criminal justice branch of the ministry. The first questions I want to ask relate to Crown counsel. In a letter that the Minister of Attorney General was kind enough to provide me earlier this month, there was an estimate given for FTEs -- full-time-equivalents -- for the criminal justice branch of $585.51 million. I'll leave aside the question of the $0.01 million. I want to focus instead on Crown counsel and ask the minister if he can inform us how many Crown counsel are expected to be engaged by government during the current fiscal year.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Approximately 340, I believe.

G. Plant: Does the number 340 include -- and please forgive me if I don't have the terminology right -- those Crown counsel who might properly be termed employee Crown civil servants and those who are employed under contract?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: All the Crown counsel and contract counsel will be converting to employee status at the end of July of this year, and all of that has been taken into account in terms of the FTEs.

G. Plant: In terms of what happens after the end of July, what is the expected policy or practice of the ministry with respect to the employment of future Crown counsel? Are they going to be brought into the ministry, or will the ministry be hiring on a contract basis?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: All the Crown counsel working full-time for the ministry, either on contract before or as employees, will be full-time employees as of the end of July of this year. There will be a significant amount of work being done by ad hoc Crown counsel from time to time, but it would be nowhere near full-time.

[3:00]

G. Plant: The ad hoc counsel are those employed on a project-by-project basis for particular matters. I just want to be sure that I know. . . . It may have been the minister's intention to answer the question, but I don't think I got it. What is the future hiring practice going to be? If in the fall it becomes necessary to hire another half-dozen Crown counsel, is it the intention of government to bring them in as employees or to hire them on a contract basis?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The intention is to bring them in as employees.

G. Plant: I want to turn to an issue which I canvassed yesterday in the context of members of the legal services branch, and I now wish to canvass it in the context of Crown counsel. That is the general issue of performance, expectations and results -- performance review -- in relation to Crown counsel. How is it that the criminal justice branch assesses whether or not the Crown counsel are doing a good job and whether or not they're delivering value to the ministry for the service they provide? What is the evaluation process that takes place?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is formalized professional development for Crown counsel on an ongoing basis. There is also a performance review that happens from time to time. But the best information we have on that comes from the victims, the police officers, those who come in contact with our system of justice and the Crown counsel. They, of course, from time to time write to the ministry and inform the ministry otherwise as well, how they felt about a particular Crown counsel handling a particular case. Contrary to popular belief, we do hear quite often.

G. Plant: Would the minister agree with me that the type of feedback he is referring to is anecdotal in nature rather than systematically gathered? Is there in place any system -- I can't imagine how it would be organized -- to survey on a systematic basis the people who could be said to be the beneficiaries, in some sense, of the criminal justice system -- that is, the victims of crime?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The anecdotal information that the hon. member refers to is, of course, the information that I referred to as coming from victims, police officers and victim services personnel. That is simply in addition to the information that we glean from the formalized professional development and performance reviews. There was at one time, I understand, a system of watching these individuals in court, but it wasn't very satisfactory. So we rely on the three areas that I've just mentioned.

G. Plant: Does the criminal justice branch monitor caseloads numerically? If so, is the minister able to inform us as to whether the caseload -- that is, the volume of work being handled by individual Crown counsel -- is rising, falling or staying about the same?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The caseload is pretty difficult to establish, because that's established by the courts as the dates are set. We try and deal with Crown based on four days of being in court and one day being out of court for preparation. By and large, the caseload actually is increasing every year. It is not decreasing.

G. Plant: That leads me, then, to the issue which one hears about from time to time on the street, in the press and elsewhere -- the concern expressed by Crown counsel in other jurisdictions and from time to time here -- about stress and burnout. Is this a concern in the criminal justice branch here in British Columbia? If so, what is being done about it and what plans does the ministry have to deal with it?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Stress and burnout are a concern, but the way to deal with that obviously isn't to be hiring more Crown counsel. It is to manage our cases appropriately, with initiatives such as disclosure court, and to deal with appropriate amounts of backlogs, in terms of the negotiations with the judiciary that the Deputy Attorney General and deputy minister are carrying on. I think that at the end of the day it would not be appropriate for us to continue to hire more and more 

[ Page 457 ]

Crown counsel and not look at what we're doing currently. We have been looking at what we can change to make everyone's life better and make it cost-effective as well.

G. Plant: What is disclosure court?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Disclosure court is a broad process where all of the indictable cases go. Crown and defence work together to exchange information and try to deal with those issues without having to go to trial, and 70 percent of those cases are resolved before trial.

G. Plant: I take it that it's a process of negotiation between Crown and defence, which is intended to result in either a guilty plea or in some alternative outcome that doesn't require a trial of the issue. Is that right?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: I think the minister is right that at some level the answer to the problem of overwork and stress among Crown counsel is not simply to hire more lawyers. On the other hand, the initiatives which have been discussed as ways of dealing with this situation strike me as being attempts to effect systemic change. Longer-term projects, if they work, may indeed result in a lessening of workload or a reorganization of what Crown counsel do. But surely the short-term fact of an increasing caseload, a growing population and the reality that the caseload is likely to continue to increase indicates that something needs to be done to give Crown counsel more immediate management tools to avoid the problem of overwork.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes. I understand that in addition to what I have mentioned, there is a process in place to examine the workload pressure issue. There is a joint criminal justice branch and B.C. Crown Counsel Association workload task force that is chaired by William Smart, a member of the private bar. That committee is reviewing workload utilization and allocation of Crown counsel and the criminal justice branch -- among other things. It's examining current practices to determine if more efficient methods can be found, identifying areas of excessive workload and developing non-binding recommendations for improving workload utilization. These recommendations will be presented to my office at some point, when they are ready.

G. Plant: Is there a timetable for the delivery of those recommendations?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm hoping the report will be forthcoming by late fall or early spring.

G. Plant: I want to ask questions now about another subject under the general heading of criminal justice. There has been a fair degree of public and media interest in the interconnectedness of crime reporting and the need to ensure that policing agencies are in touch with each other, to make sure that everybody has the information they need to investigate serious crimes. I know that the minister has some views on this subject, and I want to give him an opportunity to express them. As I understand it, Ontario has recently decided to undertake mandatory reporting of homicides and serious crimes to its centrally located database. I'm sure that must be easier in Ontario, where there is one provincial police force, than here in British Columbia. Can the minister advise us of the current status of participation in British Columbia in the Vancouver violent crime linkage analysis system? Who at present is participating in this? What steps does the Attorney General intend to take to require the rest of them to participate or cooperate?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the RCMP is already participating in reporting major crime to the VICLAS system. Although I haven't spoken to the chiefs directly, I also understand that many of the municipal forces are voluntarily participating as well. I sent a letter yesterday to all the chiefs of police of the municipal forces, as well as to the police boards, urging them to participate voluntarily in that process. I indicated to them that if they didn't do so, I would certainly consider issuing a policy directive from the Attorney General's office for them to do so.

G. Plant: What does the minister expect will be the time frame within which this issue will move forward and result in a satisfactory resolution?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm hoping that all the municipal forces will be reporting into this process at the earliest possible. . . . I'm hoping that I will hear from them within the next four to six weeks. If I hear in the affirmative, obviously the issue is resolved. If there is any hesitation that I sense, I would then act very quickly in terms of a policy directive.

[3:15]

G. Plant: I want to ask questions now about something which the minister alluded to in his opening remarks in these estimates. The new provincial homicide squad -- I think that is what he called it -- is apparently going to involve an expenditure of some $800,000 and between 20 and 25 senior experienced officers from the RCMP and municipal police forces. I have a number of questions about this, the first of which is whether this a new program. How is it being implemented? When will it be implemented?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the process is in place, and the RCMP and the other police forces have already recruited people to put together this squad. Of course, the other components of this are the DNA lab and the forensic dentistry lab. I understand that the gene sequencer has already been purchased and the dentistry lab has already got their money to try to do the work. All of that is going to be functioning together. These are for old murders that have not been solved. I understand there were 300 or so of them across British Columbia that haven't been solved over the years. Those are the murders they are going to be working on.

G. Plant: So this is, in some respects, a fixed-term project -- that is, it has a specific goal of addressing the tragic fact that there are currently some several hundred unsolved murders. Or is it, rather, intended to be an ongoing project that will deal with serious homicides as they arise, from here on into the future?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Let me just correct myself. I understand the formal start-date of that project is September 1, so obviously all of the steps are being taken.

What was the other issue that you were asking about?

G. Plant: Ongoing?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As far as I know, so far it is without a definite expiry date or year. I'm assuming that it would go on as long as there is need for this kind of squad to exist.

[ Page 458 ]

G. Plant: What is the perceived need, then? In the remarks a few minutes ago, I understood the perceived need to be related to the fact that there is currently this horrible collection of unsolved murders that have been lying around for a while. That's different from investigating homicides on an ongoing basis as they arise in the future.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This approach was prompted partly by the introduction of the DNA legislation federally, which meant that there was a glimmer of hope for us to be able to resolve some of the old, ancient cases that weren't being resolved. The police were interested in us freeing up some resources to work in a focused fashion on that issue -- hence this squad.

G. Plant: So the squad is intended to be a new way, and hopefully a better way, of investigating not only historical homicides but homicides as they arise in the future.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Presently the intention is that this squad will deal with the unsolved murders. If and when their time is freed up, obviously, we would decide whether or not they need to remain in this particular forum. The municipal forces and other forces might be taking care of their issues appropriately without the existence of this particular task force.

G. Plant: I want to go back to the $800,000 figure that I recall the minister using in the opening statement he made yesterday. I want to know if the $800,000 figure includes the amount that the ministry has spent or expects to spend for the gene sequencer and the forensic lab.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No.

G. Plant: So the $800,000 is presumably primarily wages cost, salaries and benefits, for assembling this force, this group of officers, for this purpose.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, we are providing $800,000 for wages and salaries. The other half is being freed up by the RCMP.

G. Plant: I suppose it could be said that the criterion which would be applied to determine the success of this program is the success rate in solving the unsolved homicides. Would that be a fair statement?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, it would be. But there's a larger goal that we as political leaders must have in our own minds. When there are people out there who feel that their loved ones have been killed and in some cases mutilated, and there may be murderers out there on the loose who haven't been caught, I think we owe it to them to go after those criminals with vigour and determination. At the end of it, yes, in some sense you can say that we succeeded if we caught so many criminals and convicted them. But in my mind we would have succeeded even if we didn't catch so many. What's important in the end is that we make a statement, both to the criminals who are on the loose and to potential criminals, that we will hound them until we catch them.

G. Plant: I agree with most of what the minister has just said. The concern that arises, though -- and I intend no disrespect to the many people whose lives are destroyed when they become even indirectly victimized by crimes like this -- is this: there are presumably a number of different approaches that could be taken to address this problem. Some are likely to be more successfully measured by more objective criteria, like actually solving the murders, and some are likely to be more successful than others.

We are engaged here in what I see as a fairly difficult project, which is to try to determine in some moderately objective way whether one particular solution is going to work better than another. While I recognize that the mere fact that you show you care, that you make a statement and that you design a program that's intended to have a deterrent effect -- and all those things sound intuitively logical as rationales for a program. . . . The question nonetheless still arises: how will you measure at the end of the day whether this particular statement has been more successful than another statement, whether this particular choice of program has in fact had a deterrent effect or not, and whether it has been more successful in that regard than others?

Just to conclude the comment, it may be that this is a new way of thinking about how government ought to deliver services. It may be that it doesn't make any sense, but it seems to me that it does make sense, and that's why I would be interested in the minister's comments.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I alluded earlier to the importance of the new tools such as the DNA legislation being available to the police and the Crown. That was partly the incentive for us to put this together. The impetus for the squad to be put together as it was, or as it will be, came from both the Crown and the police. We simply provided the necessary political will to put into practice what the Crown and the police were pushing for. At the end of the day -- give it three or four years -- the priorities within that program are going to be established by the police and the Crown, not by politicians, as to what murders they investigate and what they can or can't do.

G. Plant: I want to move on to another subject. There are a couple of subjects that are referred to in the most recent annual report -- the 1994-95 Annual Report of the Attorney General -- on pages 18 and 19.

The first is stalking. This arises out of the proclamation of a new provision in the Criminal Code about three years ago. In the annual report, it is stated that: "Approximately 60 charges monthly are laid under this section in B.C. The branch continues to monitor this new section." Now, this statement, if it was effective as of March 31, 1995, is more than a year out of date. So my question for the minister would be: how many charges are being laid nowadays? And what is the rate of successful prosecutions in this province under this provision, if that's known?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I can't inform the member with respect to the conviction rate of these charges. There are approximately 60 charges being laid each and every month, however, and they are proceeding through the courts. At a meeting of the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice in January 1995, we supported proposals designed to strengthen criminal harassment legislation. Some of those included the creation of more severe penalties for subsequent offences and for offences committed in breach of a restraining order. So while we implement and enforce this legislation, we continue to seek to enhance it as well.

I don't have the data that the hon. member is seeking at this point.

G. Plant: What is it, then, that is meant by the statement in the annual report that the branch continues to monitor this new section?

[ Page 459 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the data is being put together. When we have the information with respect to the last fiscal year, it can be made available to the hon. member. But the monitoring goes on, and training on criminal harassment has been provided to various service providers, the Crown and police officers. In fact, I happened to attend one of those meetings a few months ago in Richmond, and several of the personnel that deal with these issues, including victim services workers, the Crown and the police, were present.

G. Plant: Another subject dealt with on page 18 of the annual report is dangerous-offender designations. As I recall from his opening statement in the estimates yesterday, the Attorney General took some pride in noting that British Columbia is a leader in applications for dangerous-offender designation. The annual report indicates that there were eight such applications made in 1994. Does the minister know how many of those succeeded, and does he have statistics yet for 1995?

[3:30]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The latest information that I have. . . . I understand it will include the eight that I referred to. Since 1986, Crown counsel in B.C. have made 50 applications for dangerous-offender designation, some of which are still before the courts. Of the 39 concluded, 37 were declared dangerous offenders and 31 received indeterminate life sentences.

G. Plant: I want to ask questions about another issue which is not dealt with in the annual report, and that has to do with the general question of disclosure. In the context of criminal prosecutions, the jurisprudence that has come to us from the Supreme Court of Canada and other courts -- in Stitchcombe and O'Connor and cases like that -- imposes a high burden on the Crown to make disclosure of facts in criminal cases. From time to time the issue arises as to whether there is an imbalance here: to some extent the Crown gets all the burden and none of the benefit, because defence counsel are not under any burden of disclosure, generally speaking. I know that this is a subject of interest among the bar and members of the public. I suppose that if it were to be advanced as a serious proposition, the concern would arise whether the right to a fair trial is offended by obliging the accused to make disclosure. Nonetheless, the issue is present and seems to be discussed more often than not. What are the Attorney General's views on this subject? Is this matter under review at all within the criminal justice branch or any other part of the ministry?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously this is an issue of great concern, and we now have some legislation with respect to some of it. With respect to some of the other areas, at the most recent meeting of the Attorneys General, which I wasn't able to go to because of the election, I understand that our ministry made a presentation to the federal minister, Alan Rock, to make some further changes. I understand that those changes will not be proceeded with at this point.

Being a very difficult issue. . . . I can tell you how I would deal with it. It would be very difficult. I don't envy those judges sitting there having to make these difficult decisions. But I tend to view this issue from the point of view of the victims, particularly in terms of disclosure of personal medical records in cases like O'Connor. We have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which exists as part of the constitution of Canada to protect the rights of the accused, and we have the courts.

I think there is a fair balance at this point. I'm aware at the same time of the concern expressed by defence counsel from time to time that maybe the pendulum has swung to the other side, but I don't believe that it has. I think we are in a situation where we need to pay a lot more attention to this issue. This issue may come up for change at the next Attorneys General meeting; it will definitely come up for discussion. I don't have any specific views on what specific provisions I should be pushing, but I am concerned in general about the issue and about the debate that's going on.

G. Plant: If I heard the answer to the question correctly, it appears that there was a position taken on behalf of the government of British Columbia at a recent ministerial conference where this issue was discussed, and that some changes in this area were advocated on behalf of the government of British Columbia. Can the minister advise us what those proposals were?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: At the most recent meeting, two points on the issue came up: one with respect to sharing any expert evidence that might be called, as well as the nature of the defences that might be raised. British Columbia didn't take any particular position on these issues, but we were interested in having those issues discussed. I understand that discussion didn't take place on those issues during the last conference. I don't believe there was time.

I understand that this issue was also raised at the deputy ministers' meeting. No discussion took place, but it was agreed that it would be raised later on.

G. Plant: When the minister talks about the nature of defences raised, I'm not sure he's talking about the issue that I had originally wanted him to be focusing on. I know there are problems around. . . . Specific issues raised by cases like the O'Connor one are the extent of Crown disclosure. . . . And I'm sensitive to those issues. I may have unintentionally led the minister the wrong way by referring specifically to those cases. The problem that is raised within the context of this issue generally has to do with the issue of whether counsel for the accused should also have to make some disclosure. I want to know if that's the issue that the minister says has, in effect, been put on the table for future discussion. If it is, does the government of British Columbia have a position on that issue yet?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't believe the ministry took a particular position on these issues. One of the issues raised was, of course, the issue of expert evidence, where the Crown has no notice of any expert evidence that the defence may want to call. The issue raised was whether or not there should be an onus on the defence to advise the Crown in advance of any expert evidence that may or is going to be called. The other issue was with respect to what defences are going to be raised, so that the Crown has some notice of what the case might be. We didn't take a particular position, because these are difficult issues. Obviously, on the other side you have to protect the rights of the accused. So what we want to do is simply put that on the table so that we can then begin to talk about it and maybe formulate a position.

G. Plant: I want to ask a question or two about the Young Offenders Act. The Attorney General has said in more than one place that he and his ministry have worked hard to pressure the federal government to make changes to the Young Offenders Act. I know that some specific changes the 

[ Page 460 ]

minister referred to include transfers to adult court and admissibility of statements by young offenders.

There have been recent changes to this federal statute. I suppose I have two questions, the first perhaps less important than the second. I was going to ask if the minister was happy with the federal amendments, but the real question is: what further initiatives does the minister have in mind in this area over the course of the next year? I'm speaking specifically to the Young Offenders Act; at this stage I'm not asking questions about youth initiatives generally.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: At this point we have two specific concerns, which have, of course, been passed on to Minister Rock. One is the sometimes inadmissible statements by young offenders -- statements ruled inadmissible due to technical reasons. We want section 56 cleaned up to the extent that mere technicalities cannot be used to have these statements ruled inadmissible. The other, of course, is that we want the transfer provisions to adult court strengthened. If the member is interested in the specifics of how we want them strengthened, I'd be happy to have a chat with him on that. Those are the two issues.

G. Plant: I need to go back for a minute to an issue we were discussing, which was the disclosure by the Crown and the potential ideas for sharing defences and sharing expert reports in the criminal law context. As I understood the statements made by the minister, what has really happened at this point is that these issues have been put on the table.

I guess I would like the minister's assurance -- if I could put it that way -- that before any concrete initiatives are taken in this area, the minister will consult with the bar and with the interest groups affected to ensure that the issue gets a full and complete public airing. It is, as the minister indicated, a difficult issue.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm always interested in consulting members of the bar and those who may have a stake in these issues, including victims and advocacy groups. I think we should all bear in mind the fact that as these issues have already been raised -- and I have advised the hon. member that the record is public -- I think those who are interested in them should be writing to Minister Rock. The issues are on the table. We would be happy to hear from you as well so that we can take those messages to that table, as well.

G. Plant: I'm moving to a different issue: unpaid traffic fines. I don't know how up to date the minister's knowledge is about this. Frankly, I'm not sure how up to date mine is. But it has been suggested to me that at some point in the recent past, if not right now, there was about $124 million in unpaid traffic fines in British Columbia. This obviously represents lost revenue for the province and for a government that seems to need revenue. There is also the threat to the criminal justice system that exists when people -- particularly chronic non-payers -- seem to be able to get away with it. What is the current status in relation to this situation? Is it satisfactory? What steps does the minister propose to take to fix it if it's not satisfactory?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is a division in terms of this responsibility, and that is that the collection, if it happens in the normal course, is handled by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. Once the matter is in court, the collection then proceeds and that portion is handled by our ministry. I don't have the figures at this time. I can get them for the hon. member.

G. Plant: I wonder if I can infer from the minister's answer to that question that this issue is, at least from the perspective of his ministry, considered to be a serious problem.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, it is. I can tell you in general terms that the record of collection is much better today than it was five years ago. The Ministry of Transportation and Highways is actually vigorously pursuing this matter. I will, of course, be assisting them in that regard, if I can.

G. Plant: During the minister's opening remarks, he made reference to several initiatives involving youth, which I understand to be called the Nights Alive initiative, youth action teams and All Together Now. I've seen the minister's press releases announcing appointments of young people who will be key members of the youth action teams. I listened to the minister's explanation of the basic funding requirements for these three programs. Is it possible to describe in a fairly succinct way the basic objective of each of these programs?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the essence of these programs is to provide some guidance to youth, particularly youth at risk -- and with Nights Alive, particularly after-hours, to provide some positive recreational and creative activities to engage, in rather than falling into a life of crime. That is true for both the Nights Alive program and youth action teams. In some areas, they are going to be together. I believe about 59 communities are going to have youth action teams and about 23 communities will have Nights Alive.

[3:45]

The third program, All Together Now, focuses on elementary school children. It is a pilot project operating in Surrey, Vancouver and Nanaimo, I believe. It focuses on aboriginal and immigrant children -- and I don't necessarily mean "immigrant," but children whose first language may not be English. This is also being run as a pilot project with joint funding from the federal government. We're hoping that if it is successful we will see it spread across the province. We need to start dealing with youth at a young age -- in elementary school -- so that we don't have to spend too much money later on dealing with the same youth in high school.

G. Plant: The reference to success takes me to the next issue. Here again I suspect that we're in an area where it will be difficult to define objective criteria for success of these programs. If we assume that each of these programs remains in force over the next five years -- and I recognize that the third one is a pilot, but let's assume that the will of government keeps them going over the course of four or five years -- what are the questions that people are going to want answers to four or five years from now? They'll say: "Should we keep spending money on these programs? Why should we keep doing this? What's happening because of these programs that warrants public expenditure in these areas? Is it happening? Is it just a perception or is there something really happening on the ground?" That kind of thing.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I'd be the first one to say -- and I've said it earlier on other issues -- that it is sometimes difficult to measure success. It really depends on how you define success, and then you proceed from that definition to establish some criteria for measuring that success.

These are programs that would involve several hundred youths across the province for some period of time, including 

[ Page 461 ]

the pilot project. The pilot project, I remember -- having read the press release then -- has an evaluation happening as the project is unfolding, and that evaluation would be available to us shortly after the pilot project is complete. I believe that there will be monitoring, as is done with all programs of the Attorney General and all the other ministries; there will obviously be monitoring of these programs. Nights Alive and the youth action teams are going to be working with the B.C. youth police officer network, as well, on a regular basis. There are going to be leaders involved in each of the groups, and there is going to be contact on a regular basis between ministry personnel and those groups.

I'm assuming that, at some point, we would have enough data to be able to sit down and determine how many youths we came in contact with and how many of them were able to participate fully, or substantially, in the program. Many of these might be youth at risk, and we may be able to say at the end whether or not those youth at risk gained anything significant from the program -- whether some of them went back to a life of crime or fell into a life of crime. Those are issues that we may be able to assess. I can't tell you that there is a specific evaluation program in place as we speak.

G. Plant: I want to turn to a different aspect of criminal justice -- and it may be outside the criminal justice branch. I'm not sure; I didn't read the organization chart. It's the operation of the coordinated law enforcement unit, CLEU, and the estimates for the '95-96 budget year. The amount estimated is just over $6 million. The amount that is estimated for the current fiscal year is just a little bit more than $5.8 million, representing a reduction of a little bit less than $200,000. I understand that the function of the coordinated law enforcement unit is to combat organized and major crime in British Columbia. As I said earlier, we live in a growing province. It seems to be at least a perception, and in some respects a reality, that certainly some forms of major crime are on the increase. What is the reason for the cut in funding to this unit?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is no need to worry. This represents a reduction in rent for the premises used by CLEU.

G. Plant: Good news. So it follows that the current levels of program operation are being maintained.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes.

G. Plant: In the annual report for '94-95, a section of which deals with the coordinated law enforcement unit, there is reference made to a number of what are described as "major investigations." I'm sure I'm just a results-fixated guy: it's good to know how many charges are laid; it's good to know how many matters are being investigated; and obviously, from the perspective of a ministry that doesn't control the justice system, perhaps it's more important to know how much work is being done by the ministry and to leave it to the judges to figure out what the outcomes are. Nonetheless, I'm curious to know whether the minister knows if these investigations that are referred to here resulted in charges being laid, and if trials have taken place, and if the people involved have in fact been convicted of these matters.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There isn't enough detail in the report for me to be able to advise the hon. member from memory or for any other member of my staff to be able to advise me in particular as to whether or not any charges resulted from any of the particular investigations mentioned in the report. But that information can be made available to the member as soon as we can do so.

G. Plant: I'm grateful for the offer, and I'll take it, if I may.

The second issue under this heading is the fact that this report makes reference to what are described as highlights. But they are highlights for the 1994-95 year, and we are debating estimates for the 1996-97 year. Is the minister able to advise us of any particular projects which this unit has, or expects to have, underway during the current fiscal year?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, I'm not able to advise with respect to 1996-97 or 1995-96 projects. I think one reason is that much of the work that CLEU does is of a highly confidential nature, as the member obviously appreciates. Of course, I can get that information from the appropriate part of the ministry and provide as much of it to the hon. member as we're able to.

[4:00]

G. Plant: I appreciate the need to be highly confidential about actual investigations that are underway. I should perhaps have made it more clear that my question about projects was about matters other than ongoing criminal investigations. I am really only interested to know if there are any particularly significant projects underway, outside of the ongoing work of investigating serious crimes.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think CLEU is always involved in all sorts of investigations. In the most recent past their focus has been on money-laundering schemes and money launderers. The hon. member may have read that in the newspapers some months ago. They are also involved in dealing with gangs. They are also involved with some aspects of gun smuggling. I think that those are the kinds of issues they deal with on an ongoing basis. We can get some of that information of a general nature for the hon. member and advise him as to what CLEU is currently undertaking.

G. Plant: I'll accept that offer. I recognize that there have been and continue to be a considerable number of initiatives underway to attempt to get at both the root causes of crime and to deal with enforcement, detection and prosecution of criminal matters. Despite all this, there is certainly the perception among the public at large that crime continues to be a serious problem in British Columbia, and in some respects that perception is a reality. I understand that in the spring of 1994 there was a report that was leaked from the Ministry of Attorney General that had some fairly disheartening statistics about the state of crime in the province. British Columbia was found to have the highest reported-crime rate in Canada, but the lowest rate of persons charged with an offence. It has the highest number of violent offences and the highest number of property crimes and other similar matters. This is from a report that existed in the spring of 1994. We're now some two or more years down the road. My question for the Attorney General is: have these figures changed over the last two years? Is the picture the same, better or worse? Where are we two and a half years down the road?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The latest information I have is for the years '92 to '94 inclusive, and it tells me that the total for violent crime across Canada is down. It's also down in British Columbia by 1.5 percent. So we are going down, but at a lower rate than Canada. Canada's rate is down by 7.6 percent.

The total for property crime in Canada is down by 14.7 percent, and in British Columbia by 5.6 percent. Other crime is down in 

[ Page 462 ]

Canada by 13 percent; in B.C. it's down by 8.9 percent. I understand -- I don't have any statistics, but it's my feeling -- that this trend has continued in '95-96 in general terms, contrary to the perception out there that everything is going up.

G. Plant: I want to be sure that I understand part of that last answer -- that is, that the latest statistical information is for the 1992-94 period. There is no statistical information available yet for the years 1995 or 1996.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Sorry, I misspoke. That information was put together for us for comparative purposes. There is information available for 1995, but that simply compares rates to the previous years. In 1994-95, violent crime went down 4.1 percent. Property crime went up, which is reflected in B-and-Es and thefts and the like. Other crime went down by another 8.7 percent. Overall, the total crime rate went down in British Columbia, but the property crime rate went up slightly.

G. Plant: Is the information from which the Attorney General gleaned those statistics publicly available?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, it is.

G. Plant: Where will I find it?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand there's a publication by the police services division. We can make it available to the hon. member. The information I was reading is from a publication of the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics of December 1995. We can make that available to the member if we have a copy, as well.

G. Plant: I'd be grateful for that.

V. Anderson: Hon. Chair, it's a privilege to come and join in. It's just over a year since we had a chance to discuss multiculturalism and immigration with the Attorney General, who at that time had just taken over the ministry and was quite new. We had a fairly long philosophical discussion back then about multiculturalism and immigration.

What I'd like to do to begin with today is a follow-up on some of the things that came up in that discussion, and go back to Hansard. The minister, quite properly, was being very cautious at that point -- because it was brand-new to him -- and indicated some directions that he wished to go in. I thought it would be a good idea to follow up and find out the directions he might be undertaking. At that point in that philosophical discussion, he indicated there were three priorities for himself and the ministry: cross-cultural understanding and acceptance, anti-discrimination and an integration thrust for multiculturalism. Those were the three that he reiterated a number of times.

I wonder if the minister would like to respond to those, to see whether those still are the thrusts or whether there has been some change in the year, some advancement or some different directions because of his becoming more involved in the ministry.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Those are the three thrusts. They still remain, and I remain committed to them. We've appointed a new advisory committee pursuant to the Multiculturalism Act, which has met, I understand, a couple of times. We also set up a community liaison office that liaises with communities on an ongoing basis and does the settlement work in the ministry. We have had extensive consultations on settlement issues with the community in the last year.

As well, I met with various organizations, particularly the AMSSA board as well as the SUCCESS board, on the issue that I had raised as to where Multi should go -- and now we're talking about the Multiculturalism part of the ministry. Those discussions were left halfway as we went into an election. I intend to pick up where we left off on those discussions and conclude them this year. At the end of the process, I want to make sure that Multiculturalism is doing what it is supposed to do, and doing it effectively, utilizing the dollars it has in the best possible fashion, and dealing with anti-discrimination work, with integration work as well as with cross-cultural understanding.

I personally, as minister, have attended hundreds of events in the last year -- I can't even count them. When the House is not sitting, I usually have about five or six events a week that I attend as Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism, and I take that message to all of the communities that I visit. I think the challenge still remains that multiculturalism be seen to be inclusive of all British Columbians, not just a vehicle to deal with issues and problems and concerns of minorities such as the visible minorities -- that it is a concept which embraces all British Columbians.

V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's comments, and I appreciate his sincerity on this. I wholeheartedly agree with him that there is a task to do, as we discussed before: to make multiculturalism a program that does include, and is seen to include, all British Columbians rather than one section of British Columbians. Because it is true, as the minister has mentioned, that many people see multiculturalism as dealing with visible minority groups. But depending on which classroom you are in, you are not sure if you are the visible minority -- because the visible minority in many of our classes now is the white Anglo-Saxon. In the general public, that's not quite the awareness. Might I ask, because it was a very important thrust in last year's discussion: what has the minister been able to do, or what programs have we been able to undertake, to give a more inclusive understanding of multiculturalism to the programs that are undertaken by the government?

[4:15]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There are very specific initiatives that are ongoing. There is an interministerial committee that is chaired by a person from the Multiculturalism ministry. That is pursuant to the Multiculturalism Act. There is also the program for institutional change -- change in public institutions, where some money is available for public institutions to try and change the way they provide service. The service ought to be provided in a fashion that is sensitive to the needs of all the residents of a particular area or all of the clients of that institution.

A case in point is the multicultural change in health delivery that we established at the Mount St. Joseph Hospital over a year ago, if I remember, which is still ongoing. It's a three-year project which will design a process, or a model, for delivering health services to all British Columbians in a multiculturally sensitive fashion.

Those are some of the things that we are doing, and the work continues.

V. Anderson: The minister has mentioned -- before I go on, I will just back up -- the new advisory committee. I know 

[ Page 463 ]

that last time he was in the process of having a new way of selecting those persons and criteria for those persons. Could you advise us about that? How long they have been in operation? Will the members of that committee be available? And can you tell us what the guidelines and principles are for that advisory committee, if they're different -- which I presume they are -- from what they used to be?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It was last July that we sent out invitations by way of public advertisements -- and, of course, correspondence -- for nominations to the council. We received, I believe, over 300 nominations for those 30 positions. In April of this year I was able to finally get around to appointing the advisory committee. I specifically was very conscious of making sure that the advisory committee moved in the direction of trying to include all British Columbians in its makeup. I think we've made a good beginning in that regard.

The criteria, in general terms, are a commitment to multiculturalism -- which is inclusiveness, cross-cultural understanding, anti-discrimination -- and to try and achieve the objectives that the Multiculturalism Act establishes for the advisory council. The advisory council's function, essentially, is to advise the minister on what they think we should be doing and thereby to challenge the whole governmental process to come to terms with the needs of multiculturalism.

V. Anderson: I understood in our briefing that the Multicultural Advisory Council had divided itself into subcommittees and was already beginning to function. Could you indicate what the main thrusts or themes are of some of those subcommittees at the moment -- which would give an indication of their direction?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm aware that they have established themselves in subcommittees, are dealing with some of the issues that the previous committees made recommendations on, and want the government to proceed on some of those initiatives. I'm not aware of all of the various committees. I think that information would be freely available to the hon. member for the asking, if the hon. member wished to ask the chair of the advisory committee. I would be able to access that information for the hon. member, as well, and provide it to him.

For his information, I understand some of his colleagues were present -- or were supposed to be present -- at the last meeting of the multicultural advisory committee, in Richmond. In fact, the Attorney General's critic was present, I believe. I wasn't, because I was away doing something else.

V. Anderson: You also talked briefly about the interministerial committee. Could you update us on the nature of the interministerial committee and their functions?

Also, with regard to the advisory committee, will there be reports from the advisory committee periodically that would be made available to us or to the public? In the interministerial committee, what are the thrusts or themes of the work that they've undertaken during this year?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Interministerial Committee on Multiculturalism shares information with the various ministries and also seeks information as to what the ministries are doing to meet the objectives of the legislation that we've put in place. It also provides information on institutional change. There is money available from our ministry -- if other ministries are seeking that money -- which we want to utilize to prompt them to change their practices and to make them multiculturally friendlier. It's important for us to continue to do that, and they continue to perform that function.

With respect to the Multicultural Advisory Council, they have annual reports. I understand the latest one is being done and will be available very shortly.

V. Anderson: To clarify, is the annual report of the multicultural committee a different report from the annual report of the ministry itself? Are those two separate reports, or do they come together?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The report from the multicultural council is a report of the committee, and it comes to the minister. I think in the past it's been introduced and presented to the House. I intend to do so if the House is still sitting if and when I receive it.

V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's comments. One of the comments he made last time was that he wanted to get a broader understanding of the whole approach to culture within our community. That was one of the things he had on his agenda to do after the last session of the House. I wonder if he's been able to focus on that. A few other activities took his attention during the summer, I know, but I don't know whether he's had time this year. Since it took so long to get the committee, he may have been held up on other things as well. Is there anything in particular he's been able to do to put forward that broad concept of culture, other than the committees themselves?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I haven't been able to come to any conclusion on that debate myself, but I did indicate to you earlier that I met with many activists in various communities. I met specifically with the board of SUCCESS, I met with the Multicultural Advisory Council at that time, and I also met with the board of AMSSA, which of course represents many other organizations from across the province. They shared with me some of the apprehension and concerns that others have if we begin to change very quickly.

One of the concerns they shared with me was: if we are going to change the way we function in multiculturalism, are we going to lose the thrust of cross-cultural understanding, of anti-discrimination? Where is the settlement process or integration process going to be? What implications has all of that for settlement? The debate had just started, after September of last year, when Christmas intervened. Of course, we've been in election mode ever since, and I haven't had the time to conclude that. I intend to pick up on it as soon as we get out of the House.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

V. Anderson: Following up for a moment on the theme of broader understanding, last time we were also discussing citizenship and the importance of understanding citizenship for all the people in the country. The minister pointed out at that time that many immigrants who come to this country have come for very valid reasons, and therefore take citizenship very sincerely and very seriously, whereas many of those that I have commented on who grew up within this country take it for granted and therefore aren't as conscious of being citizens until something happens to them later on in life. The minister indicated that there might be an opportunity within the ministry to put some kind of focus on the understanding 

[ Page 464 ]

of citizenship that would cross ministries and that might be involved in education and other functions. I wonder if anything has been brought forward, and if there is a process to fulfil the kind of desire that we both talked about a year ago.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is, of course, a new federal Citizenship Act, and that is legally the purview of the federal government. But, in terms of general citizenship, we of course provide the Newcomer's Guide in several languages so that newcomers can pick up some of the attributes, some of the information that they require to be good and well-functioning citizens of British Columbia. I think that all of the cross-cultural work and all of the anti-discrimination work that our ministry does and all of the integration work that we do through settlement has an implicit thrust in it, which is that the end result ought to be the successful moulding of good Canadian citizens -- and by that I don't mean just legally but in a much broader sense -- and I think that we're doing quite well in that regard.

V. Anderson: Just to follow that up for a moment, because I think it's a critical issue which the minister and I have discussed previously, in the discussion between the federal and provincial committees in this regard, has there been any discussion highlighting the relationship between citizenship and the multicultural and cross-cultural programs that are available to the people? I know it's a simple thing to say it's the responsibility of the federal government. But the people who live here within the province, by and large look to the provincial ministries for programs and activities. That's become increasingly true as many federal programs are shifted in cooperation with the provinces.

[4:30]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the focus is of course different; federally they think in broader terms and Heritage Canada deals with broader issues. And in fact, provincially, as the hon. member is correct in saying, we are much closer to the people and work with the communities on an ongoing basis.

In fact, we continuously struggle with the federal government on various issues. Right now we are in fact struggling with them and discussing issues around settlement renewal. Everyone knows that the federal government wants to exit from providing direct settlement funding. We have been negotiating or discussing with them what will happen with the void they leave and how much money they should be providing to the provincial government. We've been holding discussions with both federal government representatives as well as the communities that are going to be impacted by the withdrawal of the federal government from those programs.

So, in a sense, we're right in the middle of it; the federal government on the one hand and the communities on the other, and communities feel that we are much closer to them, much more accessible to them. Therefore I agree that we have a larger impact on what happens with the communities, and that's why we take what we do in multiculturalism and immigration very, very seriously.

V. Anderson: To come back just for moment, while I'm still thinking of it, to the advisory committee, previously the minister indicated that most of the members on previous advisory committees had been representatives of "multicultural groups" -- organizations -- that and he was attempting to involve a broader cross-section of people who weren't normally involved in this kind of process. Is the present group primarily still with multicultural groups of people who are involved in them? Is it primarily people who are across the community and not involved in those groups? Is there a balance? Just how is that at the moment?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The general guideline that I provided for the selection of the multicultural advisory committee -- with the exception of perhaps one organization, AMSSA -- was that nobody was going to be included on the Multicultural Advisory Council simply because some organization indicated they would like to have that individual sit on the committee. We made the exception for AMSSA because it's an umbrella organization for many of the multicultural societies across British Columbia, and we felt that it was important to have their voice at the table. There may be people who are associated with other multicultural societies and organizations across the province, but they are not sitting on the advisory council because of that. They may be activists and good people to have in their own right.

V. Anderson: Another area that I've become very much aware of is the educational institutions across the province who are involved in intercultural and multicultural programs, thinking and understanding: the universities, the colleges, the institutes, all of whom have become very much involved in these programs and have set up course programs for training and have set up study programs and intercultural language programs which are not only within our own country but are also international in scope. I'm wondering if much contact and interaction has gone on with the universities and colleges and the educational institutions who have been doing a great deal of thinking about how this reflects on our community and who have been providing leadership and training for people working in these areas.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In general terms, the ministry has been quite active dealing with students. I was actually personally present at a couple of schools where I spoke to several hundred students -- I believe over 1,600 or 1,700 students in two different schools -- on a broad range of issues around multiculturalism, racism, including justice issues as well. I know that we fund some cross-cultural understanding and anti-discrimination programs in some of the public schools, and we also fund a program at the community college, the student advocate program, which is to train students to help other students. So we have an ongoing interest in that area.

In terms of the settlement funding that comes for training, we have been involved in discussions with the federal government with respect to the funding that KEC, King Edward campus, receives for training newer immigrants to this country with the skills they need to get jobs in British Columbia.

V. Anderson: Just to follow up on the King Edward campus. . . . There is discussion not only in job skills training and preparation and updating of academic requirements for students, but what about the English-as-a-second-language program, which has also been very critical at the college at the Langara campus, which is in my own area, plus at the King Edward campus and others? What is the discussion on that? It's been a one-year kind of arrangement while they go on, and the year is almost up again. I know they'll be critical for this coming fall.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: All of those, I believe, are included in the discussions with respect to settlement renewal funding. I think the program at KEC has been in danger of being 

[ Page 465 ]

terminated a couple of times. I was at the campus, when I was not in cabinet, speaking on that issue. That program still continues. That's the ESL program for newcomers that the federal government funds. All of that, I believe, is part of the larger discussion around settlement renewal funding, and those discussions are going to be starting very quickly. We've done all of the preliminary discussions and consultation with the various communities across British Columbia, and we are now ready to put our position on the table with the federal government. All of these issues are going to be there.

V. Anderson: I appreciate the comments about settlement. I know those discussions will be ongoing, and I trust there will be fruitful and positive results for people right across the province, not just in the lower mainland.

I wasn't thinking just of the students and settlement programs. I have become more aware of the many researchers, teachers and professors in departments of social work, law and education who are doing studies and programs about understanding the multicultural nature and broad perspective. I'm wondering what opportunity they have had to feed their study results, research and projects into the multicultural ministry. Is that available for us to share as it comes in? I'm trying to get a broader dialogue in the open than the one we've had just part-time.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In that regard, there is a centre of excellence that has been funded by the federal government. One of our ministry representatives sits on that board, which is going to be looking at a whole host of issues on an ongoing basis.

With respect to the Multicultural Advisory Council, which is a very direct vehicle for bringing forth recommendations to the minister, a teacher and counsellor by the name of Viren Joshi has been seconded to the BCTF to work on issues around racism, discrimination and cross-cultural understanding. So we have a person who works with the teaching body of the province working with us on the Multicultural Advisory Council. Many others on the council also bring a whole host of talents and expertise from various aspects of life that can be fed directly into the office.

V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's comment in that regard. Could he tell us a little more about the centre for excellence? Where is it located, how is it made up, and how is its mandate and program in place?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that the centre of excellence is co-chaired by Don DeVoretz and David Ley from SFU and UBC. It's a $2 million undertaking over six years, and it's going to work on a consortium basis that will also include the University of Victoria, and it would have about 40 researchers. The strategy is being developed; it isn't public as yet. As soon as I'm able to lay my hands on it, I will forward a copy to the hon. member.

V. Anderson: I think that's a very exciting development that's taking place here, and it's very appropriate that we are involved in it. I think it's important that others are aware of it because it may be a way of focusing a lot of. . . . That's partly what I was getting at: some place to focus a lot of the individual efforts that are happening in a lot of different places. However, I'm not sure that there is a lot of interaction between these, but it does seem very important that it should happen, so I'm glad to hear that.

One of the concerns that we had last time was how much is happening between ministries. I know there were to be reports. Has a report of the multicultural activities in the ministries been put together, and was it presented last year? If so, I don't think I've seen a copy of it. I know it was in draft the last time we met, a year ago. I'm curious to know if I overlooked it, or whether it came by and I didn't have the opportunity to see it.

[4:45]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The report for 1994-95 will be ready very shortly. We may still be sitting, and I would be presenting that to the House. That would include ministry and Crown reports from government which will be compiled and presented to the House. Of course, that's done every year.

V. Anderson: One of the things we discussed, in that regard, was more interaction between ministries that the community would be aware of, as well as ourselves. I won't quote the minister too often today, but I would just like to highlight one of the quotes here:"I can assure the member that this 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."

That had to do with the question of what kind of representation the ministry had throughout the province. The comment that the minister made, and I agreed with, was that it wasn't appropriate to be opening a bunch of new offices for this purpose, but that there could be an opportunity of working through the other ministry offices already there -- like social services and educational functions, for instance -- in some kind of integrated way so that the concerns that are part of this ministry and part of the interministerial committee could be happening not only here in these precincts, but also outside. One illustration that was presented for us was the manual being presented by Social Services for the guidance of CAs in constituency offices. But some kind of input that others throughout the province who are facing the same issues, because the multiculturalism, racism and anti-discrimination concerns are there throughout the whole province. . . . I was wondering if there is a way that integrated services can be made more available to people so that they at least know the resources that are available to them.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We do currently use other ministries to disseminate information on multiculturalism throughout the province. What I did mean to do last year and still intend to do in the next three or four years is see the message of multiculturalism seep through to all ministries and Crowns at all levels, so that at some point we may not need to have a ministry responsible for multiculturalism or an interministerial committee on multiculturalism, which needs to push various ministries to be more reflective of the diversity in British Columbia and to be more representative of the concerns of all British Columbians without us having to push them all the time. We will be restarting that work as soon as we are able to get out of the House and start doing real work again.

V. Anderson: You wouldn't like to suggest that this is not real work, would you? All those supporters you have here think they have been working very hard all year long, and I think they have, too. I want to commend them for the work they do, by the way, and to thank them for the briefing we had, which was appreciated very much, and for the knowledge they presented to us.

[ Page 466 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: They told you more than they told me.

V. Anderson: That could be.

I raised this in the briefing, but I want to follow up on it again. There have been fairly drastic changes over the years in the ministry -- in its organization, its function, its size, in the number of its staff and even the size of its budget. The number of staff have increased and the budget has increased up until this year. Having had a fairly sizeable increase from $2 million to over $4 million, it's now come down somewhat in this last year. Could the minister indicate what this shift in this current year reflects? I know the ministry's budget for this current year is close to $10 million -- well, $9.8 million this year and $10.3 million last year. But in '94-95 it was only $6 million, so it went up $4 million and then it has come down. So I'm interested in the changes that have taken place in the ministry's organization, structure and program focus.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The focus remains the same, as I said in response to an earlier question from the hon. member. The funding, of course, is reduced a bit and there has been a transfer of about $150,000 in funding for public education to the B.C. Council of Human Rights, because education on human rights is a function that they perform. The balance of the reduction is the proposed reduction in grants. We haven't yet determined what grants will be reduced, but that is proposed. It hasn't been decided, as yet, where the focus will be. Maybe different areas might have to share the pain.

V. Anderson: If I understand the minister rightly, he was saying that $150,000, which was human rights education, has now been transferred to the human rights budget, rather than out of the multicultural budget. So that's an internal transfer which would bring one up and the other one down, I would presume. When we come later to discuss human rights, we'll probably raise the question of why that one is up almost $2 million. Hopefully some things will come as a result of that.

The minister was commenting last year about the office that was opening at Oakridge Centre; it was just in the beginning process at that point. Could he comment about the Oakridge Centre office: what has it been doing, what is the scope of its activities and what is the focus of its activities?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's the community liaison office, and I can tell you from my experience that it's been a very successful office. It consults with the communities about the communities' needs, then deals with the settlement grants. It monitors and evaluates the performance of the organizations that get those grants, and also assesses the effectiveness of the programs: whether or not they're really helping the people that they're supposed to help.

That is, in a nutshell, what they do. From all the reports that I've been receiving, particularly from all across the lower mainland -- that's where I spend most of my time, and I bump into people from time to time who either represent the organizations that receive the money or represent the consumers of those services that are being provided -- people seem to be very happy, by and large.

V. Anderson: When you're talking about settlement grants -- if we look at the budget for a moment -- could you distinguish between the grants and the contributions? The grants, as I understand by the STOB information, would be $435,000, where the contributions are $4 million plus. Could you first of all discuss the focus of the grants against the focus of the contributions?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I understand the grants go to the government organizations and public institutions, and the contributions go to private, non-profit organizations, with terms and conditions for the provision and delivery of services.

V. Anderson: Could you give some illustration of what public institutions these grants go to?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think I should be getting bifocals pretty quickly here.

The public institutions that receive grants -- if I can just give you an example from memory -- would be Mount St. Joseph Hospital, as I mentioned. I believe it received over $200,000 in the first year -- about $300,000 total over two years -- to have over 20 health delivery agencies, hospitals and the like participate in a project, based at Mount St. Joseph Hospital, that would design a model for the delivery of multiculturally sensitive health services across British Columbia, which we hope to eventually have in place. Those are the kinds of institutions that would be receiving those grants.

V. Anderson: Assuming that I heard correctly, it was over three years and $300,000, so it would be roughly $100,000 a year, which would be about one-quarter of this $435,000. Can you give me an illustration of some other public projects that would come into that $435,000, then? I'm really interested in the public, because that's something, other than Mount St. Joseph, that we haven't really discussed before.

[5:00]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have a chart here that I can share with the hon. member. It tells me that institutional change -- the public institutions we're talking about -- essentially has funding of $250,000. So if the books say $435,000, I believe there may be some error, or somebody may have included some other money which should go elsewhere. That $250,000 is utilized every year.

V. Anderson: When you say institutional change, does that go to government bodies, to government organizations, to public organizations? That's not going to non-profit societies at this point; that's institutional? I have to grin a bit because, if I remember, last year as well the books had to be modified in the multicultural. . . . I couldn't resist commenting on that, because the minister indicated that he had written in his category in his own writing that a correction had been made. I hope it doesn't become a yearly practice.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Well, I think that by the end of the estimates in the next couple of years, I'll be an enlightened person as to how this happens.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

The institutional change money is given to government organizations or public institutions. I mean, Mount St. Joseph Hospital is a private hospital, but it is in the nature of a public institution. It would be those organizations that provide an important public function that then begin to change the way we deliver government services -- health care or other services in British Columbia. Of course, major players that may be non-profit and may be delivering those services would also be entitled to receive some of that funding.

V. Anderson: It's not that the amount is that much, in a sense, if it's going to public institutions for institutional 

[ Page 467 ]

change. But it was important to understand the kind of principles of where it's going and who might be using it.

What are the criteria, then, for the contributions at the present time? I know you say these are going to be re-examined and modified perhaps for the coming year, because of less money coming in. Is there a maximum amount that goes to an institution? Does it vary? What are the criteria for those grants? I know many of them go. . . . There are various categories of grants, and I'm curious to know what they might be at the present moment.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There are no maximum or minimum limits on what can be applied for or received under that particular head. Let me go back a little and give you two more examples of the kinds of public institutions that could receive money: the Queen's Harbour Institute training program for the Vancouver school board. This was a week-long intensive training program in multiculturalism, anti-racism and equity issues for administrators and teachers from outside the Vancouver school district. We spent $32,000 on that. The other examples would be some multiculturalism, anti-racism projects that we funded with the New Westminster school district, Coquitlam school district, Surrey school district, Cariboo-Chilcotin school district and the Lower Mainland Multicultural Education Consortium -- which is, I believe, Capilano College, Douglas College and the Maple Ridge, Coquitlam and New Westminster school districts.

What we are trying to do, of course, is effect change by going through these institutions which have a large and significant impact on the population in British Columbia, particularly the younger population in British Columbia, so that we can begin to deal with these issues at an earlier age.

V. Anderson: Following up on that, there is an issue that I think we did touch on briefly last year, and I wonder if anything has been done in regard to it. I'm talking about working with young people in the schools, which is very commendable and agreeable work.

One of the realities I have discovered again and again is that the very work you do with young people within the school system leads them to certain changes within their lives and understanding, which then leads them to be in conflict with their parents, who aren't in the same process of change. I think this is very critical, so I ask the minister if there is anything being done with the parents of the children in those schools where this education is in place. Otherwise, we are making the normal generation gap much more difficult. The cultural change that is brought upon young people who live and work with each other in a way that many of their parents don't have the opportunity to do makes it difficult for those young people and their parents to adapt and communicate.

I think this is an extremely critical issue. Comments that have been made suggest that there have been racial tensions on the part of people. Really, there has been tension because of misunderstanding, because of what we have caused, in all sincerity. The minister probably has more experience out of his own background, but I've heard from many people -- parents and children -- the difficulty of that gap. I wonder if anything is being done through the schools and the educational system to reach the parents at the same time that we are working with young people.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The member has really put his finger on a very large and important issue that doesn't necessarily confine itself to this ministry. That's an issue that we deal with throughout government. Even the students that I talked to at New Westminster Secondary School early this year, if I remember correctly, said to me that they are the ones who need less education and the parents need more. That's a question we are all searching for solutions to. I'm happy to hear from the member, and I am sure we will work together over the next years to see what we can do.

V. Anderson: I'd be very interested in working along with the minister in that area, because I think it's a major concern. I agree with the interministerial committee that it does affect all the ministries. I think it is a very crucial issue. It is not something that we can leave for the future, because it is the present generation which is being affected by it every day. It is a very urgent matter, and I think it should be given some priority.

There were grants in the past given to the Open Learning Agency. Maybe they come under those public grants as well, I'm not sure. There was the indication that those grants would phase themselves out once their programs were in place. Could you comment about what has happened with grants to the Open Learning Agency? Are they still receiving them? Or now that some of their programs are in place, are we finished funding them?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We provided money for the Open Learning Agency for '94-95 and '95-96 for a total sum of $200,000 -- $100,000 each year. This year they are on their own. That project was the credentials evaluation service they provide for newcomers or other Canadians who may have credentials from foreign institutes in terms of skills they bring. They have this one-stop shop where they can be assessed. Then they can at least provide their résumés in some understandable credential-evaluated fashion to their prospective employers or universities or colleges where they might want to go. That service continues, but we're not providing any more funding to them.

There is the $100,000 still within the ministry set aside for special projects. I'm not aware at this time what that would be utilized for, but there are always very, very interesting, useful and valuable projects that come up, and you need that money. That is, in a sense, contingency money we can utilize for those projects.

V. Anderson: It's a very important program: the evaluation of people's degrees and credits so they can get some transition and get the equivalent recognition here. A lot of newcomers into Canada have not been able to use their skills because they couldn't prove the equivalence.

But the other part that we discussed a year ago, and I'm wondering if anything has happened, is that many professional people can get the English language through and those kinds of programs, but the everyday conversational English that they get through those programs is quite different from the professional languages that they need as engineers, doctors, nurses or whatever else.

One of the programs that used to be funded in part through the Immigrant Services Society on the federal. . . . I go back some 20 years on this program. I'm not sure it continues to operate at the present. Has there been a program or an initiative to try and work with some body or group of professional people to help this kind of program get underway?

The engineers used to do it at one point on a kind of ad hoc voluntary basis. If there was some kind of focus, it would 

[ Page 468 ]

enable our people to settle much more quickly into opportunities to share their skills as well as earn the income. Is there anything in that regard at the moment, or is there an initiative that could be undertaken?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's a very interesting idea the hon. member has expressed. I know the feds had that program, but we haven't had a program similar in nature in British Columbia, although the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training does provide skills and training programs for people while they're learning the language. As they need to learn English as a second language, they're learning the trade at the same time.

The issues around settlement renewal would encompass that discussion as well, at that table.

V. Anderson: I would like to shift the focus from the multicultural for a few minutes to the immigration aspect. First of all, I know that in the area of immigration. . . . As I indicated earlier in the session, this is an area that everybody in the public talks about, both pro and con, and there's a great deal of concern. Whenever this has been raised to MLAs or government members in the past, they have simply said, "Well, that's a federal concern," and kind of assumed that we're not a part of it. But like so many issues, it's what happens in our community all the time -- the pros and cons and the misunderstanding that goes on as well as the inadequacy of the programs.

I know there are discussions ongoing between the federal and provincial governments at this point. Could the minister share with us some of the new outlooks or new programs that might be coming on line in new ways of cooperating between the federal and provincial governments in the immigration programs?

[5:15]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand there are about six deputy-level committees across Canada that we participate in with ongoing discussions on all these immigration-related issues. I'm told that we have been able to significantly influence many of those issues. As I may have said last year -- but if not, I've said it elsewhere -- we are interested at the end in making sure that the needs of British Columbia are reflected in the selection criteria and the process that the federal government puts in place from time to time. We haven't been satisfied to date with what the federal government has been doing, so those are outstanding concerns as we continue to struggle with them in different committees.

V. Anderson: There is a great deal of concern out in the community about the directions in which we may be going and the kind of hopes or planning that people can take for the future. Is there any input that can be made available through this process, so that the community is somewhat up to date on what's happening, the direction in which things are going, so that they can begin to plan accordingly. It's the uncertainty and the instability when things may be changing under them and they do not know how to become part of that process that causes a great deal of fear in the community. Is there a process whereby the ministry can make available to us, and to the community at large, a sense of direction, what the outcomes are hoped to be, and the time lines for those?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In terms of the larger issues of fear and concern the hon. member mentions, those are appropriately expressed to us provincially, but more importantly to the federal representatives in British Columbia. The negotiations on many of the concerns that British Columbia has are in abeyance for the moment because there is large-scale reorganization happening within the federal department itself. That may, in itself, cause some anxiety. Our department is cognizant of all the concerns that are expressed from British Columbia and we, of course, take those forward.

V. Anderson: I'll come back to that in a moment.

Of the almost $10 million which is a part of that budget, how much is in the area of immigration as against multicultural? There's no breakdown here, so I'm wondering what the difference is.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's roughly fifty-fifty. Fifty immigration and fifty to balance.

V. Anderson: When you say fifty-fifty -- if we look at the contributions, which are themselves about 50 percent of the budget -- are 50 percent of those contributions in the area of immigration and 50 percent of those. . .? If so, could you explain how the immigration and the multicultural breaks down?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: While there is sometimes overlap in terms of the personnel. . . . In terms of the grants, $2.5 million in grants are settlement grants. They notionally sit in the immigration part of the ministry. That's why you see, out of the $10 million in the total budget, that about $5 million is notionally for immigration.

V. Anderson: In the area of business immigration -- of entrepreneurial immigration on one hand, and investment on the other hand -- what has been the relative growth or lack of growth of investment programs in those two sections of the ministry?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With respect to the success of that program, I understand that out of 50 percent of the investor bodies that have come to British Columbia. . . . If 100 came to Canada, out of those at least 50 came to British Columbia. As for the entrepreneurial aspect of it, I understand that, directly or indirectly, 35 percent of them have ended up in British Columbia. So I think that program has been quite successful in attracting both the investment and the enterprise to British Columbia.

V. Anderson: Could you give us an indication of how many people are in the investor and entrepreneurial programs?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If the hon. member refers to the staff in the office, there are 14 staff for business immigration, and nine of them are in the investor category and five are in the entrepreneur category.

V. Anderson: It's interesting information, but I was asking about the number of persons who were in each of the programs, not the number of staff.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I was just trying to get away by giving the easy answer -- one that I knew. Now here is the real answer. I understand that for British Columbia in 1995, there were 3,339 entrepreneurs and 2,294 investors. These numbers include the dependents as well.

[ Page 469 ]

V. Anderson: So it would be hard to tell just how many investors are there when that includes their dependents, too. Is that an increase or decrease, and what has been the trend, over the years, of increase or decrease in those two programs?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In the entrepreneur program the numbers have gone up slightly. For '94 there were 833, and in '95 there were exactly 900.

With the investor program for 1994, there were 879. There is a slight reduction in 1995. I believe there are 829, if I read them correctly.

Our proportion, in terms of the number that we attract vis-�-vis Canada, has remained steady.

V. Anderson: In a federal study on refocusing immigrant investor programs, of August 1995. . . . I just wanted to read one brief paragraph, because it comments that British Columbia has been very active in raising funds for these programs. It goes on to say: "British Columbia spends more money on the program than most other provinces, but its share of investor money has declined from $64.2 million in 1990, third among the provinces, to $18.8 million in 1994, sixth among the provinces -- behind Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and Alberta." I'm wondering if you could account for that drastic reduction from $64 million in 1990 to $18 million in 1994 in the immigrant investor program.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that in 1995 we got investment worth about $39 million, so the figures keep changing back and forth. I think that in large measure it's the influence of the kind of guarantees and incentives that Quebec is able to offer as part of the program that it has designed for itself. In fact, that's partly the reason why British Columbia has been taking the position that, if our needs aren't satisfied by the federal government in restructuring these programs, we may strike out on our own and follow Quebec's example to take over a portion of that immigration process ourselves. I've been saying that ever since I've had this responsibility.

V. Anderson: Perhaps the minister could elaborate a little on that. Are you saying that that is the direction in which we'll be going? What are the implications of that for bringing more people into the province and for extra investment?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We want a level playing field in Canada so that we can compete with other provinces to attract investment. If the federal government won't do that, then, of course, we have the Quebec option.

V. Anderson: We'll probably go into more detail this evening, but I'd like to just raise an initial query about human rights, which I was involved in, and my other member here will be following up on that in more detail. Could the minister explain where that program is at the moment? I'll read him one quote in asking the question. This was asked last year, when the question was raised about whether finances would be available to put the new programs into effect:"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" -- this was a year ago -- "and the legislation obviously has to be proclaimed before we can begin the work. This may take some time, but all those things will come together at some point, hopefully in the very near future."

[5:30]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am delighted to report that the human rights legislation was proclaimed as of October 1. We have provided additional resources of $1.5 million to the council, as well as 17.9 FTEs to reduce the existing case backlog of human rights complaints and establish the new structures.

V. Anderson: Can you give an indication of how much the backlog has. . .? Was that October 1 of last year or October 1 in the year coming up?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: October 1, 1996.

V. Anderson: Would the minister indicate, then, if the new programs -- the two divisions that were set up -- are in place, and if they have their people in place at either one or both of them?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No.

V. Anderson: That's interesting. If they hope to be functioning on October 1, and this is the middle of July, that doesn't give us a lot of time to get those set up and under way. Could the minister give us a time line for these programs? The minister already knows. . . . Many cases have been in dire consequences because these have not been in place.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Well, there's no question that the backlogs have gone up over 300 percent in the last five years. We've been working in the past few months to streamline the existing machinery so that we can go into gear October 1. Of course, there will be some hiring that will have to take place before October 1, to put all of the machinery in place. The work is being done as we speak.

V. Anderson: Could the minister be a little more specific as to what hiring is taking place? Have the volunteer boards been set up? Have people been chosen for these? Are the key people in place, who will be. . .? Are the commissioners in place, for instance -- much less the other members?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There will be advertising for some of those positions going out very quickly, and there will be hiring for those positions. The advisory committee that the member refers to in terms of volunteers -- no, we haven't selected that as yet. In fact, although it's of primary importance, that's secondary at this point. Once we have the machinery in place we can bring the advisory committee together, because the advisory committee has a function not to establish the machinery but to advise us in dealing with it on an ongoing basis.

Just to backtrack a little in terms of the backlogs, the backlogs have increased partly and substantially because of the continuous growth in the volume of complaints that are presented to the Council of Human Rights in British Columbia.

V. Anderson: With regard to the backlog, could you give us some indication of the numbers in the backlog and what kind of time frame you're projecting to whittle that down in the next one, two, three, four or five years? Is the backlog three years or four years behind? What are the numbers? What's the kind of time frame that we're dealing with?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: British Columbia had 2,400 complaints filed in 1995-96, the highest per capita complaints in Canada. 

[ Page 470 ]

By April 1, 1996, the delays in investigation measured as follows: the average length of investigation, 365 days; 890 cases were over the standard of six months set by the council itself; almost 600 cases were awaiting assignment for investigation. New complaints were being referred for investigations at the rate of 111 per month, and the investigations were completed at the rate of 81 per month.

V. Anderson: Would we be able to get a copy of that?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes, we could provide the hon. member with this information.

V. Anderson: The other part of that question was: in projecting that these people have to be advertised for, they have to be hired, and they have to be trained. . . . At the moment, thinking of the investigators, it's my understanding that there was a new system for investigators to come in place, that you were using industrial inquiry investigators before and you were going to be using your own investigators now. Has that changed? Do I understand rightly and is that change taking place?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand the investigators have now been transferred from the employment standards branch to the Council of Human Rights. We have the investigators that we need. It is the commissioners and the Human Rights Tribunal chair that we're going to be advertising for. There are a large number of people within the human rights council that may or may not be able to simply be taken into the new structures. While I share the hon. member's concern, I think that we are well equipped to deal with the issue.

V. Anderson: Has there been a new training process put in for those investigators and, if so, what is the new training? I know in the past there was a concern that they had training for another kind of investigation rather than for this one. So I think there's a real concern about retraining, if you like, if you're using the same people. Or are you taking some new people in with different skills and different abilities?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We are attempting to provide more training for the investigators -- also, in fact, training them in the art of mediation so that all complaints don't necessarily end up as complaints before the council to be adjudicated, so that they are sometimes mediated much earlier and dealt with, and that's happening.

With that answer, hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:40 p.m.

Copyright © 1996: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada