[ Page 955 ]

The House resumed at 6:36 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. M. Sihota: I call continuation of the great debate on Bill 15. With regard to Committee A, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

G. Wilson: My remarks tonight are going to be brief. I have probably been the most vocal and, I think, the only critic to actually vote against the B.C. Benefits program. In the last couple of evenings, I've taken the government to task for what I believe, in principle, are some serious directions that we might not want to travel.

I think if one is to be taken seriously as a politician, one has to also have the opportunity to put it on the record when you think the government is doing something right, and in this particular part of the legislation, I would argue that they have indeed made some correct decisions. I think that this particular bill is different in some very important and significant ways from the other pieces of legislation we've seen under B.C. Benefits. Because of those differences, I'm certainly able to stand up and support it.

[M. Farnworth in the chair.]

One of the principal differences is with respect to the area of training and other programs, where clearly this legislation is designed to be open-ended and as flexible as possible and to provide an opportunity for people with disabilities to access the necessary training that is required. They are not subjected to the same levels of direction and mandate we've seen in other legislation.

More significantly than that -- and I think this is really an area that the government is to be congratulated on -- is the degree to which there are consequential amendments placed in this bill that provide for a greater degree of capacity for people who have disabilities to develop a certain level of financial independence. I think that is something we clearly want to see more of.

I would say only this. As we look through this bill and as we go through this bill, there are several areas that need to be touched on that I hope this minister will take note of, because they are areas where there are concerns. One has to do with the disability allowances and benefits section and the manner by which those disability allowances and benefits are applied, keeping in mind that there are people within the category of this bill, people with disabilities, who currently still have to struggle and fight with guardianship regulations and with the notion that somehow they do not or are not able to look after their own finances and well-being.

I raise this whole question of guardianship because it becomes even more important as we recognize that people -- and clearly this doesn't apply to all people with disabilities, but there are a significant number -- are at the moment having a great deal of trouble with financial institutions. They should be able to have those financial institutions provide on an equitable basis the levels of finance they require in order to deal with things like their home purchase, possibly, or renovation work that is necessary to be done, even in a rental accommodation where there's an agreement between landlord and tenant, but they cannot get the security.

It's interesting, hon. Speaker. I won't take up the time of the House tonight, but I have letters from a number of financial institutions, saying: "Look, we have trouble with this and our customers have trouble with this, so we need to find a way to make some amendments with respect to the provisions to allow us to be able to act in this financial area." So I would suggest that when we start to look at the question of disability allowances and benefits with respect to people with handicaps, this is an area I think we have to explore. There are some problems here that need to be dealt with. I raise that issue because I have personal experience of those people who currently are having difficulty, and the financial institutions that would like to see some clarification with respect to how these dollars can be administered.

The second area I'd like to look at and ask for the minister's attention to be paid to deals with matters with respect to the information that is being supplied. I'm assuming -- I guess this is an assumption that is reasonably safe -- that the same amendments we've seen in the other B.C. Benefits legislation with respect to the sharing of information that restrict and limit those powers are going to come forward and be applied to this bill.

Having said that, the one area I would suggest this government might want to look one step further at and deal with by certain levels of legislation -- I know that the minister is listening intently to this issue, because it's one that will be on his desk shortly -- is the guardianship question: how the trustee may be involved in the guardianship issue and the information exchange that may occur between the trustee and the guardian of somebody who is deemed to have disabilities that would not allow them to be able to make decisions on their own. That decision is a grey area in some cases, as the minister, I'm sure, is well aware. He has been in this business for a long time, and I know he would have had as many constituents as I've had who may have come forward.

So those are really problematic areas that this bill doesn't really address, and I guess it wasn't intended to. I want it to be on the record that those three areas I've identified -- the matter with respect to finances, the question of financial institutions and the ability for those to be dealt with independently -- need to be addressed. Similarly, we need to address the issue with respect to the training component and recognize that there may be some concerns there, again, with respect to access and ability. Lastly, there is the whole question of the Adult Guardianship Act, which was a creature of this government -- or of the one before it, but they're both the same animal, really. That has caused considerable problems in terms of relationships between the trustee, the guardian and people with those disabilities. Those areas need to be addressed.

Having said that, let me say that I'm pleased with the flexibility that this bill provides for the individual. If I could sum it up, and I will, it would appear that there has been a greater degree of consultation with the people affected by this bill than we've seen in the other B.C. Benefits acts, because the language, direction and tone of this bill are greatly different from the others. It therefore gives me pleasure to support it. As I said at the outset, even though I've been a very vocal and harsh critic of two of the other bills that have come before us in this packet, I think that this particular component is worthy of being taken out and given support. With that, I offer my support for Bill 15.

[6:45]

[ Page 956 ]

Hon. M. Sihota: I would like to thank all members and all parties that are represented in this House for their unanimous support for this historic bill and the changes it speaks to, from both a philosophical and a practical point of view. In response to some of the points that were raised during the course of second reading debate -- and in response to the member for Saanich North and the Islands in particular -- let me say that there are obviously going to be some fiscal impacts in terms of reducing the welfare rolls as things get transferred from one ministry to another. But the purpose of this legislation is not to generate some kind of fiscal fa�ade; rather, it is to speak to the very points that your colleague the member for Vancouver-Langara made. I accept your point, because I think....

Deputy Speaker: I have to make one comment, hon. minister, and that is that the minister is closing debate.

Hon. M. Sihota: You just interrupted me in full stream. Should I sort of rewind now and...? [Laughter.]

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: That's an uncharacteristic error on the part of the Chair.

In any event, the bill is there for the reasons that were outlined by the member for Vancouver-Langara, who I know has a long history on these matters. I also appreciate the comments from the Reform Party, in terms of their support for it, and the comments from the representative from the PDA. He takes the view that this bill is an improvement over the earlier bills. That's only because we listened to what he had to say and made all the changes -- and if he believes that, he'll believe a lot of other things. Hon. Speaker, with that said, I move the bill be read a second time now.

Motion approved.

Bill 15, Disability Benefits Program 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. M. Sihota: I call second reading of Bill 16.

Hon. D. Streifel: With that, I would like to thank my colleague for going through second reading of a bill in a jurisdiction that we share.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, give me a little bit of your pay.

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes. My colleague requests that I give him a little bit of my pay, and in fact I will give him a little bit of my pay on this. I'll buy him a nice fresh glass of water to cool us all down on this warm summer evening.

Hon. Speaker, I rise now for second reading of Bill 16, the BC Benefits (Appeals) Act. This bill, like the others in the B.C. Benefits package, is a key component in the legislative framework for implementing B.C. Benefits, this government's strategy for renewing the social safety net. Essentially, it takes the established appeal provisions currently found in the Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act, or the GAIN Act, and improves them and makes them applicable to the BC Benefits (Child Care) Act, the BC Benefits (Income Assistance) Act, the BC Benefits (Youth Works) Act and the Disability Benefits Program Act.

Under these new acts, anyone dissatisfied with the government's decision to deny, reduce or stop their benefits may request an internal ministry review. For those dissatisfied with the outcome of this process, Bill 16 guarantees access to two further levels of appeal: to a community-based tribunal and, where there remains a dispute, to the B.C. Benefits Appeal Board.

For those who aren't familiar with it, I'd like to outline the tribunal process currently used under the GAIN Act, because this is the process we are now proposing to extend to the B.C. Benefits legislation generally. Each tribunal is unique and comprises three individuals from the client's community: one chosen by the client, one chosen by the ministry and the third, who acts as chair, appointed jointly by the other two members.

For the most part, this system, in place since the 1970s, has provided fair and timely resolution to disputes on a case-by-case basis. However, there are circumstances where one side or the other is dissatisfied with the outcome of the tribunal process. Until last year the only recourse in those cases was through the courts -- a very costly and time-consuming process. So in the 1995 sitting of this House, the Income Assistance Appeal Board was established. It is a quasi-judicial body whose members are familiar with the principles of administrative law and have some directly related experience. Under Bill 16, the Income Assistance Appeal Board will be renamed the B.C. Benefits Appeal Board to reflect its application to the B.C. Benefits legislation. The board's central mandate, which is quite narrow, will remain unchanged. It will continue to review tribunal decisions which may be in error of law, and the board will operate more effectively under new provisions we are introducing with this legislation. These provisions will allow the appointment of a vice-chair of the appeal board so cases can proceed even when the chair is not available. They will also allow for the appointment of additional board members above the current limit of six, and they will give the chair or vice-chair discretion around the issue of panel size. These measures will help the board to expedite its decision-making.

British Columbians agree that those truly in need are entitled to assistance. We also agree that rights without means of redress are meaningless. The bill before us now will provide a fair, accessible and timely appeal process for those who feel they may have been treated unfairly under the BC Benefits (Income Assistance) Act, the BC Benefits (Child Care) Act, the BC Benefits (Youth Works) Act or the Disability Benefits Program Act.

I move that Bill 16, the BC Benefits (Appeals) Act be read a second time now.

V. Anderson: I'm tempted to get out Hansard and read back my comments that were made when the GAIN Act was amended some time ago, because we spoke solidly against those amendments at that time. I will speak even more solidly against the whole of the bill, because the "improvements," as the minister called them, have worked completely in the opposite direction as far as the clients across the province are concerned. The minister, who was not the minister at that time, may not be aware of the strong representations that were made, particularly from low-income groups and from people who had been using the tribunals quite effectively up to that time.

[ Page 957 ]

The history is that prior to the last amendments to the GAIN Act, which brought the appeal board into place and doctored up the tribunal process, British Columbia had one of the most effective, fair, and respected tribunal systems in Canada, and it was almost, without exception, applauded by all those who used it -- the exception being the government itself, which was not satisfied that people should have their cases heard according to the legislation rather than through the interpretations of regulations which were developed by the ministry itself.

Just to put it into context, I personally had the opportunity to sit as chair on many of those tribunals. The tribunals were established by the ministry appointing one person, and interestingly enough, in most cases it was a person who at one time had worked for the ministry and was therefore very qualified and very knowledgable about the legislation and who was no longer involved in the ministry but volunteered to be a member of the tribunal on the ministry's behalf. The other person was a person from the community, quite often from one of the volunteer advocacy groups for low-income people, who again volunteered to represent the person who was bringing the appeal.

These two would agree on a chairperson, another volunteer from the community who would agree to be chair. These three would come and hear representations from representatives, official staff of the ministry, about their side of the case, and they would then hear the representation from the person who had brought the appeal. They, along with their representative, would have the opportunity in that appeal to ask questions. When they had asked all the questions -- and there had been a very warm and friendly exchange of ideas with very supportive comments from staff in every instance I was involved in -- they would excuse the participants and those three would decide. A majority of two of three was needed for the decision that was made, but in my experience it was nearly always an unanimous decision either for or against the appeal that had been brought forward. Often it was not just a yes or no, but it was recommendations as to how best to meet the need of that person and the needs of the ministry at the same time. These recommendations were in the majority of cases accepted by the ministry and implemented without a problem. Now, in the odd case, the decision may not have been right, but in over 90 percent, in my experience and from the reports I've heard from everyone else, they were fair and just decisions.

Because of those odd cases, the ministry then, in their new-found wisdom of developing new processes, decided that they had to do something different, because the only appeal the ministry had -- and they were usually the only ones who wanted to appeal the tribunal -- was to take the case to the court. Even when they did that, they were not very sure that they would win the case. The reason behind that is that the tribunal used a different basis for deciding than the social workers had to use in making the case in the first place, or than their supervisors used when they had to review the case. They were required by the ministry to act upon the regulations which were dictated for them, whether the regulations fit that particular case or not. They had no freedom to negotiate.

I don't know exactly, but in probably over 50 percent of the tribunals I had the privilege of sitting on, I would have social workers, often those who were going to be making the appeal, advising me that although they would not be able to help out in the appeal, if I looked at this or that section of the act itself, then I would better understand what the appeal was about. In almost every case, when I looked at the act with their advice, it was beneficial to the person who was bringing the appeal.

So that was the history and the experience. There was really no one -- except for maybe one or two, periodically -- complaining about the process. In fact, they were very happy with the process...

An Hon. Member: And supported it.

V. Anderson: Yes... and supported it wholeheartedly, as my colleague says -- until the ministry began to step in. They stepped in by saying that, first of all, they wanted a line of appeal that the ministry could make, primarily. Although, of course, they said that it was for the benefit of the client, it really was for the ministry so that they would have the freedom to step in and correct not only the odd misjudgment but any case where they felt we had misinterpreted the act, and particularly when we had gone against the regulations. They reworded it in such a way that the regulations took priority over the act itself when you went to the appeal. So the appeal process took away the freedom and the fairness of the tribunal system.

At the same time, in going to the appeal process, they started to put into place a bureaucracy of persons that were chosen and "trained" or, as some people would say -- and not even facetiously -- indoctrinated in how they would deal with that appeal process. They used the term that they had made "errors in law." So what had been a very warm and friendly concern for the client now became a very legalistic system, which, like so many of the other legalistic systems in the whole of Social Services -- and particularly I might say in child protection and child apprehension, and lack of care -- has now gone over into this new system. This was universally objected to by all kinds of groups across the province.

Naturally we voted totally against it from the very beginning, but of course we weren't heard, or else we were heard and ignored. They ignored the letters, the requests, and the petitions that came to them from across the province. If I had been really fair to those groups tonight, I would have gone into my file and brought them in. But this having been brought in on short notice -- in the summertime when those groups are not meeting -- they don't have the opportunity they had last time to protest. They have taken it and run around the very groups which they say they're trying to support. I think that is...

An Hon. Member: Shameful.

V. Anderson: ...shameful. Thank you. I was looking for a good, fair word to use. That way is shameful...

An Hon. Member: Disgusting.

V. Anderson: ...and disgusting. Thank you to that member of the NDP. I agree wholeheartedly that it was disgusting. I'm sure there are some members of the NDP who will agree wholeheartedly with him, because their groups are going to be telling them exactly the same thing.

[7:00]

Also, when it comes to the amendments that the minister referred to, to improve the system, what they have now done is take the inadequacies, the unfairness and the rigidity, which they put into the appeal board, and move them down to the tribunals themselves. Let me point out that the tribunals will 

[ Page 958 ]

have three persons: one chosen by the ministry -- and under their new system of choice I'm not sure they're going to choose the kinds of qualified persons that we used to have -- one chosen by the client; and then, instead of that person whom both of these people trusted as being sympathetic to them, from the community, they now have to choose from a list of prequalified persons who have been chosen, trained, educated, prepared and indoctrinated by the ministry to be chair of the tribunals. So they have loaded the tribunals now, instead of having the openness and the fairness that they had before.

Not only have they done this, but they are now setting up an expensive system which will take away from the finances that are available for the clients. Not only are they going to pay the tribunal people, and particularly the appeal board people, their travel expenses and their hotel expenses and their meal expenses and whatever other expenses they might have, they also may be paid a remuneration, an honorarium, a salary for the work that they're now doing.

So they have created a whole new group of persons who are not doing this because they believe in it, necessarily; they're not doing it because they're really concerned about justice being done. They're doing it because they get paid to do it.

An Hon. Member: Payoff.

V. Anderson: Payoff, some people are saying. That's the danger. And the other is that if you're getting paid for something, and particularly if it becomes a fairly lucrative pastime, and you're busy -- as you certainly will be under this process -- then it becomes part of your income. You're going to seem to be, even if you aren't, always coming down on the side of the person who pays your bill.

When you're someone in financial difficulty and in low-income circumstances, to have the people being paid who are sitting with you and helping you, when you're not being paid to be there, when you're not being paid for the appeal and when you're not getting the expenses to go to the system where they have asked you to come, the whole thing takes on a completely different attitude and unfairness.

Whereas we fought hard against the previous amendments when the appeal board was brought into being, we have to say in all fairness that this is even worse. Much worse, because it gets into a system called B.C. Benefits, which purports to be a better system. The qualities and fairness of Bill 15, the Disability Benefits Program Act, which we talked about just a few minutes ago, are offset by the inequities of this particular bill. At the very least, what they might have done was exclude the Disability Benefits Program Act. Because of the very nature of the disabilities that those people have that qualifies them for that program, they of all people are going to be most disadvantaged by this new tribunal and appeal system.

I know the minister and others on his side, in the government, will come out as they have again and again with their rationalization that this gives fairness and appeal and opportunity for everybody else. Hogwash! That's not the reality that's out there. I know if I use some of the language that is used to me and that I know all of the members of this Legislature have heard, if they're talking to the people in their communities, it would be ruled out of order in this Legislature. The Speaker is shaking his head, it would be ruled out of order. He knows exactly what I would be saying because he has no doubt heard exactly the same thing.

For whatever credit we've given the ministry in the previous bills in the benefits package, in which we would have said with delight we'd vote for the disability bill and, with some agreement, support the others and argue about the deficiencies in committee stage.... All of that is undermined and the whole validity of it undone by this particular bill, particularly with the additions to it that have made it even worse than it was before.

Hon. Speaker, there is no fair, rational, reasonable reason for this bill to be brought in in its present form. If they had really wanted to be consistent with the other benefits bills, what they would have done is turn back to the tribunal system before it was ruined by bringing in the appeal process and adding the other misqualifications to the tribunal system itself. If they really had wanted to be in touch with the other parts of the B.C. Benefits package, I would recommend to the minister....

If there was any way of moving an amendment, I would move the amendment in committee stage to say, "Let's go back to where we were in the tribunal system," which was fair, just, open, easy to use, cost-effective, and understood and appreciated by the people who used it on both sides -- the ministry's front-line social workers, the clients who used it and the persons who volunteered to be part of it.

The only ones dissatisfied with it were the top brass within the ministry, because it allowed the people to look after their needs themselves, to make their own decisions and to deal with the legislation upfront like good, fair-thinking citizens. The top brass apparently could not endure that. I can see no other reason why it was changed in the first place, and I can see no other reason why it has been continued and why it has continued to be made even worse.

If I had my way and thought it would be effective, I'd filibuster all night long on this bill. The minister shakes his head; he'd be happy to listen to me all night.

I'm sure there are others who will say exactly the same thing. You get your point across not by a lot of speaking but hopefully by simply saying: this is the wrong bill at the wrong time in the wrong place for this B.C. Benefits package. It is disgraceful, inadequate, unfair, unjust. Hopefully that at least gets some of the anger across that I hear across this province.

Let me use one illustration in trying to display that anger. When I was teaching in the theological college, we had one gentleman who came as a student. He was in his mid-forties. He had lived most of his life on the street, in difficulty and hardship -- a very poetic guy, a very able and clever person. Finally he decided that he would go into the ministry.

When we got into so many of our discussions, he made the rest of us angry; he made us mad. We had the darnedest, damnedest discussions you could think of, and everybody would go out of those as mad as they could be. One day I went to him and said: "You're clever enough. You know that what you're doing is just ripping everyone up and making them angry, and you know you don't need to do that in order to get your point across." He looked me straight in the eye and said: "Yes, I know that, but if I didn't come with that chip on my shoulder, if I didn't present that anger and that frustration, I wouldn't be fair to the people I represent from the street. They're angry and they're frustrated, and if we can't learn to deal with that, then you haven't got my message."

We wanted him to adapt to our way of doing it, but what he was trying to say and demonstrate to us was that if we really were concerned about those people, we would change our way to their way of doing it, to their way of thinking 

[ Page 959 ]

about it and to their language. In the tribunal system, we had a system which they understood, which they could use and which was fair to them. They did not need lawyers or a university degree. They weren't talking about law; they were talking about fairness and justice. They could interpret the legislation as well as anybody with a university or a legal degree, and they didn't need those kinds of people.

Under this, you have to have an advocate; you have to have a lawyer; you have to present a case history; you have to make a legal presentation to the appeal board; and you have to hire a lawyer. Where can you get a lawyer? There aren't enough legal aid lawyers to go around, and if there were, we'd have to pay the legal aid lawyers, and they'd be adding more into the system.

The whole thing has gone in the totally opposite direction to the rest of these bills. I say to the minister and the members of this House, I trust that you will have enough wisdom to say: "Whoa, let's take it back; let's put it on hold without passing it; let's look at it, because it destroys the rest of it. It destroys the credibility of the whole package, particularly the disability.... They look at that and say: "They've heard us; they've responded to us; they've redone the definition of disability. Then they throw this at us, which is not consistent with that definition or with that bill or with what the minister has said they're trying to do."

I think, in fairness to the present minister, he didn't know what he was getting into. He bought the package which was sold to him, but I trust his sincerity and his credibility. If he wants his ministry and himself to see in a new era of credibility and responsibility, at the very least he will step this bill down and say that he will take a second look at it and come back with it at another time, after he has done consultation across the province with the people.... I recommend that sincerely, not on a political basis, one way or the other, but on behalf of the people of the province and the credibility of the system. This is not it. If the minister were to do that one simple thing for his credibility, he might even salvage his whole reputation in this discussion we've had over the last couple of weeks. In all sincerity, I say this is not it, this is not fair, this is not just, and it's not in keeping with the rest of what you presented in these other bills. It's a carryover from the worst of the GAIN system; it's a carryover that has no place within this, in any way.

[7:15]

G. Wilson: In rising on Bill 16, I have to say the only time I remember the member for Vancouver-Langara giving as good a speech as he gave just now was the last time he fought against the very same thing he's fighting against now. Hon. Speaker, I commend this member, not only because he explained clearly the history of what has brought us to where we are, but because I think he explained so clearly why this is bad legislation that really doesn't warrant me or others -- not that it should preclude others -- standing up and going through it again. It was an outstanding speech, an excellent speech. All we really can do is punctuate it by saying to the minister: "For goodness' sake, listen to what the member for Vancouver-Langara has said." Had the government listened the first time to this member -- who has both a personal history and experience with this area and who has, in the past, brought forward that level of instructed and informed information to the government -- we wouldn't be where we are now on this. We would have recognized that this is not the way to go.

I have to say ditto, over and over again, to what was just said: for goodness' sake, listen. I would go one step further, however, than the member for Vancouver-Langara has. It's inconceivable to me, because of the way these bills are tied, that this government would be prepared to step it down. Goodness knows if they're prepared to do it, to step it down. But if they're going to force it on us, if they're going to ram it through, then for goodness' sake, strike an all-party committee of this House to review how we can amend it, change it and bring it back to the system that the member for Vancouver-Langara so eloquently and correctly pointed out was a more humane, more sensible and better way to do business. If they're not prepared to step it down -- and I would strongly urge they do step it down -- they should strike an all-party committee of this House to recommend to this government how we should restructure this appeals process to return to a system that works, a system that people have faith and trust in, a system that virtually everybody accepted. They applauded it, for the most part. There were a few, obviously, that didn't, but the vast majority of clients and servers said that yes, this is a good system. The member for Vancouver-Langara is absolutely correct. It was heralded right across the country as a system that worked. It made no sense to change it when this government chose to do so, and it was voted against by members of the opposition. It makes even less sense, now that they're trying to restructure B.C. Benefits, to go further in that direction, as has been so eloquently and so brilliantly pointed out.

I have to say that was a brilliant speech; it really was excellent. I just hope somebody on the benches over there was listening to it, because it was a brilliant oration on what is wrong with this bill. All I can say is congratulations to the member for Vancouver-Langara for doing so, and I applaud the fact that that member has so clearly, so directly brought to this government a statement of why this is the wrong way to go.

As the members know, I took a broader view of the B.C. Benefits package in general, which wasn't supported by the Liberal opposition; nevertheless, on this bill, I certainly think this member has hit the nail right on the head. An all-party parliamentary committee is the route to go. If this government is prepared to stand it down, then stand it down and refer. That's a very good idea, which perhaps this government will accept. If it chooses not to accept that -- because I understand the appeals process is woven into the package -- then refer it anyway so that we can amend it and bring it back in the spring of next year and put in place a system that is more humane and works. If the government is listening, I think that's what they'll select to do.

R. Neufeld: Briefly, I'm just going to put on the record the Reform Party's position on this bill. I agree with the Liberal opposition on the way the member for Vancouver-Langara put it. There's no need to go over the whole process again, because I recall listening to the member a number of times before talk about these same instances, these same things that have taken place in the past. Obviously nobody has listened and no one has learned. I think it is something that the government should listen to closely.

The government does have a certain amount of agreement from the opposition with these bills and with the change in the welfare system. I can only say that I think these things are much easier if you have agreement from the parties within the House on legislation that you're putting forward.

I think it's an excellent idea from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast to refer this bill. I agree; I don't think the present minister will stand it down. I would hope that maybe some of his colleagues have spoken to him about it and 

[ Page 960 ]

advised him of what would be the wise thing to do, which is to send it to an all-party committee so that we can really look at this bill with the collective wisdom that's in this House on all sides and try to design something that will serve the people of British Columbia, and those people who really need the benefits, in a much better fashion. I would second the recommendation from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast to send this to an all-party committee so that we can look at it in a different way. The B.C. Reform Party will be voting against this bill.

M. Coell: I, too, would like to add my opposition to this bill. There was a system at one time that worked; the government changed it. The government is attempting to modify those changes and, as my colleague said, is just making it worse for people who have to deal with this system. I think the whole umbrella package on reforms that has come forward is tainted by this. It sets a tone that isn't working with people. It isn't working with community groups; it isn't working for the people who have frustration with the system. I think that it takes away from all of the other bills that have been presented to change the social welfare umbrella.

I would encourage the members of the government back benches to look very carefully at this bill when they're voting, because they're going to be the ones dealing with the problems that come from this bill in their community offices. When they go back to their homes and find out that people are frustrated and can't get satisfaction from the government or from this disappointing new act, they will the ones dealing with it. I hope they give some thought to encouraging their cabinet colleagues to stand this bill down and refer it to an all-party committee for some discussion, so that when this comes forward -- and it's an essential part of all these bills -- it has the agreement of the vast majority of people in this House. I add my disappointment with this act, and I hope the minister will have the courage to take a second look at what is being put forward here today.

Deputy Speaker: Are there no further speakers? I recognize the Minister of Social Services to close debate.

Hon. D. Streifel: I thank the members opposite for their comments and their well-thought-out positions. It's not a position that was unexpected, quite frankly, from the opposition members; it's their lot in life to oppose. Governments govern and oppositions oppose. In light of the recent election campaign and their commitments to cut benefits to welfare recipients by hundreds of millions of dollars, I wouldn't expect them to change on that position.

But, in fact, it's an integral part of the overall change in the welfare system that we brought to British Columbia, a system that modernizes, is fairer overall and gives more hope to poor families with the family bonus program, training in Youth Works and access to child care, and which finally takes the disabled community out of the welfare system once and for all and gives new hope in British Columbia. What we're talking about here is an integral part of a complete package of legislation that does change the welfare system. With that, I move second reading of the bill.

[7:30]

Second reading of Bill 16 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 36
Priddy	Petter	Miller
Dosanjh	MacPhail	Sihota
Brewin	Randall	Sawicki
Lali	Doyle	Gillespie
Robertson	Farnworth	Smallwood
McGregor	Janssen	Hartley
Orcherton	Kasper	Walsh
Giesbrecht	Goodacre	Bowbrick
Stevenson	Pullinger	Calendino
Waddell	Kwan	Ramsey
Streifel	Hammell	Boone
Cashore	Zirnhelt	Evans
NAYS -- 33
Gingell	Reid	Farrell-Collins
Hurd	Sanders	Plant
Stephens	de Jong	Coell
Anderson	Nebbeling	Whittred
van Dongen	Thorpe	Penner
Weisgerber	G. Wilson	Neufeld
Barisoff	Krueger	McKinnon
Masi	Nettleton	Coleman
Chong	Jarvis	Abbott
Symons	Hawkins	C. Clark
Hansen	Reitsma	J. Wilson

Bill 16, BC Benefits (Appeals) 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. J. MacPhail: I call committee on Bill 14.

The House in committee on Bill 14; G. Brewin in the chair.

On section 1.

M. Coell: Hon. Chair, before we get into section 1, I'd like to be able to make some comment on the preamble, if that's appropriate.

The Chair: The preamble gets discussed after we've finished all the rest of the bill. We come back to that. We go through the 57 sections, and then the next question after that is: shall the preamble pass? That's when you can discuss the preamble.

Interjection.

The Chair: It has happened sometimes that a lot of generalities are discussed under section 1 in some bills, so that may be open to you.

V. Anderson: It's kind of like the government to do it backwards. You discover the reason for doing it, and then you discover how to do it and do it in reverse. The preamble, which sets out the reason and the philosophy for doing things, should be there in the very beginning. So to do it backwards is not very helpful, but I can understand why this government might want to do it that way.

When we say an "applicant," does that include a person of any age, background, description or category? Or is there a 

[ Page 961 ]

limitation as to who can apply? Can you apply if you are a refugee? Can you apply if you're not a landed immigrant? Can you apply whatever age you are? What does applicant mean here? It says "a person who applies...." I want some clarification on that.

Hon. D. Streifel: Before I get into a long and involved answer for the hon. member opposite, I'd like to introduce the staff that are here with me today. I have Lyn Tait, Garry Curtis and Isobel Donovan to give support and clarification on sections of this bill.

As I understand the question -- is an applicant anybody who applies? -- the answer, hon. member, is yes.

V. Anderson: If anyone can apply, what are the conditions or the regulations that they'll face as to whether they're acceptable or not? If you say anyone can apply, then you're implying that anyone is eligible. Does applicant mean eligibility, or are they different things?

Hon. D. Streifel: Eligibility and application are different things, hon. member. I believe there's a section of the act that covers the eligibility. But, you know, the determination is made through criteria established in the act.

V. Anderson: Just so that we can look ahead and be prepared for it, which section of the act, then, will deal with eligibility?

Hon. D. Streifel: I believe it's section 24, under the regulations.

M. Coell: Under subsection (a) are "health benefits." I wonder if the minister could outline for us what those would include.

Hon. D. Streifel: Well, health benefits refer to the provision of medical services and goods, and will parallel current GAIN health care services, hon. member. These will include MSP coverage, transportation to medical specialists and necessary medical equipment or supplies. Again, it's what is found currently under GAIN.

M. Coell: On subsection (c), "access to training," is there any difference between the training that can be expected under this and the training in GAIN now; and if there is, could he outline that for me?

Hon. D. Streifel: Simply, it's generally the same as it is under the current system.

V. Anderson: To follow up on that -- so in (c), just to clarify, there's no improvement in services or opportunities over what there is now, if I understood the minister right. If there's no improvement, is there anything that's been taken away from this that is now available?

Hon. D. Streifel: Maybe I was a little too quick with "the same." I know the hon. members opposite have asked me, in the past, to shorten some of the answers, and I'm endeavouring to do some clarification here. It's the same range of services, but there's a broader scope to the range, so to speak. For instance, Youth Works is an expansion or a broadening of that theme. Again, it's the same range but with a broader scope.

V. Anderson: Under "health benefits," do you include Pharmacare, eye care and hearing care? Are all of those things included in the health benefits, and are they included for the whole family, all ages?

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes.

M. Coell: Hon. Chair, through you to the minister, there are two items: (d) and (e), "access to community living programs" and "access to residential programs." I wonder if you could outline for us what types of community living programs are envisioned in this. Are they, again, any different than can be expected under the previous bill?

Hon. D. Streifel: There's a range of facilities. We have transition homes, residential services, emergency hostels. The authority for contracts for transition homes we have delegated to the Ministry of Women's Equality. As well, I understand there are group homes and benefits that are provided for persons with multiple disabilities -- in that scope.

M. Coell: Is there anything more in items (d) and (e) than before, or is it the same as the other programs in the previous bill?

Hon. D. Streifel: Essentially, it's the same -- the range and the types of accommodations and services.

V. Anderson: Access to community living programs and access to residential programs -- does this include access to special drug and alcohol treatment programs, detox programs or rehabilitation programs in those areas?

[7:45]

Hon. D. Streifel: Generally, it's health services that are provided, not under this section in this act.

V. Anderson: Perhaps it's the appropriate place to ask. In the past we have been hampered by the inability of ministries to cooperate, so we get passed from Health to Education to the Attorney General -- whatever. The government, in recent times, has talked to us about interministerial committees that deal with people as a whole person, and so Health is maybe dealing with the drug addiction, Social Services.... Are there interministerial programs dealing with the needs of a whole person included in here -- that the ministry shares a part of and Health or whatever other program shares the other part of it -- so people can really apply?

Hon. D. Streifel: We work very closely with other ministries: Health and AG. Depending on the program, in some instances we have quite a formal arrangement, and that's quite an acceptable initiative of the ministry in conjunction with other ministries.

V. Anderson: Could the minister supply us with a list of the formal arrangements that you have between your ministry and other ministries -- not tonight, but make it available to us? If you have it tonight, I'd be happy to have it on the record, but if you don't have it tonight, could you supply that to us so we could know the formal arrangements? We keep hearing about these mythical arrangements, but the people in the community at large, plus ourselves, are not aware.... They're the kinds of mysterious, hidden arrangements we hear about, but it would help if we knew about them.

Hon. D. Streifel: Certainly, for the members opposite we will supply that information. We will endeavour to do it in a 

[ Page 962 ]

timely manner. It's been kind of a swirl the last few days. We'll get caught up on what we've committed to give you.

M. Coell: In subsection (g) is the financial supplement for senior citizens. I wonder if the minister can outline what that supplement is, how often it's paid, and who would be eligible for it.

Hon. D. Streifel: The supplement is paid monthly, and the maximum rate for married seniors is $60.25; for singles, it's $49.30.

V. Anderson: Subsection (f) talks about "money for expenses incidental to receiving a service or participating in" programs referred to in the paragraphs here. Does this include such items as clothing, implied for either your work or your educational requirements -- special clothing that's needed for that? Does it include a bus pass, transportation to get to those things? I'll ask those two, for the moment.

Hon. D. Streifel: It would be a financial benefit directly connected to a program, and it could include clothing in some instances. Or it could be a training allowance. It could be additional financial support for persons with multiple disabilities. Various areas are covered under this.

V. Anderson: If you were taking a mechanic's apprenticeship and you needed tools for that program, or, as was discussed by another minister, you were taking a program working with bicycles and you needed your own tools -- as many people do in those places -- does it include the tools and equipment you would need in order to take that educational program or that work experience?

Hon. D. Streifel: This clause is an enabling clause, and many, many things could be included in this, depending on the program and, frankly, depending on the needs. It's really an enabling clause that covers a broad range of things.

V. Anderson: If it's enabling, that's kind of open. It could have no meaning at all because of regulations, or it could have a very wide and comprehensive meaning. Is he saying that in regulations there are guidelines, there are parameters for this or there are set amounts? What does enabling mean here? It would be helpful to have some sense of what that means.

Hon. D. Streifel: For instance, if there was a training program that an individual was accepted into and we're covering it under this and one of the requirements was steel-toed boots, this clause would enable that individual to get steel-toed boots in order to participate in the training program and to become active in the workforce.

V. Anderson: If one of the requirements is to be out job-hunting, which I expect one of them is, the two big things that I find people are up against in job-hunting, whether it's rural or in the city, are the questions of transportation costs and telephone costs. You either have to have a phone at home so somebody can phone you about a job or you need pay phone money. And there are transportation costs to even go out job-hunting, because it just isn't possible to do it on foot.

Hon. D. Streifel: I would like to remind the member that this is the definitions section, and we're dealing with the subsection that refers to "money for expenses incidental to receiving a service or participating in a program referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (e)." That's the focus under which this would be.

V. Anderson: I thought I had the answer before, at least the direction of it, and now I'm not so sure. It seems very much to me that it's incidental to the program or getting to the program to be able to get transportation costs. I thought I understood the minister to say that that would be available, but in the last answer I'm not so sure that he did say transportation costs are included in those figures. It's the same thing if people are in residential homes or community living homes. Unless they're limited, they have to get out to be part of community life; transportation costs are still important for a person to get around in the city and equally important for a person to get around in a rural area.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's my understanding that the Minister of Education, Skills and Training is responsible for transportation costs that are related to training programs. As I said earlier, this section enables a decision to be made in respect to training programs and any other supplies or necessities -- for instance, we spoke about the boots, and there are various possibilities around clothes in that circumstance. But the answer that the member is after I think could be found under the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training, as I understand they are responsible for transportation costs related to training programs.

V. Anderson: It's so easy to get bounced back and forth between ministries. It's like working in a community; they always send you someplace else. Businesses, the university -- they send you to the other department all the time.

We understood, in discussing Youth Works the other day, that for young people 19 to 25, in the first seven months they were totally the responsibility of Social Services. They went to Social Services, they applied to Social Services, and only after the seven months when they were looking at training opportunities did they go. And they were to be job-hunting during that period. You can't job-hunt in either rural or urban areas without some ability to cover transportation costs. Certainly on $500 a month you're not going to cover transportation costs. If the aim is to get employment, and they are travelling to look for jobs, is transportation included within this, particularly for those who fit into that category?

Hon. D. Streifel: This ministry relates to Youth Works. It's the responsibility of this ministry for shelter and support only, hon. members, not the area the member is after.

M. Coell: The hardship assistance is a question that I think comes up quite a bit. It means financial or other assistance provided under section 4. I wonder if the minister could enlighten the House as to what the dollar figures are on hardship assistance. What's the minimum amount that would be given out by the ministry, and what is the maximum amount that could be expected?

Hon. D. Streifel: The amount of the hardship assistance would be based on the need in the month in which the individual applies, and the maximum would be the maximum amount available for the individual under the act, based on need.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could be a little more specific. One of the questions that I'm asked quite often is: "If someone goes in for hardship assistance, what can they expect 

[ Page 963 ]

to receive?" There are three sections here. I know one possibility is Youth Works and there are other parts of the program. But what I'm getting at is: what is available? Is there a minimum and a maximum for an individual? I suspect there may be groups of people, as well, that the minister may want to comment on. I'm just looking for single person's hardship assistance at this point, or for a family with one child.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's on an individual needs basis, and hardship assistance would only be available to an individual that's not eligible for regular assistance. Again, the assessment is made based on need, based on the immediate hardship. So to lay a pointed dollar figure, you would almost have to understand the specific circumstances of the application, and we could do that in the process outside of the examination in committee. Certainly, if the member has any individual cases within his own constituency that he's concerned about, we should take the opportunity to get together and have a look at those.

[8:00]

V. Anderson: So I can understand a little better, when we're talking about hardship and income assistance and seniors' benefits, are we assuming at this moment that the current rates under GAIN are the applicable rates until regulations change them? Are we assuming at the moment -- since we're replacing, in effect, the GAIN Act -- that it's the GAIN rates that apply, until such time as they're changed by regulation -- automatically it would be the present rates, until they're changed?

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, hon. member, none of the payment schedules change. So to answer the question, if the question was whether the rates are the same as under GAIN: yes.

V. Anderson: I know rates are never stable, and they don't go up as fast as people would like them. They go down more often than they would like, so it works both ways. That's helpful.

When you say access to community living programs and residential programs, are these programs available to persons both with mental handicaps and mental illness?

Hon. D. Streifel: In general terms, hon. member, individuals with mental illness are covered under Health, but I suppose there could be a situation where you have an individual who is mentally handicapped or multiply handicapped and also mentally ill, and they would be covered. Again, it would pretty well depend on a specific case and a specific analysis.

V. Anderson: Could I inquire from the minister if this is one of those joint arrangements between Health and Social Services? It's my experience that most people with mental illness end up generally having some other handicaps that go with that, like people with handicaps also usually have some other handicaps that go along with that. Very seldom is it just one and not the other.

Is there a protocol so that a person who comes in isn't being shunted back and forth between two offices and doesn't know where to go -- "You belong to this office," and "No, you belong to the other office"? That is the report we are getting back, that because of lack of clarity there people are being left on the street.

Hon. D. Streifel: Hon. member, the Ministry of Health has its own residential programs for individuals with mental illness. I guess we did a dangerous thing a minute or two ago, trying to speculate on some possible scenarios. In fact, it would be an individual assessment on a case-by-case basis, but in general terms, individuals with mental illness come under the auspices of Ministry of Health.

V. Anderson: Hon. Chair, not just to be hard to live with -- although that happens sometimes -- we go back to the question of applicants. It would imply that persons who have mental illness would not normally be considered as applicants for this program.

Hon. D. Streifel: In the context of the member's question, an applicant is anybody who applies. Application does not determine eligibility or ineligibility, hon. member. It simply determines that an individual has applied.

V. Anderson: When you come to persons who live in either community living programs or residential programs, are they paid the same rate of pay as other people? Do they end up paying rent either to the residential or the community living program, or is there some other way that that's handled? Do they have a choice to rent an apartment or to come into a residential or community living program and decide where and how their money is spent?

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, room and board is paid for these individuals, and they're given a small allowance on top of that to cover such things as cigarettes and other needs.

V. Anderson: Could you indicate the average amount of allowance they're given, and does it apply to both community living programs and residential programs in the same way?

Hon. D. Streifel: The comfort allowance is currently $82 per month.

V. Anderson: It's $82 a month? If I understand rightly, a single person is getting $500 a month at the moment. If I'm right, it used to be $546. So if you take $82 from that $500, they're being charged $418 a month for room and board. Would that be a fair deduction?

Hon. D. Streifel: No.

V. Anderson: Could you explain that to me? I realize that there's probably a shelter allowance involved. If I take the shelter allowance, that would be $500 plus $350 in allowance, so that would be $850 minus $82 -- so they're paying about $700 a month for room and board compared to what they would be paying if they rented an apartment.

Hon. D. Streifel: In this case, the contract for services, for the shelter and the room and board, is based on the cost of running the facility, and it could be much, much higher than the member is trying to indicate here. In fact, many of these individuals have other special needs that have to be fulfilled through this contract as well.

V. Anderson: What I'm trying to get at is this. If a person with a handicap has the decision of whether they would go into residential or community living or attempt to live on their own and survive in an apartment, they would on one hand get $825, counting housing and allowance. So what would be their total if they lived in an apartment and provided their own accommodation and meals, as opposed to what they 

[ Page 964 ]

would get if they went in there and they have $82? If they don't get an apartment or room of their own -- a room, say, rather than an apartment, as they wouldn't get an apartment -- but if they went on their own and did without the care, the comfort and the good food, what is the difference between those two?

Hon. D. Streifel: If the individual is independently living in the community, he or she can apply for the allowance. They would receive $771 a month.

V. Anderson: In other words, they would get $689. That is what that person, if they made that choice, would be paying for their room and board a month. If they went out on their own, they would get $771. If they went into community or residential living, they would get, if we take $82 from $771 and if my quick mathematics are right, $689 -- not quite, but it's pretty close. So if I'm right, that's the option they have. I think we need to know and people need to know what the option is, what choices they have, and that they have the freedom to make the choice. We're charging $689 for room and board, on the average, for that person who has a choice between independent living and living within a home. Is that not the way it works out? The minister is shaking his head. He didn't say it isn't that way. Could he, then, please explain the way it is?

Hon. D. Streifel: I caution the member that his simple arithmetic does not take into account the cost of program delivery for some of these individuals that's included when they're in some of these residential facilities, the cost of the facility, the per diem that's paid on their behalf. I think it's far, far too simple to just say: "Well, if they go out into the community, they get this, and so if they're inside and you knock off the $82, this is what it's worth." In fact, hon. member, through your own experiences you know that's not true.

M. Coell: I think what we're trying to portray is seeing the system through the eyes of the client, not through the eyes of the ministry that is paying the bills and indeed may have a larger bill than that. But looking through the eyes of the client, that's exactly what they see. They see the $689 to live on their own as the difference between what they're able to achieve... as a small payment for, as the minister said, cigarettes or pop or clothes, whatever they choose. I think that it's important once in while that we see through the eyes of the client who's receiving the service, not just of the ministry delivering the service. I think that's what we're trying to put across to the minister.

V. Anderson: Could the minister, just so we are clear on the understanding...? Of that $771, how much of that is shelter allowance?

Hon. D. Streifel: I'll attempt a response to the member for Saanich North and the Islands on this. The scenario they're setting up is in fact what's prevalent in a number of other jurisdictions. The province or the system would supply a base amount, and an individual that would live in one of these facilities somehow or other, on their own, would be responsible for topping up the full value of that. We don't do that here in British Columbia, and it's somewhat peculiar that you'd be on the way to suggesting that if you break out your equation as you are, that's the equation and the scenario you're setting up. I wonder if that's actually what you want to do?

V. Anderson: I'm quite aware that in the minds of many people, if you go into a residential or community living situation, you not only get a place to live and probably better food than if you were on your own, but you also have community programs and a lot of other things that may go along with this, and certain care. I'm acknowledging that in the minds of many people that may be a better deal. But in the mind of a person who says, "I would do away with those and I would not do that, in order to have my independence and be able to live by myself," then the question is: what is their choice? How much do they have to live by themselves, and what would be the comparable cost?

That's what I'm trying to get at, because if they do one, they have $82 that is discretionary money; if they do the other, they have over $300 which is discretionary money. Now, out of that discretionary money they need to buy food and look after whatever else they pay for after they've paid their rent. On the one hand they have $82 discretionary money; on the other hand some have $364 discretionary money. So they have an option, and that's the kind of choice that people make. That's what I'm trying to get at -- what the nature of that choice is.

[8:15]

Hon. D. Streifel: The members opposite know full well what the choices are. Individuals, if they choose to live independently, if they have that capacity or capability, they will do that. If they qualify for the allowance based on a disability, it's $771. You know that, hon. members. You know these figures very well. I'm really quite surprised that you're trying to build an equation that exposes the full value of the per diems that are spent on housing, shelter, food, programs, security and supervision -- an envelope of safety for these folks. I'm surprised that you want to open that up to expose the full value of that and weigh it off against the choice that an individual may make to live independently.

I believe, quite honestly and freely, that you are entering into a dangerous form of debate when you begin to say that we pay $2,000 or $3,000 or $4,000 a month for this person living in this facility. You open that up for scrutiny, you open that up for criticism, you open it up as other jurisdictions have, and say: "All right, the ones that live independently get $771, so the ones that are in the facility should only get $771, and they're responsible to top up the full value themselves."

I believe that's the road you're on, and if you would reflect on it, we could have a philosophical discussion around this. But I would really caution you not to open this up to that kind of scrutiny, because you know the hawks that are out in our communities think that any money spent on the welfare system or on the poor is bad money, wasted money. We know there's a good number of them out there. I'm not indicating the members opposite, not in any way, because I know them and understand a lot of them, and I count some of them as my friends. But I believe that this form and pathway of argument sets that scenario for discussion, and I think it's unfair to those involved individuals; it's unfair to those individuals that live within the facilities, and it's unfair to those individuals that chose to attempt or to be successful at independent living.

M. Coell: That's an interesting train of thought. I think what we're trying to do here is to allow the ministry to see through some different eyes: the eyes of the clients. I think one of the big complaints about the Ministry of Social Services has been that it doesn't understand the needs of many of its clients. We're talking specifically about people who may be living in Riverview at this point, who maybe have different needs than the ministry has.

We've had representations from people living in the community, people that lived in residential programs, who are 

[ Page 965 ]

seeing their lot in life a lot different than the minister is. I think what we want to do in this line of questioning is to open his eyes a bit, to see that these people see their place within the system a lot differently than the government is seeing how they direct their lives. It's a very simple thing we're trying to do here. I'm disappointed that the minister doesn't see the simplicity of what we're trying to get across. These people see the ministry with different eyes; they have different needs; and for many instances, these needs are not recognized as being needs worth responding to.

V. Anderson: I appreciate what the minister said; I'm not quite sure that I agree with his conclusion. I realize that people will question difficulties if they really know what's going on. But if we try to hide what's going on and not be upfront about it, then once they get suspicious about it they're going to question it even more. So I'm not going to follow the line of questioning at this point. I really want to emphasize that if we hide the fact that we can help people as long as nobody knows we're doing it, I don't think that's the way the system should work, and I don't think that's the way that people want to be helped.

Is hardship assistance repayable? Sometimes? Never? Always?

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, sometimes it's probably legitimate. There are circumstances where an individual is waiting for other funds. It could be an insurance claim. Who knows? It could be UI; it could be a number of issues. We would supply some bridging funds and hardship funds in this manner, and in some instances some or all of those funds could be repayable.

V. Anderson: If I understood the minister right, he's saying that if it's a loan against money forthcoming, then it's repayable. If it's not a loan against money forthcoming, then it's not repayable. Am I right in that?

Hon. D. Streifel: Again, it's difficult to categorize hard-and-fast lines like that. There are circumstances.... The "may be" part of the member's first question is the correct answer, and the "may be" part in this one is still the correct answer. There are bridging funds available, and under some circumstances some or all of that money may be repayable. Without a specific individual circumstance to actually describe or work within, it's very difficult to apply the broad application on specific questions. As well, it's unfair to give specific, narrow rules on a broad range of judgmental issues here.

In my former life I dealt with individuals that had been in very, very difficult circumstances -- waiting for workers' comp or something else. In fact, they were able to receive assistance from various agencies. Hardship income assistance would be one of them. In fact, I helped structure some offers to pay back and some repayment schedules in these circumstances, in conjunction with my constituent and the financial assistance workers that were there. It happens not only in this system and circumstance but quite broadly across our community -- as a matter of fact, in many, many other areas, even right down to individuals who may apply for bridging money on a personal loan basis, in some circumstances, if they're waiting for funds to come in.

V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's response.

Under (h) it says: "...any other form of assistance specified by regulation." Could you give us some illustrations of what kinds of things that might refer to? There will probably be others that come up from time to time, but at the present time what kinds of things would that refer to?

Hon. D. Streifel: I apologize to the members opposite for the length of time to get caught up on what this means. I'm going to give this one a try, hon. members: "any other form of assistance specified by regulation" could be perhaps a training program that, by regulation, could be supplied to a specific client group -- and I said "could be." It could be many other forms. It's very, very broad-based, again, and it can be brought to be by regulation.

V. Anderson: Just while I think of it, in relation to regulations, we have been receiving updated regulations on GAIN, as they are changed. Will we continue to receive the regulations, as we have been, as they now apply to the benefit packages?

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

M. Coell: In section 2, on the income assistance advisory council -- I believe there was a council such as that in the last act. Are there any changes to the council or to the makeup?

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, this parallels the council that was established under the GAIN Act.

M. Coell: I'd be interested in knowing how many people are on the council at present and how they're appointed.

Hon. D. Streifel: The act allows 12 to 15 members, and currently we have 14.

M. Coell: I wonder if the ministry could supply the members on this side with a copy of those people who were appointed. I'd also be interested in knowing how they're appointed, whether there's an ad in the newspapers or how each individual is selected.

Hon. D. Streifel: Absolutely. We'll give you the list of who, what, where, when, and why, I suppose, if you want to do an investigative process.

V. Anderson: I'd be curious to know the kinds of recommendations these people have made. I don't know if you want to share the kinds of recommendations or whether you would, as well as commenting on it tonight, give some indication in broad terms as to whether those are available to us on a quarterly, semiannual or annual basis. What are the recommendations from the council and what action has been taken as a result?

Hon. D. Streifel: I understand there are two reports done annually. I'd be pleased to pass them on to the member.

As a matter of fact, I just asked a question myself. Do I table them, and if not, why not? We'll see what we can do with that, but certainly we'll supply them.

M. Coell: The members on this council, I would presume, would have qualifications and a background in social 

[ Page 966 ]

services. I wonder if the minister could comment on the tenure of some of them. Are they one-year appointments, two-year, or can they serve at the minister's pleasure?

Hon. D. Streifel: As a matter of fact, these individuals are appointed for a two-year term. They come from a broad section of the community -- community-based groups, advocacy groups, unions, business and others. It's quite a broad base. Again, I'll supply that information as I supply the list and how we get them.

M. Coell: In section 2(5)(b) it says that the members will be paid a per diem as set by the minister. I just wonder what the rate set by this minister is.

Hon. D. Streifel: The general government guidelines would determine their per diem and the per diem for the chair. That would be $175 a day for the members and $250 a day for the chair.

V. Anderson: In the 14 to 15 members, would a percentage of these -- a third, a half or whatever -- be persons who themselves are recipients of the services of the.... I'm thinking of groups like Federated Anti-Poverty and those kinds of groups, but particularly individuals who would be recipients whether they belong to those groups or not.

[8:30]

Hon. D. Streifel: As a matter of fact, yes, there are some recipients. The exact number I don't have. Again, I would expect that would be supplied when we give you the list -- and how we get them.

V. Anderson: Since the government, in overall perspective, is very conscious that people who are using the services have a strong input to the services, is there a principle where a third, a half or a fairly high representation...? To say there's one or two token people there would not be satisfactory. But is there a high representation of persons from across the province who would be able to tell you the urban and the rural and the other settings, who are recipients and can therefore reflect on how the service actually operates? It would seem to me important that, on principle and in guidelines, there should be a certain guaranteed, if you like, representation of those people.

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, I think we've done a fairly good job on the balance in this circumstance, with disabilities, with folks from the system and outside the system, and with geographic representation and stuff like that. When information from three or four questions ago comes forward.... If the member has any specific concerns based on ratio and balance and stuff like that, I encourage the member to bring it forward to me. We should have a look at it, because I always strive to do better in these circumstances. My compliments to this advisory council. They've served the ministry well; they've served the folks they're there to serve very, very well. And if the member has suggestions for improvements, we'd be pleased to look at them.

V. Anderson: I appreciate that offer, because I am very much aware of the operation of the past council. I'm very much aware that at times there was good representation and there was response and good interaction, and then there have been times in the recent past, which would not be in the time of this minister, when there was not good representation and there were not good working relationships. I just want to make sure that we're looking ahead, that the good times would be repeated and the bad times wouldn't, and that we have the assurance to check into that.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

On section 4.

V. Anderson: We can't get going too fast here; we might not stop.

Again, we're caught as we would be in section 3; we pretty well know what's involved there, in any event. But when we come to section 4, we're into a whole new undertaking. And again, we're caught by regulations. Since we have some new regulations, which are, or will be, coming into force, can the minister explain the actual implications of this bill and give me the implication of section 4? If a person is not eligible for any of these items, then hardship assistance is available to them. Is that what it's saying? And if they are eligible for any of these, then hardship assistance is not available to them.

Hon. D. Streifel: The answer for the member is yes.

V. Anderson: I'm thinking of a person who's on income assistance or one of these other programs, and they're living day to day or month to month. Suddenly something happens in their life that demands an extra bit of money. They need an extra bit of furniture or they need something else, and it just isn't there in their daily allowance. It may be $50; it may be $100. Is that hardship allowance available to them or not? If it is available -- say, $50 or $100 -- then is it taken out in agreed payment over the next few months?

Hon. D. Streifel: I think what the member is looking for is possible eligibility for a crisis grant as opposed to a hardship grant.

V. Anderson: Where is the crisis grant listed? Is it different from hardship or is it just another name for the same thing?

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, the crisis grant is contained in the regulation. The difference is you may -- I stress "may" -- have access to a crisis grant if you're within the system; you're not eligible for a hardship grant if you're within the system.

V. Anderson: Would the same wording be true of a hardship grant? If you're outside the system, you may or may not be eligible for a hardship grant. We're saying the same thing about a hardship grant. If you come in and you're not in the system, you may get a hardship grant or you may not. That would be the decision of the front-line worker whom you meet. Is that what I'm hearing?

Hon. D. Streifel: The only way you can be eligible for hardship, hon. member, is if you're not eligible for income assistance, so in fact you would be outside the system. And a crisis grant, keep in mind, is for folks in dire need within the system who may need some help and may qualify.

V. Anderson: If a person comes into the province from outside, would that person be eligible, perhaps, for a hardship grant within that three-month limit when they're not eligible for the system?

[ Page 967 ]

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, yes. Under certain circumstances, some of these folks could be eligible for hardship.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

M. Coell: The financial assistance portion in section 5 says: "The minister may provide financial assistance to a person or group of persons who undertake to provide a service or program that, in the minister's opinion, will promote the purposes of this Act." I wonder if the minister could give us a few examples of groups, not individuals, that would be in that area that he would provide a grant to -- and possibly the size of the grant, if he's got a couple of examples.

Hon. D. Streifel: I had the whole room waiting with bated breath, I'm sure, for this answer. In fact, some of the circumstances or examples that the member is seeking could be an emergency hostel or services for a group home for people with mental handicaps. Big Brothers could also be one of the qualifiers for this. I don't have an exact amount or an exact example of any one in particular. It would really be based on the need and adjudicated on an individual application basis.

M. Coell: I wonder if the minister could explain how someone would go about applying for one of those grants.

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, through the regional office on an annual basis, there's an application process for some of these and for others on an as-needed basis. It could be a community grants application on an as-needed basis, but again, I understand that would be through the regional office.

V. Anderson: Following up with the same, you've listed a group of persons who might develop a hostel, and they'd be paid for the administration of running the hostel, if I understand that right. These are persons who are not on assistance. When you are talking about a person -- you mention Big Brothers -- are you talking about a person who is on assistance and might be a Big Brother to somebody else, or are you talking about a person who is not on assistance and might get some funds for being a Big Brother? I wasn't quite sure about the reference and the implication there.

Hon. D. Streifel: This wouldn't be for a grant to an individual; it would be for a group or an organization -- a society, for instance. That is how that would work.

V. Anderson: It says: "The minister may provide financial assistance to a person or group of persons...." That's why I was asking that question.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's a legal term. I know we heard a long dissertation -- actually, it was a very good speech, hon. member, and I compliment you on it -- on your concern about how we get wrapped up in legalities when we deal with this, but it's a legal term. When I said that, I notice the member just down the way from you shot his eyebrows up. I understand that he's an expert on that. He could probably educate me and explain to me why we would use the term "a person" in this context. I understand it's because it's a legal term.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

M. Coell: On section 6, "Employment programs," I wonder if the minster could outline a typical program that would be approved by his ministry for someone who was having difficulty maintaining employment.

[8:45]

Hon. D. Streifel: I'll just give the members a little clip here. The specific authority to provide grants for employment programs has been removed from section 5 -- it used to be there -- so as to facilitate the delegation of this authority to the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training. In fact, some of the programs that we are discussing here could be ABE, adult basic education, life skills training for folks with mental handicaps or a variety of programs of that nature.

V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's response. Did that mean that these programs could be a year long or two or three years? Would they continue as long as the person has difficulty in getting into regular employment?

Hon. D. Streifel: In general terms, these would be short-term programs, but not a year or two or extended programs like that. Some of the ABE programs I'm aware of could be six months; some of them as short as six weeks. In fact, it's not designed to be long-term education. I guess the possibility exists that an individual may go through the program twice or, in fact, do one and then the other -- maybe some life skills and then some ABE after that. So there could be some lengthening of it, depending upon the access to the programs. But in general terms, each program is of relatively short duration.

V. Anderson: Can I ask the minister, then, about these programs? My experience is that the short-term programs are make-work programs for the people who are running them. Does the minister have any research that if a person is actually having difficulty finding or maintaining employment, then the majority of those persons are not going to be helped by an in-and-out, short, three-week, four-week or six-week program? It's going to take far more than that to restore their confidence, to find out their abilities and to get them oriented in a direction that would be helpful to them. So I would like to know what research and evaluation is done of the effectiveness of these programs, because my experience is that the majority of them, on short-term basis, are ineffective and that they need to be six months or a year in order to be effective for that kind of person. If there is research and documentation, perhaps the minister could explain it and provide it to us.

Hon. D. Streifel: I think it's unfair to characterize these as make-work projects for individuals delivering some of the programs. In fact, there's a combination of delivery methods used. There are some contract educators, but if the hon. members will go back over the last couple of years.... The Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour of the day, now Education, Skills and Training, had opened up a number of community skill centres around the province, and in a lot of areas, the mandate of these centres is adult basic education upgrade. They take clients from a lot of other bodies and a lot of other ministries, some provincial and some federal.

Also, a number of these programs -- the ABE programs, for example -- are delivered through the community college structure on a contract basis. A number of them are delivered through the K-to-12 system. The same possibility exists for that. Often these programs are a combination of programs. When we refer to short-term, we refer to educational programs that are generally less than a year. I know that, for 

[ Page 968 ]

instance, in Prince George there's a workplace training centre that served in some respects as the prototype for the community skills centres that were developed. I know that the capacity exists to bring individuals from what was known in my day as a junior high school education up to a Dogwood Certificate level in a few short weeks through some advanced training methods. All of that is possible, so there's a broad combination.

I would again caution that we do have some contract educators out there, but there are monitoring processes involved. I think we went through this in the estimates process, where we discussed what the aspects were. Do we just throw the chaff to the wind and let it blow or do we actually look for results? In fact, we're very cautious. We do look for results; we demand results on these issues. We're not going to throw money away, and more importantly, it would be unfair to disappoint the individuals in the programs. They're there to get help. They're there to move on in life. They're there to better themselves, and they're aggressively attentive to doing so. That's what the purpose of these programs is.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

V. Anderson: I welcome our new Chair. It's nice to have a new and fresh voice giving us direction.

Section 7(1)(a) is referring to persons who are eligible but not eligible for Youth Works. Could you explain the implications of section 7, particularly 7(1)(a)(i) and 7(1)(a)(ii)?

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, there could be a circumstance where the youth is married to a non-youth, an older person. We still want that individual to have access to these programs. They're a family unit. In fact, that's where they would have access to these programs. Although I guess in general circumstances, being married to a non-youth, you'd think that they may not be.... But we've provided for that.

V. Anderson: If I understand the minister rightly, he's saying that a person who in their own right would not be eligible for Youth Works could be eligible if they are dependent or related to a person who is eligible because of age.

Hon. D. Streifel: No, hon. member. In fact, it's the other way around: a youth who would be eligible in their own right would not be disqualified because their family unit does not fit the youth. They may be married; their spouse would be older. So it's the other way around. It's not that the older partner becomes eligible; we retain the eligibility for the youth. We don't disqualify the youth from marrying out of the individual's age range.

V. Anderson: We're talking about marriage out of the age range. Would that same eligibility or non-eligibility because of age difference -- whatever the case may be, depending on how you describe it -- apply to same-sex couples as it does to "married" couples?

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, we don't discriminate. But as this section would indicate, the eligibility is based on the individual.

V. Anderson: Section 7(3) says: "A decision made under this section is not open to review in a court or to appeal under section 11(3)" -- which has to do, I think, with the B.C. Benefits appeal section. Could the minister explain why this particular item is not appealable, when others are?

Hon. D. Streifel: I'll help the member with this. I find it somewhat complicated, and I'll try to get some coaching here. We have the youth with the education program; in fact, we write the program, and the determination of training needs is there. The individual can't say: "No, I don't like that. I know I need adult basic education, but I want to go off and take advanced computer science or something like that." We say no, and they can't appeal it. It's somewhat of a staged program. The needs are assessed with the individual, and the training and education program is built. That's the part that they can't just cherry-pick. They can't say: "Any old education program works for me, right?" We can say: "No, any old education program doesn't work for you. This is what it is."

V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's comment that there have to be some guidelines and some sense of direction here. Is there a process whereby the ministry or the representative of the ministry sits down with the person and helps them to work through what the options are, and then they have some choices within that? If there are choices, and they have options, and they choose one or other of the options, that's one thing. But if it says either this or nothing, then that's something else.

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, the plan is developed through this process. There are choices built in, and there's input along the way. I don't believe it's as rigid as "My way or the highway." In fact, there are options built into it.

The hon. member asked earlier, in part of a question, about make-work programs. What we have to guard against here is that we don't set up a scenario that says: "All right, youth, go get it." They just might end up in the hands of some form of education program that doesn't deliver what's needed to move these individuals into the workforce and keep them supported as they go along and supply the training and education needs. They may just run off and pick up Joe Blow's Quality Roadside Education Courses, and we wouldn't find that acceptable.

V. Anderson: I appreciate that, but on the other hand I see the danger of having set up a training or employability program, and it has eight slots to be filled, and they've only got six. So to the next few persons who come along, they say, "Well, if you want a program, here's two slots, and that's what you have to take," whether they fit or not. I can see the problem on the other hand that the system starts to slot people in, whether it's suitable or not for that particular person. That's the other side of the coin. If that happens, and I'm sure it will happen on occasion, does that person have an opportunity to go to a supervisor or to someone else and say: "Hey, just a minute. Just because you've got a program available, that doesn't mean it's the one that suits me"?

Hon. D. Streifel: Simply put, yes. There's always that ability to come forward and say: "There's something wrong with this." As we move along, we have to be as accommodating as we possibly can in these issues.

One thing I would caution all of us on is that perfection is not in the game for us. We are humans, and we understand that there could be some potholes and stubbed toes along the way. As we get the programs up and running, and we recognize the very dire need for training, skills upgrading and basic 

[ Page 969 ]

education, we will be moving down the road where we supply a larger amount of training. If you look in the papers on a day-by-day basis, there are thousands and thousands of jobs advertised across the province. I believe it's the obligation of us, in this day -- us as a community, us as government and us as a system -- to train individuals to prepare themselves for those jobs. That's what this is all about.

[9:00]

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

M. Coell: The whole of section 8, "Information and verification," seems relatively new since the original GAIN Act. Is this a portion that was brought in to somehow try and identify fraud within the system? And if not, what's the difference between this and the present GAIN Act?

Hon. D. Streifel: Simply, yes. It strengthened some of the provisions that were in the GAIN Act.

V. Anderson: I'm disappointed, in a sense, in the minister's response, although it may be the true response. I thought that it was referring primarily to efficiency within the system and making the system operate effectively and efficiently. For a long time, I have maintained -- I think with justification -- that what was called fraud was not fraud on the part of the recipient so much as inadequacy, ineptness and inefficiency within the system, which then did harm to the recipients, and they got blamed for it. What I took this to be when I first read it was that finally we got on to computers -- this is a modern age -- and we would have records that we could follow and transfer from office to office, and we could keep files properly on people. I understood this to be an efficiency program which might deal with fraud but which is not primarily a fraud program. I think those are two different things altogether.

Hon. D. Streifel: I guess when an individual attempts to shorten answers, you kind of get off track somewhat. The intent is accountability and fraud prevention. You attempt to tighten up some systems and deliver more accountability; it's not unlike an individual who applies for credit -- a credit card or something. You have to supply some basic information. We're tightening up some of that information flow.

There's also a requirement for recipients to report changes that would affect their eligibility, so that's accountability.... Hon. members, let's face it: if those changes are not reported within a period of time, and it's more than an "Oops!" then what is it? How is it characterized? Do we just ignore it, or do we actually take action to retrieve the funds or what not? That, then, would probably be characterized as fraud. So it's multifaceted.

I think it's not fair to suggest that it's only fraud, but there are some times when tightening up accountability or requirements of proof and eligibility slip over a line, and I would.... I'm sure that the members opposite would support us in the need that this not happen, that we don't relax our vigilance in this manner. In fact, we do require some proof and some accountability, and that's the form of identification that would keep individuals away from the fraud line. That's what it's really all about. Contrary to popular belief, I don't think that everybody out there is out to do something against the system. But there are times when it happens by happenstance and circumstance, and if accountability and that line are tightened up, it keeps us away from that line.

M. Coell: Following on that, the entire section deals with an increase in efficiency within the ministry. Is the ministry contemplating identity cards that would follow a client through this process, or is this going to be similar to the situation we have now?

Hon. D. Streifel: I don't want to pretend that I'm going to slip out of this in any way, shape or form. But in fact I am, because it's future policy, and future policy is not subject to debate or examination in committee. If we get into that kind of debate, we all become out of order. So I'll just leave it at future policy.

V. Anderson: It's always an interesting thing -- the whole bill is future policy, because we're talking about how we're going to do the future. But I understand the limitations of what the minister is saying. When we're discussing policy, and they haven't made decisions or announced them, then it's undecided future policy at this point. I still want to come back to.... It seems to me that what I read here, first of all, is that this is accountability within the system and accountability of the system. I say that because I'm very aware in my own experience of persons who have tried to be accountable to the system, who phone and their worker isn't available, and there's no way to report. They want to be accountable to the system, but they haven't been supplied with the information or the cards or a reporting process that is workable, so that they can be accountable to the system. Then, inevitably, they get blamed, rather than the system.

I thought what I was hearing here was that the system was acknowledging its inefficiency and its lack of proper accounting and auditing procedures. I have a daughter who is an accountant, and when she goes to audit a firm, she doesn't particularly audit the people who cheat the firm. She audits whether the firm is doing its business properly and is therefore losing money because of the way it operates. That's the kind of auditing I thought we were talking about, rather than auditing the people. Now, it might do some of that, but it's primarily in-system accountability auditing, and I hope that's what we are talking about here.

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, hon. member, we are dealing with both of those, as I tried to explain earlier. We are clearly outlining our expectations for information, so that people can meet those expectations. If we fail to do that, I would suggest that we would be criticized for setting traps for folks -- if we don't tell them how tight it is and we don't help them avoid that tightness. If that's what we are doing and that's part of accountability within the system, then we have to make that information available, and we will. And it happens through these processes. But if we don't do that and an individual steps over the line, for whatever reason.... The member is very right when he says.... I actually forgot what you said, but I remember it was good. It had to do with the systems and whatever.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

In fact, we have to be aware on both of those fronts. It's prevention; remember that we are very heavily involved in prevention. This is part of that; accountability certainly enhances prevention. If we want to get into the debate on fraud, we can handle that through some other processes. In 

[ Page 970 ]

fact, it's all part of it, but let's help folks avoid that. That's also a part of what this is about: to build a system where it's more difficult to step over the line. It also builds accountability and trust, the public trust in the system, and I think that's very, very important.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

V. Anderson: "Consequences of not searching for or not accepting employment...." We discussed this a little bit in other categories, and this is very subjective. We discussed this in the category of Youth Works and Skills and Training. It was pointed out that these are very subjective definitions of suitable employment, failing to accept suitable employment, and leaving employment without just cause. These are judgmental, subjective kinds of decision-making, and the minister, according to the way it sounds here, has sole discretion -- or the minister's representative. Could the minister explain: when these subjective decisions are made, will the criteria be clearly spelled out? Will there be a written reason for the decision that is made, and will there be opportunity for the person for whom the decision is made to have that reviewed by a higher office within the ministry, for a second opinion?

Hon. D. Streifel: As I understand it, this is somewhat of an improvement over the old act. This individual, in particular, understands what happens in employment circumstances. We would not require an individual to work in an unsafe circumstance, and there are other statutes that would in fact protect that individual. There's the Workers Compensation Act and the Employment Standards Act. If the circumstance came forward to this minister that we were attempting to force an individual to put themselves in physical jeopardy by forcing them into employment, I'd be asking some very, very serious questions out there, because I fought all my life against those kinds of circumstances.

In fact, there are avenues. This section provides more protection for clients than the GAIN Act did, hon. member. The new act protects clients who leave their work because the conditions of their work were intolerable. There are harassment situations, and I understand how insidious that can be in a workplace. I've handled cases myself of blatant, open harassment and subtle harassment, and the subtle one is the most difficult to deal with, since sometimes there are protective screens that go up around the harassers, and individuals find themselves out and alone. I would expect and I would require that we take that into consideration, because it's part of our society, and it's a part of our society that we all work against. If an individual is trapped in that circumstance, we have made provisions for that here.

We also have protection in this section for workers who are fired without just cause. We now have broadened the application of employment standards legislation, where individuals have a right to go forward and lodge a case against their employer. We have circumstances where we've broadened the coverage of employment standards legislation to include groups that were never there before and would have had no recourse -- for instance, nannies. They'd be discharged from employment, and where would they go? Under the old act, whose responsibility was it to prove just cause? Now, as they're covered under the Employment Standards Act, there's an avenue of adjudication. Certainly we all know that an individual under a collective agreement has an advocate, a voice and a process. So that helps establish the criteria, as well.

I think this gives broader protection, because there are some avenues for reconsideration. There are avenues for reason, as a matter of fact -- what just cause is.

V. Anderson: Though I might argue with the minister about his expertise in other areas, I certainly wouldn't argue with him about his expertise in this area. I think it's really appropriate that he brings that expertise to this particular section, because it really has been lacking. The question I ask here is: will there be clear documentation of information available both to employer and employee, in this case -- as that's what they will be -- so they clearly understand what the guidelines, the regulations, the opportunities and the protections are?

[9:15]

One of the things that has been very prevalent in the Social Services ministry is a lack of understanding and clarity between the workers and the clients (1) because the clients may be of a different cultural background, and they're certainly of a different educational background; (2) because of the familiarity of the social worker with the situation, which is completely new to the client; and (3) because in many cases, the literacy of the client doesn't allow them to read even the simplest documents. So some way to really make clear the guidelines and the protection.... Because many of the errors that have been classified as fraud are errors, because of lack of understanding or lack of communication.... Will there be clear, simple-to-read words and diagrams that will get the information, which is so fundamental here across? Their references are at stake as well as the employment. If they have been found guilty, then they're in double jeopardy. Not only have they lost a job but they've lost their credibility. The system needs to prevent that from happening, unless it was really by desire.

Hon. D. Streifel: For the member opposite, yes, there will be very clear operations directives and policy guidelines. FAWs will be aware of this, and there will be that ongoing process. Under this section, the explanation that I have here is that some of the language allows the minister to impose sanctions cited under section 9(2) on recipients, including adult dependents too. In fact, I would think that if I have the power to impose sanctions, I have the power to offer guidance as well on what the circumstances were. Of course, the individual always has the opportunity for an administrative review in these circumstances. One of the things that jumps out at me is -- bingo! -- someone fails to accept suitable employment. If we have an individual who is allergic to cedar, and we've sent him off to work in a cedar mill, I wouldn't accept that, hon. member.

M. Coell: Along the lines the minister was just speaking of, subsections 1(a) and (b), I think, need some clarification: the words "reasonable efforts" and, in the next one, "suitable employment." The minister or the minister's representative is going to be the judge of that. Are there regulations, or is there something very clear for people so they're going to understand what a reasonable effort to search for employment is and what suitable employment means to the ministry?

Hon. D. Streifel: Of course, the answer is very similar: policy directives and guidelines and individuals who work with the FAWs. When we discuss "reasonable," we'll be able to take into account an individual's circumstances, including residency. A number of individuals live in quite isolated communities, and their circumstances would be markedly dif-

[ Page 971 ]

ferent from those of somebody who lives in the broad morass of the big city, where mobility opportunities are easier and one may not need any transportation other than shank's mare, hon. member. I think that will be considered and included in the policies within the operations directives.

G. Wilson: The reason I haven't entered into the discussion thus far is that these are precisely the same questions I asked under Youth Works. I think this is a companion piece of legislation or, in fact, a piece of legislation that is the cornerstone of the four-piece package.

I heard the minister say.... I guess one of the problems as I sit and listen to the answers is that it clearly isn't going to be the minister who is going to make these decisions. This minister may have a background in union negotiation and may have knowledge about what are and what aren't acceptable workplace ethics; this minister may have a long history of experience. But there's no way this minister is going to be making that decision on behalf of literally hundreds of British Columbians who are going to require that kind of effort. It's going to be made by staff, and it will be made by staff in the regions.

The difficulty with this bill, and the reason that I've opposed it to this date and voted against it, is that it's so highly subjective. There are no standards, no regulations, no posted set of guidelines that are consistent and that can be applied, adhered to, looked at and scrutinized in this debate. When we talk about suitable employment, that's something the minister directs. But it won't be the minister; it will be some staff person in a rural area. These are precisely the same comments and remarks that I made before. I don't know that I want to revisit them all, because it just gets my blood pressure up, and I don't need to do that right now.

The consequence of this bill is that somewhere along the line, if these conditions and considerations haven't been made, the minister, or the minister's delegate or surrogate, is going to say that that individual recipient is ineligible -- and their dependents. Not just the individual, but all the dependents are ineligible. Now, what does this minister think that person is going to do? I'd like to hear from the minister, when he declares ineligibility for an individual and dependents -- because we're talking about kids.... What is the minister going to do with these people? When these people find that they can't pay the bills and they can't pay the rent, and the landlord is ready to evict them and fire them out onto the street, along with their kids, what is this minister going to do?

Hon. D. Streifel: There are many options. The option exists to reduce benefits, as opposed to cut off. Within the process, we also have crisis and hardship provisions. We've already discussed how those are applied. The member would like to paint the ultimate black picture, but in fact there are many options before we get there, and there are many individual circumstances. Of course, we wouldn't be cutting the children out of the system. I mean, there are many provisions built within the system for that. We have the option to reduce, we have the options of crisis and hardship that already exist, and individual circumstances will be weighed.

G. Wilson: What I'm hearing the minister say, then, is that they won't actually be cut off at all. He's saying "the ultimate black picture" and that if there are children involved, well, we have ways of dealing with that. I'm presuming that the minister is not saying that because the parents become destitute because they have no money, then the state is going to intervene and seize the children. I'm assuming that's not what's going to happen. Because the parent remains the legal guardian of the children, the parent is going to have to be the recipient of the money coming in. So presumably that parent is going to continue to receive dollars, and if the dollars they receive are inadequate to cover the monthly costs of rent, how is this going to work? Ultimately, what the minister is saying is that he can declare the recipient and any dependents -- and that's a key point -- ineligible, for a period set by regulation, for income assistance or hardship assistance or benefits.

Now, this minister may be benevolent, and this minister may, in fact, have the greatest intention in the world, but this member may not always be the minister. Indeed, this government may not always be the administrator of this act. What happens at a time when this act is sitting here and we've got -- and goodness knows, we've heard from other members what they'll do -- a minister who says: "That's it. Go get a job. You're out. Forget it"? That's what this provides for.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I hear the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith saying: "Well, they'll do that anyway." I think that's what she said. Goodness knows, at least allow them the benefit of bringing the legislation in to enable them to do it. Don't give it for them.

This minister has to answer the question. Are these people going to be ineligible, and are you prepared to put them on the street or not? If the answer is no, you're not prepared to put them on the street, and you believe there is an obligatory payment of social assistance to these people, then this whole act is a bit of a fraud.

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, this is a very tough incentive. But the member has the capacity to characterize the broadest possible scenario down to the narrowest vision and demand a specific answer without consideration of an individual. I take exception to that, hon. member. I think you do your constituents a disservice in that matter. We have the capacity to answer your question; I answered it. The answer is: we have options. I outlined some of those options. What does the member suggest we do? Does the member suggest we not have tough incentives, that we just...? Are you advocating the status quo in all circumstances? Day after day after day, that's what I hear come out of this member: status quo, and nothing else is good enough.

In fact, hon. member, we have changed the system. The whole package of B.C. Benefits finally changes the system. If we need tough incentives, then yes, we will have tough incentives. Do we have options? Yes, we have options. Can I pinpoint the exact dot option, based on that broad scope of rhetoric? No, I cannot.

G. Wilson: I certainly have never suggested that we should just simply sit with the status quo.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: That is not what I have advocated. What I have advocated is that there be adequate moneys put into the core funding of community-based organizations in order to provide enough caseworkers out there to deal with people in a humane and sensible way -- not to put a threat against them that if they don't do as this legislation requires, they're going to be cut off, and then as a punitive measure, to put information in this bill which provides power to the minister, first, to 

[ Page 972 ]

treat welfare recipients as though they are all cheats, which is what this does -- it presupposes that, which I think is offensive -- and second, to assume, as this minister did, that this bill "makes work a better deal than welfare." I don't know who on earth the minister thinks is sitting on welfare who thinks it's a better deal than work. I mean, that's patronizing.

I want to ask specifically if the minister doesn't recognize the language of this particular section of the bill. It says: "In the circumstances set out in subsection (1), the minister may do one or more of the following..." -- that is, if an individual does not comply. There may be individuals not able to comply for reasons well beyond their control, although they may have attempted to. But in the mind of a staff person in that community -- and believe me, I deal with them, as I think every member here must do.... They find themselves in a situation where they cannot meet these regulations.

The minister may "declare the recipient and any dependants" -- that's the children -- "ineligible, for a period set by regulation...." Then it says it can make them ineligible "for income assistance, hardship assistance or benefits." That's the whole kit and caboodle. So the person can be out on the street.

The Premier got on his feet the other night and said: "Well, yes, that's a fact. But we hope we don't come to that." If you're going to save the dollars, because that's what this is all about -- attempting to save dollars instead of putting the dollars into the social safety net that's necessary to make sure we look after the interests of those people who, for reasons beyond their control, can't look after themselves.... If this is what we're going to do, then sooner or later this government is going to have to act on that. Then the question is: what do you do with those people who now find themselves on the street in a destitute situation, especially if they happen to be between the ages of 19 and 25? What do you do with these people?

Hon. D. Streifel: I ask the hon. member to supply to me some explanation of what he determines as community-determined core funding, how it's arrived at and what it really means. Hon. member, it would be very important that we would determine the differences between some of your proposals, some of your ongoing comment and your broadest possible argument for the narrowest possible conclusion.

[9:30]

We have a long way to go before we get to a circumstance such as the member describes. We have many options ahead of us and available to us. We must remember that individuals must be accountable for their actions. Without this section -- without the built-in, tough incentives as they are -- then it would become unworkable. We would just go back to what the member's advocating, and it's the status quo.

G. Wilson: It was my hope not to get bogged down in this, because I went through this before. But I'd be happy to provide for the minister -- in perhaps a different forum, so we don't take up much valuable debating time tonight -- all kinds of community-based organizations that, if they received core funding and had adequate resources to deal with front-line poverty and unemployment issues, would do an outstanding job. They're all over the province. All over the province, they struggle from month to month to try to keep the doors open so they can help people, because there are no adequate core dollars for four-year-based financing. I'd be happy to sit down and go through a list of them that work on a day-to-day basis with people who are poor.

There's no shame in being poor, none at all. But there is real shame if you're going to put a threat to those individuals who find, for whatever reasons, it difficult to find employment -- especially under this employment climate when jobs are hard enough to find, as they are. This is the reason I shouldn't have got back into this debate, because it gets my blood pressure going. For this government, of all governments, not to recognize that, and to say we're going to put in an incentive which is essentially a threat -- "You do as we say; here are the conditions, and you either fulfil them or you're cut off" -- is a massive departure from the kind of direction we've taken in the past.

You don't need to maintain the status quo to change it. You can change it by providing that base of funding to the communities, to allow enough caseworkers to be on the ground, enough people out there to be dealing with those people who need help. They don't need threats from government.

V. Anderson: Following up on that discussion, I've a couple of comments. We've all said that whereas the government in past times has often written their regulations, particularly in Social Services, perhaps in too positive and glowing terms.... They've changed their method of writing, or else they've got new writers -- I'm not sure which -- and have written their legislation in negative terms now, rather than positive terms. There's a whole different style of writing here. You can take the same intent, and you can present it in two different ways. It's being presented from the negative side: the cup is half empty rather than half full. I think it's unfortunate that they haven't stopped at the balance in between those two, because what they're doing now is coming across as fraud fighters rather than people helpers, to overcome the image that they were people helpers and didn't care about fraud. So I think we've swung too far the other way, and that leads to some of this discussion.

I myself don't object to subjectivity, because any relationship is a subjective one. It has to be if it's going to be a relationship. Otherwise, it's a legal one, and that's what we're talking about. But having said that other comment, the question I would raise which has failed to show here is that one of the realities of the Gove report, for instance, was to display that our social workers were not given the training, the support and the resources to do the job they were asked to do. It wasn't their fault; they just weren't given them. Now we've moved to correct that and give them support and training.

I would like to suggest to the minister that if that's true of the social workers -- which it is and has been -- it's even, in spades, that much more true of the financial aid workers. The financial aid workers haven't had the training, the support and the experience. They're the ones that deal with people in their most critical financial and emotional moments, every day of their life. I give them due credit for surviving, let alone doing the job that needs to be done. Since we are giving to these front-line workers this very important responsibility, can the minister indicate to us that as they are giving new training and resources -- 20 hours' training -- to social workers, they will undertake to do essentially the same thing for the financial aid workers, who are even more under the gun than the social workers? Because of the pressure that's on the financial aid workers, it shows in the way people get dealt with.

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, this ministry has taken the hon. member's comments very seriously. As we move into this process, there are three very extensive training modules. There are six weeks of core training on the basic act, regs and policy, plus ongoing on-the-job training and peer support in those methods. There are two additional modules that deal 

[ Page 973 ]

with assessment and the impact of poverty in that scope. That's how the training carries on, so it's really quite extensive.

We're not dealing with the same scope, I guess, as we would be for the social workers, with the degree requirements and what not, but I think the member would agree that six weeks of core training is rather extensive. Then, with the additional modules, on-the-job follow-up and in-service training, I think it's a very, very extensive package.

V. Anderson: I appreciate that recognition and the fact that they are in place. I wouldn't call those extensive, though; I'd call them a good starting point. But at least it's a starting point. My assumption would be that if they begin that, they will very quickly discover what really is necessary and what really needs to be done. At least if they are starting, I'm encouraged by that. It's that direction that can make or break what this act is about out there in the field. It can make a tremendous difference, because the first person you meet when you go to an office is the one that sets the tone for how you get dealt with, how you respond and how you interact.

May I ask the minister one other question related to that? I think it's relevant in these situations. One technique, if you like, that we have found extremely helpful to both the client and the worker is to have an advocate available in every situation where it is possible. It can't be an everyday situation, but wherever a tension builds up, or a disagreement or misunderstanding occurs, this third person, who is neutral, is there and hears what is being said. There are times where they will allow them and other times where they won't.

If there's a policy where an advocate is allowed and encouraged to come, the advocate is able to say to the client: "But the worker didn't say this." And the advocate is able to say to the worker: "But the client didn't understand what you said." You are in an emotional situation, and very seldom do you understand the husband and wife, much less these tense circumstances where life and death and children's well-being are at stake. Is there a possibility that advocates will be welcomed and encouraged whenever possible?

Hon. D. Streifel: I agree with the member; I agree very strenuously and very strongly. As I spend more time in this ministry, I'll have the opportunity to help set the tone and the expectations and just the general operating culture of the ministry. What I'd like see happen in an instance like this is the use of these advocates. I'd like to see that encouraged. I certainly don't believe that it's discouraged in any organized manner now.

When you couple that with what we view as the extensive training that is available to ensure that the implementation of these changes is smooth.... Of course, I have the opportunity as minister to set policy in some of these cases. In fact, I intend to spend some time talking to front-line workers, as I did in my brief tenure as Forests minister. I spent a lot of time out in Forests offices, in the bush and in the mills. I talked to workers there and also to workers within the ministry itself. Once we kick out of this stone building here, I intend to do that. I think it's very important that the front-line workers out there understand what my vision is.

I respect and have worked with advocate groups in the past. There are community advocate groups out there who often attend these sessions, so there is full understanding. We recognize that we are tightening up a system; we recognize that we are changing a system. I think it will work best if all of us who participate within the system understand it and understand how it works.

I support the member in his comments, and I will be taking that opportunity to help set the tone, help set the expectations and the culture of this ministry. I will be doing that in many ways -- through this process, as a matter of fact. This helps individuals understand what my needs and my goals and my visions are and understand my background and my history. I have spent a lot of time as an advocate of a sort within certain circumstances at the federal level -- UI and CPP stuff to workers' compensation to private insurance to labour situations and employment standards. I've done a tremendous amount of that.

I understand the value when somebody actually understands their circumstance. It's easier to help move along or move over or move out or move with. That's what this is all about. It's not a system like other areas, where we draw an arbitrary line and cut off and say: "Nobody out there matters after that." We recognize that these are very, very serious changes -- that they are very, very different changes than we've seen since the Second World War anywhere in this country. It will be my intention to ensure that there is the smoothest possible transition, and I do encourage the use of advocates.

V. Anderson: If I might make one other comment in that regard, I find it extremely helpful and very important not only to hear this but also to have the minister's comments on the record. I think they're extremely helpful and encouraging at this point.

The other part of that is the nature of the front-line offices. They have not been welcoming places; they have not been encouraging places around the province. My illustration is that even at the bank you are not in the front line so that everybody in the office hears your private business. Time and time again.... If the minister hasn't read the Federated Anti-Poverty joke books, let me know. I'll be glad to give him a copy. The illustrations are there. My simple illustration is that if you went to a lawyer's office, they would invite you in and deal with you quietly and privately. Even the receptionist would deal with you privately. But if you go to many welfare offices, it's public business, and because of the pressure they're under, their manner is not welcoming. So that very first impression is extremely important, because that stays with you no matter what else happens afterwards. If the minister is going out to change the culture, the very nature of the offices and how they are set up would make a tremendous difference.

Hon. D. Streifel: I have had occasion to access some of these offices, and in my experience, in fact, in most instances there has been quite a large amount of compassion and caring in the receipt of the clients and in discussions with the clients. I understood that interviews were conducted in private offices. If the member has specific circumstances other than that, I'd be pleased to look at them. I intend to be out in the field on a fairly regular basis once we finish this up.

Again, I understand the need for privacy around these circumstances. As we strive, unfortunately, we're not perfect. I can understand that circumstances and problems would arise. We are dealing with individuals who are in very, very desperate circumstances, so there could be some spillage. We try to account for that in any way we can.

It is my commitment, as we work through the culture of the ministry, that we supply as much privacy as we possibly can for the individuals involved. I think it's very important that we do that. I know other jurisdictions have little or no privacy at all; it's counter service and maybe a Plexiglas screen 

[ Page 974 ]

and a grill, and that's really about it. I think we should try to move beyond that wherever we possibly can.

[9:45]

V. Anderson: I'd just comment that perhaps the minister would review the report of the ombudsman. There are illustrations in there of some of the things I've been talking about.

Section 9(3) says section 9 "does not apply to any category of persons specified by regulation." Can you give us an illustration of categories of persons who will specified by regulations?

Hon. D. Streifel: This section would enable me to exempt vulnerable groups. Without trying to list everyone, there are some examples we use: single parents with young children and medically unemployable individuals -- those kinds of circumstances.

G. Wilson: Can the minister think of any individual and the circumstances that would surround that individual where this minister might actually cut them right off, so that there is no income assistance at all, given that they are unemployed? Is anybody going to simply be cut off? Maybe you could give me some examples of who they may be.

Hon. D. Streifel: At the risk of getting into a long, protracted debate on this.... Again, the examination of a bill in committee is not the place to speculate or pontificate on circumstances. Does the member suggest that if there is a single, employable individual out there who refuses to take a job, who absolutely chooses by his own volition to collect welfare as opposed to work, we supply an ongoing existence for this individual? Or does the member accept that there has to come a time when that individual is accountable for their own actions and when we have to apply pressure, if needed, to enforce that accountability?

G. Wilson: There is no better place to understand this legislation than in committee stage. It is precisely the place to ask these questions, and we're getting somewhere. Section 9(3) of this act says that the section "does not apply to any category of persons specified by regulation," and the minister said it would include single parents, people with medical disabilities and.... There's a whole group of people out there. So we'll exempt all of those, which prompted my question: who does it include? I hear from the minister, by way of a question to me -- and, of course, I'm not the one answering the questions, because it is not my legislation....

Hon. D. Streifel: Go on the record for once.

G. Wilson: Go on the record? I'm asking the question. What I'm hearing from the minister is that what we're really talking about here is single, employable males -- that's what I think I heard the minister say -- who wilfully do not wish to take employment.

If that's who the minister says we're after here, the question is: how does one determine whether or not this person simply cannot find a job? Let's assume they're over 26, so you're not going to force them into some training program which may or may not end up in a job. So they're 26 years old and may have all kinds of training coming out of the ying-yang, but they cannot find work. They cannot get a job, and the minister may say: "You're not adequately searching for work. You were gainfully employed. But you know what? You're out of luck. You're out of work." Can the minister envisage anybody being left out there on the street without a source of income, without the ability to pay rent, without the ability to buy food? This is a pretty fundamental part of Canadian society. I'm asking you, hon. Chair, if the minister can envisage being the minister and saying that we will offer no income assistance whatsoever to that individual on the basis of those criteria. The answer is no.

Hon. D. Streifel: Again, I'll challenge the member to explain, go on the record and say that we should supply an unlimited avenue and path of income for an individual who chooses to go on the system, who is employable and who chooses not to participate in the employment world.

I ask the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast -- or, coming and going, Sunshine Coast-Powell River: does he recognize that there is a difference between "cannot find a job"? In his first pontification he talked about "cannot" or "could not"; then he talked about "will not." He can't continually change the goalposts, play with words and move inflections in language. You can't do that and get away with it continually, hon. member, because that's all you're capable of doing. In fact, what's the difference between "cannot" and "will not"? "Cannot" is different. "Cannot" is taken care of in the act; we've examined it extensively. "Will not" refuses -- consistently shows a pattern of refusal to cooperate, is capable of employment. Hon. member, you've answered your own question. "Cannot" and "will not" -- explain it.

G. Wilson: All right. The minister wants an explanation of "cannot" and "will not." You have an individual who has gone through a series of years of training, who has been trained in a certain segment of society and who wishes to work in that area. He cannot find a job within that particular area. The provisions explain that he's covered. So that person who's trained, who cannot find work within the area in which he's trained, is covered. That's another one we've eliminated that isn't going to be left out on the street without payment.

Now we're talking about those who the minister just described as "will not," which assumes this whole act, and this section in particular, have been drafted for those people who wilfully will not get work -- a very, very small fraction of people who are getting income assistance, to be sure. I don't know too many people who wilfully don't get work. You know what's happening? We've been whipped into hysteria through a bunch of media reports and right-wing rhetoric that's turning around and bashing away at poor people and blaming them for the debt that this government and other governments have created. The minister's saying: "Oh, no, no, no." That's exactly what spawns this kind of legislation. If you tend to read it.... Maybe I should bring in the Ontario legislation and look at it, and look at the parallels.

The truth of the matter is that there are very, very few people that this legislation is going to cut off entirely. But there are a whole lot of people who are going to be put through a whole lot of hoops and be under a tremendous amount of pressure from this government, who are going to be further demeaned because they find themselves in a position where they have difficulty getting a job and making ends meet and keeping their family going. Now, they are not going to be under the threat of having to pay the rent, but they're going to be under the threat of having to convince this minister that they shouldn't be cut off welfare.

That's what I'm upset about. That's what a whole lot of people on the front line of the poverty groups out there are 

[ Page 975 ]

upset about, and that's what this minister should be explaining. I can't believe that we have degenerated to the point where we're going to allow some individual to sit on the street without some form of support. Surely to goodness we haven't allowed Canadian society to erode that far.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

M. Coell: Due to the lateness of the evening, would the minister consider adjourning and reconvening tomorrow?

Interjection.

M. Coell: He says no.

V. Anderson: Section 10 deals with accepting or disposing of property, and I would like the minister to comment on "within one year before the date of application." I'm not quite sure why this has been added and what its implication is. Could the minister explain it? Then we can discuss it further.

Hon. D. Streifel: In the old act it was five years; now it is one year.

V. Anderson: Could the minister still explain? I'm trying to get an illustration of what might be involved in this. You have been employed, and you get fired in December. You spend January and February looking for a job, and you were counting on the money you had earned that you used for Christmas gifts and those kinds of things. Maybe you had quite a bit of income in the last six months of that year, but you're into a new year. Is the minister going back and looking at your total income over those times and then saying: "Well, you earned $20,000. That should have covered you for a year when you were living at another..."? I just can't quite understand its implications.

Hon. D. Streifel: We've had circumstances where individuals have come into funds through a lottery process or other means and passed them onto somebody else, which enabled them to stay on the system. In those circumstances, I would hope that the members would agree with us that an individual who acts in that manner -- who actually has the capacity to move off the system and then chooses to stay within the system.... I mean, aren't we supposed to look at this and say: "Gee, that's not really right." You maybe share it, but don't dispose of all of it, and in fact remove yourself from the system and still help out whoever else you want to. Those are some of the general circumstances that could exist.

V. Anderson: If that decision is made by the ministry or the ministry's representative, and the client doesn't quite agree or feels that it is unjust, is there a possibility to have it reviewed by other persons within the ministry?

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, any denial of benefits can be appealed. So I would imagine the answer to that question is yes.

V. Anderson: I'll ask the question on appeal in the next section.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

V. Anderson: We're talking here about an appeal to a tribunal and then from that to the appeal process. I've already had my say about that tonight, so I won't repeat it. I could just get the tape and play it back.

But the question I would like to ask.... It has been the practice that, once an appeal has been launched, the benefit has continued until the appeal was heard. Is that still the practice, and is that going to be the practice?

Hon. D. Streifel: There's no change in that practice, hon. member.

V. Anderson: I want to stress the importance of that, because there has been a lot of uncertainty and misinformation out there about it. Also, is there a process in place that automatically gives readable, detailed information to persons who are eligible to make an appeal -- about the process and the time limits available for that? We have heard continually that that information has not been provided.

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, we have brochures, posters and appeal kits, and they're available in several languages.

[10:00]

V. Anderson: Is there any process of discipline in place when that information is not provided to the clients when it should be provided? Time and time again we have had the complaint that the information was not provided, and it was to the disadvantage of the client.

Hon. D. Streifel: I would accept that it would depend on whether there was intent or malicious action. We've all got to recognize that there are certain times when there are difficulties and slip-ups. But, in fact, in the circumstance that the member suggests, it would be subject to workplace relationships. If there was an intent and they were disciplined, then they'd be subject to review, subject to grievance procedure and stuff like that. Really, it would depend on the circumstances of the exclusion.

V. Anderson: Can we have some process in place so it can be indicated that if the information is not given to the client and therefore the time limits cannot be met, because they didn't know it was available, those time limits can be automatically altered or changed? What I'm trying to do.... In the past, clients were again and again penalized because they didn't have the information. I don't think that should happen, and I want a process where that doesn't happen.

Hon. D. Streifel: As I understand it, that's current practice, and I would expect it to be so. If an individual, through no fault of their own, doesn't get information, I would hope that we're not subjecting them to some form of punitive action. In fact, I would expect that the practice currently is that it clearly establishes a....

The member is shaking his head, and if the member has some specifics on this, I'd be pleased to have someone look into it or maybe take it up myself. We must operate in a system of fairness. Although we are tightening up the system, we recognize that. We've changed the system; we recognize that. But we must have a system that's fair, and I wouldn't view it as fair if someone, through no fault of their own, was clipped off without the capacity to have that remedied.

[ Page 976 ]

V. Anderson: I will comment to the minister that I will make it known through the system that you would be glad to hear directly of any of these circumstances that happened. I look forward to you receiving those letters and responding to them quickly.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

V. Anderson: In section 12, on assignments particularly, one of the major complaints that we hear out there -- and I wonder if the minister is dealing with it yet -- is about people who have received UI advances and have signed an assignment of repayment of UI advances. Then the payment is taken off their UI cheque, and they're worse off than they were in the beginning. Can there be a way of rectifying that or taking it off over a period of two or three cheques so that they aren't penalized? We get more calls.... I think all of the offices get these, and we've raised it before, but I'm not aware that the system has been corrected.

Hon. D. Streifel: As a matter of fact, I'm aware that the member has brought this forward to staff. You know, there are circumstances of individual hardship that are considered here.

Sections 12 to 14 inclusive approved.

On section 15.

G. Wilson: I just have a few questions on this section. It says here: "A recipient may assign to the government the right to do one or more of the following...." One of the things it says is that a recipient may assign to the government the right to "vary or enforce a maintenance order under which the recipient is the creditor." Does this imply, if they're going to vary a maintenance order, that the government is going to go to court? How does the government vary a maintenance order?

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes, that's possible.

G. Wilson: So it assumes, then, that the recipient may assign the government to essentially become their legal advocate with respect to the.... The government will become the legal advocate in family court to have that maintenance order varied. Is that the intention?

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes, that's possible.

G. Wilson: Assuming that's done, it goes on to say that the government may enter into an agreement varying a maintenance order. I presume that that agreement is outside the framework of court, and that's simply between the debtor and the government to try and vary that order -- because an agreement would be different than a maintenance order, presumably.

Hon. D. Streifel: It may be something like a consent order outside the court process, and yes, an agreement could be entered into to vary that.

G. Wilson: Then it says under (1)(d) -- boy, I'd love to know how this can be done: "...to bring a proceeding under any enactment or law to enforce all or part of arrears of payments owing under a maintenance order or agreement to the recipient for that recipient or a dependent child." I can understand that you can go back and get an order from the court to pay, but how does the government enforce that order? The difficulty with getting enforcement on court order payments is enormous. People can drag it out for years and not pay -- and do.

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, the ministry doesn't have powers of enforcement. That would be through the Attorney General's enforcement program.

G. Wilson: So when it suggests that it's going to bring proceedings under any enactment or law, I'm assuming that it means that the recipient can enter into an agreement with this ministry to then act as the agent to go to the Attorney General and presumably have the Attorney General act as an agent on an enforcement issue. Is that right?

Hon. D. Streifel: Yes, that's correct.

G. Wilson: If I understand this correctly.... I'm assuming that this enforcement then applies only to those matters that have been decided under the Family Relations Act or in family court. Therefore we're dealing with a court-assigned payment or with a consent agreement that may have been made outside a court of law. The problem is that if that matter is levied against an individual who is having difficulty paying -- and let's be clear that not all maintenance orders apply to men; often they are now being assigned against women -- and if the individual who is in custody of the children is in need of income assistance and has the weight, power and advocacy of the government to go after an individual who themselves may be in an incapacity position, it seems to me that we've now got a power relationship between one side that has the weight of all the government's legal advice in the Attorney General's office to enforce payment and the other side who may themselves be close to being destitute and therefore not able to pay. This talks about enforcement. It seems to me to be an enormous imbalance.

Hon. D. Streifel: The amount is set by the courts, and consideration for the amount is through that court process. I remind the hon. member that we don't have enforcement provisions, as I understand, within the ministry -- if we're still under that area.

G. Wilson: That's what caused me confusion. I just flag this for the minister, because I'm going to try not to get into a protracted debate on this at this time.

The fact of the matter is that courts will often levy support payments against an individual -- male or female -- which that individual may find themselves unable to pay. That's just what happens. The judges don't seem to think too much about the overall capacity to pay and changing circumstances. Believe me, it's difficult enough to get an adequate hearing in front of a judge, because they're shielded from whatever they determine and are not necessarily tied to a case.

Yet this act says that the recipient can enter into an agreement with the government "to enforce" -- that's the word it uses in section 15(1)(d) -- "all or part of arrears of payments." So if this ministry is not in a position to enforce, and yet this act allows this government, or the ministry of this government, to enforce under this act, then perhaps the minister can clarify for me how that can be done.

Hon. D. Streifel: Hon. member, it is the right of the children to.... Maintenance and support are paramount in 

[ Page 977 ]

these issues, and that's really what our concern should be in this matter. You know, we don't have the capacity to direct the courts; we do have the capacity to advocate on behalf of income assistance recipients, who in these instances are primarily women.

G. Wilson: My last comment on this is that I understand that financial support for children is critical, and I certainly think that there has to be an enforcement of maintenance payments. I am not suggesting for a moment that the so-called deadbeat parent, who doesn't live up to their obligation to provide for their children, should be excused. I am not suggesting that for one second.

Here is the scenario, and it's an important one. I hope the minister will take what I am about to say seriously. What this act provides for is one individual, who is a recipient of income assistance, to have government act at government's cost as their advocate in a court of law against a former partner, who may have a low-paying job, be ineligible for legal assistance and find themselves in a difficult position. Because the government acts as an agency, paying all legal costs and bills against an individual who is struggling to keep a low-paying job and is therefore unable to provide legal support for themselves, that puts us into a very unbalanced situation, and that already is occurring through the legal aid process.

Hon. D. Streifel: In fact, I do take the circumstances very, very seriously. I thank the hon. member for bringing them forward to give us the opportunity at this time to again say that support and maintenance for the children are paramount. The individuals that the member references, who do get support from the system to go forward and get that needed support and maintenance for their children, are primarily women who need help, and that's what this circumstance is there to do -- to provide that help.

[10:15]

V. Anderson: When you say that the payment to the children is paramount, I wholeheartedly agree with you. One of the things we've come up against is that in reality, often a good part of the payment is to the ministry rather than to children, because it's really a reimbursement in place of them receiving a payment from the ministry. I understand that and don't argue about that at the moment.

But one of the things that happens is that maintenance payments are often delayed. A person may not get their payments in January, February and March; therefore they go without and they have difficulty. Then the payments come all at one time in May, and they're not made retroactive to when they didn't come, and they're punished because the payments are late. Is there not a method of working it out so they don't end up receiving less than if they had received those payments over three months? They're being punished. If they came every month, there would be no problem. They shouldn't receive over the period of time less than they would have received otherwise. We're not expecting them to receive more, but they shouldn't receive less than they would have otherwise.

Hon. D. Streifel: I thank the hon. member for bringing this forward, because it is another serious matter. It seems like everything we deal with in this ministry is extremely serious. I do take the words of the member seriously and thank him again for them, but we're dealing here with a matter of enforcement. One of the possible solutions here is an increase in enforcement mechanisms and more diligence in the enforcement mechanisms so that we don't have these circumstances.

I recognize and respect the comments of the hon. member, and, in fact, I agree to a large extent because of my experiences in dealing with constituents in my own community. In fact, we're dealing here with a circumstance of enforcement. What we really need to do is beef up enforcement procedures and enforcement provisions so we don't have these circumstances that fall back. In the interim, hon. member, I take your words very seriously. I am aware of it, but I can't make a commitment at this time, unfortunately, to change it unilaterally. I believe there should be some look at this to see if we can in the interim, until we get that enforcement beefed up some way, mitigate some of the pain.

V. Anderson: I take it that the minister is interested. I would take the opportunity to sit down with the minister and the staff and discuss this further outside the House, to see if we can get a solution to this that can work until enforcement is in place, because the enforcement is not going to be in place 100 percent for the next 20 years. Let's not just say people have to keep on suffering in the meantime. So if the minister would agree, we'll sit down together, follow this up and see if we can come to a resolution that is acceptable to everybody involved.

One other comment on this, on when the minister is getting assignment of maintenance. For instance, when you come to relieve another person from paying all or part of the arrears, which may be reasonable when you sit down.... But one of the realities is that many single mothers particularly are under a great deal of pressure. May I ask, in the operation, that if a person is making these assignments, which are very critical.... I assume that if they make them, they can also cancel them at any time they wish to -- at least, if that's not right, please let me know. But if they're making these assignments, can it be that they are offered and encouraged to have an advocate with them, so that they are clear, understand exactly what they're doing and are not doing it under pressure and then regretting what they've done, not understanding it?

Hon. D. Streifel: I understand that the clients are provided the services of a legal counsel to understand these processes.

Sections 15 to 20 inclusive approved.

On section 21.

Hon. D. Streifel: I move the amendment in the possession of the Clerk, upon immediate delivery and then dispersal to the hon. members opposite, so we can all understand what we're doing here with this.

[SECTION 21, by deleting the proposed subsection (3) and substituting the following subsections:

(3) An information-sharing agreement may only be entered into under subsection (2) for the purposes of the administration of

(a) this Act,
(b) the Income Tax Act or the Income Tax Act (Canada),
(c) the Immigration Act (Canada), or
(d) a social benefit program operated by a government, agency, public body or legal entity referred to in subsection (2)(c).

(4) In this section, "information-sharing agreement" includes a data-matching agreement but does not include an agreement to share

(a) information obtained by the minister for the purposes of another Act administered by the minister, or
(b) information obtained by the minister pursuant to an agreement under this section.]

[ Page 978 ]

On the amendment.

V. Anderson: Can we just clarify that this is the amendment that we have been receiving regularly and have a copy over here for our members?

The Chair: That has been confirmed; it is the same amendment.

Hon. D. Streifel: Hon. Chair, it is the same amendment that's been in the works for these acts.

Amendment approved.

Section 21 as amended approved.

Sections 22 and 23 approved.

On section 24.

Hon. D. Streifel: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment that will be momentarily in the possession of the Clerk, and we can pass on the prescribed documents to the members opposite and to the Clerk.

[SECTION 24, in the proposed subsection (2)(v) by deleting "sections 12(4), 13(2) and 21(3)" and substituting "sections 12(4) and 13(2)".]

Amendment approved.

On section 24 as amended.

V. Anderson: As these regulations are rewritten and done, will they please supply us with copies so we can keep up to date?

Interjection.

Section 24 as amended approved.

Sections 25 to 28 inclusive approved.

On section 29.

G. Wilson: I just have a very quick question. In light of the BC Benefits (Child Care) Act section with respect to children with special needs, I notice that what we're dealing with here are amendments with respect to the Child, Family and Community Service Act, in the provisions.... At least, I'm assuming that, as I read through this. When it suggests that you can make payment to a parent or other person who has care of a child with special needs, to assist the parent to purchase support services.... That's my question. This support service, I'm assuming, is something other than child care on an ongoing basis. I'm assuming that that does not include in-home child care -- or does it?

Hon. D. Streifel: Perhaps I could describe some of the areas that are covered here: the at-home respite program, family support homemakers, support and special services for families with children with special needs, and support services for families to care for children generally. Many of these programs are now funded under GAIN, which is being replaced by the BC Benefits (Income Assistance) Act. So we did examine this. I can remember this section from estimates quite clearly, and it covers a broad range, even some skills upgrading for the parents of children with special needs. It could cover that as well.

G. Wilson: Maybe my question wasn't very clear. Can a person receive that income assistance and use it for the provision of community child care for a child with special needs? That's my question.

Hon. D. Streifel: I apologize to the member; I think I misinterpreted the question. That could be available under the child care act and the provisions under that act.

Sections 29 to 41 inclusive approved.

On section 42.

Hon. D. Streifel: I move the amendment that will be in the hands of the Clerks momentarily for distribution to all the folks who are interested.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Streifel: It always shows up as a real motion, hon. member. It's amazing.

[SECTION 42, in the proposed section 4 by deleting subsection (3) and substituting the following subsections:

(3) An information-sharing agreement may only be entered into under subsection (2) for the purposes of administration of

(a) this Act,
(b) the Income Tax Act or the Income Tax Act (Canada),
(c) the Immigration Act (Canada), or
(d) a social benefit program operated by a government, agency, public body or legal entity referred to in subsection (2)(c).

(4) In this section. "information-sharing agreement" includes a data-matching agreement but does not include an agreement to share

(a) information obtained by the minister for the purposes of another Act administered by the minister, or
(b) information obtained by the minister pursuant to an agreement under this section.]

Amendment approved.

Section 42 as amended approved.

Sections 43 to 57 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Streifel: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 14, BC Benefits (Income Assistance) Act, reported complete with amendments.

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

Hon. J. MacPhail: By leave now, hon. Speaker.

[ Page 979 ]

Leave granted.

Bill 14, BC Benefits (Income Assistance) Act, read a third time and passed on division.

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

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:29 p.m.

The House in Committee of Supply A; W. Hartley in the chair.

The committee met at 6:40 p.m.

On vote 27: minister's office, $399,564 (continued).

J. van Dongen: I don't want to keep the minister, but I do want to pursue a bit further the issue of the Koeye River Lodge. I did go through the correspondence last night, and I found some relevant issues. To put this in context, we do have about $40 million that's being expended in the Lands section of the ministry, and a significant part of that is in dealing with the 600 or 800 applications that we have for foreshore leases. I'm always concerned about those sorts of processes from the point of view of there very often being an imbalance of power between the individual citizen and the government.

One of the things I look for is what I call quality analysis and quality decision-making, and I think that's something that we should be striving for in these processes. Despite the minister's generous offer to sit down and review this issue -- and we will do that -- I just felt that I want to put a few additional things on the record. I think that would serve the interests of the applicants as well as the public interest, so I just want to ask a few questions first. In the case of an application for a foreshore lease or a licence, is it under a particular statute that the process takes place?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, the Land Act.

J. van Dongen: Do the Land Act and the regulations under it set out a fairly specific process by which this takes place and by which the decision is made and rendered?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's primarily an issue of policies and procedures under the regulations.

J. van Dongen: As I understand it, part of the process we discussed yesterday is referrals to other agencies -- the bringing together of all the information and analysis, and a decision by staff. Is there anything specific in terms of the communication of that decision? Is it simply a letter? Is that considered sufficient to convey a decision?

Hon. P. Ramsey: A discussion with applicants is routine, to keep them apprised by the staff of where the process is. Final notification of decision, formally, is by letter.

J. van Dongen: Is there any appeal mechanism at all established on these kinds of decisions?

Hon. P. Ramsey: If the decision is made at the regional director's office, there is an appeal to headquarters staff and from that to the minister's office. There is no appeal from a ministerial decision.

J. van Dongen: In terms of the appeal, as it goes up to senior staff and to the minister, is it being made on the original decision that was rendered by the regional director?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm unaware of any appeal in this matter.

[6:45]

J. van Dongen: I just want to mention a few of the relevant facts of this case. I'm looking at a letter to the minister's predecessor, dated February 6, which talks about previous owners of the land having achieved a foreshore lease for a dock. That process had taken about seven years. When these particular owners took over the land, they decided they needed a bit of a different dock design, and on that basis they applied to the ministry. I think there is some significance to the fact that there was a foreshore lease already granted in this case. When I look at a letter dated February 14, which was signed by a land officer, it sets out two reasons, basically, that the request for a lease was turned down. One of them deals with objections from the Heiltsuk tribal council. They claimed that they felt this development would impact on their aboriginal fishery, which the minister said he hadn't considered in his decision. I think it's relevant to mention that. The other one says that the original licence had expired and talks about an offer letter for the expired licence, and says that that licence wouldn't be renewed if there hadn't been significant development. It's interesting that both of those reasons were not considered by the minister and that in fact the final decision by the minister on July 5 was different than either of these two reasons. I think it's relevant to consider that these people were in the process of doing significant development on that site.

Then there's another letter, and I made a reference to this yesterday. I want to ask the minister if he had seen this letter. This is a letter dated February 20, signed by his predecessor, which was addressed to Arlene Wilson of the Heiltsuk tribal council. It says: "I'm advised by B.C. Lands staff at Williams Lake that the licence of occupation for the purpose of dock construction at Koeye Bay has expired and that the proponents are aware that further authorization at this site is not anticipated." Could I ask the minister, first of all, if he's aware of this letter signed by his predecessor?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Frankly, I'm not sure. The file on this was rather extensive. I couldn't say with certainty either yes or no at this point.

J. van Dongen: That's a reasonable answer at this point, but it's interesting that that letter was written within less than a week of when the so-called decision letter was written -- at 

[ Page 980 ]

the same time as these people were in the process of arranging a meeting with both the minister's staff and senior staff of the ministry. It seems to me that the decision letter to a third party that was dated six days ahead of this letter that I'm talking about, and signed by the minister, doesn't give the applicants a reasonable time to respond. If there is any sort of appeal or any sort of process of going to senior staff or ultimately going to the minister, then I don't see how they had sufficient time to do that. It seems to me that it gives some indication of what was going on. I think that letter signed by the previous minister did, in fact, foreclose some opportunity for discussion, which I think the applicants were certainly entitled to in this case.

Now, if I could just go to the minister's letter of July 5, he sets out in that letter the view that he's received advice from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that an additional lodge in this area would have a negative effect on fish stocks destined for this area. They note in particular that chinook and coho stocks are fully utilized by the existing fishing effort. It makes reference to a June 21 letter to the director general.

There are two other letters in this file of letters that I think are relevant to the reasons given in the minister's letter of July 5. The first one is dated April 18, 1996, by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. They talk about the fact that from a habitat perspective, they approve the design of the dock. Secondly, they talk about a concern about aboriginal fishery needs, which other documentation suggests is not a valid concern -- and the minister didn't consider it anyway. They talk about the concern about chinook and coho stocks, but they finish up with this particular sentence: "The Regional Director General has recently written to MELP identifying this concern and requesting that a moratorium be placed on new lodge development"-- and this is the key phrase --"until intersector allocation issues can be resolved." I think that one sentence really discloses the true motivation behind the DFO letter or the advice that was given to the minister. The real issue here is not the levels of the stocks; it is the issue of allocation, in some form.

The second letter that I want to refer the minister to is dated May 17, 1996, from the Sport Fishing Institute. This is another of a number of people that wrote to the minister supporting these people. The letter goes like this:"I would like to point out that the sport fishing community in Rivers Inlet and Hakai Pass has been one of the most stable on the B.C. coast. In fact, there are fewer resorts today than in the early 1980s.

"In addition, there are comments about a moratorium on sport fishing operations in the area and, if this is the case, I am surprised that there has not been any contact with the sport fishing community. You should know that several months ago the Sport Fishing Institute of B.C. expressed an interest to both MELP and DFO to participate in discussions on limited entry for specific areas of the coast. We were advised that these discussions would take place in the coming months, and I do not understand why this issue would be the basis for denying an application for a foreshore lease."

I just want to ask the minister if he was aware of this letter from the Sport Fishing Institute.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I appreciate the member's interest in this case and his advocacy on behalf of the owners of the lodge. I think I have canvassed fully my reasons for rendering this decision. The applicants have recourse either to the ombudsman, on issues of administrative fairness, or, as I understand it, to the courts, if they wish to challenge the decision on grounds of violation of law. I do not intend to engage in more debate on factors that I considered. I've explained to this committee, in quite a bit of detail, I think, the factors that I considered in reaching my decision.

J. van Dongen: I think that it should be stated that these people -- there are three partners -- have invested significant dollars. I'm not personally convinced that they've had due process when you see a letter, unknown to them, by a minister that forecloses any further discussion for them. I guess what I'd like to say to the minister is that it seems to me that it's important, or at least desirable, for this ministry to investigate the basis of the advice from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I suggest that there are at least two pieces of evidence here that show it's not valid; it lacks a degree of integrity as to why that position was forwarded. I know the minister is not fond of the ongoing discussion, but I think that the applicants deserve fairer treatment. I suggest to the minister that I have no problem with him personally. I'm not questioning his integrity, but I'm questioning the validity of the information supplied by DFO. I would simply ask him to reconsider it on that basis.

C. Clark: I'd like to get started on issues regarding the environmental assessment office, of which we deferred discussion until today. Could the minister give us an explanation as to why the environmental assessment office was moved from his ministry's budget to that of the Ministry of Employment and Investment?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It is under the purview of the Minister of Finance.

C. Clark: It was my understanding that it was funded out of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Am I incorrect?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes.

C. Clark: I see the minister says yes. I should ask the minister: was the budget ever funded out of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Advice from staff is that it was never funded out of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

C. Clark: It was never funded out of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks? It was my understanding from a very brief discussion with staff -- and I certainly don't fault staff for this; I may have misunderstood -- that at one point there was an order-in-council issued that did provide for funding of the environmental assessment office out of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Could the minister confirm that or correct me on that?

Hon. P. Ramsey: There was indeed an OIC that put the environmental assessment office in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. That was revoked and replaced by one which moved it to the Ministry of Finance. The budget for the office has its own vote.

C. Clark: I wonder if the minister could tell us when this occurred. I remember that when we discussed it in the interim supply debate, I was clearly left with the impression that it was being funded out of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and was under the purview of the Minister of Employment and Investment. I wonder if that was correct at the time and if it has changed since then.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I actually have copies of two orders-in-council. The first one is dated June 17, which was the date of the swearing-in of the new cabinet. That transferred the envi-

[ Page 981 ]

ronmental assessment office to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. A subsequent OIC dated June 19 transferred it to the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations.

[7:00]

C. Clark: I should get on the record that the reason I'm asking that question is that for obvious reasons, I think, it was a matter of a fair amount of concern for people in the environmental community that the Minister of Employment and Investment would also be in charge of the environmental assessment office. For obvious reasons, I can hear the minister having a chuckle about it over on the other side of the chamber.

I think it's probably better that it be funded out of the Ministry of Finance, in order to maintain a more neutral stance on issues, because we know that where the funding comes from frequently determines the priorities of any office or corporate entity.

I wonder if the minister could tell us what kinds of.... I know this entity isn't funded out of his ministry, but I do know that it reports to his ministry. It's his legislation, and he has, certainly, a great deal of legislative interest in what the area does. So I wonder if the minister could tell us how many applications have been exempted from environmental assessment since the act was introduced, or how many applications the ministry has decided don't have to go through a full environmental review process under the act.

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I'd like to introduce the staff from the environmental assessment office here with us tonight: Daphne Stancil, project director, and Norm Ringstad, another project director. The deputy minister for environmental assessment, Sheila Wynn, will be joining us later.

The answer, hon. member, is that there is no discretion on the part of the environmental assessment office to "exempt." If a project triggers the thresholds in the legislation and regulations, it is assessed.

C. Clark: Is there no discretion on the part of the minister or of the government that has ever been utilized to exempt projects, or portions of projects, from the assessment process?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Section 4 of the act gives the ministers the discretion to require assessment for a project that would by legislation and regulation be exempt. It does not give any discretion to exempt a project that would be required to be assessed.

C. Clark: I wonder, too: can the minister tell us how many environmental assessments have been triggered?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Since the act has come into force, nine new applications are currently in process. Some 20 have been captured in the transition and placed under the aegis of the environmental assessment office. Which projects they are, and where they are on public record, I'd be glad to provide to the member.

C. Clark: I'm interested, too, in the percentage that passed their environmental assessment and the percentage that didn't.

Hon. P. Ramsey: To date with this rather new office -- of the approximately 29 applications before it, with 20 in transition and nine new -- ten have been certified. The rest are still in process, and none has been rejected.

C. Clark: I wonder if the minister could give us some information on why Transportation and Highways projects are exempted from environmental assessments. It's my understanding that the environmental assessment process doesn't apply to all Highways projects.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Projects are not exempt. There's a threshold for the size of the project which triggers environmental assessment.

C. Clark: Can the minister explain to us, then, why they set the threshold where they did? I think it's pretty clear what I'm getting at: there are certain projects that do come under the act and certain projects that don't, and the concern that's been raised with me.... Many of those projects are transportation-related. I wonder if the minister can explain for us how the ministry arrived at the number they arrived at.

Hon. P. Ramsey: It was not the ministry that arrived at it; it was the Legislature. Frankly, this was the debate in the Legislature at the time the law was passed -- one among many debates. I would advise the member that if she wishes to get the reasons on both sides for either favouring or opposing it, Hansard provides a more than adequate record.

C. Clark: I guess I should leave some of these small constituency issues and get to some larger issues that affect the province as a whole. I'd be happy to do that.

We could talk about marine parks for a while or we could talk about ministry reorganization for a while, or we could talk about whether the ministry has an opinion on water export and the appropriateness of water export, when its ultimate result is further environmental damage by B.C. Hydro. I wonder if the minister has ever offered an opinion on that, and if the ministry is pursuing any legislative or regulatory measures with regard to the export of water from B.C. Hydro.

The Chair: The minister may want to answer that within the bounds of the estimates.

Interjection.

C. Clark: I'm sorry -- energy exports is what I meant. Sorry, hon. Chair -- if I could, I just want to correct myself. My colleague informs me that I said "water exports." What I meant was power exports by B.C. Hydro. Obviously, B.C. Hydro doesn't export water; they export power, but they affect water in their efforts to generate power.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm not quite sure what the member is asking. Hydro is under the purview of the Minister of Employment and Investment. Policies that affect Hydro operations should be directed to him.

C. Clark: I certainly will direct some of the questions to the Minister of Employment and Investment, in his responsibility for B.C. Hydro.

My interest in this is to find out again if the ministry is expressing an interest or an opinion or a concern about the export of power from British Columbia by B.C. Hydro, and their drive to do that, because clearly it has a very, very 

[ Page 982 ]

negative impact on our environment. I would suspect that that would normally be in the purview of the Minister of Environment, and something that presumably he would have an opinion on.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The division of responsibility breaks down so that the environmental assessment office and the ministry review proposed Hydro projects that meet the threshold requirements. As for the sale of power, that does not fall within the purview of the ministry.

C. Clark: I'll name a few projects where there have been large spills of water and where the export of power has certainly impacted on some of our waterways in British Columbia. There's the Alouette River, of course; there's the Bridge River. There are a number of them that I could go through, and my ultimate aim is to ask the minister.... I'm in receipt of a letter from the B.C. Wildlife Federation about the deal that B.C. Hydro is trying to undertake with Intalco Aluminum Corp.... The reason I think this is relevant to his ministry is that they're asking the National Energy Board for permission to enter into this deal to export power to other provinces and to other jurisdictions. They have made representations to the federal Minister of Environment and, I assume, also to the provincial Minister of Environment. So I wonder what his response has been on this issue.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think we've canvassed fairly thoroughly the relations of this ministry to B.C. Hydro. We've gone into some detail in a follow-up to the electrical systems operation review. The responsibility of this minister and this ministry is to work on assessing Hydro projects for environmental impact -- new ones. As we've discussed at some length, we're working with Hydro to make sure that we've got the right balance between producing electrical energy and other values in existing Hydro projects, and we are looking at mitigation projects where Hydro impacts on other environmental values. That is the role of this ministry in doing that. If the member wishes to canvass the entire role of exports, I would suggest that she take it up with the Minister of Employment and Investment.

C. Clark: As I said earlier, I will take it up with the Minister of Employment and Investment. Something I won't be able to take up with the Minister of Employment and Investment -- because he'll tell me that it's the purview of the Minister of Environment -- is the interest of this ministry, through environmental assessment, in the deal with Intalco Aluminum Corp. The Wildlife Federation has made representations to the federal Minister of Environment about it, and I know there is a good working relationship between Environment ministries in the federal and provincial jurisdictions. I wonder if this minister's office has taken any interest in or responded to any representations that have been made to his ministry on the issue.

Hon. P. Ramsey: For the last time, this ministry is responsible for reviewing projects, whatever the power is used for.

C. Clark: Can the minister confirm that his office hasn't taken any interest in, or hasn't responded to, any representations from the B.C. Wildlife Federation or any other environmental group about the Intalco Aluminum deal that they're attempting to do and that they are asking National Energy Board approval for?

The Chair: Do you have another question?

C. Clark: I take it that the minister.... I think the record will speak for itself -- that the ministry hasn't taken an interest in this issue. I know that the environmental groups that have approached us with the issue will be very interested in that, and I think he can expect further representations from them based on our discussions here tonight.

I will leave some of these issues for a moment, because I know there are some other members here who have some issues of broad concern to British Columbians on a provincewide basis that they'd like to raise with the minister.

Interjection.

C. Clark: You don't? Okay.

The Chair: The member continues.

C. Clark: I will, and I know it will be an enormous relief to the minister that I will wrap up shortly. I do have just two more things -- and they're very short things -- that came up as I was thinking about some of the response that we had today. I want to confirm a couple of things. One of them is that I want to ask the minister if his ministry has ever requested or ever received any opinions or studies on the feasibility and the desirability of either shutting down Burrard Thermal or scaling back its operation significantly.

[7:15]

Hon. P. Ramsey: We have spent a good deal of time on Burrard Thermal, and I recognize the importance of the issue both to the member and -- really, given the significance, as we've discussed, of so many emissions from the unit -- to some overall strategies of government.

Just to finish with the environmental assessment office, I want to inform the member that some preapplication discussions for repowering Burrard Thermal have been made to them. No formal application has been made at this time. I know you weren't asking for that information, but I had it and I thought I'd put it on the record for you.

As for requesting or receiving, if I understand the member, a study of the effects of shutting down Burrard Thermal....

C. Clark: Or scaling back its operations.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Or scaling back its operations. The answer to both of those is no.

C. Clark: My last question for the evening is also about Burrard Thermal, because I think it's important that we start and end on the same topics. We started with B.C. Hydro, and tonight we'll end with B.C. Hydro. I wanted to get the minister's opinion -- and this is in order to get an assessment of the priorities of the ministry for next year -- on keeping Burrard Thermal open. Does he think that it has a neutral enough environmental impact that it's something that we can keep open, or does he think that it's something that we should be looking towards shutting down or scaling back?

Hon. P. Ramsey: At this point, there are a number of issues that I still need to gather more information on -- some of the issues we've discussed tonight. I need to ascertain further what Hydro actually intends for ongoing operations. I know Hydro is looking at the role of Burrard Thermal within 

[ Page 983 ]

its own operations, so at this point I have formulated no opinion.

M. de Jong: I'm not even certain that I will pose this in the form of a question, except to say that these estimates have gone on at some length. I've read the Blues, where the minister answered questions from my colleagues -- the member for Abbotsford and the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain -- regarding the groundwater issue. I'll just take advantage of this moment to place on the record, on behalf of my constituency, the import that they attach to that issue and the necessity of addressing it in a very real and tangible way in the near future. I know the minister gave some indication of his desire to do that. He will receive correspondence in the near future, and I take advantage of this opportunity to emphasize the importance.

C. Clark: I'd just like to close with a few comments. First, I'd certainly like to thank all the staff of the Ministry of Environment. I have some experience working in government in other jurisdictions, and British Columbia has a well deserved reputation for having one of the most professional public services in the country. I think that's borne itself out tonight. I appreciate the effort and the time that staff have put in. I know that estimates isn't an easy process for officials, because I know that it means that there's a slowing of activity in their respective departments while we undergo the process.

I'd ask, though, that all the members here today recognize that, for members of the opposition, this is the one time in a year where we do get to canvass at some length and with some level of informality many of these issues in a way that just isn't normally offered within the parliamentary process in British Columbia. I'd ask for your understanding and your families' understanding of that. I'd like to thank the minister, too. He has shown an admirable ability to get on the learning curve and move up very quickly in a short five weeks as minister. I know it's not easy from a critic's point of view, either, to learn all these issues as quickly as one would like to, but we don't have all the control in the world over when the Legislature meets.

Finally, I'd like to add that for us in the opposition, I don't believe that environmental issues were discussed fully enough in the election period. Environmental issues will be a priority for us on this side of the House, as I know they will be for the government, and I look forward to working as cooperatively as possible with the government. I hope that the government has some sense of the issues we're interested in and where we'd like to see some progress and movement on the part of government to try, as the minister said, to be good ancestors in the long run for British Columbia.

Again, my thanks to the officials, to the minister and to your families for your patience with this process.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Just very briefly and in response, this is a steep learning curve for all parties here, and I'd like to compliment the critic for her grasp of many issues. I think that we will engage in some profitable discussions -- sometimes heated and sometimes, I hope, with a lot of light as well as heat -- as we all attempt to do right for our environment, which I think is one of the real hallmarks of the quality of life in British Columbia.

Also, because they can't themselves, I'd like to convey my appreciation on behalf of staff for your kind words. In my experience, as a minister and MLA in this province, I share the member's perception of the high quality of services that the public receives from those who serve in this ministry and in all others.

Vote 27 approved.

Vote 28: ministry operations, $196,073,592 -- approved.

Vote 61: environmental assessment and land use coordination, $17,651,000 -- approved.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Thank you, hon. Chair, for your excellent chairing of these estimates.

The committee recessed from 7:24 p.m. to 7:42 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

On vote 53: minister's office, $432,000.

Hon. L. Boone: Before I begin, I'd like to just introduce the staff who are here with me today. We have, on my right here, Blair Redlin, who is president and CEO of the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority; Kelly-Ann Speck, vice-president, planning and evaluation; Doug Hibbins, who is vice-president of project development and financing; and Ian McLeod, who is director of communications.

We agreed, prior to this, that we would work through the Transportation Financing Authority first, so that we could get these gentle people away and let them go home. We have to stay here. Then, after that, we will deal with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways administrative services, highways operations, planning and major projects departments, and the motor vehicle branch.

With that, I'd like to make my opening remarks. I am pleased to present the estimates for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and the Transportation Financing Authority budgets for this fiscal year.

I don't need to remind the hon. members of the enormous contribution that transportation systems make to our economic and social well-being. While most people take the system for granted, the fact is that good roads are essential for us to go places. They allow us to move people and goods safely and efficiently. They link us and often define our communities. Moreover, they enhance our competitiveness in the global market, a competitiveness upon which our future prosperity and cherished way of life so strongly depend. Our government is committed to protecting and building on the multibillion-dollar investment we have in our highway system, a system that includes 45,000 kilometres of roads, some 2,500 bridges, and 21 vessels serving 18 inland ferry routes.

We owe a tremendous debt to the tens of thousands of British Columbians who have played roles, big and small, in building and maintaining the system over the years. In no less measure we are indebted to those who continue this tradition of fine public service, earning our gratitude for meeting the challenges posed in planning, building and preserving a safe, modern, efficient transportation system. The challenges have never been greater than they are today. There are challenges of meeting the needs of a growing population, and particularly the needs of rapidly growing urban centres. There is the challenge of protecting the environment as we meet those needs. There's the challenge of maintaining a system that is aging and requiring costly yet urgent repairs. And there's the 

[ Page 984 ]

challenge of planning and developing a comprehensive, integrated, multimodal transportation system that is not only right for British Columbians but right for our pocketbook -- a system we can afford.

[7:45]

More people mean more cars, and more cars mean a demand for more blacktop. It's an inexorable progression that has given rise to pressing concerns over congestion, air pollution, the environment and safety. We are tackling congestion by encouraging alternative modes of transportation, to reduce dependency on the single-occupant vehicle, and by taking measures such as the development of a traffic management plan that will speed the traffic flow and end gridlock. These modes include everything from commuter rail and transit to van pooling, cycling and high-occupancy vehicle lanes. This September, the province's first HOV lanes will go into operation, beginning with the completion of the Barnet-Hastings people-moving project. It's the first step in the development of an HOV network for the lower mainland.

We are tackling pollution through our AirCare program, which is one of the finest of its kind in North America. We are tackling environmental concerns through the environmental impact studies that are now integral to all highways projects. We are addressing safety concerns through our far-reaching traffic safety initiative, which we have been putting into effect over the past year and expect to have fully implemented by next year. This includes measures to crack down on speeders, drinking drivers and drivers who drive while prohibited or unlicensed.

It also includes measures to help new drivers become better, safer drivers. We are targeting the individuals who are responsible for a very high proportion of road crashes -- especially the serious ones -- and which last year claimed more than 500 lives, injured tens of thousands of people, and cost society more than $2 billion in insurance payouts, health care charges and work loss. Such a waste of lives and dollars is unacceptable. British Columbians have told us that they wanted tough and decisive action, and the measures that we have developed, bolstered by Bill 10, which is currently before the House, promise to deliver just that.

My ministry is the custodian of some $14 billion worth of infrastructure. It's a huge responsibility, made all the more onerous by the fact that the system is aging -- as we all are. The average age of pavement on our road system is 15 years, a critical point at which deterioration begins to accelerate and rehabilitation costs start to escalate. About 60 percent of our bridges are either wooden or 40-plus years old, and some 600 should be replaced over the next decade. In addition, we must upgrade our bridges to withstand earthquakes, which we are doing under a $250 million, ten-year program. Poor roads cost B.C. motorists wear and tear, increase fuel consumption and pose safety hazards. We can't afford to delay, because delays just add to costs. But of all the challenges we are facing, the most crucial is meeting our objectives within the confines of a tighter budget. We recognize and support the goal of this government to reduce the debt and use our resources wisely, so that vital health care and education programs are fully protected.

My ministry has responded to this utmost imperative. At the direction of government, we are streamlining our operations without loss of our core services to the people. We are reducing staff by 300 positions in Highways and by 60 in the motor vehicle branch prior to its merger with ICBC. We expect to realize an annual saving of $42 million, which represents nearly one-third of the $136 million spending-reduction goal set by the provincial government when the cutbacks were first announced last March.

We will soon begin to merge the motor vehicle branch with ICBC, a move that will take two years to complete. It will consolidate road safety programs, eliminate duplication, improve service and lower costs. We have restructured Highways headquarters, reducing its staff levels by almost one-quarter. Policy-making, standards-setting and advisory roles have been strengthened, while program delivery is being transferred more and more to the regions, the districts and the major projects staff, where the work is done and where the need for funds is greatest. The efficiencies and cost saving thus created not only bode a better return on the tax dollar but ensure that a higher proportion of the overall Highways budget goes on the road.

Our strategy has been outlined in the province's overall transportation plan, Going Places, developed by the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority in conjunction with my ministry and the Ministry of Employment and Investment. The approach has four main elements: first, to better manage demand and make better use of existing facilities; second, to give priority to investments and projects that enhance the movement of people and goods, not just the movement of vehicles; third, to develop new partnerships with other governments, private investors and users, such as we are doing in the building of the road to the Mount Washington ski resort and the road and port for the Quinsam coal development; and finally, to increase the cost recovery from beneficiaries of transportation facilities and services to reduce the tax burden. Going Places sets out a logical base for decisions and planning, recognizing that only through wise investments today can we achieve an effective, integrated, multimodal transportation system that will meet the needs of our children for tomorrow.

Our capital program for '96-97 is robust. All told, the BCTFA is providing $350 million in funding this year. That includes about 75 funded projects. Some of these are frozen by the capital review announced by the Premier a few weeks ago. This freeze covers new capital spending, with few exceptions. It has one very clear goal: reviewing all projects to ensure that they are essential and that our dollars are spent wisely. But several major projects are relatively unaffected. They include the Vancouver Island Highway project, which is now more than half-completed, progressing on target and on budget. This year's allocation of $176.5 million represents about half the total budget for capital outlay for highways infrastructure.

We have started working on HOV lanes along the Trans-Canada Highway in the lower mainland, and we are continuing our major improvements on the Fraser River crossing. We are also pursuing innovative design-build projects at the Westview and Johnson-Mariner interchanges. We are reviewing options for improvements to the Okanagan Lake Bridge and for a solution to the Lions Gate Bridge, both pressing concerns. Our rehabilitation budget is unchanged from last year, at $139 million, and involves 620 projects. Our maintenance budget has grown about 2 percent to almost $383 million. This fall we will complete the maintenance contract renewal process for all 28 service areas. The five-year contract terms will help achieve cost saving and greater efficiencies. Our total budget is $630 million, down $3.4 million from last year.

These are changing times. Never before has government had to be more accountable to the people or to find ways of doing more for less. Never before has government had to be more willing to listen, to consult and to create efficiencies. We are listening and, more importantly, responding to our mandate, our mission and the needs of British Columbians, thanks 

[ Page 985 ]

to the committed and dedicated staff of my ministry, some of whom are with me today and will be able to assist me in answering your questions.

B. Barisoff: That was an excellent presentation. It touched base on a lot of the questions I was about to ask tonight, and got into a lot of the things that are going to exist here.

Some of the questions I do have to ask, though, are about the Transportation Financing Authority. I guess you've touched on it a little, but I'd like a bit more elaboration. Could you explain to us exactly what the Transportation Financing Authority is? I know you've touched on the planning stages. Being new to this, I think some of the questions I'll ask will probably be repetitive, but.... For instance, where you've planned to use your existing facilities better, can you explain to us how you plan to do that?

Hon. L. Boone: The Transportation Financing Authority has a mandate to plan, acquire, construct, improve, or cause to be constructed or improved the transportation infrastructure throughout British Columbia, and to do such other things as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may authorize. Within that, they have done such things as the traffic management program, the assessment.... What was that new thing they did? We just reviewed that tonight.

Interjection.

Hon. L. Boone: The south coast transportation system plan. All these look at how we can utilize the existing structures, how we might be able to improve those structures with some modifications, maybe as we are doing with the HOV lanes -- adding one extra lane, to try to improve systems there -- or by looking at ways that we can modify people's behaviour, such as through the HOV lanes.

The transportation plans that we have done throughout the province and throughout the lower mainland are looking at encouraging people to use the transit systems. The AirCare systems we've done to try to modify people -- how that affects our environment.... There are a lot of things we can do as a society, and by putting in place a plan to recognize how we can utilize the existing structures, I think we can work towards that.

The objective that most people recognize is that we don't need more highways around the lower mainland. We need to try to reduce the number of people on those highways, to get them into alternative modes of transportation and to deal with the systems.

B. Barisoff: With the HOV lanes, particularly on the Barnet Highway, have you decided how many people will be required to be in a vehicle that will access the lanes?

Hon. L. Boone: Those decisions will be announced shortly.

B. Barisoff: I know it's a big concern to the people there, because I guess that the congestion it's causing on the Barnet Highway is.... In fact, we got a call today to say that people were very interested. By "shortly," do you mean it's going to open up in a couple of weeks? Will that decision be made next week or the week after?

Hon. L. Boone: I'm reluctant to give you a date as to when I can announce that, because then we could be late if we don't do it on time.

M. de Jong: What a notion!

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, what a notion. We will be announcing that well in advance of the opening of those lanes.

Perhaps the member can advise me as to what concerns are being raised. Do people wish the HOV lanes to go down from three to two, or are they wishing for them to stay at three? What are the wishes of the people who are phoning him?

B. Barisoff: It sounds to me like they're wishing that there are more -- that three would be a minimum, I think. I think they're looking at at least that, or possibly four, just so that they do utilize the lanes and what they were set out to do.

Carrying on, on the corridor plans for the Transportation Financing Authority, I know that there's a board that's set in place. Could you tell me who constitutes that board? Who decides on what takes place there?

Hon. L. Boone: You were talking about the corridor, but now you're talking about the Transportation Financing Authority board. You want to know who sits on that. There's myself; there's the Hon. Dan Miller; MLA Helmut Giesbrecht, who is representing the Hon. Penny Priddy; and Deputy Minister George Ford. They are the voting members of that board.

B. Barisoff: I guess I was on two different things at that time -- the corridor plans in the lower mainland, the group that sits to decide that, how those decisions are made, and what the priorities are with the main plans that take place in the metro area.

Hon. L. Boone: I'm going to have to get some assistance: GVRD, B.C. Transit, Agricultural Land Commission, B.C. Ferries and the ministry.

B. Barisoff: Moving on to some long-term plans on the congestion that's taking place in the Fraser River area, are there any? Actually, I'm working from an old book. We haven't got the '95-96 book, so some of these things might be en route and going. But I'm just wondering whether there are any plans for Highway 1 and Highway 99, south of the Fraser River.

Hon. L. Boone: None that have been approved by the board.

B. Barisoff: Moving on to capital plans and priorities, how are these priorities established? Are they established by the board? When do these priorities come out, and when does the general public have access to them?

Hon. L. Boone: There's a long-term plan, an annual review that's takes place by the TFA board. It goes to Treasury Board, and decisions are made then as to whether they should proceed.

[8:00]

B. Barisoff: How far in advance does applying take place? Are we looking at two, three, four, five, ten...? What kind of planning procedures take place for this long-term capital planning?

Hon. L. Boone: Five years.

[ Page 986 ]

B. Barisoff: Do you know any of the priority projects that are in place at present, and which projects are the priority items taking place in the province?

Hon. L. Boone: There's the priority corridor program: the Vancouver Island Highway; the Trans-Canada Highway from Kamloops to the Alberta border; the Okanagan highway, Highway 97; and the lower mainland east-west connectors south of the Fraser River.

B. Barisoff: Staying with the lower mainland congestion problem, what is the status of six-laning Highway 1 and the Alex Fraser Bridge?

Hon. L. Boone: The HOV lanes on Highway 1 have been approved, and we'll be proceeding with that. The Alex Fraser Bridge -- you asked a question about that, but what was it?

B. Barisoff: It's the same thing: is there anything that's being done there?

Hon. L. Boone: There is the interchange construction. Congestion on Highway 91 at the signalized intersections north of the Alex Fraser Bridge causes peak-period queues up to five kilometres long. These intersections were originally constructed on an interim basis when the Annacis highway system was opened in 1986, so that construction is in progress.

B. Barisoff: On the major highway performance sustaining program, what is taking place? There's a little section on rehabilitation and seismic upgrade expenditures. Some of these questions are ones I just don't know too much about. Could you fill me in on what that means?

Hon. L. Boone: The major highway performance sustaining program sustains service levels on major highways through the remainder of the province. Initiatives include passing and climbing lanes, intersection improvements, removal of hazardous features through realignment, and capacity improvements through urban sections. The major rehabilitation budgets, though, are within the actual ministry, not within the Transportation Financing Authority.

B. Barisoff: So the Transportation Financing Authority is actually only building new infrastructure in the province?

Hon. L. Boone: Or additional capacity -- as capital, yes.

B. Barisoff: Could we get back to that six-laning of Highway 1? You talked about the HOV lane, but you didn't mention what takes place with the six-laning of Highway 1.

Hon. L. Boone: Six-laning has already started on Highway 1. That is two HOV lanes, one going each direction.

B. Barisoff: What's the extent of it? How far is it going out towards the Fraser Valley?

Hon. L. Boone: Just to Cape Horn, to the interchange that goes onto the Port Mann Bridge.

B. Barisoff: I'm just wondering whether, since you're just going up to the Port Mann Bridge, the congestion actually is just going to build up there, and not go any farther. Is there any thought of doing anything on the Port Mann Bridge, to relieve the congestion there?

Hon. L. Boone: We'll look at that, but that's not something that has been approved.

B. Barisoff: "We" as in the Transportation Financing Authority, or "we" as in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

Hon. L. Boone: The Transportation Financing Authority.

B. Barisoff: Just moving on to economic development and trade, there are a number of projects that are taking place throughout the province. In our briefing session we touched on some of them. Could you just give us a brief explanation of the ones that are in place and the ones that are going to take place?

Hon. L. Boone: Mount Washington Road, Quinsam Coal, and Finlay Navigation, which is up on Williston Lake -- the barge that goes across the lake there -- are the three projects.

B. Barisoff: Are those the only three that have been applied for from the private sector, or are there others that have been applied for?

Hon. L. Boone: A number are being considered under development, but there's nothing finalized right now.

B. Barisoff: How does a person get access to the ones that are being considered or have an interest in what's taking place in the province? What's the cost-sharing ratio for each one?

Hon. L. Boone: They're done on a project-by-project basis, and the financing for each is different. For example, at Mount Washington up to 50 percent of the cost is covered, and it's recovered through ski lift charges. The case of Finlay Navigation involved a loan, but it has been fully repaid. So it all depends on the circumstances, and it depends on what project we are looking to accomplish at that time.

B. Barisoff: What are the criteria for deciding the percentage of financing that takes place, whether it's 50-50 or...? There must be some criteria for that.

Hon. L. Boone: The various companies would come to us. We make sure that the province is protected, but through various forms. As I said, in the Mount Washington example, it is done through a rebate from ski tickets. In the case of Finlay Navigation, it was an outright loan, and it has been repaid. Those things are negotiated with the province.

B. Barisoff: My concern is over what criteria are used -- whether the ski hill gets 50-50 or something and some other project gets 40-60 or whatever. I'm just wondering if there are criteria for that.

Hon. L. Boone: It's a negotiated process that deals with the cost of the project and who the beneficiaries are. In the Finlay Navigation case, for example, only the company was the beneficiary; therefore it was repaid. In the Mount Washington case, there were others who benefited from the use of that road, and therefore it was negotiated. You recognize what is needed -- you know, you look at how much is used by the public and how much the province should be paying. You also recognize that it is a benefit to that particular company, but it brings benefits to the whole community, too.

B. Barisoff: I think I mentioned this to Doug in the briefing session, but is the accounting practice in the cases of 

[ Page 987 ]

those individual projects such that they are individually shown, in that somebody could see that Mt. Washington had paid so much toward the cost of the road, and they have so much to go, etc.?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, it is.

B. Barisoff: Is that listed somewhere so that an individual could see what's owing on those kinds of projects? There are only three such projects going right now, you say?

Hon. L. Boone: There are only three. We could get that information to you. There is an annual report. I don't know if that would be listed in a detailed section of the annual report, but we could certainly get that information to you if you requested it.

B. Barisoff: In respect to that whole concept, I think it's an excellent idea to continue along those lines. The more that we could get paying -- I shouldn't say "their fair share" -- a share of new infrastructure for the province.... This is actually of real benefit, and it will probably, in turn, benefit all of us.

One question I was going to ask at the briefing session was: when the money is borrowed, is it all borrowed from the Transportation Financing Authority, and they're paying back a loan to...? There's no capital put out by the people involved?

Hon. L. Boone: I guess it would be possible to do it differently, but the three deals we have had so far have been 100 percent TFA debt.

B. Barisoff: Moving on to the cycling network program that the TFA has throughout the province, maybe the hon. minister could indicate whether some of these things are working or not, and what the actual status is on some of them. I know you hear on the news that there seems to be a lot of complaints, when they get on there, that they're interfering. You get both sides of it. I wonder what kind of stats we have on that.

Hon. L. Boone: There are 15 projects on the south coast, six on Vancouver Island and four in the region.... I guess it's fair to say that this is the first year they've been in place, so we really haven't had time to do an assessment of it. I would think that by next year we could do a good assessment and determine how many people are using it, and whether they are in fact changing the way people are behaving, but it can't be done overnight. I think it would be a little premature to do an assessment within the first year of operation, particularly after the miserable year we've had.

B. Barisoff: What's the cost factor of putting a lot of these in place, maybe on an individual...? How many did you say you had? What kind of costs are attributed to each one?

Hon. L. Boone: It's a $2 million investment in total. I can give you the breakdown: $1,400,273 for the south coast, $342,579 for Vancouver Island, and $192,603 for regional. If you want a breakdown per project, we could get you those later if you request them, but I don't have those figures here.

Oh, actually, we do have them. Do you want them all? Do you want them now, or do you want us to forward that over to you? It's long.

B. Barisoff: As long as I get it. I just want to have a look at them. Maybe you should tell us so that they're put into the record, I guess.

Hon. L. Boone: It would take a long time.

B. Barisoff: I don't mind having them. I just want to see where they are. That's fine.

Hon. L. Boone: We will make a commitment to get a copy of this over to your office, if that is acceptable. Okay?

B. Barisoff: Carrying along with some of these, I notice that on April 25 there was a cycling infrastructure grant that was to go to the city of Revelstoke. Did that take place?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, $50,000 to Revelstoke.

B. Barisoff: Carrying on, I think there was another one that was to go to the city of Castlegar.

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, $101,000 for Castlegar.

B. Barisoff: Are all of these projects going ahead as indicated by the press releases? There are a number of others. I'll list them off: the city of Kelowna, the Kitimat-Stikine regional district and the city of Revelstoke.

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

B. Barisoff: Carrying on along with the Transportation Financing Authority and financing, could you explain to me how the Transportation Financing Authority gets their money to build the roads in the province?

[8:15]

Hon. L. Boone: It's 1 cent per litre for gas, or $53 million annually. We just approved, in the budget bill that just came through, an additional 1 cent per litre. It's not an additional 1 cent per litre coming on top, an additional tax, but an additional 1 cent per litre that will come from the existing taxes to the Transportation Financing Authority. So they will now receive 2 cents per litre to finance these. An OIC will be required, but that is in the budget bill that was just passed. There's a $1.50-per-day car rental surcharge, and that's $9 million. There are other revenue sources, at $2.2 million. You're going to ask me what those other revenue sources are, so I'm going to have to ask. It's Mount Washington Road -- the revenue that's coming in and repaying the debts, the loans, etc.

B. Barisoff: The other cent a litre that you're taking from the gas tax -- that's got to be coming from somewhere else if it's been in general revenue all along. If you're taking one cent it's got to be coming from somewhere else.

Hon. L. Boone: General revenue.

B. Barisoff: It's still getting back to the same thing. If you're taking the one cent out of general revenue, something else has to be left behind, because we're not running a balanced budget at the present time. I'm just wondering where it's coming from.

Hon. L. Boone: That's not up to me. You'll have to ask the Minister of Finance that. It's not up to me to be determining those things.

B. Barisoff: I guess that's one question that we'll all have to ask him: where the extra cent a litre is coming from.

[ Page 988 ]

Moving on, the last list that we've had here is a '94-95 list. I'm wondering what projects have taken place in '95-96, and which are completed. What's the status of them? I don't think you need to read them all out if we can get copies of them to just see where we are on some of the major projects.

Hon. L. Boone: It is a very large list. It is in the annual report which will be tabled, but it's an extremely large list here. You've got every capital project in the whole province, to the value of in excess of $350 million. Included in that, of course, are the Island Highways projects, the HOV lanes which I talked about, and passing lanes. So, it's an extensive list. We could get it to your office if you wish, but it would take an incredible amount of time here to list every project.

B. Barisoff: I asked for it the other day, and I was hoping to get it prior to this meeting. I'd just like to see it.

The other thing that I think is important, particularly to my portfolio as transportation finance critic, is that we have these ahead of time so that for the '96-97 we can see projects that are going, and a projected list of what's going to take place in the province, if that's possible. I don't know whether that's going beyond what's divulged, but it would be valuable for myself and for the opposition to know exactly what's taking place in the province.

Hon. L. Boone: The projects are all here in the freeze list that everybody received. It was part of the release that went out on June 28. These are the projects that were to be completed this year, and they're all in the freeze list. You were looking for what has been completed.... What's committed and what's under review is in this list here.

B. Barisoff: I don't think the list includes what's going to take place. I guess now, because of the ones that are frozen, we'll know that those ones are -- but future developments that are taking place throughout the province and where they might be, and.... In particular instances like places in the Okanagan that are always complaining that things aren't being done, or in the lower mainland where there's the biggest congestion -- those kinds of things -- people would like to know whether they're tenth or twentieth on the list, and whether they're going to be looking at it in two years, five years or ten years. I relate it back to Education, where they have a priority list and things keep moving on the list. I know that some of those things change, but I'm just wondering whether a list of that nature is in place, because people might be able to live with something if they knew that in two or three years' time something would be happening.

Hon. L. Boone: Things are not released until such time as a decision is made. You are likely well aware that you don't release those things until a cabinet decision has been made on them. Things go onto the plan, they're reviewed, and the various projects go up and down, depending on the emergency of them. You may suddenly get a huge growth of people coming in, as has happened in the Okanagan area, which may change where that sits in the order of things. It is the policy, and I think it's the policy of all governments, not to release the actual plans as to where a project will, in fact, be proceeding until a decision has been made.

B. Barisoff: I'm just wondering why it would be a problem in letting people know -- let's use, for instance, the Kelowna bridge -- that they would be looking at two or three years from now, or whatever else -- or projects of that nature where people could at least see what was going to take place and that they were on the list. I refer that back, of course, to my experience in education. Some of these things would be valuable to the people who live in these areas. We all know that some of the lower mainland is congested already; we know that the Okanagan area around Kelowna is congested. On these kinds of things, planning ahead of time would give people a bit of planning and a little relief in what they are thinking.

Hon. L. Boone: We are doing the Okanagan Valley system plan, whereby people have an opportunity to be involved in the process. We're doing the south coast plan, again where people are involved in the process. They have an opportunity to see what's going on and to be involved in those things.

It would be very unusual to have any document out there stipulating that certain projects were on a list at a certain level. All hell would break loose if they were knocked down a peg or two because of somebody else's priority item coming up. If, say, pressures in the Okanagan bumped off a project in Kamloops, the Kamloops people would be very upset about it. Generally speaking, those decisions are not released until such time as the decision has been made by cabinet to continue with it.

B. Barisoff: I think it doesn't matter what we do anymore; there's always somebody who is going to be upset about what has been chosen or where it has been chosen, or those kinds of things. We all know that those decisions are hard to make. The important thing is that they become more related to the need in the province -- that they're not political decisions made because, for whatever reason, somebody creates some political pressure to get something done.

Carrying on, does the Transportation Financing Authority acquire the land for new highways and whatever?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

B. Barisoff: In what period of time? This has only been established since '93, hasn't it? Is it an ongoing thing, so that they're out looking at purchases for continuing new corridors? How is it done?

Hon. L. Boone: As you noted, it has been in operation only since '93. They are trying to look at the whole idea of corridor protection, of purchasing land in advance if they think that there's a good deal that can be made in a particular area, or if there's a valid reason for purchasing it. I can assure you that they're not out there purchasing land just for the heck of it. It would be in anticipation of a road going through.

B. Barisoff: For the amortization of the roads that the TFA puts into place, has it got a particular schedule it uses?

Hon. L. Boone: Over 30 years.

B. Barisoff: On the 30-year schedule, I think I asked this in the briefing session, but I'll just ask it again. I know that the financing of all these projects is in a lump sum each year, but is there an amortization of the breakdown year by year on individual roads, so that people could see when roads are actually kind of paid for?

Hon. L. Boone: It's done in total.

B. Barisoff: Is there a reason that individual road costs couldn't be broken down? As the years go on, will you be able 

[ Page 989 ]

to see the amortization of a road that has been built in the Prince George area, to see whether it lasted 30 years or how much extra money we spent on that road in the interim period of time?

Hon. L. Boone: The details of that would be available in the accounting system.

B. Barisoff: So if someone was to ask for them they could get...? I'm not saying the general public, but if someone from government were to ask for them, could they get access to that information?

Hon. L. Boone: Each project is listed in the annual report as to when it's finished. Then you could amortize that over 30 years, as to when that project is paid off.

B. Barisoff: Is it like a bond that's floated out for all the projects done in any given year? It's just floated out on the bond market, so it might be 7 percent this year, 10 percent next year, 5 percent -- whatever?

Hon. L. Boone: If you've got this, which is the annual report '94-95, the schedule of debt is listed at the back, on page 21.

B. Barisoff: I notice that we've borrowed money in.... I don't know what that is; it's $15 billion in yen. It says that the loan is backed. I was just wondering whether borrowing money in a foreign currency could cost us in the end if something happened to that currency. If it happened to go up or down, our amortization could vary considerably.

Hon. L. Boone: We get advice from the provincial treasury as to the best deal that we can get. We buy U.S. dollars...the best deal we can get for the taxpayers of British Columbia.

B. Barisoff: I'm just going to turn this over to some of my colleagues for a bit.

[8:30]

D. Jarvis: The last time I was in these estimates I asked the minister if there was any last-minute information she could give me in regard to projects or bridge repairs that might be slated for the north side of the Second Narrows Bridge and in the lower end of the Upper Levels where it joins it. I was told at that time that there was nothing slated. I'm surprised that we have had quite a change. Either we have had very poor bridge maintenance over the years and didn't let the department know about it, or else one of us was mistaken in what was really required there.

Repairs to the bridge have been going on for about a month and a half now. It would be interesting to know what the minister says in regard to whether the repairs could have been carried out during the nights over the years as they were in other jurisdictions -- for example, in Richmond. I don't think they have factored in the time that it costs the citizens of North Vancouver, having to stand in line for hours and hours for over two months and maybe more. I understand they are having more problems with the bridge right now; the finish isn't proper, and all the rest of it. The time cost of them standing in line waiting to go to work, the time cost of the tourism that waited and waited or didn't come over into the area, and the cost of what the exhaust put up into the air and the environment is unbelievable. The cost of single parents who had to leave work two or three hours early to get to day care, the cost of extra babysitting, and all the rest of it, is just unbelievable.

I'm surprised, Mr. Chair, that the ministry didn't really look into it. Now, I'm not saying that this present minister was completely aware of it, because she has just been appointed to the job, so I cannot fault her. But I certainly can fault the ministry itself in the sense that they did not really give consideration to the citizens of this province, especially in North Vancouver. One of the major things they didn't do was take any advice from the people in the area. Every time I phoned the supervisor of the job, I found out that I was talking through a cell phone. I asked him where he lived, and he lived in Kamloops. He was in Kamloops every time I wanted to get hold of him. There were many ideas put forward, but they were all rejected, and the excuses that were used were very lame.

For example, we suggested that they could have used a decal system for the people that lived on the North Shore who wanted to travel across the North Shore, because the commerce trade in North Vancouver from the Deep Cove-Seymour area into the Lonsdale area virtually stopped. Three malls were almost at a standstill sometimes, and one almost had to close down. People would not travel across, because every time you wanted to go, for example, to a golf game -- I'm being silly in that sense, because I don't play golf; I really don't have that time, because I'm in politics -- it would take at least two to three hours waiting in line to cross one mile on the North Shore. It was just unbelievable.

If the ministry had really given consideration to some of the problems that the residents put forward -- for example, the closing of the Keith Road entrance.... They'll tell me that the traffic pattern showed that there were too many accidents as a result of it. Well, I phoned the department, and they informed us that they were using 1994 traffic patterns for this. The Keith Road entrance onto the highway caused lineups for one to two hours in the Lynn Valley area, and it also caused them on the Keith Road hill, 3rd Street and the Main Street entrance onto the Second Narrows Bridge. They drove all the traffic down to Main Street. I was informed that there were more accidents recorded on the Main Street access onto the bridge than there were at Keith Road.

There are answers for that. Keith Road should have been opened up early in the morning for the traffic -- that would probably have saved everyone about three-quarters of an hour's travel -- then closed again later on during the day; and then put all the traffic that was trying to get across on Seymour driving down the highway onto the Main Street exit. Then they would have had two ways of getting back over to the Seymour area. Very simple. Or the people that lived in Seymour and worked in Lonsdale could have easily had decals that would allow them to use the HOV lanes to go across the town. That wasn't used. There was always an excuse why it wouldn't be necessary.

They started these repairs without considering that the Dollarton Highway is only two lanes. For all the traffic that would normally use the Dollarton Highway, there were no HOV lanes available in those areas. All in all, it was an experience that has shown that the Highways ministry was not even aware of what they were really doing, because they didn't take into consideration the problems that the people who use that area were going to experience. It only proves that the access road from the Seymour area isn't affected and why the cloverleaf area that would circumvent it is desper-

[ Page 990 ]

ately needed, even if there is a situation where we might have emergencies.

There was another situation where any emergency vehicles trying to get to hospitals or anything like that were.... It was completely impossible for them to move across North Vancouver to the hospital or even into Vancouver to a hospital, because it would have taken them one hour minimum to get an ambulance across that bridge.

My question -- and I guess you're wondering when my question's coming, Mr. Chair -- is: first of all, what would it cost to have done the repairs only at nights or in the off-heavy-traffic hours? They would say it was impossible to do and all the rest of it. Richmond did it at night. Richmond also, by the way, had three more accesses for people to converge across Richmond and into Vancouver, where we only had one. So I would like to know that, if possible. If they did factor in the cost of all the problems that I said were occurring and are still occurring, could they tell me the number of accidents recorded on the Keith Road access road onto the Upper Levels Highway versus the Main Street access onto the Second Narrows Bridge? Are there any future plans or changes in that area on the north side of the Second Narrows Bridge where it converges with the south end of the Upper Levels Highway, at that point? I will leave those questions at the moment and sit down.

Hon. L. Boone: That was a long time.

Unfortunately, you should have talked to your colleague there. We had an agreement that we were going to be doing Transportation Financing Authority. All the stuff you talk about comes under the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, not under the Transportation Financing Authority, so the individuals that would have those figures are not here. They would be here later on, either tonight or tomorrow. If it is tomorrow that we are back here doing that area, then we will take the Blues and make the commitment to get that information for you at that time. As I said, the staff that are with me here tonight are with the Transportation Financing Authority. So if you have any questions that are relevant to capital projects, to that whole area, we'd be more than happy to answer them.

D. Jarvis: I wonder if the minister could give me an idea if there are any capital expenses coming up for the Low Level Road in North Vancouver.

Hon. L. Boone: Not this year.

D. Symons: On the TFA, I wonder if you might tell us how many full-time employees there are in the TFA for this coming fiscal year.

Hon. L. Boone: Thirty-three.

D. Symons: How does that compare to the figure a year ago?

Hon. L. Boone: It's slightly higher because the organization is now more fully developed. They're doing more projects and requiring more people.

D. Symons: I was listening for a figure in there. "Slightly higher" wasn't accurate enough for me.

Hon. L. Boone: There were about 25 a year ago.

D. Symons: I'm assuming that those are full-time, so you might also tell me how many part-time people there are, if any, this year compared to last year.

Hon. L. Boone: Those are all full-time-equivalents.

D. Symons: I wonder if you might tell me how many people you have working on contract.

Hon. L. Boone: There are all kinds of different contracts. At this particular time we have two that are more or less full-time. But the contractors come in and out.

D. Symons: But those two currently would be in addition to the 33 full-time?

Hon. L. Boone: No, they're within the 33.

D. Symons: Within the particular aspect of operating the TFA, how do you measure performance of your employees?

Hon. L. Boone: They're all public service employees, so they have the same public service appraisal forms.

D. Symons: I am wondering how you can measure the effectiveness of the TFA program: the performance of individual members on that team, the effectiveness of the program and the direction in which the TFA is going. There must be measurements in here to get value for money, I would suspect.

Hon. L. Boone: I'm having a bit of difficulty trying to figure out what the member is trying to get at. The corporation performance is one thing; people performance is done on an individual basis. They are public servants. But the corporation's performance is in the annual report. You have to look at what they have achieved in terms of the transportation plan for British Columbia.

In terms of the dollar value we are getting for the Island Highway project, for example, we are on budget. In terms of achievements, in the joint ventures we have actually joined with private companies to achieve something that gets roads built and builds things in the province. The achievements of the corporation are many, and they are evaluated by government on a regular basis as to how well they achieve the goals they've set out for them.

D. Symons: I am asking if there is a benchmark program in place for measuring performance of the employees and the performance of the objectives of the TFA. Along that line, because I think you've attempted to answer that, can you tell me if there are any objectives that the program has changed since it was first initiated? Since the TFA came into being, have you changed the objectives to any extent?

Hon. L. Boone: No.

G. Wilson: I appreciate the opportunity to get in with a few questions on a very specific project financed under TFA, the Gibsons bypass. This project has undergone financing and, as we know, has had significant cost overruns. In fact, for two kilometres of highway, I think the last estimate I heard was that it was close to $19 million, which is a substantial amount of money for a very short section of road that doesn't actually bypass anything because we haven't completed it.

[8:45]

[ Page 991 ]

I wonder if the minister might tell me whether or not an evaluation has been done with respect to the cost of delay on the completion of that project, given the fact that over the last five years, every time this has been delayed in terms of construction, the cost of bringing equipment back onto the site has pushed that cost up -- whether or not there is a completion figure now that the ministry has been able to estimate.

Hon. L. Boone: I have just received a briefing on this, and they are reviewing costs of phase 1 and 2 before looking at phase 3. But, hon. member, I will make a commitment to you that I will go over to your area and look.... This is a nice area; I'll go over anytime on the ferry. I'll go over there on a sunny day and spend the day and look at your project so I can get it firsthand, if that is acceptable to you.

G. Wilson: Well, hon. Chair, if my vote's up for a bribe here.... No, I wouldn't.... But certainly....

An Hon. Member: It's the first time you've been speechless.

G. Wilson: I'm just thinking of my wish list here. I would certainly take the minister up on that offer, and we'd be happy to accommodate you. Although I do think that in order to get the flavour of that highway, it's sometimes better to drive it on a very dark and rainy day rather than a sunny one.

The other question I want to ask is with respect to ongoing litigation. I don't know how much the minister is able to give me, but I know that there was some dispute with the contractor. I'm curious to know whether that dispute has been resolved, whether or not it's ongoing. Are we going to be able to arbitrate a settlement, or are we headed to court?

Hon. L. Boone: It's before the courts, so I can't comment on that right now.

G. Wilson: All right, fair enough.

The other aspect of the project that there was some concern about was the shared costs with B.C. Ferries in terms of the construction on the terminal. There appears to be some dispute -- and I don't know to what extent the minister is aware of it -- with respect to who should pay for what in terms of paving, clearing and the access route that was put in to the new parking facility at the terminal.

Hon. L. Boone: No, apparently they say there is no dispute. They will pay for the work that we did for them.

G. Wilson: Has that money, then, been collected, and if it has, is the work up to the gates? Or does it include the portion that was reconstructed as a result of redesign?

Hon. L. Boone: We are paying for the work on the highway. The work within the compound is being paid for by the Ferry Corporation. As to whether it's been paid or not, we don't know, because that goes into the province's finances.

G. Wilson: Just a couple of other questions. There has been widespread community involvement in the discussion of where the final terminus of this project should be, whether it should be at Payne Road or it should go as far as Pine Street. The community has opted for Pine Street, which was not the original design, and clearly there is going to have to be some property purchase, some survey work and some land acquisition undertaken. Can the minister tell us to what extent the ministry is committing dollars into that phase of things, into the design work and in terms of property acquisition? How much money will be spent this year on it, and how soon can we expect to see this budget completed?

Hon. L. Boone: We're doing a review of phases 1 and 2. There have been no dollars committed to the third phase right now. We're still doing the review of phases 1 and 2 before we deal with phase 3.

G. Wilson: I wonder if the minister might explain a little of what that review entails. What's to review, other than the fact that it cost us far more than it should have?

Hon. L. Boone: I guess the ministry wants to know if it achieved the function that it was intended to.

G. Wilson: I'm delighted to be able to save the government all kinds of money. The answer is no. I don't think you need a review. We didn't get the bypass, the road isn't finished, and it cost us a lot more money than it needed to. So I don't know what we need to review. Unless it's part of the ongoing legal dispute, in which case I would understand that there would have to be some review.

I understand that the former minister asked for a formal audit to be done on the project, and I wonder if the detail of that audit would be available.

Hon. L. Boone: We want to look at the cost overruns on phases 1 and 2 to determine if we got value for the money that was spent there, why the cost overruns occurred and all of those different things. Those will be done before we actually move into phase 3.

G. Wilson: Clearly we didn't get value for the cost overruns, because it was not within the budget that was originally put forward. But I come back to the second part of my question, which I think the minister perhaps didn't hear. I understand that there was an internal audit conducted. Could the minister perhaps tell me who did the audit and whether the report of the audit -- that is, the detail of that audit -- would be available for us to have a look at?

Hon. L. Boone: The comptroller general has it, so you could request it from the comptroller general.

G. Wilson: I understand that it was an internal audit; it was done by governmental auditors. Or was there a contracted auditor that was hired to do the work?

Hon. L. Boone: It was an internal audit by the comptroller general.

G. Wilson: Thank you. I will undertake to get it through that office.

Just the last two questions, then. I really do take the minister seriously about the offer that I made earlier, and I know that she's responded to on the record, that she'd be prepared to come and travel that highway. It's an important thing to do. The need to get the bypass completed is urgent.

I recognize that phases 1 and 2 were financially a bit of a problem, and I'm understating the situation. I don't want to prejudge what may come out in terms of any litigative issues; 

[ Page 992 ]

I don't want to get into that. But one might argue that it had more to do with the contractor than with the design or anything else. It would be unfortunate if this minister chose not to proceed with the completion of the project simply because phases 1 and 2 were financially less than desirable.

I would like to have from the minister what kind of commitment there would be with respect to proceeding on this project, given that the review is done. I don't know what it is that.... I'm hoping the minister isn't going to tell me tonight -- subject to the review, if the review shows that there was more money spent than we got value for dollar -- that somehow the Transportation Financing Authority might determine that they weren't going to complete that project. That would be a real problem, because it would mean that we would have completely wasted the money we spent.

Hon. L. Boone: No, I'm not going to tell you that; I am going to tell you that we'll look at the project. We'll take into consideration the priorities around the province, review everything and do our best to try and meet the needs of your people, your constituents and the people of British Columbia -- as we will for all British Columbians. Whether we can meet their expectations in terms of what they want there, I don't know. We will try to do the best we can to meet the needs of that community.

G. Wilson: I'll take that as a serious commitment to look at this issue, and that will be good. If I might just offer one further comment, then I would yield again. Again, I appreciate the opportunity.

One thing I know, which perhaps is not in the mandate of the TFA but should come to the attention of the minister in reviewing this project, is that the runaway lane for the heavy transport down a very steep grade is on the extreme right-hand side of the road of traffic that is proceeding to and lining up for the ferry, using that right-hand lane. Much of the heavy traffic, the transport going down that hill, is in the left-hand lane to make a left-hand turn to go to the Port Mellon mill. If they lose their brakes, they're going to have to cross over the right-hand lane, which is often stationary and waiting for the ferry, to get to the runaway. This is not a good design. I would say -- before such time as we have that issue where somebody is going to have to plow through traffic, and we'll remember only too well the calamity at Horseshoe Bay -- that somebody ought to take a look at that.

Hon. L. Boone: I'll make sure that we get a copy of the Blues tomorrow. We'll take your comments down, and I'll have the ministry look at those.

F. Gingell: We have the financial statements for the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority for the year ended March 31, 1995. I wonder if the minister could advise us what the status is for the '96 statements, when we might expect them, and if they're in draft form, if it's possible for us to get them while this committee is dealing with this issue.

Hon. L. Boone: Don't wait for them. They're just being finalized; they haven't gone to the Ministry of Finance. They are a ways from being printed, hon. member.

F. Gingell: Since the Transportation Financing Authority was created, you have made some changes to your accounting policies. Perhaps the minister, perhaps directly, might like to just give them to us one at a time.

Hon. L. Boone: The change in accounting policy as stated in the '94-95 annual report is:"The Authority has changed its method of recording revenue. In the prior period, dedicated taxes were recognized in an amount sufficient to cover current period expenditures, with the balance recorded as deferred. Revenue is now recorded as it is earned. This change has been applied retroactively and has increased amounts previously reported for dedicated taxes by $34,383,000 and retained earnings by the same amount."

F. Gingell: Can the minister tell us why this change was made?

Hon. L. Boone: It's considered to be a more appropriate accounting treatment.

Interjections.

F. Gingell: Well, maybe on that side of the room, but not necessarily.

It does, I guess, clearly agree on one factor: that these revenues are not the normal type of revenues. You talk about operating a business. The authority is getting some $65 million a year from the various tax sources, all of which is dedicated for the purpose of constructing facilities. It would have seemed to me that the original accounting practice that you started with, which was to take in sufficient to cover your operating costs and leave the rest deferred as revenues that are going to be used in the future for these projects, was really quite an appropriate way of doing things.

[9:00]

Clearly the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority hasn't made a profit; I think you would all agree with that. You just happen to have had some dedicated tax revenues assigned to you which have exceeded your costs as the projects are beginning to build. But what's happening, when it gets consolidated through into the summary financial statements, is that this $33 million appears as a profit that the Transportation Financing Authority has made.

Now, at the same time, your next change in accounting is to have, as I understand it, a slightly different practice for capitalizing interest costs. I get concerned that if you delay a project or you have projects that are half-done and not completed, if you continue to add the accrued interest to them, you're increasing their costs without adding any value. I'd be interested in your comment on that issue.

Hon. L. Boone: The interest accrued during construction is part of the capital costing, and apparently it's a generally accepted accounting practice.

F. Gingell: I would suggest that that's only appropriate when clearly the project is moving forward. I'd like to suggest to you that if you had a project that for some reason was held up for six months because of weather or a contract dispute, you would continue to add the interest on to the cost of the project without adding any value. In the end, the intention of the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority, I believe, is to record on its accounts the assets that you build, at the cost of building those assets, and that's a whole bunch of costs -- like labour, the use of equipment and interest costs -- while the project is moving forward. But the moment the project stops or is delayed, as may be the case with current circumstances, that interest should be expensed rather than capitalized.

Hon. L. Boone: I think the member is talking about the freeze, and if there's something contractually committed and a project is actually under construction, it's continuing. The 

[ Page 993 ]

freeze takes place only with those that have not had a contract given.

F. Gingell: So I understand, then, that everything that is included in the item that's capitalized on work in progress, roads and bridges, is a series of costs against a specific list of projects, and they're all proceeding. None of them are frozen, and no costs have been included in that category for projects that have not yet commenced construction.

Hon. L. Boone: I'm not quite sure what your question is. If you're looking at that book and asking if any of those dollars and anything that was mentioned in the book, planned for.... They may in fact be frozen, but they would not have been frozen if there was a contract already given for them. The projects that have been frozen are those where no contract was given.

F. Gingell: Yes, I understand that. The issue, in my mind, was whether any costs had been incurred on those projects that had been included in the category "Work in progress, roads and bridges."

Hon. L. Boone: If you purchased the land and the land is now sitting there, you may in fact be incurring interest on that. That would be part of the cost, yes.

F. Gingell: Even though the project has been delayed? I'm not suggesting it's cancelled, because you bought the land, but it's delayed. I was thinking of less tangible costs, perhaps, than the acquisition of land. You are following a rule that capitalizes anything that is still work in progress even though the project is not moving along, and you're adding cost where value is not being added.

Hon. L. Boone: These projects are just delayed. They're not cancelled, so the costs are there. There may be some costs where interest is being incurred, yes.

F. Gingell: The notes to the financial statements make statements such as: "As prescribed by section 18(8) of the Build BC Act, the consolidated financial statements of the authority are prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles appropriate for a business enterprise." It isn't a big issue, but I'd like to suggest to you that interest on a project that is delayed and sitting still in a business enterprise would not be capitalized. The auditors would not consider that those interest costs added value to the project. If the project is sitting still and these additional interest costs were being incurred, you would write those off as an expense.

Hon. L. Boone: Thank you for your suggestion.

F. Gingell: In the 1995 financial statements, which are the last ones we have, an amount of some $5 million has been advanced to Finlay Navigation -- for the construction of a ferry, I think. The total approved cost was a fraction over $9 million. The Transportation Financing Authority had agreed to advance those funds. Fifteen months later, can you tell us where this project is? What costs have been incurred?

Hon. L. Boone: About an hour earlier I advised a critic that that loan has been fully paid off.

F. Gingell: This loan was going to be paid off by revenues earned by the ferry. Was the loan paid off from revenues earned by the ferry?

Hon. L. Boone: It was paid off by the company. I don't know where they got their revenues from, but it was paid off by the company, and that's all I really care about.

F. Gingell: In the normal course of events, business enterprises put out quarterly and semiannual financial statements. We do indeed get a little P and L in the quarterly report. Does the corporation put out other financial statements for public consumption that we don't receive?

Hon. L. Boone: No, those are the only reports that are done.

F. Gingell: Can the minister advise the committee of the amount of money that you had budgeted to spend in the year 1996-97 and how that gross number may have been affected by the fees?

Hon. L. Boone: The overall capital project says $354 million. We are still assessing the amount that would be captured in the freeze, because there are some projects where dollars have already been expended on those things. Once we have finished that, hon. member, I'd be happy to get that dollar figure to you.

F. Gingell: Of course, you will be spending some money on them -- the interest costs that you insist on capitalizing, even though the project has been frozen. I'm sure that before you proceed, the TFA goes through a series of evaluations on the projects which give you priorities. Could the minister describe for us what role environmental issues play in those evaluations?

Hon. L. Boone: It's one of the factors of multiple account evaluation -- I've got to get these things in my mind. But that's just one of the factors.

F. Gingell: Can you expand on them a little more? Do you deal with issues about oxides of nitrogen and carbon that get in the air because of slow traffic and those kind of issues?

Hon. L. Boone: Depending on the project, you would deal with the air quality.... If it was by a creek, it might be affecting fish and various things. It would all depend on the particular project.

F. Gingell: Who do you use to do those kinds of evaluations for you? Do you use the Ministry of the Environment or outside consultants?

Hon. L. Boone: We use contractors.

F. Gingell: When we deal with the issue of your '96-97 budget, clearly it's going to be affected by the programs that have been put on hold. There was also in the budget an additional 1 cent a litre, which will bring in some $55 million a year or thereabouts. Can the minister advise us now what their current budget is for gas tax revenues -- i.e., when do you expect this extra cent a litre to kick in?

Hon. L. Boone: It was planned before the freeze, so it will be reviewed with the Ministry of Finance, taking into consideration the freeze and the requirements that will be....

D. Symons: One of the difficulties with having the TFA is the fact that sometimes you want to know, when you're ask-

[ Page 994 ]

ing questions dealing with highways, whether it goes to the TFA or just to the Highways ministry per se. I have one of those questions. I'm not quite sure.... It involves a proposal.... I think it ties in with the south perimeter road, or another crossing of the Fraser River. There was a suggestion a year or so ago in the paper: "Province Ponders Twinning of the Port Mann Bridge." There were two or three MLAs -- they happened to be on the government side -- who made comments about what a wonderful project this would be. I also have a comment from April of '94 where a member on the other shore said: "I think it would be a silly move on the part of the government. The government hasn't even made a decision yet for tolls in this province."

So I am wondering if you can give me an idea, in your looking at various projects around the lower mainland, of whether either a twinning of the Port Mann Bridge or a crossing more toward the Haney-Maple Ridge side -- say about Albion, which I think is a possibility -- are real possibilities or simply pipedreams of politicians around election time.

Hon. L. Boone: It's within the south coast transportation system plan. It's all under review. The whole issue of the Port Mann Bridge is one that we'll be looking at at some point in time -- not necessarily the twinning of the bridge but what actually takes place with the bridge, because we do know that there needs to be something done with the Port Mann, just as there needs to be something done with the Lions Gate Bridge. All of those things will be dealt with and reviewed and decisions will be made in the future. But no decisions have been made right now.

[9:15]

D. Symons: One comment made by the member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows -- and this was, remember, April of '94 -- was that the government hadn't even made a decision on tolls yet. We've had two years go by since that date, and I don't think the 2 cents a litre that you'll eventually be getting for funding the TFA and the projects that they're involved in are going to pay down the loan costs on those projects at any great rate. Where are we on the possibility of tolling various structures around the province? There must be some decision made by this time on whether you're going to go for tolls, even if I don't ask specifically which projects you may use that on.

Hon. L. Boone: Tolling is projected for projects meeting the following criteria: no untolled alternative; results in service improvement; would be effectively used with toll in place; toll can be efficiently applied. We're continuing to develop criteria around the use of tolls. Tolling is not something that we have rejected entirely; I think there are some areas that could easily use a toll, and there are some where it wouldn't work. I think we have to review all those things and see if it's possible.

R. Coleman: I have a series of questions, but I don't know if it's appropriate to be asking them of the TFA or the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, so maybe I could clarify a couple points first. Who sets the priorities for construction projects on a one-year, two-year, three-year, four-year or five-year period, so we would be able to determine where certain projects within certain ridings would be sitting on a priority list?

Hon. L. Boone: The Transportation Financing Authority board determines those things.

R. Coleman: So I guess we can deal here with the questions I have with regard to the Highway 1 corridor? Okay. First of all, we have the HOV lanes being built on the other side of the Port Mann Bridge. On the side of the Port Mann Bridge to the east, we have over a million people. Those people are actually downloading at the Port Mann onto a four-lane while we're expanding to six lanes on the other side of the bridge. My question would be a bit more specific, perhaps, than the previous member's. Do you have a time frame for expansion or improvements to the Port Mann Bridge?

Hon. L. Boone: No, we don't have a time frame.

R. Coleman: That would lead me to my next question. Further down the same freeway, at 200th Street, there's an overpass that services 100,000 people. That overpass has people waiting at it for up to 45 minutes in the morning and evening in order to access corridors. It also serves a large industrial area. We have a tremendous amount of pollution and stalling at the 200th Street corridor. I'm wondering what plans there might be for the 200th Street corridor, which services the Langley city area, the Walnut Grove area and the industrial area of Port Kells, where there are a large number of mills.

Hon. L. Boone: We currently have work underway with Langley to see how we can improve that interchange.

R. Coleman: Do you have a time frame for that?

Hon. L. Boone: We don't have a time frame at this time.

R. Coleman: Would that be in relation to both the township of Langley and the city of Langley? They'd both be participating in these discussions as joint venture partners relative to how that impacts both communities?

Hon. L. Boone: Just the township.

R. Coleman: My next question is with regard to the Port Mann Bridge itself. There have been some comments and rumours within my riding from a number of people who go over the Port Mann Bridge every day, and I'm wondering if you can tell me what the structural integrity of the bridge is at this time.

Hon. L. Boone: It's sound.

R. Coleman: I drove over it last Sunday, so I guess it's somewhat sound, but there have been seismic concerns, etc., in reference to this particular bridge, particularly in reference to its footings. It has been a longstanding concern in the area. Have there been any studies or seismic studies done of that particular portion of the bridge?

Hon. L. Boone: It would be the ministry that does any seismic studies, but there has been no indication, that we know of, that there are any problems with that particular bridge. The ministry staff will be here either later on tonight or, if you end this, tomorrow. So I'd be happy to answer you then.

R. Coleman: I'd like to go to another area of another set of corridors dealing with Highway 99, where there is another area of congestion dealing with the unloading and download-

[ Page 995 ]

ing of people from the southern portion of Langley city, in an area called Brookswood.

Incidently, with regard to the 200th Street overpass, just before I ask this question.... Earlier you made the statement that planning and growth were some of the concerns relative to making these decisions. You should be aware that the official community plan for the Willoughby area is presently being written in the Langley township and will add another 30,000 people to the hillside below the 200th Street overpass, where there is already this hundred thousand people. So you might want to take that into consideration in your planning.

The other area of concern -- probably for clarification -- is Highway 99 at 152nd Street where it touches on 32nd Avenue. There is information out there that an overpass is planned for that area and that some of the land has been purchased. I'm wondering if you can tell me the status of that project.

Hon. L. Boone: We're working with the city of Surrey, trying to get some cost-sharing efforts there.

R. Coleman: Do you have a time frame on that one?

Hon. L. Boone: We will be considering it this year, possibly.

R. Coleman: There's another corridor. This one deals with an area called the 16th Avenue corridor. The 16th Avenue corridor is a truck route at this time, basically, with no shoulder on either side of the road. I'm wondering if this ministry has any involvement with that particular road, if you've looked at it, and what the status of it would be.

Hon. L. Boone: No. There is no capital on that. TFA is strictly capital.

R. Coleman: The next question will be on another corridor in the Fraser Valley. As you know, I'm fortunate to be here rather than in the valley today. If I were, I'd have a sore throat because of the pollution in the valley. A lot of the pollution has to do with our corridors, and that's why this concern. The Fraser Highway itself breaks off at Highway 1 at the Mount Lehman overpass and continues on through the little village of Aldergrove. Where it comes into the community of Aldergrove, it's two lanes. It expands to four lanes for about a mile-and-a-half stretch, and then it goes back down to two lanes. It's used for truck traffic as well as residential traffic. I understand that it is heavily overcrowded as far as the amount of load it's carrying, and I'm wondering if there are any plans to deal with the upgrading of the Fraser Highway.

Hon. L. Boone: No.

R. Coleman: So I could go back to my constituency and tell them that none of their corridors are presently under consideration or are due to have any capital improvements done to them. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Boone: No. I told you that South Surrey was being considered, and we are working with the Langley area. But after hearing all this from all you gentlemen who want so much for your areas, I hope that in future you will not talk about government debt, because you're talking about huge amounts of money coming into your constituencies.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members. Members, we were doing fine through the Chair; it works much better.

Hon. L. Boone: It's really nice to know that the support is there. It's nice to know that you want us to spend this money and that you want us to actually go out and increase the debt. I'm really pleased to hear that, because that gives me heart that you guys really do care and that we will continue to build our province. I really feel good about that.

R. Coleman: I appreciate that oratory, but my next line of questioning was going to be so I could go back and explain to them why their corridors weren't being done. Obviously the next consideration is.... I guess it doesn't deal with your particular ministry, but the reason these corridors are clogged is because of the lack of other means of transportation for people to make alternate choices.

H. Lali: West Coast Express is a prime example, and he doesn't want it.

R. Coleman: The West Coast Express, to the hon. member for Yale-Lillooet, is on the north side of the river in Mission, an hour away from this community, so it has no effect whatsoever on this community.

Interjections.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please, members.

R. Coleman: The West Coast Express is on the north side of the Fraser River. It's an hour away, by road, from the communities we're dealing with. It's not something that actually impacts on the traffic patterns in this particular area.

My next question is: if Transportation and Highways is building corridors for transportation of motor vehicles, buses, HOV lanes, and what have you -- it's just sort of a philosophical question -- why is it not also responsible for transit in the area, so that the two factions could be coordinated and actually work together?

Hon. L. Boone: You are going to have to ask the Premier that.

F. Gingell: We thought you'd do it for us. [Laughter.]

Hon. L. Boone: You thought wrong.

R. Thorpe: I won't debate the oratory by the minister on fiscal responsibility, but I'm sure she wasn't listening properly to our questions before she went into her fiscal speech. Nonetheless, in our very brief briefing with staff the other night, in between the ringing of the bells and running up and down the stairs, I thought I heard.... The briefing indicated to us that achieving deadlines within the original budget was something that the management group of the authority was very, very proud of. Was I correct in that understanding?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

R. Thorpe: One of the objectives in your plan is a completion of the Okanagan plan by the spring of 1997. Will you achieve that deadline?

Hon. L. Boone: The planning project is there. Yes, it will be on schedule for the end of fiscal '97. That's the whole planning area for the planning process for the Okanagan.

[ Page 996 ]

R. Thorpe: I'd like some clarification, because planning process and plan.... I'm sure the minister understands the difference. As it's stated here, will the Okanagan plan be completed by the spring of 1997? That is my question.

Hon. L. Boone: We're working with the community, and that's the target date.

R. Thorpe: I assume that is a yes. Is that a correct assumption, minister? I don't believe it's that tough; it's yes or no where I'm from, but maybe things are different in Penticton.

Hon. L. Boone: I said yes, that is the target date.

R. Thorpe: You said yes this time.

Could the minister please describe to me and to the other members of this committee the extent of the Okanagan plan? Where does it stretch from north to south and east to west?

[9:30]

Hon. L. Boone: I hope the member has this, but I will send this over to him if not. It goes from Osoyoos down in the southern half, up to Sicamous, I think, Salmon Arm, over to Monte Creek, Cherryville, Keremeos, Rock Creek.... Have you got one of these, hon. member?

R. Thorpe: I don't think so.

Hon. L. Boone: Okay, we'll be happy to get one to you when we get them.

R. Thorpe: Thank you, minister. One of the concerns of people in the Okanagan is that projects with respect to highways have been studied and studied. Can the minister advise if you are restudying it, or are you in fact taking the studies that have been done and trying to effectively use those costs in producing fiscally responsible roads in this area on this project?

Hon. L. Boone: They're taking all other studies...but they're also using a land use component. Growth strategies are taking place in one of the communities there, and transportation is part of that. We're very hopeful that some of the other communities will also start to take part in the growth strategies, because, as you know, that whole area is a section of the province that's just booming and growing so incredibly fast that you really need to have some planning around everything for that area.

R. Thorpe: In the Okanagan plan, are there considerations also being looked at for the east side of Lake Okanagan?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, all corridors will be identified.

R. Thorpe: Does the Coquihalla fall under your responsibility in this group, or is that another group?

Hon. L. Boone: The Coquihalla is already built. We only look at the building and planning of new projects. Maintenance -- rehabilitation -- of the Coquihalla falls under the ministry, and as I said earlier, we will have ministry staff here later on.

R. Thorpe: I just ask this for some clarification again, because when we met with staff the other night we were interrupted several times by bells. The staff seemed to be very proud of their financial model and the different components they talked about. For the members on this side who would be interested, would it be possible to receive a detailed briefing on that model and to review the post-audit procedures that are perhaps part of that model?

Hon. L. Boone: Of course.

R. Thorpe: Thank you very much.

R. Coleman: Just a couple of quick questions to the minister. Do projects such as guardrail programs and what have you fall under the TFA, or do they fall under the Ministry of Highways?

Hon. L. Boone: Highways.

M. de Jong: The minister was taken on a tour of Highway 1 through the Fraser Valley. If I could take her just a little bit farther....

An Hon. Member: Further down. [Laughter.]

F. Gingell: These bachelors are all the same.

M. de Jong: And I promise to have her home by midnight.

The Chair: Parliamentary language, member.

M. de Jong: One of the concerns for people living in that part of the eastern Fraser Valley relates to the fact that I think there are now only two -- maybe only one -- level crossings of that freeway -- roads that don't have overpasses. I won't be presumptuous enough to demand of the minister some sort of financial commitment through the agency, but I wonder if criteria exist by which the priorities are set, by which she and her staff would say that there are.... It would be a safety consideration. It would be dependent upon the number of cars. Maybe she could elaborate so that those people will know what the ministry is looking at for determining where in the list of priorities is the construction of what will likely be the last level crossing of the freeway portion of Highway 1.

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, they have criteria established, such as safety, social, economic, environmental and financial values.

M. de Jong: In the case of the level crossing I'm referring to in the district of Abbotsford, I think it's fair to say that safety would be the predominant consideration. I don't know that you can necessarily justify the expense on a per-car basis when there are other overpasses with thousands -- hundreds of thousands -- of cars utilizing them on a daily basis. In this case, the concern is in regard to the use of farm vehicles and other slow-moving traffic. This is really a rural area through which the main freeway for the Fraser Valley runs. For the benefit of those who are concerned about this, I wonder if the minister could signal the extent to which that is a priority -- recognizing that it is, by and large, a safety concern, and that there have been other overpasses constructed, in that area and further along, that perhaps don't justify the capital expense purely on the basis of usage, but do on the basis of safety.

Hon. L. Boone: Well, we look into everything. If there's an issue there, I would urge the member to bring it to the 

[ Page 997 ]

attention of the board or to his highways manager, who can then draw it to our attention. We usually look at everything and try to prioritize things based on the concerns of various areas. Just today we were looking at a particular region and project. I asked: "If this project were put to the community there, where would this fit? Would this be the number one priority?" The answer came back: "Yes, it would." That's what we need to look at, because there are all kinds of things.... Sometimes what I've found is that what I think is the number one priority in my community -- and I found this over the years -- doesn't necessarily jibe with what the ministry people are saying. So I have to make my concerns known to them as well, and I would urge you to do that.

M. de Jong: There is another.... We are talking about interchanges. I'll mention the Mount Lehman interchange, and then staff, while I ramble on for a few seconds, can provide the information to the minister. I'm going to ask the minister a question with respect to this interchange. There is an extensive study that has been completed; I think she'll confirm that. Plans have been drawn up. I think there's generally a recognition of the need, that the volumes and the safety considerations are such that the work warrants being done. I'm anticipating that the minister will say that the obstacle, to the extent that it exists in this case, is purely financial. When the study was originally commissioned, there was a cost attached to it, but I think that study is now some years old. I'm wondering if the minister can indicate what the cost was at the time the study was completed, and what the cost is expected to be if that project were to proceed this year.

Hon. L. Boone: Sorry, I'm trying to get the answer for the last one there. We've looked at.... In the question prior to that, were you dealing with the Sumas-Vedder...? Is that correct?

M. de Jong: Sorry -- the level crossing? The Campbell Road. The Sumas-Vedder is not the level crossing.

Hon. L. Boone: On the other one that you were talking about, which is the Mount Lehman interchange, I will just repeat this to you, and you can tell me.... The scope of this would be the reconstruction of the Mount Lehman interchange, including connecting highway interchange with Old Yale Road across the Trans-Canada Highway, replacement of the Mount Lehman Road underpass and a Trans-Canada overpass for the Fraser Highway eastbound to Old Yale Road. This project would require the closure of Peardonville Road. Is that correct?

M. de Jong: Yes.

Hon. L. Boone: I think the total estimated cost is $42 million. We believe that a longer-term plan is required, because those dollars just aren't here at this particular time.

M. de Jong: Could the minister confirm the figure she mentioned? That was the estimate at the time the study was commissioned, and I think that was several years ago. Is there an up-to-date estimate of what that would cost? Does that figure include property purchases that would be required to effect that plan?

Hon. L. Boone: No, I don't have an up-to-date cost, but it would be fair to say that it would be considerably more than what this is right now.

M. de Jong: I'll ask the same question regarding the property purchase: was that a component of the estimate?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, it would have been an inclusive cost.

R. Coleman: Would you have a summary that you could read me on the 200th Street overpass, similar to what you just read on the Mount Lehman overpass? That would really be helpful to me. Then we go to the 176th Street overpass.

Hon. L. Boone: The 88th Avenue underpass? Is that it? At 200th Street?

R. Coleman: That's it: 88th, at 200th Street.

Hon. L. Boone: Okay, and you want to know the scope of the project. It involves the construction of an underpass of Highway 1 along the 88th Avenue east-west alignment. The estimated cost of this would be approximately $23.5 million.

R. Coleman: Would your office be able to supply me with a copy of that?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

[9:45]

F. Gingell: One of the projects in progress is the East Ladner bypass that's included in your report. There's been some $162,000 capitalized on the project to March 31, 1995. I was wondering if you could tell me if any further work has been done on this during the 1995-96 year and what status it has at this point.

Hon. L. Boone: As someone who was born and raised in Ladner, I can't understand why anybody would ever want to bypass it. It's a wonderful place.

An Hon. Member: Why did you leave?

Hon. L. Boone: Because I found a more wonderful place.

Hon. member, it's part of the south coast systems plan.

R. Thorpe: Just as a matter of general information, who are the current directors of the authority?

Hon. L. Boone: Myself, Hon. Dan Miller, MLA Helmut Giesbrecht on behalf of Hon. Penny Priddy, and Deputy Minister George Ford.

B. Barisoff: I'm just going to go back into the book, with the air transport assistance program. Please explain to me about the air transport assistance program.

Hon. L. Boone: The air transport assistance program was put in place to meet three objectives: to encourage air services to communities not linked by air; to improve access to remote communities; and to support local economic development. During the last quarter of 1995-96 a review of the objectives was conducted, and the primary results of the review were that the objectives required redefinition and should be clearly redefined and measurable. Historically, the program has been most effective in improving access to remote communities, moderately effective in facilitating scheduled air services, and achieved varied results related to economic development. The 

[ Page 998 ]

program is efficient from an administrative cost perspective. Existing airport network plans should be updated, to identify the essential provincial airport network and associated requirements and to serve as a basis for future programs' scope. It has contributed approximately $50.5 million to community facilities since 1978. Applications totalled just under $8 million for '96-97; and grants totalling $1,911,300 are approved for '96-97.

B. Barisoff: Could you list the projects -- it can't be that many -- that are on the go for this year?

Hon. L. Boone: For '96-97: Pemberton, runway repair and helipad lights, $20,000; Chetwynd, runway rehabilitation, $444,000; Grand Forks, crack-filling and paved surfaces study, $50,000; Cache Creek, runway rehabilitation, $23,500; Mile 108, crack-filling, $30,000; Nakusp, runway repair, $30,000; Fraser Lake, runway resurfacing, $100,000; Atlin, runway lighting, $485,000; Nelson, apron repair, $36,300; Vernon, reconstruction of existing taxi-way, $178,500; Chilliwack, runway resurfacing, $215,000; Port Hardy, purchase and installation of strobe beacon, $8,000; Oliver, runway and ramp overlay, $215,000; Elk Valley, riverbank stabilization, $75,000.

B. Barisoff: These are projects that have been approved and are going ahead for this year?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, it's a granted program.

B. Barisoff: Moving on through the book a little bit more, and the design-and-build approach, could you just give me a brief explanation of this project and the way that works?

Hon. L. Boone: It's a brand-new way for government to do this, from what I understand. The Westview interchange was done in that manner. It's a complete package that is done with the designer and the builder working together to construct the interchange.

B. Barisoff: I've been led to believe that when these contracts were let before, they were normally always let in the fall and contractors could prepare themselves for the spring work, and that now, for some reason, the contracts are being let in the new year, in February or March, and a lot of the contractors could have kept people working during the winter months if they had gotten those contracts earlier on. They could actually keep a lot of people employed during that period of time. I don't know if that's the case. That's what I've been told by a number of contractors.

Hon. L. Boone: We let them out for tender when the money is approved, so I'm not quite sure why you feel there has been a change. Whenever the contract is ready, that's when the tender goes out.

B. Barisoff: I just wondered whether there had been a policy change, because contractors have indicated to me that in past years they always came out in the fall, and it gave them that opportunity. I can see what you're saying, but I wonder whether there could be some consideration by the Transportation Financing Authority of whether there's a possibility of getting some of those contracts in the fall so we could keep people working through the winter.

Hon. L. Boone: They're given out whenever the money is approved. From my perspective, I prefer to see them in the spring; there's no use for my people to get things in the fall, because they can't construct anything in the winter. So my contractors would be entirely different from your contractors in the southern half of the province. But there has been no change of policy. In fact, we let the contracts when the contracts are ready to be given, when we get approval for the funding.

B. Barisoff: I just want to comment that the design-build concept is an excellent concept. Being in the construction industry myself, I know that with some of those concepts, you can actually save a lot of money. I think it's probably an excellent idea for the TFA to go along in those directions.

Moving on to Highway Constructors Ltd., I just need a brief explanation of this corporation -- what was formed here and why it was formed.

Hon. L. Boone: That corporation was formed when the Island Highway project was put into place, and it is the employer for the Island Highway project. All employees are hired by that company, and contractors do their hiring through that company.

B. Barisoff: I'm just wondering why a company of this nature was formed, what the cost of forming it was, and whether there were efficiencies or actual extra costs to highway projects on Vancouver Island because of it.

Hon. L. Boone: No, we don't believe there are any extra costs. In fact, we used as a model.... Somebody that you well know, W.A.C. Bennett, used to use this whole concept when he was building dams, and the dams in the Peace River and dams throughout British Columbia were built using this whole concept of having a Crown corporation actually do the hiring. It provides a stable labour environment -- allows the organization to deal with dispute resolutions -- and a consistent supply of labour. We've had some very good comments from some of the contractors out there, who have commented that they appreciate being able to just phone HCL when they need an employee and having that body be able to immediately provide them with a trained person. So from our perspective it is working very well, and there has been no additional cost to the Island Highway project.

B. Barisoff: I must agree with you that W.A.C. Bennett was probably one of the best Premiers that ever governed British Columbia, so there are some good ideas that he had. I was actually quite young when he was running government in British Columbia. But I still do have some concerns with that, because I do have questions from contractors who come from the interior and find themselves in a situation where, if they happen to get a project on Vancouver Island, they actually have to lay off the help that they normally have, come onto Vancouver Island and actually hire different people to do the job. This doesn't go over well with the contractors in the rest of the province.

Hon. L. Boone: At the time this project was put into place, Vancouver Island was facing some severe disruptions in their job force, in their communities, due to some of the reductions in timber supply, and this government made a decision to do local hire so that the people that would benefit from the jobs on the Island Highway would be those people who had been displaced for whatever reason on Vancouver Island. I believe it's worked well. I believe the people on Vancouver Island really do believe this is a project that they 

[ Page 999 ]

are participating in, and it's kept those communities alive and well. It's unfortunate that some others didn't get those jobs, but we didn't want to see a situation where companies were coming in and bringing Alberta workers when we had a lot of our own workers sitting there unemployed.

B. Barisoff: Can you tell me what the cost of the Island Highway is as part of the overall budget of the Transportation Financing Authority?

[10:00]

Hon. L. Boone: About 50 percent.

B. Barisoff: That's my concern: when 50 percent of the money budgeted for highway construction throughout the province is being spent in one particular area. I don't believe that 50 percent of the workers are living on Vancouver Island. I think it has had a very negative effect on the rest of the construction industry in the province, and I do feel that it's very unfair to them that we would form such a company that would force companies to have to hire from this particular area. I'm just wondering if there's any sense of changing this for the rest of the projects that are on Vancouver Island.

Hon. L. Boone: No.

An Hon. Member: They're all one taxpayer.

B. Barisoff: That's exactly right. As my colleague said, we're all one taxpayer. We're all one taxpayer in British Columbia. I want to reiterate again that I think it's an unfair process that takes place.

Maybe the hon. minister could explain to me what kinds of costs are incurred and what kinds of wage factors are put to the contractors that have to come from outside Vancouver Island, and the wage scales basically for everybody who works on the Vancouver Island project.

Hon. L. Boone: It's just a fair-wage project.

B. Barisoff: That's probably been my concern. I know for a fact that fair-wage projects -- again, I hate to refer back to schools and whatever else -- have cost school districts in the neighbourhood of 20 percent on a project, and if it's costing an extra 20 percent on the Vancouver Island Highway project.... I don't know what's been spent to date, but maybe we could have the figures of what's been spent to date.

Hon. L. Boone: It's about half done, and it's a $1.2 billion project. So half of $1.2 billion has been spent on this.

B. Barisoff: Would it be a fair assumption to say, then, that we are spending an extra 20 percent due to the fair-wage contract in the tendering that goes out on the Vancouver Island Highway project?

Hon. L. Boone: No.

An Hon. Member: It's all that overtime.

B. Barisoff: As one of my colleagues just mentioned in the background.... I know for a fact those are the kinds of costs that take place on building projects, schools -- that there's an extra 20 percent. I just want to mention a school project that we did last year. We phoned three of the four contractors and asked them what extra costs the fair-wage act cost them. One said 19 percent, one said 20 percent, and one said 21 percent. We followed this up with other projects we had, and it seems to work out around 20 percent.

So from what I can see, we've probably spent an extra quarter of a billion dollars on this one project and what could probably take place is that we could build all the overpasses and stuff on Highway 1 to cover this. I still think that maybe the ministry could find out, based on tendering processes, what would take place, what kind of extra costs we are paying.

Hon. L. Boone: I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this item, hon. member. It has been the philosophy of this government that we should be paying a fair wage. Yes, we could probably save money if we paid everybody minimum wage, but I don't think we'd want to do that.

This project has worked well. In fact, there are union members out there that are getting paid less because of this project, and I've actually had union members complain: "Geez, because of you I've had to take a cut in wages." Because the fair wage is less than the union rate, in order to apply, to come in competitively, many companies are in fact getting agreements from their members that they are taking less. I think it's a bit presumptuous to say that it is costing money, and as I said, this is a fair wage. The fair-wage legislation was passed early in the last government's mandate, and it's one that I support.

B. Barisoff: I'm not suggesting in any way, shape, or form that we should be paying those people the minimum wage of $7 an hour. What I am suggesting to you is that open tendering on this project, and open tendering on all of these projects, would save a lot of money in British Columbia, where we could probably end up getting a lot of other projects done if we went back to the open tendering process.

What's taken place here, as I've indicated.... We've not only created a hiring hall where contractors have to get people to hire from, but it's affecting the rest of the people in British Columbia, the rest of the construction industry, because they're obligated to hire out of this. I think there should be some consideration given to all of the province when we're spending 50 percent of the Transportation Financing Authority budget in one particular area. It doesn't allow a lot for the rest of the province.

Hon. L. Boone: The fair-wage law that was brought in last term is one that deals not with just wages but deals with the qualifications of people, with the training. It more than doubles the amount of apprentices on the job site, places strong emphasis on hiring workers from local communities to keep -- which is what is happening on the Island Highway.... It provides bridging programs to improve the skills of B.C. workers who have most of the trade qualifications they require but aren't yet certified, and it provides skills training assistance to aboriginal residents.

It does curb the tendency of out-of-province contractors to hire outside B.C. That is something that has been brought to my attention for years now. The number of times when you go into the Peace, you see a government project and a contractor there, and you see all the Alberta plates.... Or you come down to the Island, and you see a contractor there with all Alberta plates.

By using this project here, we are saying that this money should stay in the communities, particularly, recognizing that 

[ Page 1000 ]

there were severe economic pressures on the Island, and we had an obligation to deal with those economic pressures. I makes no apologies for this, and as I said, I think this is something that we're going to have to agree to disagree on because we could be here all night arguing it. But I won't change your mind, and you're not going to change my mind on this issue.

B. Barisoff: The hon. minister is right: she will not change my mind on this.

I am led to believe that in the north part of the Island now -- I'm sorry I didn't bring the letter with me, but I did get a petition from the north part of the Island -- they're indicating that there are people from Alberta working there. I will bring that tomorrow so that you can see that, for whatever reason, the system isn't foolproof. It's not completely working.

Going along this line, I'd like to ask what kind of audit system we have to ensure that the people working on these projects are paid based on the fair-wage act. Is there an audit system in place for the Transportation Financing Authority that covers these things?

Hon. L. Boone: If people are being hired from Alberta, I would ask you to please advise me of that. Forward that letter to us, because that is in violation of the contract, and we'd like to deal with that.

They are paid by the HCL contractor, so they are paid according to the collective agreement that we have with employees.

B. Barisoff: Going further along those same lines, are the auditing and monitoring done by the Ministry of Transportation, or do people from the Transportation Financing Authority monitor those areas to make sure that none of these things are actually happening?

Hon. L. Boone: Highway Constructors Ltd. employs the people. They pay the individuals there. There's no need to monitor to make sure that they're being paid the rate, because they are the Crown corporation. They have a collective agreement with these people, and they are the ones that are paying. The individual construction companies aren't paying them; HCL is paying them.

B. Barisoff: How much did it cost to set up the HCL Crown corporation? What was the total cost, and what are the actual yearly operating costs of this corporation?

Hon. L. Boone: The total operating budget for HCL in '96-97 is $1.5 million. This includes $122,000 in training grants, $130,000 in contractor fees, and $1.2 million in management fees and contributions from the TFA.

B. Barisoff: Of course, we would agree to disagree. I'm just wondering whether that's money well spent when we've got contractors out there that would actually do that work -- do the training, do the whole projects -- without government interfering and getting involved in making these projects succeed. We have a lot of good contractors in the province with good workers that can handle these kinds of things, and I don't know whether it's money well spent on doing these things.

Moving along to something else, I'm just wondering whether the hon. minister can explain to me the YMC contracting group or whatever -- the YMC group.

Hon. L. Boone: YMC.... I always want to say YMCA.

Interjection.

Hon. L. Boone: I could do it. The hon. member for Delta South could do a little dance around it.

It is a joint venture with an aboriginal economic development corporation, governed by a board representing 19 first nations on Vancouver Island. An agreement was signed July 10, 1995, between BCTFA and YMC in which BCTFA committed to providing three Vancouver Island Highway project construction and training-related opportunities to YMC. The intent of the agreement is to provide long-term economic development opportunities for first nations through sustainable support for an aboriginal construction firm to gain experience which can be utilized beyond the Vancouver Island Highway project. The largest contract is a grading contract from Mud Bay to Tsable River. The work was awarded to three joint ventures with private sector construction firms through a two-stage proposal call.

Is that enough, hon. member?

B. Barisoff: I guess I would be led to believe that that wasn't tendered out. Would that be on a cost-plus basis?

Hon. L. Boone: It was a two-stage proposal call. The joint-venture contract was awarded to PCL, Ledcor and YMC. But it was a proposal call for the joint venture there.

B. Barisoff: Maybe you can explain it to me. I have an impression of what I think a proposal call is, and it's quite different than what an actual open tender is. Maybe you could explain to us here what a proposal call is and what the implications are and how that works.

Hon. L. Boone: It was a proposal call that was developed with the roadbuilders. They evaluated the proposals based on -- in addition to the price -- the economic contribution to the aboriginal people.

[10:15]

B. Barisoff: In addition to the price, could you indicate to us what the difference was in the proposals that came forward? Was the economic factor $100,000? Was it $1 million? Was it $2 million? What was the economic difference that made this proposal better than other proposals?

Hon. L. Boone: The economic factor was about 20 percent; but, in fact, this group was a low bidder. They came in not just on the economic factors but also on a low bid.

B. Barisoff: Of course, again, I don't agree with putting things forward that way, because I think what you've done is eliminate parts of British Columbia -- the open tendering process -- and if it's an extra 20 percent cost, I think we get back to the overall project being 20 percent.... If we look at an extra 20 percent cost on that, the way I look at things, we're looking at some cases in this particular instance of possibly a 40 percent extra cost on what was taking place. That's neither here nor there, I guess, because we don't agree on the way things should be done.

I just want to touch base on a few of the projects that were done back in '94-95, because I don't have any further updates. One of the projects that I'm concerned about is Highways 3 

[ Page 1001 ]

and 97 at the Osoyoos intersection. It's got the cost here at $1.34 million. That seems to be substantially different than actual figures that I read in the newspaper over that period of time. I'd just be interested to know what the total cost of that project was.

Hon. L. Boone: The total cost might have been more than that, because there were some federal contributions in there. The amount shown here is what the TFA put in.

B. Barisoff: The total costs might have been more than that? This is '94-95. We're in '95-96. I think we should have a figure that should be better than "might have been more than that," because I think it might have been substantially more than that. I would be interested to know exactly what it is. It might have been a little bit more than that; if it's $50,000, that's fine. But I'd like to know exactly what it cost.

Hon. L. Boone: There was $1.9 million recovered from the federal SHIP program.

B. Barisoff: If $1.9 million was recovered from the SHIP program, we're looking, then, at $3.2 million -- was that the total cost of that project from start to finish?

Hon. L. Boone: There may have been costs incurred before the TFA's inception, but these wouldn't have been recorded by the TFA.

B. Barisoff: As I suspected, it was substantially more than $1.3 million. I guess sometimes we forget that, whether it comes from the federal government or from the provincial government or from the TFA, there's still only one taxpayer -- whether we're in British Columbia or in Canada. If it's $3.2 million, that's a substantially different cost than what's written here. It concerns me enough that I'd like to know for sure. Rumour has it that it's substantially more than that, and I'd be interested to know if I could get a full accounting of this project from its inception to its finish.

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, I'd be happy to do that.

I understand that the big House should be ending soon, so I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 10:20 p.m.

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